Dear alt.usage.english,
ÿÿÿÿ rec.arts.sf.written,
The Baen short story competition opens up for submissions on October 15,
2026 at 12:01am EDT, and the deadline is 12:01am, U.S. Pacific Time,
February 1, 2027.
ÿ https://www.baen.com/contest-jbmssa
The contest rules preclude the application of A.I. generated text, so
this is merely a typing competition.
As a great practical application of usage of English, I thought to men-
tion this in alt.usage.english, and as a corollary challenge occam to a
duel of wits and wisdom, typing and teleportation [1].ÿ Why occam?ÿ Occ-
am made the claim I talk alot about things I know nothing about, so I
thought to settle the score with a battle of fiction, where knowing
about something is merely an inconvenience.
And since I am not a sore loser, and don't need to keep this competition
a secret, I'm also sharing the rules with rec.arts.sf.written, who may
want in on the game.ÿ The friendly rules are as follows.
ÿ oÿ The winner is higher in the list of /previous winners/, as publish-
ÿÿÿÿ ed by Baen next year.
ÿ oÿ If none of us make the list, it's a draw.
ÿ oÿ Failure to submit [2] is to forfeit.
There are no other obligations for the loser(s).ÿ As it's hard to pre-
dict our own budget even a few months hence in an uncertain economy,
this is just a friendly competition among posters of Usenet.ÿ So no gift cards are to be exchanged just for someone else to reach first to third place.ÿ At least, according to the rules as I suggest them.ÿ People are perfectly free to bikeshed the rules, but I suggest the time is better
spent in a WordPerfect [3] of choice, and write the best story to sub-
mit.
That's it.ÿ I have begun writing my own story, and can only fail by
failing to submit to Baen.ÿ The rest is up to the editors there, and all
the resources an established publisher has to determine if the submiss-
ion is typed by a human, or just some /stochastically ignorant slop/.
Best wishes, and happy writing!
[1] Though I don't want to set any arbitrary rules beyond the rules al-
ready established by Baen, please dismiss any and all suggestions from
me, and think of the story yourself.
[2] This includes me, of course.
[3] WordPerfect for DOS is a common choice among writers, and so is
WordStar, WordPerfect for VAX/VMS is also an option for those with un-
usual hardware configurations.ÿ For the normies, WordPerfect 2021 for
Windows would be optimal, but WordPerfect 7 also works in Windows 10 so passes the muster.
Lotus Ami Pro and the subsequent Word Pro are also on the table, as is Microsoft Word 5.5 for DOS for people without a budget; as per
https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/ms-word-5-5-for-dos-for-free- legally.15399/
and I decided not to hotlink the executable directly from Microsoft in
this Usenet posting.
Readers are free to suggest further and more obscure word processors as
this is a friendly competition, and we don't bogart the best tools.
On 10/12/26 17:06, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
Dear alt.usage.english,
ÿÿÿÿÿ rec.arts.sf.written,
The Baen short story competition opens up for submissions on October 15,
2026 at 12:01am EDT, and the deadline is 12:01am, U.S. Pacific Time,
February 1, 2027.
ÿÿ https://www.baen.com/contest-jbmssa
The contest rules preclude the application of A.I. generated text, so
this is merely a typing competition.
As a great practical application of usage of English, I thought to men-
tion this in alt.usage.english, and as a corollary challenge occam to a
duel of wits and wisdom, typing and teleportation [1].ÿ Why occam?ÿ Occ-
am made the claim I talk alot about things I know nothing about, so I
thought to settle the score with a battle of fiction, where knowing
about something is merely an inconvenience.
And since I am not a sore loser, and don't need to keep this competition
a secret, I'm also sharing the rules with rec.arts.sf.written, who may
want in on the game.ÿ The friendly rules are as follows.
ÿÿ oÿ The winner is higher in the list of /previous winners/, as publish-
ÿÿÿÿÿ ed by Baen next year.
ÿÿ oÿ If none of us make the list, it's a draw.
ÿÿ oÿ Failure to submit [2] is to forfeit.
There are no other obligations for the loser(s).ÿ As it's hard to pre-
dict our own budget even a few months hence in an uncertain economy,
this is just a friendly competition among posters of Usenet.ÿ So no gift
cards are to be exchanged just for someone else to reach first to third
place.ÿ At least, according to the rules as I suggest them.ÿ People are
perfectly free to bikeshed the rules, but I suggest the time is better
spent in a WordPerfect [3] of choice, and write the best story to sub-
mit.
That's it.ÿ I have begun writing my own story, and can only fail by
failing to submit to Baen.ÿ The rest is up to the editors there, and
all the resources an established publisher has to determine if the
submiss-
ion is typed by a human, or just some /stochastically ignorant slop/.
Best wishes, and happy writing!
[1] Though I don't want to set any arbitrary rules beyond the rules al-
ready established by Baen, please dismiss any and all suggestions from
me, and think of the story yourself.
[2] This includes me, of course.
[3] WordPerfect for DOS is a common choice among writers, and so is
WordStar, WordPerfect for VAX/VMS is also an option for those with un-
usual hardware configurations.ÿ For the normies, WordPerfect 2021 for
Windows would be optimal, but WordPerfect 7 also works in Windows 10 so
passes the muster.
Lotus Ami Pro and the subsequent Word Pro are also on the table, as is
Microsoft Word 5.5 for DOS for people without a budget; as per
https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/ms-word-5-5-for-dos-for-
free- legally.15399/
and I decided not to hotlink the executable directly from Microsoft in
this Usenet posting.
Readers are free to suggest further and more obscure word processors as
this is a friendly competition, and we don't bogart the best tools.
Well, if I decide to do anything, I will do it in roff, nroff, or maybe troff. Or maybe I could dig up a DecMate III.
On 10/13/2026 6:49 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
On 10/12/26 17:06, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
Dear alt.usage.english,
ÿÿÿÿÿ rec.arts.sf.written,
The Baen short story competition opens up for submissions on October 15, >>> 2026 at 12:01am EDT, and the deadline is 12:01am, U.S. Pacific Time,
February 1, 2027.
ÿÿ https://www.baen.com/contest-jbmssa
The contest rules preclude the application of A.I. generated text, so
this is merely a typing competition.
As a great practical application of usage of English, I thought to men-
tion this in alt.usage.english, and as a corollary challenge occam to a
duel of wits and wisdom, typing and teleportation [1].ÿ Why occam?ÿ Occ- >>> am made the claim I talk alot about things I know nothing about, so I
thought to settle the score with a battle of fiction, where knowing
about something is merely an inconvenience.
And since I am not a sore loser, and don't need to keep this competition >>> a secret, I'm also sharing the rules with rec.arts.sf.written, who may
want in on the game.ÿ The friendly rules are as follows.
ÿÿ oÿ The winner is higher in the list of /previous winners/, as
publish-
ÿÿÿÿÿ ed by Baen next year.
ÿÿ oÿ If none of us make the list, it's a draw.
ÿÿ oÿ Failure to submit [2] is to forfeit.
There are no other obligations for the loser(s).ÿ As it's hard to pre-
dict our own budget even a few months hence in an uncertain economy,
this is just a friendly competition among posters of Usenet.ÿ So no gift >>> cards are to be exchanged just for someone else to reach first to third
place.ÿ At least, according to the rules as I suggest them.ÿ People are
perfectly free to bikeshed the rules, but I suggest the time is better
spent in a WordPerfect [3] of choice, and write the best story to sub-
mit.
That's it.ÿ I have begun writing my own story, and can only fail by
failing to submit to Baen.ÿ The rest is up to the editors there, and
all the resources an established publisher has to determine if the
submiss-
ion is typed by a human, or just some /stochastically ignorant slop/.
Best wishes, and happy writing!
[1] Though I don't want to set any arbitrary rules beyond the rules al-
ready established by Baen, please dismiss any and all suggestions from
me, and think of the story yourself.
[2] This includes me, of course.
[3] WordPerfect for DOS is a common choice among writers, and so is
WordStar, WordPerfect for VAX/VMS is also an option for those with un-
usual hardware configurations.ÿ For the normies, WordPerfect 2021 for
Windows would be optimal, but WordPerfect 7 also works in Windows 10 so
passes the muster.
Lotus Ami Pro and the subsequent Word Pro are also on the table, as is
Microsoft Word 5.5 for DOS for people without a budget; as per
https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/ms-word-5-5-for-dos-for-
free- legally.15399/
and I decided not to hotlink the executable directly from Microsoft in
this Usenet posting.
Readers are free to suggest further and more obscure word processors as
this is a friendly competition, and we don't bogart the best tools.
Well, if I decide to do anything, I will do it in roff, nroff, or
maybe troff. Or maybe I could dig up a DecMate III.
Lets not forget TeX,
Ah xemacs. How I miss it.
William Hyde
Teco,
"Terse,economic, confusing and optimized". Or something like that.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 15:43:51 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Teco,
"Terse,economic, confusing and optimized". Or something like that.
Not used it myself, but the mention recalled "Real Programmers Don't
Use Pascal":
"It has been observed that a TECO command sequence more closely
resembles transmission line noise than readable text [4]. One of the
more entertaining games to play with TECO is to type your name in as a command line and try to guess what it does. Just about any possible
typing error while talking with TECO will probably destroy your
program, or even worse -- introduce subtle and mysterious bugs in a
once working subroutine."
Ar an ceathr£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh William Hyde:
> Ah xemacs. How I miss it.
>
> William Hyde
This is where I chime in that it still compiles and runs on modern hardware, and I?d be glad of the help if there is a development itch you?d like to scratch. Communication by Usenet given difficulties running email lists in the
current internet.
https://www.xemacs.org/Releases/21.5.37.html
Years ago someone on this group directed me to an xemacs source, and it
ran well until it didn't. But now I have a newish computer.
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Years ago someone on this group directed me to an xemacs source, and it
ran well until it didn't. But now I have a newish computer.
So many of the xemacs features have been rolled into the graphics options
in modern emacs that there is much less of a need for xemacs today.
--scott
On 10/16/2026 8:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Years ago someone on this group directed me to an xemacs source, and it
ran well until it didn't. But now I have a newish computer.
So many of the xemacs features have been rolled into the graphics options
in modern emacs that there is much less of a need for xemacs today.
--scott
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still
useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good
in the long run.
So I really appreciate that the XEmacs project exists.
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still
useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good
in the long run.
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still >useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good
in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Ar an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
> >Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still
> >useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good
> >in the long run.
>
> Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these days,
and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
In article <27346.22104.355746.567935@parhasard.net>,
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
Ar an s???§ l? d??ag de m?? Deireadh F??mhair, scr??obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still >useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good >in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, itƒ??s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine >these days,
and itƒ??s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than >inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
You can make vim fairly tolerable with
set compatible
syntax off
autocmd FileChangedShell * echon ""
Ar an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
> >Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still
> >useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good
> >in the long run.
>
> Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these days,
and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
Ar an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still >useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good >in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these days,
and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than >inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
Ar an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still
useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good >> > >in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these days,
and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than >>inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
I just want undo to undo the last undo like it's supposed to.
Ar an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still
useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good
in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these days, and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
In article <mn.83e37eaa6a2a1333.127094@snitoo>,
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
Aidan Kehoe presented the following explanation :
Ar an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still >>>>> useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good >>>>> in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these >>> days, and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather >>> than inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same
self-discipline.
There's more than one editor named "ed", but one of them was vi without
the visual, and I believe it's still available. It's where the command
line of vi came from. Among it's other descendents is sed, which can
be a lot of fun.
That's *almost* true. Vi without the visual was "ex", which was modeled
on "ed", but was its own thing. Ed is the canonical "standard unix editor", and is definitely still available. Ex is what you get when you start
vi in non-visual mode, or use ":" escape commands.
I also lack a line printer terminal, and since they are no longer
made, I'm afraid I'll just have to go without for the time being.
On 10/16/2026 12:52 PM, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
ÿ Ar an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
ÿ > Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarssonÿ <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
ÿ > >Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore.ÿ It is however
still
ÿ > >useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is
not good
ÿ > >in the long run.
ÿ >
ÿ > Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine
these days,
and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than
inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-
discipline.
I have a preference for emacs, having learned it on the DEC-20 at
Columbia University in 1978. I don't think we had vi on that machine,
though we did have TECO.
I like this video:
Interview with an Emacs Enthusiast [Colorized] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urcL86UpqZc
"People never quit Emacs: they just die at some point.
(Emacs has a package for that.)".
In my last job, I was frequently spinning up Linux
instances that lasted less than a day. On those, I
used vi. Anything lasting longer, I'd install emacs.
pt
Aidan Kehoe presented the following explanation :
ÿAr an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarssonÿ <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore.ÿ It is however still >>>> useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good >>>> in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine
these days, and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow
keys rather than inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain
the same self-discipline.
There's more than one editor named "ed", but one of them was vi without
the visual, and I believe it's still available. It's where the command
line of vi came from.ÿ Among it's other descendents is sed, which can be
a lot of fun.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
I just want undo to undo the last undo like it's supposed to.
I've used vi (and more recently vim) since the 1980s. Undo works exactly >like I expect (and with vim, the undo stack is virtually unlimited and >preserved in .viminfo).
That's *almost* true. Vi without the visual was "ex", which was modeled
on "ed", but was its own thing. Ed is the canonical "standard unix editor", >and is definitely still available. Ex is what you get when you start
vi in non-visual mode, or use ":" escape commands.
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
Ar an s???§ l? d??ag de m?? Deireadh F??mhair, scr??obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still >>>> useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good >>>> in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, itƒ??s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these days,
and itƒ??s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than >> inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
I just want undo to undo the last undo like it's supposed to.
--scott
On 10/17/2026 11:08 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <mn.83e37eaa6a2a1333.127094@snitoo>,
Snidelyÿ <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
Aidan Kehoe presented the following explanation :
ÿ Ar an s‚£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarssonÿ <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore.ÿ It is however
still
useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not >>>>>> good
in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine
these
days, and it?s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys
rather
than inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same
self-discipline.
There's more than one editor named "ed", but one of them was vi without
the visual, and I believe it's still available. It's where the command
line of vi came from.ÿ Among it's other descendents is sed, which can
be a lot of fun.
That's *almost* true.ÿ Vi without the visual was "ex", which was modeled
on "ed", but was its own thing.ÿ Ed is the canonical "standard unix
editor",
and is definitely still available.ÿ Ex is what you get when you start
vi in non-visual mode, or use ":" escape commands.
It's useful to have, if you feel yourself obligated [1] to edit a text
file on an honest to gnu line printer terminal.ÿ I haven't played with
it for decades, but my youthful experiences taught me to play with sed
too, which is a lot more useful in the long term.
You can also find my name in one of the FreeBSD/Illumos sed sources, but that's hardly of interest in alt.usage.english.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
I just want undo to undo the last undo like it's supposed to.
I've used vi (and more recently vim) since the 1980s. Undo works exactly
like I expect (and with vim, the undo stack is virtually unlimited and
preserved in .viminfo).
I don't want the undo stack. I want undo to undo the last undo. The
undo stack drives me up the wall.
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
That's *almost* true. Vi without the visual was "ex", which was modeled
on "ed", but was its own thing. Ed is the canonical "standard unix editor", >> and is definitely still available. Ex is what you get when you start
vi in non-visual mode, or use ":" escape commands.
I always found ed very annoying. It worked, but it was very cumbersome
and even in the early nineties there were a number of Unix environments
that you could find yourself in which had only ed.
Someone once messaged me while I was online and asked if I knew ed. I said "Sure, I know ed, what is your problem?" He got upset and asked me what
MY problem was. Turned out he was looking for Ed Gaillard and not the editor.
On 17/10/26 15:31, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
I also lack a line printer terminal, and since they are no longer
made, I'm afraid I'll just have to go without for the time being.
A point about terminology: it's only called a line printer if it prints
a whole line at a time, i.e. it accumulates the characters in a buffer
and then at the end of the line it goes "bang" once and prints the whole thing.
(There was also a variant that printed a whole line one dot high, so it
took several printings to cover the whole maximum character height. I
can't remember whether that was also called a line printer.)
The old teletype terminals printed only a character at a time, so they
were not line printers.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:Not everyone knows that Windows has the handy ctrl-Y for this operation.
Ar an s???§ l? d??ag de m?? Deireadh F??mhair, scr??obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still >>>>> useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good >>>>> in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, itƒ??s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these days,
and itƒ??s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than >>> inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
I just want undo to undo the last undo like it's supposed to.
--scott
Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:Not everyone knows that Windows has the handy ctrl-Y for this operation.
Ar an s?Ÿ???Ÿ?§ l?Ÿ? d?Ÿ??ag de m?Ÿ?? Deireadh F?Ÿ??mhair, scr?Ÿ??obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore. It is however still >>>>>> useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is not good >>>>>> in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?›ƒ?ªƒ?›s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented machine these days,
and it?›ƒ?ªƒ?›s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow keys rather than
inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-discipline.
I just want undo to undo the last undo like it's supposed to.
--scott
Real programmers don't use windows :-)
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:I disagree. While I'm not your usual computer-centric expert, I have the cultural strength that as a child I only watched TV commercials WITH THE VOLUME MUTED. You guys are mostly standing on your high horses,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Aidan Kehoeÿ <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:Not everyone knows that Windows has the handy ctrl-Y for this operation.
Ar an s?Ÿ???Ÿ?§ l?Ÿ? d?Ÿ??ag de m?Ÿ?? Deireadh F?Ÿ??mhair, scr?Ÿ?? >>>>> obh Scott Dorsey:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarssonÿ <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> Correct, XEmacs is not special that way, anymore.ÿ It is however >>>>>>> still
useful to have non-GNU-Emacs text editors, as a monoculture is
not good
in the long run.
Why can't you just use vi then like God intended?
Well, it?›ƒ?ªƒ?›s unusual to have vi installed on a POSIX-oriented
machine these days,
and it?›ƒ?ªƒ?›s just not the same when vim interprets the arrow
keys rather than
inserting escape characters as-is. Hard to maintain the same self-
discipline.
I just want undo to undo the last undo like it's supposed to.
--scott
Real programmers don't use windows :-)
extolling Linux as grassroots hippies fully feeling the groove of the computer. At the same time I also have a disconnect from society. I
didn't grow up on sitcoms or Burger King commercials. When I have to
suffer through a commercial today, I'm appalled at what they try to get
you to do or make you believe. You have your counter-culture strengths,
I have mine. Like you, I am also not a dumb plebe.
On 10/19/26 09:27, Blaine wrote:snip
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Real programmers don't use windows :-)
I disagree. While I'm not your usual computer-centric expert, I have
the cultural strength that as a child I only watched TV commercials
WITH THE VOLUME MUTED. You guys are mostly standing on your high
horses, extolling Linux as grassroots hippies fully feeling the groove
of the computer. At the same time I also have a disconnect from
society. I didn't grow up on sitcoms or Burger King commercials. When
I have to suffer through a commercial today, I'm appalled at what they
try to get you to do or make you believe. You have your counter-
culture strengths, I have mine. Like you, I am also not a dumb plebe.
ÿÿÿÿWell Blaine, I am a Linux user and I almost never use
the editors cited. I use the Desktop Manager called KDE Plasma
and when I had problems in the various text files I use KWrite
or Kate which are gui Text editors to make adjustments or
corrections.
used offshoots of Mandrake since I started on Linux 20 years
ago. The system I use now is PCLinuxOS which has a great Forum
reminding me of the BBSes of the 1990s. I never watched any TV
commercials until I was in HS in the 1950s.ÿ We had radio and
it strengthens the imagination but I started reading fantasy
at an early age in comic books but what did you think talking
ducks and mice were about if not fantasy? I read a lot as soon
as I had an adequate vocabulary.ÿ With computers I started
with the Commodore 64 which was the cheapest sort at the time.
That was in the 1980s. Don't let the effusions of the "True GNU Geeks/Developers/Coders?" get you down. With the PCLinuxOS
Forum you get to hang out with people who are committed to
the system and to helping the users.
bliss- Dell 7730- PCLinuxOS 2026.10 Linux 6.18.57 Plasma 6.7.5
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 3 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 497972:22:07 |
| Calls: | 190 |
| Files: | 846 |
| Messages: | 71,480 |