And now for some vaguely on-topic off-topicality: OOo 3.2

Liam Proven lproven at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 11:55:22 GMT 2010


On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:47 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 February 2010 11:41, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cannot disagree.
>> I said "arguably", not "I would argue..." :¬) Significant difference, that...
>
>
> Indeed. On comp.editors I pointed out that I liked vim because it was
> hugely powerful, despite being based on the "indefensibly horrible vi
> command set." Someone then proceeded to defend the vi command set,
> reasonably well. So now I call it "the defensibly horrible vi command
> set."

My word!

Well, can't fault your logic.

I hate [el]vi[s|m]. But I hate Emacs more, so I'd go for vi of the 2.

What I really want, what I really really want, is a console-mode CUA
compliant text editor for Linux, ideally with all the power of vi or
Emacs behind the scenes. SETedit came close but it's no longer
maintained.

http://setedit.sourceforge.net/

The CUA menus and keystrokes are well-known to hundreds of millions of
people now and they've been the standard across KDE, GNOME, Windows,
classic MacOS, OS X, BeOS, many later ST & Amiga apps, etc. etc. for
20Y+. It's time Unix stopped treating them like a nasty novelty &
embraced them.

Q.v.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
(although, IIRC, I think I wrote that, originally.)


-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508



More information about the sounder mailing list