Shawn <fertch at mninter.net> writes: > David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > Dunno; hasn't happened to me yet. I've been running emacs since I > > started 20 years ago (running the original ITS emacs, written in TECO, > > on a TOPS-20 system under the "incompatibility package" which allows > > ITS programs to run on TOPS-20). I've used that, JOVE, Gosling, GNU, > > Epsilon, Emacs command mode in Borland's Sprint and Microsoft's Visual > > Studio, and at least one other version (for TOPS-10) that I can't > > remember. > > > > I've been able to find emacs-like editors on more classes of boxes > > than vi was available for, anyway. > > > Interesting point. Was just trying to make a statement that not all > boxes have emacs on them, but from what I've been able to discern vi is > always on a box. Not a slam mind you, just a point trying to bring up. > I couldn't navigate my way through emacs if I wanted to at this time as > I prefer and spcificly use vi. I know enough vi to do minimal editing; in particular I know how to exit :-). When I first looked for a DOS editor, for example, there were several emacs-compatible choices, and at least one major independent solution (Brief), but I don't recall seeing VI. There are certainly DOS VIs now, and I may just have missed them then. vi was very common on unix, and very rare elsewhere, in the 80's, is the way I remember it. Emacs variants seemed to be ubiquitous. (Oh, the one I couldn't remember for my list was probably FINE, which stads for Fine Is Not Emacs of course). As I'm sure you all know, vi is called that because it's short for "vile". -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd-b at dd-b.net SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/