From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:46:52 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

ppg@oasis.icl.co.uk (Philippe Goujard) writes:

>Anyway I don't think it is very fair to compare vi and winword. One is a 
>text editor created to edit mostly C sources the other is a word processor 
>with graphic capabilities.

I agree with that, compare it for instance with OS/2's E.EXE or Windows'
NOTEPAD.EXE. They're very limited, but very easy to use.

>I havent come across many terminals with 12 function keys actually. I'm not 
>sure you can count the keybord of the IBM AT (the XT had only 10 fkeys) 
>since it is not really a terminal, it's a computer which can emulate 
>(sometimes well and sometimes not so well) terminals.

Well, I've seen several terminals with a PC kind of keyboard (Philips and NCR).
I wouldn't be surprised when they are in fact PC keyboards.

>First you must remember that the "F1=Help" convention was really introduced 
>with IBM CUA standard (and therefore Windows and Presentation Manager. 

Ah, I didn't know that.

>Before that text applications implemented help the way they wanted (and some 
>still do).

Yep.

>Under Unix, X-window itself is just the windows server but I'm 
>don't know if the GUI (openlook & motif) implement it. (maybe motif, can 
>someone confirm?).

Well, Open Look specifies a helpkey, it's a standard Open Look feature. Don't
know about Motif though.

>Another problem to overcome is that many terminal emulators don't work too 
>well : they treat certain keys locally. When you press F1 on some terminal 
>emulators it doesnt send F1 to the remote machine and calls the local help 
>menu.

That's not the case for the PC terminal emulators I know. Most use some kind of
ALT combination.

>Wasn't vi written at first to test your terminal speaker?

Hahaha! Well, I've also seen 'flashy' but silent vi-s...

>Where did you get the idea that vi had a "wordprocessor mode"? (and wordwrap 
>is not enough for me to be a wordprocessor mode!). It definitely hasn't. Vi 
>is an editor for editing C sources.

You forgot the LISP mode! ;-)

>It does it very good (at least that's 
>the opinion of people like me who have been using it for a long time) but it 
>is definitely not an all purpose editor. And if you don't like it in the 
>first place, don't use it.



>    - The real well known competitor is emacs which has the problems of
>        - Being nearly as cryptic as vi
>        - Being "copylefted" so you can't include it in commercial unixes
>        (although Dell includes it I think).

<sigh> Copylefted means that you can't change the code without giving away
the source. It doesn't mean that you can't *sell* the code (and/or derived
binary). RTFC (Read The Fucking Copyleft) or RTFGM (Read The Fucking GNU
Manifesto)!!! The copyleft explicitly permits commercial purposes. The only
but is: don't change the sources without giving them away.

>>If the cursor keys are illogical that is a flaw.
>I suppose you are mistaking 'logical' and 'intuitive'. For me the intuitive 
>cursor keys on my terminal are those with the arrows on. And those don't 
>work intuitively under vi.

Well, newer implementations of vi are happy with cursor keys. Elvis even has
a menu (Wow! Look what I get when I press \ twice! :).

>On all the implementations of vi I've seen typing :
>"a hello <CRSR UP> world" works where "i hello <CSRS UP> world" does not!

Well, this version of Elvis does both (and more)...