Vim the best editor
atbu...@aol.com
that it is modal witch means that most commands you can type wile touch
typing. it is the most powerful editor on earth VI FOREVER. VI FOREVER
Des Small
Miles Bader
Is that vim's auto-troll module?
-miles
--
Occam's razor split hairs so well, I bought the whole argument!
Per Rønne
I just opened it. It seems to be nothing but vi - an editor based on the
first typewriter editor: ed.
I'll stick with emacs ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Greg Menke
> atbu...@aol.com writes:
> > I use Vim the most powerful text editor on earth. the power of vim is
> > that it is modal witch means that most commands you can type wile touch
> > typing. it is the most powerful editor on earth VI FOREVER. VI FOREVER
>
> Is that vim's auto-troll module?
>
Silly vi users and their modal witches...
Gregm
Romain Francoise
> Silly vi users and their modal witches...
BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
--
Romain Francoise <rom...@orebokech.com> | The sea! the sea! the open
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | sea! The blue, the fresh, the
| ever free! --Bryan W. Procter
Sudden Disruption
> I use Vim the most powerful text editor on earth.
Except for Sudden View... :)
OK. To get literal, neither has a power rating in watts.
And without that, it just gets subjective.
Sudden Disruption
Sudden View...
the radical option for editing text
Beta test now in progress...
http://www.sudden.net/
http://www.sudden.net/blog/
Sudden Disruption
No one wants to challenge this bullshit?
What happened to all the VIM defenders? EMACS freaks? TECO geeks?
If you want something done right, I guess you just have to do it
yourself.
> Sudden Disruption wrote:
> OK. To get literal, neither has a power rating in watts.
What's literal have to do with it? Everyone knows that real "power" in
an editor is when it does what you want done to the text without having
to think about it. This comes from having a sharp and effective tool
that you've learned well enough you can forget about HOW it works and
simply focus on your content and how you want to change it.
> And without that, it just gets subjective.
More psycho-bable. Sure, we all have opinions, but it's also true that
some editors ARE objectively better than others. At least for certain
tasks. None is perfect for every job, but some are of little use for
any.
No, I won't name names.
I'm being nice tonight.
krischik
> <atbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I use Vim the most powerful text editor on earth. the power of vim is
> > that it is modal witch means that most commands you can type wile touch
> > typing. it is the most powerful editor on earth VI FOREVER. VI FOREVER
>
> I just opened it. It seems to be nothing but vi - an editor based on the
> first typewriter editor: ed.
Then you missed an important difference:
-----
tippe :q<Enter> zum Beenden
tippe :help<Enter> oder <F1> für Online Hilfe
-----
Believe me, when vi was still default option it almost drove me insane.
More then one I had to use the following keysequence to end vi:
<C-A-F2> userid<CR> password<CR> killall vi<CR>. My "Linux in a
Nutshell" has just one line marked with a highlighter.
That vim greets you with the option on how to end it and how to start
the online help is a real killer feature. And it even does it in my own
language.
Point is that while vim looks like a vi it has a lot more function then
to old vi including a gui - you did use gvim to start the editor,
didn't you?
> I'll stick with emacs ...
Well I tried emacs and spend half a day with the emas configurations
files to change an option that vim can change with just one line in the
.gvimrc:
:set guifont=-misc-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-18-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
Since I allready at (R:4.75 L:4.5) it is - for me personaly - the most
important option in any text editor. And the very first to change -
after all I don't want to get blind reading the configuration files.
Problem with emacs was not that you can't change the gui font. Problem
was that there are literaly hundreds of different fonts to change all
connected in some very deep inheritance hierachie. I spend hours
changeing font settings allways on the lookout for that master/root
font - never found it.
Martin
krischik
flame proove suit on now...
Martin
Tassilo Horn
Hi Martin,
> :set guifont=-misc-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-18-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
With emacs you could have set
,----
| Emacs.font: -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-18-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
`----
in your ~/.Xdefaults or ~/.Xresources, see:
,----[ (info "(emacs)Table of Resources") ]
| D.2 Table of X Resources for Emacs
| ==================================
|
| This table lists the resource names that designate options for Emacs,
| not counting those for the appearance of the menu bar, each with the
| class that it belongs to:
|
| [...]
|
| `font' (class `Font')
| Font name for text (or fontset name, *note Fontsets::).
`----
Kind regards,
Tassilo
X'Post & F'up2 alt.religion.emacs
Felix E. Klee
>> :set guifont=-misc-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-18-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
>
> With emacs you could have set
>
> ,----
> | Emacs.font: -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-18-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
> `----
>
Or simply put
(set-default-font "-misc-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-18-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1")
into your ~/.emacs.
--
Dipl.-Phys. Felix E. Klee
Email: f...@linuxburg.de (work), felix...@inka.de (home)
Tel: +49 721 8307937, Fax: +49 721 8307936
Linuxburg, Goethestr. 15a, 76135 Karlsruhe, Germany
David Kastrup
> Everyone knows that real "power" in an editor is when it does what
> you want done to the text without having to think about it.
Why, it is well known that the most common word processors do things
to the text without you even needing to touch a key.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
David Kastrup
> Damm - didn't see the cross post until it was to late. Better get my
> flame proove suit on now...
If you had made your posting with Emacs gnus, typing C on the article
would have cancelled it.
Antony Scriven
> "krischik" <kris...@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>
> > Damm - didn't see the cross post until it was to late.
> > Better get my flame proove suit on now...
>
> If you had made your posting with Emacs gnus, typing C on
> the article would have cancelled it.
Does gnus support using an external editor?
Antony
David Kastrup
Well, you have viper-mode (which is a vi emulation inside of Emacs),
and you can use M-x term RET to start a "real" vim inside of Emacs. I
don't think making the latter part of normal News interaction would be
trivial, though. At least it would be my guess that there are no
ready-made hooks for it, so one would have to hunt through functions
and see what one needs to redefine.
Sudden Disruption
>> Everyone knows that real "power" in an editor is when it does what
>> you want done to the text without having to think about it.
>
> Why, it is well known that the most common word processors do things
> to the text without you even needing to touch a key.
That's my point EXACTLY!
When you move the editing primitives (Copy, Cut, Paste and Move) to
mouse control, you can do an amazing amount of work without EVER
touching a key, something you can't do that with vi or vim..
But if your hands are on home row, you can still do everything from
there too, almost as effective as vi or vim.
THAT's the difference in "power".
David Kastrup
> David,
>
>>> Everyone knows that real "power" in an editor is when it does what
>>> you want done to the text without having to think about it.
>>
>> Why, it is well known that the most common word processors do things
>> to the text without you even needing to touch a key.
>
> That's my point EXACTLY!
>
> When you move the editing primitives (Copy, Cut, Paste and Move) to
> mouse control, you can do an amazing amount of work without EVER
> touching a key, something you can't do that with vi or vim..
Uh, those word processors don't even require you touching the mouse...
that's why they are called word processors, in analogy to food
processors.
Juhapekka Tolvanen
"Sudden Disruption" <r...@sudden.net> writes:
> When you move the editing primitives (Copy, Cut, Paste and Move) to
> mouse control, you can do an amazing amount of work without EVER
> touching a key, something you can't do that with vi or vim..
You can use mouse with GUI-versions of Vim.
--
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot fi slash juhtolv
"She turns me on. She makes me real. I have to apologize for the way I feel."
Nine Inch Nails
dav...@scn.org
Edit a file in vim. Pick a line, any line. Go somewhere in the middle
of that line. Type i <space> <esc> . Now type O .
What the?!?! The added line doesn't show for several seconds! Never,
but never, have I seen any other screen editor with such abominable
screen-updating logic. And I've seen a lot of them: the orginal vi,
nvi, Gnu Emacs, Gosling Emacs, pico, Notepad, the MS-DOS command-line
screen editor, the original TECO Emacs. All had better screen updating
logic than vim. All of them. And vim has been broken like this for
_years_. Always throws me off: I expect what I type to be propmtly
reflected on the screen, not to be promptly reflected 95% of the time
and not so the other 5%.
Or maybe I shall discuss how it took the vim team a decade to learn
about vi's Q command and properly implement it?
Vim: the user hostility of vi, the bloat of emacs, and code quality a
CS undergrad would be ashamed of.
No thanks.
[Yes, I know the OP is a troll, but I find vim so damned annoying that
I've been meaning to vent about it for some time.]
--
David Barts
Antony Scriven
> Uh, right.
Uh, right what?
> Edit a file in vim. Pick a line, any line. Go somewhere
> in the middle of that line. Type i <space> <esc> . Now
> type O .
Okay.
> What the?!?! The added line doesn't show for several
> seconds!
Nonsense. It's just you.
> [...] And vim has been broken like this for _years_.
So you've seethed about this problem for years before
finally, now, posting it to comp.editors? Words fail me.
If you really have this problem and aren't trolling, try
starting vim with vim -u NONE and see if the problem goes
away.
Antony
krischik
Antony Scriven wrote:
> If you really have this problem and aren't trolling, try
> starting vim with vim -u NONE and see if the problem goes
> away.
No it won't go away. The standart keyboard timeout is indeed 1 sec. -
suitable for the slowest telnet/ssh connection one can imagine.
I think the real image problem vim has is that most who want to try
using vim will just open a terminal and hack in "vim". But most linux
systems have two vims installed:
>which vim gvim
/usr/bin/vim
/usr/X11R6/bin/gvim
And they are *NOT* the same:
>la /usr/bin/vim /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim /bin/vim
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1,1M 2004-10-05 02:40 /bin/vim*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2,3M 2004-10-05 02:44 /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/vim -> /bin/vim*
/bin/vim is part of the emergency system-rescue tool set - scaled down
so /bin/vim will work even in the most difficult circumstances.
gvim is the propper editor with all functions enabled. Even is you want
to use a terminal you are better of using gvim.
Martin
David Kastrup
> Antony Scriven wrote:
>
>> If you really have this problem and aren't trolling, try
>> starting vim with vim -u NONE and see if the problem goes
>> away.
>
> No it won't go away. The standart keyboard timeout is indeed 1 sec. -
> suitable for the slowest telnet/ssh connection one can imagine.
>
> I think the real image problem vim has is that most who want to try
> using vim will just open a terminal and hack in "vim". But most linux
> systems have two vims installed:
>
>>which vim gvim
> /usr/bin/vim
> /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim
>
> And they are *NOT* the same:
You are one off.
Typical for RedHat would be /bin/vi (a basic compilation without most
add-ons), /usr/bin/vim (a full compilation without X11 support),
/usr/X11R6/bin/gvim (a full compilation with X11 support, I might have
the path wrong).
Antony Scriven
> Antony Scriven wrote:
>
> > If you really have this problem and aren't trolling, try
> > starting vim with vim -u NONE and see if the problem goes
> > away.
>
> No it won't go away.
Sure it will. What is it with people and testing? See :help
'esckeys'. However your diagnosis that, when typing ^]O in
insert mode, waiting for a terminal keycode is causing
a delay, is likely to be correct. (If you hadn't snipped so
much I could have written a shorter sentence there!)
Starting vim as vim -u NONE is the best first step for
tracking down a problem. Since the OP was being an arse
I wasn't planning to help much. I might have mentioned
:help and :help :help.
> The standart keyboard timeout is indeed 1 sec. - suitable
> for the slowest telnet/ssh connection one can imagine.
As a reference point I've found 100ms suitable for general
use, including over a slow dialup. If the OP doesn't want
cursor keys in insert mode then it won't matter -- use :set
esckeys which is the default. If the OP uses viper-mode in
emacs then the same problem will be there except that viper
has a default timeout of 200ms which probably isn't noticed.
> I think the real image problem vim has is that most who
> want to try using vim will just open a terminal and hack
> in "vim". But most linux systems have two vims installed:
Vim has an image problem? It's a very popular editor.
I don't think it's image really needs defending.
> >which vim gvim
> /usr/bin/vim
> /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim
>
> And they are *NOT* the same:
>
> >la /usr/bin/vim /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim /bin/vim
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1,1M 2004-10-05 02:40 /bin/vim*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2,3M 2004-10-05 02:44 /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/vim ->
/bin/vim*
>
> /bin/vim is part of the emergency system-rescue tool set
> - scaled down so /bin/vim will work even in the most
> difficult circumstances.
At 1.1Mb I'd hardly say that was scaled down. Are you sure
you don't have a vim-tiny somewhere else?
> [...]
*Followups set to comp.editors* since this article is almost
entirely irrelevant to emacs.
Antony
Juhapekka Tolvanen
David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
> Typical for RedHat would be /bin/vi (a basic compilation without most
> add-ons), /usr/bin/vim (a full compilation without X11 support),
> /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim (a full compilation with X11 support, I might have
> the path wrong).
That may be the situation on Red Hat / Fedora Core, but in other
distributions it is in a different way.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Antony Scriven <ad_sc...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>dav...@scn.org wrote:
>
> > Uh, right.
>
>Uh, right what?
>
> > Edit a file in vim. Pick a line, any line. Go somewhere
> > in the middle of that line. Type i <space> <esc> . Now
> > type O .
>
>Okay.
>
> > What the?!?! The added line doesn't show for several
> > seconds!
>
>Nonsense. It's just you.
I also was not able to replicate davidb's experience. The added
line showed up on my screen nearly instantaneously. This is with
vim 6.3.
And about how many versions of vim are installed ....
FC4 system here. There seem to be three:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 536176 Apr 27 2005 /bin/vi*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2584112 Apr 27 2005 /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2331912 Apr 27 2005 /usr/bin/vim*
Similar results on a RH9 system to which I have access, but all
sizes are slightly smaller.
Another data point (or two).
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
blm...@myrealbox.com
>In article <1143675113....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>Antony Scriven <ad_sc...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>dav...@scn.org wrote:
>>
>> > Uh, right.
>>
>>Uh, right what?
>>
>> > Edit a file in vim. Pick a line, any line. Go somewhere
>> > in the middle of that line. Type i <space> <esc> . Now
>> > type O .
>>
>>Okay.
>>
>> > What the?!?! The added line doesn't show for several
>> > seconds!
>>
>>Nonsense. It's just you.
>
>I also was not able to replicate davidb's experience. The added
>line showed up on my screen nearly instantaneously. This is with
>vim 6.3.
And in one of Linux's virtual text consoles. After reading another
post in this thread (about how to reduce the delay), it occurred to
me to repeat the experiment using a terminal emulator under a GUI.
In a gnome-terminal window .... Yes, there is a perceptible delay,
though it doesn't seem as long as a full second.
FTR, FWIW, other acronyms (initialisms?) as applicable.
hku...@xs4all.nl
Uhh guys... I hate to say this but you've been tempted into discussing
the "features" of the eVIl one in the holy church of Emacs!
Please advise on which rituals to perform to clean this holy place.
M-2 M-0 M-x all-hail-emacs
--
Harry Kuiper hku...@xs4all.nl
Haarlem, The Netherlands
dav...@scn.org
> > [...] And vim has been broken like this for _years_.
>
> So you've seethed about this problem for years before
> finally, now, posting it to comp.editors? Words fail me.
No, I noticed the problem years ago when I first tried vim, immediately
wrote it off as a sloppily-coded piece of junk, and went back to
classic vi (which manages to implement the basics properly).
And periodically in the years since, I've given newer versions a whirl,
been similarly unimpressed, and likewise decided to use other programs
as my editor of choice. No need to bother reporting the bugs in a
program I decide not to use.
Moreover, they're glaringly obvious enough bugs that its clear we're
dealing with a program whose user and developer community has
considerably lower quality standards than I do. It seems clear to me
that, rather than joining a community whose standards are incompatible
with mine, I'm far better off simply saying "no" to vim.
--
David Barts
Juhapekka Tolvanen
dav...@scn.org writes:
> And periodically in the years since, I've given newer versions a
> whirl, been similarly unimpressed, and likewise decided to use other
> programs as my editor of choice. No need to bother reporting the bugs
> in a program I decide not to use.
You are complete idiot! There is very few reasons to not report bugs and
that is not one of them.
Faried Nawaz
> I use Vim the most powerful text editor on earth.
Puh-leaze. All vim can do is beep at me. Hit this key, get a beep.
Hit that key, get a beep. Sit a kid down in front of it, beep beep
beep. That's not power. Why, if it truly was powerful, it would do
more. Much, much more. For starters, it could SPLODE:
Ralf Muschall
> Puh-leaze. All vim can do is beep at me. Hit this key, get a beep.
> Hit that key, get a beep. Sit a kid down in front of it, beep beep
That's not true - only some keys in vi beep. The other ones destroy
your file.
Ralf
Kev
>
> dav...@scn.org writes:
>
>> And periodically in the years since, I've given newer versions a
>> whirl, been similarly unimpressed, and likewise decided to use other
>> programs as my editor of choice. No need to bother reporting the bugs
>> in a program I decide not to use.
>
> You are complete idiot! There is very few reasons to not report bugs and
> that is not one of them.
Why would anyone report bugs in the evil one? To close holes in the
veils (pun intended) that cloak its dark heart? That'd only deceive
more of the feeble minded among new lusers who come to the computer
and must choose an editor!
Brian Masinick
> I use Vim the most powerful text editor on earth. the power of vim is
> that it is modal witch means that most commands you can type wile touch
> typing. it is the most powerful editor on earth VI FOREVER. VI FOREVER
I get a kick out of these discussions. Actually, when they are
discussions, I think they are quite valuable. When they degrade into
name calling and my blob is better than your blob, they become less
useful.
Here's my take on things. Vim, as it started out, was a
multi-platform free replacement for Vi. It has done a great job with
that. In creating a command scripting language for Vim, it has become
a much more powerful editing tool than the original Vi was.
Nevertheless, even the original Vi, though a "love it or hate it" kind
of a tool, created an extremely powerful scheme with modal editing and
modifiers to commands.
The other major multi-platform editor, Emacs, did the same thing. I
find it really interesting to note that over the years Emacs scripters
have created several editor emulators, including at least three vi
variations. But I also find it equally interesting that Vim scripters
have done the same thing with an Emacs emulator. While each of the
editors has a distinctly different style and approach, it is clear
from this that both have incredible power to solve all kinds of real,
every day problems, and they are incredibly extensible to meet a wide
variety of interests and tasks.
Many people, however, don't like either one of them. Some
traditionalists get all huffy, practically insisting that people
choose one or the other. No doubt, there is considerable value to the
approaches and methodologies used by each of them. But I would assert
that there are not only two valid ways to approach editing text, nor
are there only two approaches to development methodology, text
editing, word processing, software development, technical writing, and
numerous other disciplines. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
categorically state that one approach is better than all others,
regardless of what kind of work you are talking about.
I do believe that there are some absolutes in this world. When we say
that a color is black, it either is or it isn't. When we say there is
a solid surface under our feet and a gaseous atmosphere above us,
there either is or their isn't. These are absolutes.
Technology tools do not come under the category of absolutes, they are
tools. Vi is a great tool, Vim is a great tool, Emacs is a great tool,
and there are many other tools that are also great. Discussing why we
think they are useful is a helpful activity. Arguing about why my
tool is better than your tool is child-like and an immature way to
spend one's time - in my OPINION. See, even that is something that we
make a value judgment on. Other opinions can, and will, differ.
That's OK.
Brian Masinick
Ben Pfaff
> atbu...@aol.com writes:
>
>> I use Vim the most powerful text editor on earth. the power of vim is
>> that it is modal witch means that most commands you can type wile touch
>> typing. it is the most powerful editor on earth VI FOREVER. VI FOREVER
>
> I get a kick out of these discussions. Actually, when they are
> discussions, I think they are quite valuable. When they degrade into
> name calling and my blob is better than your blob, they become less
> useful.
If you don't want to praise Emacs, the one true editor, then
perhaps you should not be posting in alt.religion.emacs.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: b...@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org
Gary Johnson
> I do believe that there are some absolutes in this world. When we say
> that a color is black, it either is or it isn't.
You don't match your own socks, do you?
Gary
P.S.
Your points are actually well-taken.
Kev
Of course not, I use socks.el to do that.
Thien-Thi Nguyen
> Discussing why we think they are useful is a helpful activity.
> Arguing about why my tool is better than your tool is child-like and
> an immature way to spend one's time - in my OPINION.
a child finds most useful help,
a programmer, most helpful use.
a child-like programmer finds no
immaturity in acknowledging delight.
time changes the child and bitrots the program,
but can barely touch the child-like programmer.
thi
David Kastrup
> Arguing about why my tool is better than your tool is child-like and
> an immature way to spend one's time - in my OPINION.
Arguing why Emacs is better than vi is just as useful as arguing why
the sun is hotter than chocolate icecream: it shows you have a grasp
of the involved principles. Of course, things are easier in nuclear
physics than transcendental Emacsism: after all, Emacs is both the
hottest and the coolest editor of all.
Kev
>
> chocolate icecream
Mmmmm, chocolate icecream.
> Emacs is both the hottest and the coolest editor of all.
No, that's impossible, an element of a properly ordered set can't be
both the maximum and minimum. Oh, unless it's the sole element in the
set. Ahh, of course: Emacs - the only true editor.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> chocolate icecream
>
> Mmmmm, chocolate icecream.
>
>> Emacs is both the hottest and the coolest editor of all.
>
> No, that's impossible, an element of a properly ordered set can't be
> both the maximum and minimum. Oh, unless it's the sole element in the
> set.
Not just then. In the beginning, there was text, and Emacs worked
with text, and text was its Lisp. Emacs comes before and after, it is
the beginning and the end.
Antony Scriven
> Brian Masinick <masi...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Arguing about why my tool is better than your tool is
> > child-like and an immature way to spend one's time - in
> > my OPINION.
>
> Arguing why Emacs is better than vi is just as useful as
> arguing why the sun is hotter than chocolate icecream: it
> shows you have a grasp of the involved principles.
Well, that could mean that Emacs is the radiant celestial
body at the centre of our solar system, worshipped as a god,
that which has brought us life, and that which will be the
ultimate destroyer of our world. Or it could mean that it is
a massive ball of hot gas. Whichever way you look at it,
chocolate ice cream is yummy.
> Of course, things are easier in nuclear physics than
> transcendental Emacsism: after all, Emacs is both the
> hottest and the coolest editor of all.
Suddenly it makes sense to me that Emacs should have
a built-in psychoanalyst.
Antony
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> I use Vim the most powerful text editor on earth. the power of vim is
> that it is modal witch means that most commands you can type wile touch
> typing. it is the most powerful editor on earth VI FOREVER. VI FOREVER
My god is emacs.
He grinds vi users underfoot and casts them into the
outer darkness, where they will never know the joys of Meta-x.
Fear him.
Steven M. O'Neill
How can I fear him when I don't even have a meta key on my
keyboard?
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY
Adrian Aichner
Just type
ESC x
but there's nothing to fear, except for a note-padded world, perhaps.
--
Adrian Aichner
mailto:adr...@xemacs.org
http://www.xemacs.org/
Thien-Thi Nguyen
> I don't even have a meta key on my keyboard
blind bats shriek as old hackers seek,
correct placement for nimble fingers.
gray10 on black, w/ all curtens slacked,
rolling keypresses sound and linger.
springs jump beneath, as corals de-reefed,
marking waves of thought directly fed in:
keyboards unstill, yet never to spill
back one photon no matter its heading.
"do you mind, that is, if you have the time,
turning on some light so i can see clear?"
"we don't mind, that is, we find it no crime,
but what will you do w/o meta key, fear?"
"no no, not me, i'm not afraid, no siree!
i'll just pop to another machine!
it's a big lab, one's bound to have
a proper interface, if you know what i mean!"
dfs quick to start, i just as quick lose heart:
ten rooms of ten rows of ten computers apiece.
legs a wobble, scanning every bump and bauble,
my walk ends w/o fruit; i dejectedly cease.
"no worries, kid, we just saw what you did.
now here's a secret of the neighborhood:
just sit right there, in that comfy chair,
thumb on the keyboard -- anywhere that feels good!"
a few seconds w/ xev, xmodmap and ~/.xmodmaprc,
old hacker joking: "let's hope no automount bletch",
i pressed once, twice, found my meta key -- nice!
and now, i too in darkness, kluck but not kvetch.
thi
ram...@bigpond.net.au
>>He grinds vi users underfoot and casts them into the
>>outer darkness, where they will never know the joys of Meta-x.
>>Fear him.
> How can I fear him when I don't even have a meta key on my
> keyboard?
Not knowing that the Meta key maps to ESC is definitely grounds for
being cursed. Prepare to be devoured painfully, as Emacs and Cthulu
jointly descend upon you.
Genuflecting towards MIT and chanting the Emacs Wizard song may yet
save you from damnation.
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks/internet-songbook/emacs-wizard.html