I don't agree with u because when want editing file what do u do that vi editor it is essential in Linux
> Le 5 avr. 2016 à 18:00, lpi-discuss-requ...@lpi.org a écrit : > > Send lpi-discuss mailing list submissions to > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > lpi-discuss-requ...@lpi.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > lpi-discuss-ow...@lpi.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of lpi-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: lpi-discuss Digest, Vol 104, Issue 2 (Cristian Quagliozzi) > 2. Re: is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? (Ian Shields) > 3. Re: is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? (Anselm Lingnau) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 20:35:58 -0300 > From: Cristian Quagliozzi <cristianquag...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] lpi-discuss Digest, Vol 104, Issue 2 > To: lpi-discuss@lpi.org > Message-ID: > <CAF5CJuwYNW83HTvimLgRykSJ0xHHZWg97-8cJV2BY8oqO=h...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > In my opinion Vi is useful in many situations. I wouldn't prefer remove it. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://list.lpi.org/pipermail/lpi-discuss/attachments/20160404/d1b582d0/attachment.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:12:22 -0400 > From: Ian Shields <ianshie...@nc.rr.com> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > To: lpi-discuss@lpi.org > Message-ID: <57031f06.10...@nc.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >> On 4/4/2016 19:31, Anselm Lingnau wrote: >> Fernando Roca wrote: >> >>> So, lets resume, your point of removing vi its that vi has counterintuitive >>> shortcuts that "people new to linux" find difficult to learn and they dont >>> need vi because they can edit 2 lines of fstab with other text editor, well >>> I can agree with vi being weird for guys who use wintel OS (guys who likes >>> to use something similar to notepad, this is the real reason for text >>> editors like nano), but again , saying vi is weird is just an opinion you >>> have based on your prejudices . >> For the record, I didn't say vi should be removed from the exam. I said that >> vi should be downgraded in LPIC-1 to a weight-1 objective covering only very >> basic commands (it is now a weight-3 objective). > In general. I agree with the sentiment that vi should cover only basic > commands. I think you need to know at least the following: > 1) How to get in and out of vi > 2) Enough about modes to know that there is a command mode and an insert > mode and pressing esc will get you out of insert mode if you're in it. > 3) How to move your cursor up, down, right and left and maybe to > end/beginning of line > 4) How to scroll a page in either direction > 5) How to search forward and backward for a string > 6) how to insert, edit and delete text. > 7) How to save or quit a file without saving. > > I'm curious as to how you downgrade vi to a weight 1 objective and still > know enough to use it. I don't think most other weight 1 objectives > require this much skill. > > >> >> I taught Linux system administration classes for 15 years and to the best of >> my recollection I didn't ever find anybody who was new to vi and liked it. >> Most people in my classes were annoyed and frustrated with vi, and in the end >> preferred other editors such as nano. The only people who were happy with vi >> were people who had been using it for ages already. > > Did you ever ask anyone how they might do things if they had to operate > on a 2400, 4800, or 9600bps glass teletype instead of a fiber optic > internet connected graphical device with more pixels than old-timers > probably ever imagined possible? As Santayana wrote ?Those who cannot > remember the past are condemned to repeat it.? One wonders what the next > incantation of vi will look like. :-) >> >> The problem with vi isn't ?shortcuts? (exactly what would vi's commands be >> shortcuts for, anyway?) ? it's having to get used to the fact that, unlike >> virtually all other text editors people today are likely to have encountered, >> vi differentiates between a ?movement/command mode?, a ?text input mode?, and >> a ?long-command? mode. In that sense, vi *is* weird, and that is not an >> opinion or a prejudice, it is a statistical observation. By now, vi is an >> outlier. Modes like vi's, even though in the 1970s they were an obvious >> solution to the restricted-keyboard problem, are very much something that, >> for >> the last 30+ years of UI design or so, we've been trying to avoid as much as >> we can because they make software harder to deal with. (One of the nicer >> features of vim is that it actually tells you whether you're in insert mode, >> which the original vi doesn't. With vi, it is easy to lose track of what mode >> you're in, and that can lead to problems when you type stuff as if you were >> in >> insert mode but in fact are in command mode.) >> >> It is undoubtedly possible to get accustomed to vi to a point where one is >> comfortable using it for everything including large documents but these days >> the big question is why would one even bother? It is not a bad thing for >> people who are new to Linux not to have to spend considerable time on a >> program that is both counterintuitive and tricky to use and made out to be >> absolutely indispensable ? Linux is complicated enough for newbies as it is, >> even without vi. In fact there are various editors around that are easier to >> operate (for people with experience of other 21st century editors ? and why >> shouldn't that experience be leveraged?) and as powerful (or more so) as vi. >> >> We should give up our fixation on vi as the One True Editor and firmly put it >> in its place as a tool that is sometimes useful in certain circumstances, >> like >> editing a few lines in a configuration file as root. It's a bit like awk in >> that respect: awk has existed for a long time and is always around on >> Linux/Unix systems; it can do lots of interesting and powerful things, some >> of >> which are very inconvenient or impossible to do with simpler tools; it is >> tricky and obtuse in endearing ways that can be explained by history; most >> people use it in a very basic fashion when they have to; and there are >> dedicated awk fans who think nobody really needs anything else, when other >> folks would probably prefer Perl, Python, or whatever the fashionable >> language >> of the month is now. In effect, awk has exactly the same justification to be >> on the LPIC-1 exam as vi, except that the awk lobby isn't as vocal as the vi >> lobby, so it isn't. > Generally agree. Except that there are a few other commands that assume > vi, such as visudo, vipw and vigr that assume vi as their default > editor. These are not specifically called out in LPIC-1, but i cover > them in my tutorials > (https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-lpic1-map/). >> >> Anselm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:40:04 +0200 > From: Anselm Lingnau <anselm.ling...@linupfront.de> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > To: "General discussion relating to LPI." <lpi-discuss@lpi.org> > Message-ID: <104288318.DKq1dRpjXV@ceol> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Ian Shields wrote: > >> In general. I agree with the sentiment that vi should cover only basic >> commands. I think you need to know at least the following: >> 1) How to get in and out of vi >> 2) Enough about modes to know that there is a command mode and an insert >> mode and pressing esc will get you out of insert mode if you're in it. >> 3) How to move your cursor up, down, right and left and maybe to >> end/beginning of line >> 4) How to scroll a page in either direction >> 5) How to search forward and backward for a string >> 6) how to insert, edit and delete text. >> 7) How to save or quit a file without saving. > > Sounds reasonable to me. (Given that the arrow keys and Page-up/down do > what's > printed on them, that leaves ?i?, ?x?, ?/?, ???, ?ZZ?, and ?:q!?. We probably > have to throw in ?dd? and ?J? because of the brain-damaged way vi deals with > lines.) > >> I'm curious as to how you downgrade vi to a weight 1 objective and still >> know enough to use it. I don't think most other weight 1 objectives >> require this much skill. > > You can learn the above in a quarter of an hour using something like > vimtutor, > especially because you can immediately see what happens. > > Quotas are a weight-1 objective and they take longer than that if you > actually > configure them and convince yourself that they do what they claim. That > includes some reasonably non-trivial stuff like soft and hard quotas, > compared > to which the basic vi command set outlined earlier is easy-peasy. (Although > I'm secretly convinced quotas are weight-1 so it doesn't matter too much if > you skip them altogether ? I don't think I've seen a Linux system in the wild > that was actually running quotas. Perhaps people still use them at > universities.) > >> Did you ever ask anyone how they might do things if they had to operate >> on a 2400, 4800, or 9600bps glass teletype instead of a fiber optic >> internet connected graphical device with more pixels than old-timers >> probably ever imagined possible? > > Nano presumably runs over a 2400bps connection about as well (or badly) as vi > does. (I'm assuming you don't mean the real ?glass teletypes? where you only > get to add stuff at the bottom of the screen and where vi is forced into ex > mode, because LPIC-1 doesn't cover ex. Which I hope we can all agree should > stay that way.) > > In any case I don't think what people used to do back in the days of 2400bps > glass teletypes should constrain what we're allowed to do now. Around that > time, people also used to use the C shell, but fortunately LPIC-1 gives that > program's strange and wonderful history-editing mechanisms, as carried over > into bash, only very light coverage now that we can actually edit the command > history like reasonable people, using arrow keys. Nobody seems to argue that > we should all be using the Bourne shell (which doesn't have the concept of a > command history) because it is the agreed standard for sysadmins, has been > around forever, and (unlike bash) exists everywhere, even on traditional Unix > ? but yet something very similar appears to be the key argument in favour of > vi. > > In the 1980s I used to use MicroEmacs on serial text terminals and that was > just fine as far as I was concerned. > >> Generally agree. Except that there are a few other commands that assume >> vi, such as visudo, vipw and vigr that assume vi as their default >> editor. > > All of these use whatever editor the EDITOR variable says they should use. On > my Debian system, they default to nano. They may have ?vi? in their name but > ultimately that doesn't mean a lot. > > Anselm > -- > Anselm Lingnau ? Linup Front GmbH (MAX21) ? Linux- & Open-Source-Schulungen > anselm.ling...@linupfront.de, +49(0)6151-9067-0, Fax -299, www.linupfront.de > Robert-Koch-Str. 9, 64331 Weiterstadt Post: Postf. 100121, 64201 Darmstadt DE > Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705) Geschf: Oliver Michel, Nils Manegold > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-discuss mailing list > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > > End of lpi-discuss Digest, Vol 104, Issue 5 > *******************************************
_______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list lpi-discuss@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
