Problem is not VIM, it is the ctags. Ctags just doesn't work - good enough for me. I have used it, and it just goes berserk with #defines, files which are not .h or .c (xml rules or binary blobs, etc.).

It is. Every effing program uses those - except one or two from stone age.

Try. At least shell and python is supported, not sure about awk - I have long since migrated to Perl.

I do not want to learn and remember all the "tools" and their interaction and intricasies, I want my work done.

No it does not. The code completion just stops working - for a while. No biggie. When you finally define the variable/class, you can easily collect all the use cases.

As well as vi does, not a teeny bit worse. Besides, that script won't be that big for the system really help you anyway.

As it is to me. But still I want mundane simple things to be simple and mundane.

I would never ever do any woodworking without current tools you can buy. I do not want to make 45 degree jig, then another 30 degree, and so on. You see, my saw can be turned to any degree without a jig. But still it cannot do everything, sometimes a jig is necessary - but I would never give up the saw just because it cannot handle everything.

Not really. If you use those, you'll lose some other extensions which are designed for the modal system. With Emacs you'll get shortcut collisions, ctrl-x is pre-bound.
They are just hacks, nobody really uses them - or at least were when I tried one (long time ago though).

The problem with Vim (and Emacs) is that they do not support anything modern, not even ctrl-z/x/c/v.

For programming Eclipse or NetBeans or Visual Studio is just miles away what of vi/emacs can do, especially out of the box. To get vi/emacs to work nearly as good as good IDE is just too big a job. For example NetBeans ctrl-b (go to declaration). Sure, you can install ctags, configure it, run it, tinker with it, tinker some more, add custom rules, search net, rinse-and-repeat and eventually you'll get something resembling ctrl-b, but not quite the same.
Or ctrl-space (complete word) - in NB this will understand the variable and give completitions according to that. It will give hints to the parameters too. In every language there is. Probably if you search-net, tinker, rinse-repeat you can get something almost similar working in one language in one platform with vi/emacs. I work in two (Linux & Windows). I do not want to waste my time to get mundane things like that to work properly. And the list is endless! Will vi color according to changes in VCS? According to syntax errors? Both at the same time, out of the box? Has it code prettifier for C, HTML, css, etc? Netbeans have plugin-repository from where you can get almost everything you'll ever need. Last time I used XEmacs it was net-search, try it, search next - maybe it works with current XEmacs, ...

Believe me, I have tried, I have used XEmacs for years, over 15. Then I just noticed that a program designed for vt100 is from the Stone Age.

This is why I dislike this law. It pout one innocent american in jail indefinitely and one innocent swiss in a horrible position as the "jail door keykeeper". Not to mention travelling abroad might have put him into prison too.

Suppose that the data resides in Swizerland (Swiss privacy laws prohibit moving data overseas - don't know exact details, but the idea should be obvious). Suppose the credentials to give the data is only on the hands of a swiss administrator - no american has access to the data/server/credentials in Swizerland. In this case no matter who in the company orders to give him the credentials, the administrator in Swizerland cannot give them or he would be breaking the Swiss law.

To me the situation has been exactly the opposite. I had a job where I had to fight to get old crapware rewritten because "it provably works" (although it has e.g. access after "free"). I have never seen an old software that would work with the new requirements in the new environment. Quite contrary, old software slowly but surely deteriorates with #ifdefs, code nobody dares to remove, hacks that just happen to work as they change timing, you name it. Just like good-old OpenSSL.

Same with bridges btw, 20th century bridge would hardly suffice today (price, time to build, etc.).

But the companies exists solely to make profit to their owners. Which means "time to market", which means "security is not an option - until it is really needed".

For example, I am certain that 99% of Facebook/Twitter/... users don't give a shit how secure it is - especially as they know NSA has unlimited and unaccountable access into it.

Wrong. Open source can provide advantages, but only if all processes etc. are followed. Most often they are not.

So what you are effectively saying is "we (foss) did a great job, let's pat each other on the back! Then let's continue our marvellous path of joy and glory".

(translation: we, the cowboy coders, are totally ignoring fatal problems in processes and attitude and won't fix them 'cause we "are better". if the sarcasm was lost in translation, your bad).

First, I detest the excuse "some one is worse - or at least you cannot prove it is not, therefore we are actually quite good!"
Then, I call bullshit. Closed source do get "CVE'd" and the companies can be held liable. Foss developers cannot be sued (and get as much money as from G/M/A/...).

But do continue with the same attitude. After next exploit, and 10 more later, just say "yes, someone out there is worse, especially now as we have fixed ALL known vulnerabilities". Although the new version out next month will probably introduce more new holes than what were fixed.

I knew this excuse would used again and again, long before Heartbleed. I complained loudly (see my history) for your though to be fatally flawed.
The problem is, that this kind of thinking generates more holes than fixes.

But then, I think you were sarcastic and the moderators missed it.

You are a dangerous idiot. Quite ofthen the speed limit is not to protect you, but others. Quite often the (low) speed limit is due to "addition risk", a risk that might be difficult or impossible for the driver to see. Which you have decided to neglect, because you think you are a "better driver". Hint: your reaction time is most likely not significantly smaller than others.

No, that is not what they are after. They want you to pay for the information.
So that you would not get it freely from "illegal" or "gray" (hard to say whether illegal or not) sites.
So that if you do, they can send you the "600€ or face prosecution" -letter.

"taxi driver is thinking"

This is exactly my point. And you missed it.