OSNews

Your entire argument is nonsensical. DOS is a rather poorly designed batch operating system while vi[1] is a text editor.

My point was that both are cryptic/hard to use, yet powerful. And both are.

You also seem confused about the difference between text mode interfaces and GUI's.

Actually, you are.

Vi is not a command line program simply because...

It doesn't matter WHY it is, it just is.

it can run in a text mode terminal. It is an interactive full screen program with many of the same features of any other text editor (graphical or not).

So far from the truth as to be laughable. "with many of the same features"??? Yeah, if you type like a perl script.

The fact that vim[2] has a graphics mode interface makes this a rather moot issue.

Actually it makes your mention of vim irrelevant.

The ability to multitask is not an intrinsic property of a GUI...and 10 more lines of a rant that indicates you obviously misread my post

As I said in my original post, *nix "got this right" -- i.e. figured out how to do multiple things at once in a non-GUI.

Both technical and non-technical folks put forth the false dicotomy that one either must have a GUI or a command line...and 10 more lines on this same note

Another misreading of what I said. I in fact made the point you are trying to make. That good systems involve the combination of both cmd prompts + GUIs. No offense but maybe English is not your first language.

It is also important to realize that usability does not imply a low learning curve.

A point at once obvious, yet surprisingly irrelevant to this entire thread.

Vim (or vi) are not great because they are hard to learn. They are great because they are flexable and efficient. The fact that is difficult to use (debatable) at first is a side effect.

Ahem, my original comment and most comments that responded to it were about program interfaces. It is obvious why vi sucks, yet has utility. I and several others have already commented on this. Yet you seem to have adopted a tone of the great professor telling me/us all what we have already said. Next time try responding to something within 48 hours of the original postings.

To end, I would like to point out that vi and vim are not the only text editors available on UNIX like systems. Emacs is another editor that is commonly used. In fact, there is still unrest between vi and emacs users. Which of the two are superior is still up in the air and I, quite frankly, don't care. The list doesn't stop there, either, for there are many more editors to choose from including the WIMP variety you cherrish so intensely.

More complete irrelevance.

vi was cited for its bad interface. Office 2007 is changing only its interface (basically) and I am saying that anyone switching to it for this reason alone is a fool.

Linux systems usually symlink vi to vim.

This is like Mac users screaming "the Mac ships with a two button mouse!!!" Yes, NOW it does, after almost exactly 20 years of stupidity. How many hundreds of thousands of users over the decades -- decades -- have been tortured by vi? May they rest in peace.

Vim is an improved (more features) rewrite of vi.

Not relevant. Halfway through the DOS lifecycle edlin was updated to Edit (a dumbed down qbasic). Who cares? Who is talking about this?

KDE and GNOME provide a WIMP style interface which ultimately shows that attacks on UNIX are usually attacks on a particular UI. UNIX does not enforce UI policy nor does X11.

Since this never was about attacking unix, I offer to pay the first $10 toward your "learning to read English" class.

Floyd
http://www.just-think-it.com