This is the mail archive of the cygwin-talk mailing list for the cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Not being given the option of installing packages on setup


On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:34:16AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>According to Igor Peshansky on 4/18/2006 10:04 PM:
>>Why can't we all just get along?..
>>
>>Heh, next you'll be saying the same about VIm and Emacs...
>
>Why stop there - why not get the best of Linux and Windows?
>
>(Oh wait - cygwin does that...)
>
>And speaking of vi vs.  emacs, which editor do most cygwin developers
>use?  I'm in the emacs camp (okay, hiss if you want), so maybe I should
>consider adopting the emacs package since it has been orphaned for so
>long.

I use vi.

I started out on a PDP-10 using first TECO, then SOS, then FINE (fine is
not emacs), then EDT.  When I started working mainly on UNIX (Ultrix), I
tried to find an emacs-like editor for everything.  However, when I
switched jobs and starting porting software to a bunch of different UNIX
systems, vi was the only editor which was consistently available.  So, I
reluctantly started using vi all of the time just so I wouldn't go crazy
trying to switch back and forth.

I remember sitting in an associate's office and commiserating about the
*stoopidity* of the whole concept of vi with it's hjkl arrow keys and
different modes for input and editing.  Now I'm happily ensconced in
that mindset.  I still understand the allure of emacs, though.

cgf


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]