Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!rutgers!att!ihlpb!TSfR!usenet
From: usenet@TSfR.UUCP (usenet)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: stuff
Summary: Oh please...
Message-ID: <519@TSfR.UUCP>
Date: 9 Apr 89 03:06:07 GMT
References: <1777@wpi.wpi.edu> <11726@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: orc@TSfR.UUCP (David L. Parsons)
Followup-To: comp.editors
Organization: This Space for Rent - Lisle, IL
Lines: 30
Expires:

In article <11726@lanl.gov> dph@lanl.gov (David Huelsbeck) writes:
>From article <1777@wpi.wpi.edu>, by jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen):
>> So assuming people do similer things with emacs and vi, 
>>  emacs is about 3 times 
>This is a very unlikely assumption unless the vast majority of your
>emacs users are novice users.  How many of these people are using
>emacs to read news and mail? ...

Via, ah, subprocesses?  If emacs forks off a subprocess to read the
news, it doesn't get charged for the time spent in those processes.
If your emacs _is_ getting charged for that time, you'd better bitch
at your system administrator, because something is rotten in the
state of Denmark.

>... In a university setting where far more users are in the
>compile-run-edit-compile... mode than most places this sort of thing
>would start to add up very quickly.  Since vi can't do any of this...

It's not really relevant, but it's very easy to do compiles from inside
vi.  :!make will do the job just fine, for instance.

>... It [sic] likely that emacs
>gets a distribution of users that's weighted more towards the
>power-user end of the spectrum.

Ahh, this is obviously some strange usage of the phrase `power user' that
I was not previously aware of.

   -david parsons
   -orc@pell.uucp