I'd like a concise description from Whistler <whistler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> why he believes it is too much to ask of a user confined to a character-based interface to learn basic interface commands to master its use. It seems to me that the notion that the user can reasonably be expected to learn a few elemental commands necessary to interact with the computer, whether they are emacs, ed, vi, or some other scheme. To assume otherwise is to create a barrier to providing a solution that I truly do not believe exists. Back in the early 80s the debate between proponents of different shells (csh vs. ksh as replacement for sh) argued about superiority of one system over another, but it would never have occurred to any of the parties to argue that the user couldn't or shouldn't have to learn *some* interface system. Whether or not it is true that GUI systems have allowed naive users to access computers effectively without knowing any fundamentals (and I still have more frustration working with MacOS than I ever had learning CP/M, DOS, VMS, RMS, TOPS, Windows or X Windows) I believe we should accept that it must be within the grasp of our users to learn the basics of a necessary method of providing computer access via the command line. Is this argument really about that, or is it instead a rejection of emacs per se? A strong argument toward the emacs system is that the next step beyond the command line, that is, the applications interface, is a significant hurdle. A user who learns basic emacs commands has an advantage in learning to use emacs itself, and only emacs currently offers an integrated environment for major computer uses that is non-proprietary. If there were any other mode of interaction with the OS that would similarly facilitate further computer accessibility through a textual interface, I'd certainly consider it. Does anyone have such an interface to offer? -lar "The sum of all we drive at is that every man may enjoy the same rights that are granted to others." -- John Locke, 1689, A Letter Concerning Toleration