Use of ``vi'' for business office word-processing

[Steve Minneman]

>In article <1246 at kitty.UUCP> larry at kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
>...
>>	So my question is: Am I WRONG in advising people to stay with ``vi''
>>and not spend money for "word-processing software" in the BUSINESS 
>>APPLICATION environment?

In article <709 at cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> higgin at cbmvax.UUCP (Paul Higginbottom) writes:
>
>Yes, I think you're wrong.  Secretaries don't have time, nor do they usually
>want to learn something like Unix.  They will prefer EVERY TIME something
>which works as similarly as possible to their typewriter.
>
>...
>
>I personally would suggest getting each person an IBM-PC compatible type of
>machine.  There's a million and one different word processors for it, and
>some are extremely nice to use, definitely with the comuter-illiterate in
>mind.  They ACT like typewriters, but the secretary CAN at his/her pace learn
>to use mail merge, sorts, search/replace, type of features later.
>
>...


I agree with Paul in every respect, except for buying a PC for everyone.
It's tough if not impossible to teach many people who want to only edit
documents how to use an editor, a text formatter, and all the system commands.
However, this is no reason to run the extra expense of buying all those PCs
-- there are some excellent "word-processing" packages such as LEX-11
available under both UNIX and VMS for machines such as VAXEN.  If you put your
word-processing software on the VAX (or similiar machine) you can teach casua
users of this software how to access it with mimimal interaction with other
commands and the operating system and yet allow them access to the additional
power of the larger machine when and if they so desire to learn and use it.-- 
---

		Steven A. Minneman (Fujitsu America Inc, San Jose, Ca)
		!seismo!amdahl!fai!stevem  or !ihnp4!pesnta!fai!stevem

The best government is no government at all.