From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <038901c1116c$8bec1690$3cf7c6d4@SOMA>
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@fr.inter.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <200107202119.f6KLJaA18833@ducky.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] sam vs acme
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 00:37:14 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d25f3e36-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

From: "Mike Haertel" <mike@ducky.net>
> I personally use sam in preference to, say, vi, but I want to
> play devil's advocate for a moment...

devil's idiot.

> How is "sam -r" be different from running vi (or another tty based
> editor of your choice) in a telnet session in a terminal emulator?

the user interface stays the same, but the editor runs remotely.
this all falls out of the way stuff was implemneted on the blit.

yes, we [basser] had a bunch of them and we were using 'jim'.
sam -r fell out of that rather fortuitously;  as long as the
editor back end runs on the target m/c you could use sam
anywhere.

i'm not sure, but i suspect it was the beginning/inspiration
of 9P.

big difference.

you cannot compare that 'goto fonfon' disaster to sam.