Talk:Editor war

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editor war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 12 months

This article was nominated for deletion on October 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (index)

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Current?? state of the editor war

The section headed "Current state of the editor war seems to refer largely to 1999. That's not really current at the time of writing (2014). Perhaps it ought to be renamed or updated? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:D0:F111:BDB8:5CD6:8D81:39B8 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that standalone (un-integrated) plaintext editor programs have declined in practical importance over the last 15 years. They still have their advocates, are often included in standard software distributions, and are essential for certain highly-specialized tasks, but purely pragmatic programmers (who weren't necessarily around in the 1990s, and use whatever tool helps them code fastest) often don't use them... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR... Huihermit (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And short-sighted. Whatever fad languages these IDEs are integrated with won't necessarily be the best choice in 10 years. And the "pragmatic" programmers will have to learn another editor, along with another language.-- Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talk o contribs) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2020

The vi/vim stackexchange seems pretty active. 27k users. Compare to travel at 84k and 296k Phissy (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Editor War

Interesting that there doesn't seem to exist any article about the other editor war : The "Wordprocessor War" between MS Word and WordPerfect. It almost sounds as if the Editor War described here was so much more important that no-one thought of making an Wikipedia article on that other Editor war, cynically speaking ... Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a well-known issue among various groups of computer programmers during most of the 1980s and 1990s (including programmers who were likely to be connected to the early Internet and shape early Internet culture), and it only slowly trailed off. By contrast, MS-Word vs. WordPerfect was a struggle between commercial corporations (not ordinary users), and MS-Word crushed WordPerfect fairly quickly after Windows and office-suite bundling began to catch on... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNU/Linux?

In an article where a GNU product is being discussed, it's sad to see that the operating system is being referred to as Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Please give credit to the FSF where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel, not the operating system. Sandy2712 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:LINUX. Linux is the name of the operating system and is also the name of the Kernel per overwhelming usage in the English language. GNU/Linux is not the commonly accepted term for Linux and is not used on Wikipedia except where it's part of the distro's name such as Parabola GNU/Linux. - Aoidh (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vi benefits

-Vi utility: Vi is useful for raw to the metal editing on small devices with minimal power. It appears Emacs is a larger system possibly not applicable to low level device editing.

-Vi cost respect of FOSS: Vi was distributed for free, whereas Emacs could cost hundreds of dollars. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi_(text_editor) -> History -> Distribution -> paragraph 1. Eiger3970 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the article is talking about GNU Emacs or the original Emacs, but I don't think this a valid point anymore because GNU Emacs (the most widely used version of Emacs) is distributed gratis on the net. Tusharhero (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original Emacs was TECO macros. The commercial (non-free-licensed) version was Unipress Gosling Emacs, now defunct... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]