Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!4.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.alt.net!not-for-mail
From: owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:39:40 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: O.W.L.
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <sauzx0b083.a@rooftop.invalid>
References: <qe5e54$opq$1@neodome.net>   <qedvvf$1s09$2@gioia.aioe.org> <4edqtf-7ho.ln1@Telcontar.emainor> <qee233$ddk$3@dont-conil.me> <pvjqtf-3hu.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> <bvnhs7793qr.ah@rooftop.invalid> <tbbstf-ka3.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> <szjbu993ta.ahuo3@rooftop.invalid> <otrstf-47f.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> <svb9z0903ga.h43@rooftop.invalid> <v88ttf-7vp.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> <ugjjxyv62.njb6@rooftop.invalid> <42qutf-bcq.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> <xvu39a3ta.hu4@rooftop.invalid> <qeimar07hk@news2.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.rooftop.invalid
X-Face: $BHf)vM$6p_?9L`jmOQ54JeNyL+%MZGGRfH8&grb[Y%-jU`MCPAQN=/SVDa{<KrBxl"%XcV >(/67bP(YB}rjV^h><g$kPGE_caHX,aa}4A1~sto7YJo#ob/SgNiMsoaMMXiOX9%DjyJM_-=$`F5b' JM,?/R/;V1RI%|eClL6ymI}LbZERB=q+"pJ)uI{ngj1DRF1;E5[r$f[4mgt9=7Pw@vl8@I%eYs6KWJ e%LU3#U@M[X^YBp2VY]-'1*reGDbk%#n1ve'*RffQ3j,(TCYivjb*M`qmuC5rHgbN)nSsx)697q/vt //''?=gM'C.salgG^f)>cUh
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:27361 alt.os.linux:57066

In comp.os.linux.misc F. Russell <frussell@random.info> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:30:03 +0000, owl vomited this verbiage that I
> considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
> reasons:
> 
>> 
>> WYSIWYG has nothing to do with command-set exposure.  It has to do
>> with the document.  And if any text editor can be considered WYSIWYG,
>> then vim can be also.
>>
> 
> You are conflating two entirely different things.  A text editor is
> nowhere near to being a WYSIWYG editor.
> 

No, I'm not doing that.  I said if *any* text editor can be considered
WYSIWYG (and I did not bring in that term with respect to text editors),
then vim can.