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

[Susan Richter]

In article <1246 at kitty.UUCP> larry at kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
>
>	In my humble :-) opinion, I cannot think of any editor more universally
>useful than ``vi'' (yes, I know about Emacs, but I still prefer ``vi''). 

I agree.  I've continued to use vi in preference to such editors as Emacs
and the Rand editor 'e' (actually, I think I'm the only person working at
Rand who does use vi!).  Maybe it's because I use my editor for editing, not
compilation, graphics, AI, text formatting, etc.  The simpler, the better.

One of the winning features of vi is its use of normal alphabetic
characters as commands, so that when you are on some non-standard
keyboard, everything still works (ESC is sometimes the only problem --
there *are* keyboards with no ESC character!).  Editors which are heavily
dependent on the function keys of a specific keyboard (not that I'm thinking
of any *particular* editor! :-) tend to be a real pain to use on others.

>	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?
	
I'm not that familiar with "business application" environments, but I did
have the idea that most small businesses that plunge into office automation
go with PCs (that's a generic term, OK?), and they use Wordstar, Microsoft
Word, or other similar WP package.  Those seem to be much easier for
non-computer people to learn than vi (or any Unix editor, for that matter).
If, however, your people are really going with Unix, I would also recommend
staying with vi.  Like I said:  the simpler, the better.

			- Susan Richter
			richter at rand-unix.uucp
			...trwrb!randvax!richter

These opinions are certainly not official Rand opinions.  Certainly not.