tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) (01/31/91)
From the keyboard of abed@venus.wustl.edu (Abed M. Hammoud): : I Also like to see a separate newsgroup for VI. How come? Is there something not being discussed in this group that would get discussed more by having the vi stuff elsewhere? I notice we've got comp.emacs, and gnu.emacs.*, so it's not like comp.editors.vi would actually fit in with existing practices. --tom -- "Hey, did you hear Stallman has replaced /vmunix with /vmunix.el? Now he can finally have the whole O/S built-in to his editor like he always wanted!" --me (Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.com>)
leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (02/01/91)
In article <1991Jan31.140256.1523@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: |> From the keyboard of abed@venus.wustl.edu (Abed M. Hammoud): |> : I Also like to see a separate newsgroup for VI. |> |> How come? Is there something not being discussed in this group that |> would get discussed more by having the vi stuff elsewhere? There is something which might get discussed *less*, to wit, flamage by rabid vi/emacs users against each other and people who choose to use neither. Further, non-vi users could really care less about the numerous vi usage questions which have nothing to do with editors in general. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "A compact set can be controlled by a finite police force no matter how dumb." H. Weyl ca. 1938
jch@dyfed.rdg.dec.com (John Haxby) (02/01/91)
In article <1123@borg.cs.unc.edu>, leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: |> |> There is something which might get discussed *less*, to wit, |> flamage by rabid vi/emacs users against each other and people who |> choose to use neither. Further, non-vi users could really care less |> about the numerous vi usage questions which have nothing to do with |> editors in general. Not many months ago, there were interesting discussions about editors in general, including at least one long-term discussion about the relative merits of the buffer gap technique. Now almost all you see is vi-this and vi-that. I don't use vi and really don't care much for endless discussions about global line deletion and macros. If all the vi stuff was moved elsewhere then this newgroup could discuss _editors_ -- John Haxby, Definitively Wrong. Digital <jch@wessex.rdg.dec.com> Reading, England <...!ukc!wessex!jch>
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) (02/01/91)
From the keyboard of jch@dyfed.rdg.dec.com (John Haxby): :Now almost all you see is vi-this and vi-that. I don't use vi and :really don't care much... I dunno. I don't use emacs (as you may have divined :-), but I do like to see how things might be done there. I haven't seen many flame wars lately. Maybe a de facto rule could be to take religious argugments to alt.computers.religion instead. I like to see the diversity of approaches taken by different editors. If you don't like to see things about vi, it's usually pretty easy to avoid these using most modern newsreaders. --tom -- "Hey, did you hear Stallman has replaced /vmunix with /vmunix.el? Now he can finally have the whole O/S built-in to his editor like he always wanted!" --me (Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.com>)
wicklund@arrayb.uucp (Tom Wicklund) (02/02/91)
In article <1991Jan31.140256.1523@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: |> From the keyboard of abed@venus.wustl.edu (Abed M. Hammoud): |> : I Also like to see a separate newsgroup for VI. |> |> How come? Is there something not being discussed in this group that |> would get discussed more by having the vi stuff elsewhere? Since 80% of the discussion in this group is about vi, there's obviously a need for a vi newsgroup. I'm sure I miss a lot of discussion here since I have to try to find the non-vi discussion. I would prefer a separate comp.editors.vi so that this group could remain for discussion of editors other than vi and emacs.
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) (02/02/91)
From the keyboard of wicklund@arrayb.uucp (Tom Wicklund):
:In article <1991Jan31.140256.1523@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom
:Christiansen) writes:
:|> From the keyboard of abed@venus.wustl.edu (Abed M. Hammoud):
:|> : I Also like to see a separate newsgroup for VI.
:|>
:|> How come? Is there something not being discussed in this group that
:|> would get discussed more by having the vi stuff elsewhere?
:Since 80% of the discussion in this group is about vi, there's
:obviously a need for a vi newsgroup. I'm sure I miss a lot of
:discussion here since I have to try to find the non-vi discussion.
:I would prefer a separate comp.editors.vi so that this group could
:remain for discussion of editors other than vi and emacs.
Ok, let's rename comp.emacs to comp.editors.emacs, create
comp.editors.vi, pipe gnu.emacs.* into comp.editors.emacs,
and rename comp.editors to comp.editor.neither-vi-nor-emacs.
Really, a killfile line should take care of the vi talk for
those of you that don't care for it. It's not as though because
of vi talk there can't be other stuff here.
--tom
--
"Hey, did you hear Stallman has replaced /vmunix with /vmunix.el? Now
he can finally have the whole O/S built-in to his editor like he
always wanted!" --me (Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.com>)leech@vivaldi.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb01.204935.7996@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: |> Really, a killfile line should take care of the vi talk for |> those of you that don't care for it. It's not as though because |> of vi talk there can't be other stuff here. Really, it wouldn't. Consider a few other articles showing up this morning: 'Side effects of mapping', which talks about vi-specific problems irrelevant to editors in general, and 'Function Keys (was vi and emacs)', which is on more generic issues having little to do with vi. If killfiles were so great, we wouldn't have any separate newsgroups. The question is whether the amount of vi-specific discussion is great enough to warrant its own newsgroup, which a number of people seem to believe. I don't really understand why such a religious vi advocate as yourself objects to having your own newsgroup. This discussion is supposed to take place in news.groups, so followups directed there. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``One never knows... Deacon now wants to conduct population explosion tests *underground*.'' - Molester Mole
larry@tessi.UUCP (Larry Gillespie) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Jan31.140256.1523@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: >How come? Is there something not being discussed in this group that >would get discussed more by having the vi stuff elsewhere? > >I notice we've got comp.emacs, and gnu.emacs.*, so it's not like >comp.editors.vi would actually fit in with existing practices. Well, it doesn't make sense to have comp.emacs where it is, anyway. It *should* be comp.editors.emacs, by all right of logic. I mean, should we have a comp.vi, or a comp.spell, or whatever else, for goodness sake? No. Emacs doesn't deserve a second-level group name. It doesn't make any sense to have an applications program in that position, the way the newsgroup structure is organized today. I presume that comp.emacs predates comp.editors, but, yes, a reorganization is in order, IMHO. Let's create comp.editors.vi, and rename comp.emacs to comp.editors.emacs, as somebody else mentioned (though he wasn't in favor of it). Who wants to send a call for discussion to news.groups and news.announce.newgroups? -- -Larry Gillespie Test Systems Strategies, Inc., 8205 SW Creekside Pl., Beaverton, Ore. 97005 (503) 643-9281 tessi!larry@uunet.UU.NET -or- sun!nosun!tessi!larry
larry@tessi.UUCP (Larry Gillespie) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb01.204935.7996@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: >Ok, let's rename comp.emacs to comp.editors.emacs, Good idea. >create comp.editors.vi, Good idea. >pipe gnu.emacs.* into comp.editors.emacs, Bad idea. GNU Emacs is an entity unto itself. It isn't the only Emacs going, ya know. It's got a huge following of folks who want to discuss its unique intricacies. Let 'em stay where they are. >and rename comp.editors to comp.editor.neither-vi-nor-emacs. Bad idea. Leave comp.editors in place. That's still fine for the general discussion of editing issues. >Really, a killfile line should take care of the vi talk for >those of you that don't care for it. It's not as though because >of vi talk there can't be other stuff here. Yes, kill files work. But, they are dreadfully slow on my machine, and presumably on a lot of others. Besides, it's not that there isn't a place for mentioning vi and emacs within a general discussion group for editors, but vi-specific tips and such just get in the way for people who couldn't care less. When that is about 80% of the traffic, it is time that it had a separate newsgroup, IMHO. -- -Larry Gillespie Test Systems Strategies, Inc., 8205 SW Creekside Pl., Beaverton, Ore. 97005 (503) 643-9281 tessi!larry@uunet.UU.NET -or- sun!nosun!tessi!larry
raymond@math.berkeley.edu (Raymond Chen) (02/08/91)
In article <1123@borg.cs.unc.edu>, leech@homer (Jonathan Leech) writes: >There is something which might get discussed *less*, to wit, >flamage by rabid vi/emacs users against each other ... This hypothesis will probably go down the drain the first time somebody cross-posts into (the proposed) comp.editors.vi and comp.emacs a question like I need to do X. Either vi or emacs is fine. whence follows a massive flame-fest between vixen and emacsen over which editor is better-suited to the task. My personal feeling is that a split is unnecessary.