Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Emacs, or Vim?

<< < (5/9) > >>

jtpenrod:
EMACS most of the time, and vim/pico/nano for those jobs where X isn't running. Although vim does have the convert to hex feature that's handy to have.

Calum:
i wonder why nobody voted for DOS edit yet

that's actually misleading, since the versions of edit for DR-DOS, MSDOS and FreeDOS, while similar, are noticeably different. i prefer edit.com from DR-DOS to edit.exe from MSDOS for instance. However the FreeDOS version (which is functionally the same as the MS one) is totally open source.

but i prefer vim, and would make sure it was also installed on any DOS system i (for goodness knows what reason) might have

Aloone_Jonez:

--- Quote from: Calum ---i wonder why nobody voted for DOS edit yet

--- End quote ---


Probably because this is Microsuck and when you mention DOS edit people automatically think of MS-DOS edit which is M$ and it sucks anyhow.

Pathos:
vi or pico or something. Its closer to the bare minimum you need to edit a text file.

emacs is just bloat. There is a mini version but no one uses that ...

Calum:
if you want to use emacs, i found there are some good clones of it around, which are a lot smaller, and they have most of the functionality of emacs as a text editor, my favourites were jove, jmacs and i had one on a DOS machine called freemacs, not sure if that was based on the real emacs or if it was an open source clone, but it was a good one to have installed on a DOS machine.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version