Re: visudo not vi?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Chris Lawrence wrote: On Mar 13, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote: it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... 1. not everyone knows how to use vi 2. ae is *small*. lots smaller then elvis-tiny. We probably should change to nano-tiny, because (a) it's tiny and (b) it supports neither syntax (though it isn't modal, so maybe it's closer to Emacs), so nobody can complain that the other syntax is supported but theirs isn't. :-) 1) nano-tiny is bigger than ae by ~10K 2) nano-tiny has all of the library disadvantatges of ae. It carries all of the libraries that ae does. The hidden advantage of elvis is that it only carries symbols from libc and libncurses (for reference, true pico also only carries libc and ncurses...) Chris -- You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: visudo not vi?
John Galt wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Chris Lawrence wrote: On Mar 13, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote: it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... 1. not everyone knows how to use vi 2. ae is *small*. lots smaller then elvis-tiny. We probably should change to nano-tiny, because (a) it's tiny and (b) it supports neither syntax (though it isn't modal, so maybe it's closer to Emacs), so nobody can complain that the other syntax is supported but theirs isn't. :-) 1) nano-tiny is bigger than ae by ~10K 2) nano-tiny has all of the library disadvantatges of ae. It carries all of the libraries that ae does. The hidden advantage of elvis is that it only carries symbols from libc and libncurses (for reference, true pico also only carries libc and ncurses...) ...Which means: 1) The size difference is negligible. 2) It'll still fit, since it (I presume, from what you're trying to say) uses the same libraries as ae. Which, combined with: 1) nano-tiny is relatively easy to use. 2) nano-tiny has fewer bugs. ...Means: 1) nano-tiny should be the base system editor of choice. 2) This thread needs to end. ;) Chris Regards, Alex.
Re: visudo not vi?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:57:07AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote: 1) nano-tiny is relatively easy to use. 2) nano-tiny has fewer bugs. Using a non-vi-compatable editor on boot disks is a hanging offense that debian will pay for once sysadmins try to install Debian but realize they have better things to do than learn a whimpy editor. It would be excusable if it was emacs-compatable, but it's not. e3 supports vi, emacs, wordstar, AND pico bindings. It just depends whether you type vi, emacs, or pico to start it. Personally I would perfer ed to nano, since it is traditional and more people know how to use it.
Re: visudo not vi?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:42:10AM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: would be excusable if it was emacs-compatable, but it's not. e3 supports vi, emacs, wordstar, AND pico bindings. It just depends whether you type vi, emacs, or pico to start it. .. but is not suitable as it's not portable. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: visudo not vi?
Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: would be excusable if it was emacs-compatable, but it's not. e3 supports vi, emacs, wordstar, AND pico bindings. It just depends whether you type vi, emacs, or pico to start it. Hamish .. but is not suitable as it's not portable. Isn't the C version fairly portable? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard
Re: visudo not vi?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:03:39AM +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: would be excusable if it was emacs-compatable, but it's not. e3 supports vi, emacs, wordstar, AND pico bindings. It just depends whether you type vi, emacs, or pico to start it. Hamish .. but is not suitable as it's not portable. Isn't the C version fairly portable? I thought somebody said they made a mistake and there is no C version -- just the i386 assembler. hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: visudo not vi?
Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hamish I thought somebody said they made a mistake and there is no C Hamish version -- just the i386 assembler. No the package both contains an asm version for i386 machines and a version in C for other architectures. Someone said the C version didn't have the same features though.. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard
Re: visudo not vi?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:47:06PM +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hamish I thought somebody said they made a mistake and there is no C Hamish version -- just the i386 assembler. No the package both contains an asm version for i386 machines and a version in C for other architectures. Someone said the C version didn't have the same features though.. Oh I see. Well if it has the same features it sounds good. I can't imagine how painful it would be to write an editor in assembler. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: visudo not vi?
Aaron Lehmann wrote: Using a non-vi-compatable editor on boot disks is a hanging offense that debian will pay for once sysadmins try to install Debian but realize they have better things to do than learn a whimpy editor. It would be excusable if it was emacs-compatable, but it's not. e3 supports vi, emacs, wordstar, AND pico bindings. It just depends whether you type vi, emacs, or pico to start it. Personally I would perfer ed to nano, since it is traditional and more people know how to use it. The great Vi/Emacs Wars are irrelevant to this issue: the people encountering ae for the first time aren't looking for a crash course in your favourite coding utility, they need an instantly usable text editor, and one that's perfectly accessible to newbies who have never seen anything better than Wordpad. Nano-tiny scores highly on this count, since it is a functional bonsai-scale editor any fool can pick up on their first encounter - no learning is necessary (or worthwhile, unless they're going to be keeping it as the only editor on the system). But ae will do. Just about. -- Justin B Rye - writing (in jed) from but not for Datacash Ltd
Re: visudo not vi?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 05:31:43PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: Quoting Matus \fantomas\ Uhlar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Here is what I got: - - - - File read and write ^X I ^X^W Left, down, up, right ^B ^N ^P - ^F - - what the heck is this editor? - - ae. It's supposed to be an easy editor. I find it's a pain in the ass. agreed, wtf it's still in the base distribution? it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... comments? If memory serves me correctly, there where a big flamewar a couple of yars ago, about including emacs on the bootdisks etc. It was ultimatly desided and realized that even the most die-hard emacs fanatic (Tm :) that emacs is just to big for this purpose. So came ae, which let's you have a little of both worlds (at a big cost in both worlds unfortunatly, but that's usually what a compromise will do). how about midnight commander instead of the wordstar-esque ae? -- It is always hazardous to ask Why? in science, but it is often interesting to do so just the same. -- Isaac Asimov, 'The Genetic Code' [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://newbieDoc.sourceforge.net/ -- we need your brain! http://www.dontUthink.com/ -- your brain needs us!
Re: visudo not vi?
on Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 11:59:12PM -0600, Jack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Here is what I got: File read and write ^X I ^X^W Left, down, up, right ^B ^N ^P ^F what the heck is this editor? ae. It's supposed to be an easy editor. I find it's a pain in the ass. how to let visudo use vi instead? man visudo Check your environment, particularly $EDITOR and $VISUAL. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org pgp6MZkZgWCzO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: visudo not vi?
- Here is what I got: - - - - File read and write ^X I ^X^W Left, down, up, right ^B ^N ^P - ^F - - what the heck is this editor? - - ae. It's supposed to be an easy editor. I find it's a pain in the ass. agreed, wtf it's still in the base distribution? it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... comments? -- Matus fantomas Uhlar, sysadmin at NEXTRA, Slovakia; IRCNET admin of *.sk [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ ; http://www.nextra.sk/ The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Re: visudo not vi?
Previously Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote: it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... 1. not everyone knows how to use vi 2. ae is *small*. lots smaller then elvis-tiny. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: visudo not vi?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:12:34PM +0100, Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote: agreed, wtf it's still in the base distribution? it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... it has. check debian-boot archives. comments? -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgp38H8pPcxHr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: visudo not vi?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:12:34PM +0100, Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote: - Here is what I got: - - - - File read and write ^X I ^X^W Left, down, up, right ^B ^N ^P Shouldn't that be up up down down... ;) Drew -- PGP public key available at http://dparsons.webjump.com/drewskey.txt Fingerprint: A110 EAE1 D7D2 8076 5FE0 EC0A B6CE 7041 6412 4E4A
Re: visudo not vi?
Just do: vim /etc/sudoers You don't need visudo N
Re: visudo not vi?
Nick Croft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just do: vim /etc/sudoers You don't need visudo Read the man page - using visudo is a good idea, assuming you've set $EDITOR properly. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: visudo not vi?
point taken.
Re: visudo not vi?
Quoting Matus \fantomas\ Uhlar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Here is what I got: - - - - File read and write ^X I ^X^W Left, down, up, right ^B ^N ^P - ^F - - what the heck is this editor? - - ae. It's supposed to be an easy editor. I find it's a pain in the ass. agreed, wtf it's still in the base distribution? it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... comments? If memory serves me correctly, there where a big flamewar a couple of yars ago, about including emacs on the bootdisks etc. It was ultimatly desided and realized that even the most die-hard emacs fanatic (Tm :) that emacs is just to big for this purpose. So came ae, which let's you have a little of both worlds (at a big cost in both worlds unfortunatly, but that's usually what a compromise will do). It will give you an editor with emacs syntax, and it will give you an editor with vi syntax... Neither of the syntaxes are very good, but... If you think ae sucks, well, I personaly JUST F*G _HATE_ VI and all derivates! One can't make everyone happy, but ae is a resonably compromise. -- Turbo __ _ Debian GNU Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just ^/ /(_)_ __ _ ___ __ selective about who its friends are / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ / Debian Certified Linux Developer _ /// / /__| | | | | |_| |Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\\/ \/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ Stockholm/Sweden pits subway supercomputer Panama counter-intelligence quiche Ortega BATF Ft. Bragg Khaddafi tritium South Africa NSA strategic DES [See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]
Re: visudo not vi?
- Previously Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote: - it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... - - 1. not everyone knows how to use vi - 2. ae is *small*. lots smaller then elvis-tiny. requires more libraries... -- Matus fantomas Uhlar, sysadmin at NEXTRA, Slovakia; IRCNET admin of *.sk [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ ; http://www.nextra.sk/ I intend to live forever - so far so good.
Re: visudo not vi?
On Mar 13, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote: it should be probably replaced by elvis-tiny , even on distribution disks... 1. not everyone knows how to use vi 2. ae is *small*. lots smaller then elvis-tiny. We probably should change to nano-tiny, because (a) it's tiny and (b) it supports neither syntax (though it isn't modal, so maybe it's closer to Emacs), so nobody can complain that the other syntax is supported but theirs isn't. :-) Chris -- Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Instructor and Doctoral Student, Political Science, Univ. of Mississippi 208 Deupree Hall - 662-915-5949
Re: visudo not vi?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 05:31:43PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: that emacs is just to big for this purpose. So came ae, which let's you have a little of both worlds (at a big cost in both worlds unfortunatly, but that's usually what a compromise will do). You mean the worst of both worlds, right? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
