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

[romwa at utcs.UUCP]

>In article <1246 at kitty.UUCP> larry at kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
>>	On occasion I get asked for my opinion on computer systems for small
>>business applications.  Since 100% of my computer applications are scientific
>>in nature (which is pretty far afield from business applications), I try to
>>avoid giving business applications advice (except to go UNIX :-) ).  However,
>>sometimes I cannot avoid getting involved...
>>	In addition to programming, I do an extensive amount of document
>>preparation.  On UNIX systems I use ``vi'' _exclusively_ for document editing,
>>and use nroff and troff for formatting when required.  
>...
>>	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?
>...
>>==>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
>>==>  UUCP:  {allegra|decvax|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
>>==>  VOICE: 716/688-1231           {hplabs|ihnp4|seismo|utzoo}!/
>>==>  FAX:   716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3}      "Have you hugged your cat today?" 
>
>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.
>
>The combination of vi, nroff, troff, etc., and the Unix utilities do provide,
>for those that are computer literate or will take quite a lot of time to
>learn, a great deal of flexibility.
>
>In the business environment - people rarely need that much flexibility (in
>wordprocessing anyway - order processing or other similar applications are
>a whole other ball game where they need infinite flexibility).  What they
>want is simplicity, reliability, and the minimum of hassle.
>
>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.
>
>To say to someone "Hi, I'm going to teach you Unix, vi, nroff, troff, grep,
>pipes, c-shell, sort, eqn, tbl, xyz, and pqr just to make your life
>easier" and they'll say forget it, I don't have two months, I'll stick with
>my typewriter.
>
	>Hope this helps,
		>Paul.

I think that you are wrong, Paul.
Whether you install micros or Unix, there is a lot of learning that
has to happen at the beginning.  The last thing I want my clients to
have to deal with is hardware, so where possible I think that a quiet
terminal with no floppies, hard disk or other paraphernalia to get in
the way is the best solution.  PC networking is an expensive
and frustrating experience at best with no standard solution yet in
place.

One need not even let the secretary know that Unix is the system she
is working on.  Therefore all the scary things like eqn c-shell etc.
do not even have to be introduced.  A customized environment is not a
bad way to go in UNIX provided there is a clever administrator.  

Each office is different.  If the office is fragmented then separate
PC's may be the answer, but if the office is one integral whole, then
the benefits of UNIX are tremendous.  There is plenty of software for
the kind of machines that are being considered, with some very good
word processors and databases that are every bit as easy to use as the
stuff for DOS.  One would think that a database of "legalease"
boilerplate text is just the tip of what could be put together in a
central law office facility.  And soon there will be CD-ROMS with law
libraries on line (although the lawyers will not take to that
quickly).

Mark

romwa at utcs     - or -      mark at utcs!romwa