>vim >emacs >good

>>61101822
nano ftw

>>61101833
well, nano is as good as vim or emacs, but still shit.

>>61101822
If you're too stupid to use vim, use emacs
If you're too stupid to use emacs, use nano, but know that you're using a worse version of vim/emacs

>muh text editors
>muh naming debate
>muh DE
>muh brand new distro with one thing changed from stock ubuntu

why are linux users so fucking petty?

Honest question here:

I've gotten quite comfortable on vim, but when I log into a system that has vi I still lose most productivity and often produce garbage because my muscle memory.

Am I using vim wrong?

>>61101894
>Am I using vim wrong?
Yes. Use sublime instead

>>61101894
vim isn't vi

File: rossman_manlet.png (272KB, 601x1016px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 601x1016px

>>61101846
>Implying that vim is harder compared to emacs

File: xD.png (62KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x400px

>>61101964
>sublime

File: 1497016210617.png (99KB, 500x469px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x469px

>>61101964
>Don't use a fee editor that is programmed in c/lisp
>Use one that is proprietary and is coded in c++

>>61101822
>implying vim is bad
REEEEEEEEEEE

>>61101822
literally fox and grapes
I can understand not wanting to invest time to get into a certain tool, but shitposting about it probably takes longer than doing vim-tutor just sayan