You're evil!

[Ergot]

So I'm doing my research on Stallman and I stumble across...

On most Unix systems and Unix-related offshoots, the primary competitor program to Emacs is  vi, a text-editing program developed by former  UC Berkeley student and current  Sun Microsystems chief scientist, Bill  Joy. Before doffing his "halo," Stallman pokes fun at the rival program. "People sometimes ask me if it is a sin in the Church of Emacs to use vi," he says. "Using a free version of vi is not a sin; it is a penance. So happy hacking."

How dare you mislead me like this. You are an asshole

I really liked this one...

Stallman can take it no longer.

"Don't you fucking smile!" he shouts, fogging up the glass as he does so. "It's your fucking fault. This all could have been so much easier if we had just done it my way."

Stallman accents the words "my way" by gripping the steering wheel and pulling himself towards it twice. The image of Stallman's lurching frame is like that of a child throwing a temper tantrum in a car seat, an image further underlined by the tone of Stallman's voice. Halfway between anger and anguish, Stallman seems to be on the verge of tears.

[iago]

I don't really understand what the problem is.  He says using vi is a good thing, which I definitely promoted.  And that second quote seems to use loaded language to make Stallman seem unhuman. 

[Ergot]

A penance is hardly a good thing

[iago]

There's nothing wrong with a penance.  A penance is about self-sacrifice for a greater cause, which basically defines vi (and Linux, in a way)

[d&q]

I thought it was repentance?

[iago]

From dictionary.com:

pen·ance   Audio pronunciation of "penance" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pnns)
n.

   1. An act of self-mortification or devotion performed voluntarily to show sorrow for a sin or other wrongdoing.
   2. A sacrament in some Christian churches that includes contrition, confession to a priest, acceptance of punishment, and absolution. Also called reconciliation.


*shrug* I'm not religious. 

[Ergot]

Hmm... I guess it can be interpreted several ways.
First being that using vi means you are forgiven...
or that using vi is punishment x_x.

[iago]

Hmm... I guess it can be interpreted several ways.
First being that using vi means you are forgiven...
or that using vi is punishment x_x.

I think that both are good.  The second one is pretty accurate, vi is punishment for people who don't know how to use it.

[rabbit]

I prefer vim anyway

[Ergot]

I prefer vim anyway

vim is just vi improved.

[iago]

Yeah, when I say "vi" I'm referring collectively to vi, vim, gvim, xvim, and any other variation that works the same way.

[rabbit]

then ?vi(.m) would be a better way to phrase it.

[Ergot]

then ?vi(.m) would be a better way to phrase it.

No. When you refer to a screwdriver you know it includes all versions of the screwdriver.

[iago]

then ?vi(.m) would be a better way to phrase it.

No. When you refer to a screwdriver you know it includes all versions of the screwdriver.

I agree, doing that is just stupid. 

Also, I don't think that your regex would work.  I think that the proper one would be:
[gx]{0,1}vi(m{0,1})

Is there a better way to say "either g, x, or nothing"?  {0,1} is pretty ugly.

[rabbit]

You could do (g|x)vi(m), I guess.

[edit]
Nope, but close.
(g|x|)vi(m|) works!

[iago]

Ah, I didn't know you could do (x|).  Cool!

[Joe]

That also includes gvi and xvi.

[rabbit]

(g|x|)vi(m|)

[Joe]

It is possible to have g and not m, isn't it?

[rabbit]

You suck at regular expressions.

[Joe]

Yeah, I do, hence the "isn't it?".

[Blaze]

*

There we go. 

[Joe]

You suck at regex, Blaze. "*" is not a wildcard, therefore it'd only pick up things like "blaze*sucks*at*regexs" which have a * in them.

You mean "".

[rabbit]

* is a 0 or more quantifier, so "joe suck(s*|z*)" would match "joe suck", "joe sucks", "joe suckz", "joe suckssssss", "joe suckzzzzzzzz" or anything of that sort.

[iago]

That also includes gvi and xvi.

Ah, that's true.  Doing a proper regex would have to completely separate vi from all the rest, I think. 

Perhaps: (vi|(g|x|)im)

[Rule]

Another fairly well known Richard Stallman quote:

Why GNU `su' does not support the `wheel' group
===============================================

   (This section is by Richard Stallman.)

   Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the
rest.  For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to
seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and
keeping it secret from everyone else.  (I was able to thwart this coup
and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't
know how to do that in Unix.)

   However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone.  Under the usual
`su' mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes
with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest.  The "wheel
group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of
the rulers.

   I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers.  If you are
used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you
might find this idea strange at first.

       This program does not support a "wheel group" that restricts who can su
       to super-user accounts, because that can help fascist  system  adminis-
       trators hold unwarranted power over other users.

[iago]

       This program does not support a "wheel group" that restricts who can su
       to super-user accounts, because that can help fascist  system  adminis-
       trators hold unwarranted power over other users.

That almost sounds like a joke.  Hard to say, though.  I like it, anyways

[Sidoh]

Hahaha.  I wouldn't be too surprised if that's a real quote, but I'm not sure.