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 at braille.uwo.ca > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > > > > > >
