I prefer to edit the filesystem directly with a hex editor. No
mounting required! I've given up on using magents directly on the hard
drive, I tend to do more damage that way...
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:54 AM, David Fiander wrote:
Vi is just as programmable as emacs. It's possible to write a vi macro
that runs a turing machine.
- David
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Cloutman, David
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I use nano, which is the same thing as pico, more or less. I wrote my
first web pages using pico in a unix shell. I always thought it was a
great editor. I use nano almost daily, even on my Windows machines.
I just don't see the attaction to vi. I understand the need to know
it,
but the fundamentalist furvor that some people have for the program
baffles me.
- David
---
David Cloutman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Electronic Services Librarian
Marin County Free Library
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
K.G. Schneider
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:09 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] K&R (was: Gartner on OSS)
I now open up the vi vs. emacs discussion:
http://xkcd.com/378/
(personally, I'm a BBEdit user, but fall back to vi as needed ...
and
ex
for those rare times when you have to tip into a Solaris box to fix
the
vfstab and your TERM is completely hosed)
-Joe
Back when that was my choice, I used emacs exactly once, during
which I
removed every instance of the letter "m" from a lengthy document.
(When
I have to edit a file in my shell account, which is rare, I use
pico...
yes, I know that makes me a sissy *and I don't care.*)
K.G. Schneider
Email Disclaimer: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/nav/misc/EmailDisclaimer.cfm
--
Ryan Ordway E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unix Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331 Office: Valley Library #4657
