I didn't downvote, but I think people disliked your use of the word "religious", as it's sort of a discussion-stopper.
To answer your point, the difference is that most people confuse the terms, which have a very different connotation. One is about software quality, the other is about users' freedom (as defined by the fsf).
Emacs does not try to appeal to business (or users in general) by using the principles of vim in a more business-friendly connotation, so comparing the issue at hand with "emacs misses the point of modal editing" kind of misses the point, if you will :)
> I think people disliked your use of the word "religious", as it's sort of a discussion-stopper.
That's kind of the point. There's no use arguing about it since it's a matter of personal preference — i.e., religion.
> Emacs does not try to appeal to business (or users in general) by using the principles of vim in a more business-friendly connotation
Open source software does not try to appeal to users by using the principles of the FSF. I don't think this illustrates a problem with the metaphor. They're both fine editors and reflect the preferences of their developers. Ditto different software licenses.
To answer your point, the difference is that most people confuse the terms, which have a very different connotation. One is about software quality, the other is about users' freedom (as defined by the fsf).
Emacs does not try to appeal to business (or users in general) by using the principles of vim in a more business-friendly connotation, so comparing the issue at hand with "emacs misses the point of modal editing" kind of misses the point, if you will :)