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