Bradley D. Thornton <[email protected]> wrote: > Some might argue that vi is the standard > editor distributed with all Unices, which would however, be incorrect; > we all know that ed is the standard editor,
This I can 100% agree with as well. If we want to test 'ed,' that's a valid argument, it's in busybox too. However ... I've been 100% _explicit_ (and a broken record) that we're talking _'interactive, visual'_ editor. ;) Again ... 1) The current objectives cover text editing with an _'interactive, visual' editor 2) If any _'inactive, visual'_ editor is installed, Vi is always one of them on every distro, period** 3) I'm more than open to discussing switching to 'ed' if we're chucking the 'visual' history And ... 4) And I continue to be open to chucking text editing altogether. ;) **Even distros that set EDITOR=nano, Vi is also installed on those distros. Nano also doesn't require testing. It's straight-forward. and vi is popular as is Emacs, both of these alternate choices being > distributed with most Linus distros, as well as pico (alright, nano nowadays) with many. > Both distributed, yes. Both installed ... ??? ;) I've yet to get on a system with an interactive, visual editor, and not find Vi. However, name any other interactive, visual editor, and the story changes. As the joke goes, Emacs is an operating system. But if that's 'standard' in your distro install, more power to you. ;) To remain distribution agnostic as much as is possible, I would > contend that which $EDITOR is 'chosen' (and many distros default to nano) is more important an aspect than which. > Humor me for a moment ... maybe it's all about the phrase 'many distros'**? ;) I.e., are we going to just to ignore the entire Fedora-based and OpenSuSE-based world? **Even this^H^H^H^H 'these' Ubuntu-based distro linage that set EDITOR=nano, Vi is also installed on those distros. Nano also doesn't require testing. It's straight-forward. Which incarnation of vi is wrought with variations amongst the distros > as well, with most not actually using vi by default, but rather, Vim, > or Elvis. > And yet ... they all have the same, base commands and control -- a _'greatest common denominator'_ that can always be tested against and always works in all of them. ;) If coverage of a standard editor is to be included, then I would > contend that the choice to do so should actually be with regards to > the 'standard' editor - and that is 'ed'. > Or 'nano' it seems ... since we're only going to base it on one major series of distributions?! This is why I sometimes just don't want to bother. One major series of distributions installs Vi and Nano, although in 'minimal' it might only install Vi. Several others only install Vi by default ... in addition to busybox not offering 'nano' last time I checked. But we don't care about them, correct? ;) - bjs
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
