From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from server1.shellworld.net ([64.39.15.178] ident=root) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19T3lm-0006BL-00 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:04:22 -0400 Received: from server1.shellworld.net (ldavis@localhost.shellworld.net [127.0.0.1]) by server1.shellworld.net (8.12.8/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h5JI4HFa049038 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:04:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ldavis@shellworld.net) Received: from localhost (ldavis@localhost) by server1.shellworld.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h5JI4HSP049035 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:04:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ldavis@shellworld.net) X-Authentication-Warning: server1.shellworld.net: ldavis owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:04:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Luke Davis To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca Subject: Re: text editing with speakup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca Errors-To: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is very much a matter of opinion. To many if not most of us, unix text editor commands (for the full screen editors, that is), make quite a bit of sense. Further, commands do not relate to cursor tracking and the like. On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Charles Crawford wrote: > Seems to me the problem is that the Linux text editors all use silly > commands while WordPerfect has a well thought out and easy system of > navigation and commands. > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote: > > > Seems to me that Word Perfect for Linux, if it existed, would > > have the same problem that all proprietary software has: i.e., it > > uses a proprietary format that assumes the availability of Word > > Perfect for anyone wishing to work with the document. I know you > > can make plain text files with WP, but why bother to use WP if > > you want to make plain text files? What are the advantages of > > Word Perfect for Linux that would be worth the limitations of a > > proprietary file format? > > > > Or am I missing something? > > > > > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, jude dashiell wrote: > > > > > Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and would > > > need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it. It's for that reason > > > I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk space here. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Speakup mailing list > > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > > > > > >