Of RW
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:21 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500
"Gary Gatten" wrote:
I like M$ "Notepad" - is there a version of that for FBSD?
Actually, there is. Wine implements
-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500
"Gary Gatten" wrote:
> I like M$ "Notepad" - is there a version of that for FBSD?
Actually, there is. Wine implements it&#
Daniel Underwood wrote:
How did "The question of moving vi to /bin" end up as two different
conversations for me in gmail?
Hello Daniel,
When I did a 'Reply to All', the moderator blocked the posting claiming
too high a number of recipients. I cancelled the posting, and resent it
using 'Re
Polytropon writes:
> When Bill G. arrives at the pearly gate, ol' Pete won't ask
> him what he did do, instead send him to MICROS~1 C:\HELL.EXE
> with the advice to click on the devil to start the everlasting
> pain. :-)
Brilliant!!
atb
Glyn
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500
"Gary Gatten" wrote:
> I like M$ "Notepad" - is there a version of that for FBSD?
Actually, there is. Wine implements it's own version of notepad.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 08:01:02AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:23:17 -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> > what about j, k [down, up]. and h,l [left, right]?
> > why reach over for the arrow keys! oh, and o, and O
> > [open line below/Above], and
> >
> > \search
>
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 pm 14:01:02 Polytropon wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:23:17 -0700, Gary Kline
wrote:
> have a "vi keyboard reference" in my "extremely important
> documentation folder" - and yes, it is a real folder, not a
> directory. :-) So if everything fails, there's still vi and
> the
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:23:17 -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> what about j, k [down, up]. and h,l [left, right]?
> why reach over for the arrow keys! oh, and o, and O
> [open line below/Above], and
>
> \search
>
> and that's 97 and 44/100ths of what you'll ever need.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500, "Gary Gatten" wrote:
> I like M$ "Notepad" - is there a version of that for FBSD?
You are on the wrong list. Correct your inner state of mind and
try again. :-)
No, seriously: Maybe gnotepad+ appeals to you?
> Actually the old "edit" from dos is sweet too..
Hi,
I agree that vi is nowhere as easy to use as ee. Since a lot of people seem to
be happy with ee, why not make it available under /bin so that that there is an
easy-to-use, readily-working editor always available, even if you are in
single-user mode ?
That in fact was the essence of this
> That's a very good suggestion. But let's take into mind that we
> do need the most advanced and modern MICROS~1 technology, so
> FreeBSD should include a pirated copy of "Windows 7" in order
> to run the latest and most expensive pirated copy of "Office",
> programmed in Java, running through "Fl
Hi,
On 27 June 2009 am 07:08:01 Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:50 +0800, Erich Dollansky
wrote:
> > On 26 June 2009 pm 14:01:02 Polytropon wrote:
> > > Maybe this is because vi scared me when using WEGA (which
> > > is the GDR's equivalent of UNIX System III, run on the
> > > P800
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:50 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> On 26 June 2009 pm 14:01:02 Polytropon wrote:
> > Maybe this is because vi scared me when using WEGA (which is
> > the GDR's equivalent of UNIX System III, run on the P8000
>
> was this the russian PDP-11?
I'm not sure if there was a P
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> This whole thread only really got started because I questioned Manish Jain's
> assertion that there was no editor available in /bin.
>
> To summarise:
>
> There are several editors available ranging from ed (49604 bytes) and ee
This whole thread only really got started because I questioned Manish Jain's
assertion that there was no editor available in /bin.
To summarise:
There are several editors available ranging from ed (49604 bytes) and ee
(60920 bytes) (both with two library dependencies) to emacs (in ports;
59926
2009/6/25 Gary Gatten :
> I like M$ "Notepad" - is there a version of that for FBSD? Actually the old
> "edit" from dos is sweet too
>
I'll humour you... gedit is similar and better than notepad for BSD,
but there's nothing like 'edit' (actually a stripped down QBasic)
AFAIK. Maybe you should
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:31:37PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26 June 2009 pm 12:19:32 Gary Kline wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:50:31AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > >
> > > On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:09:56PM -0400, John L. Templer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> >> ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as
> >> such, at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main
> >> e
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 pm 12:19:32 Gary Kline wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:50:31AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >
> > On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich Dollansky
> >
> > wrote:
> > > >On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heue
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:50:31AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich Dollansky
> wrote:
> > >On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
> > >> Maybe you're right, maybe not.
> > >>
> > >
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 10:02:30 Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:55:48 +0800, Erich Dollansky
wrote:
> > this is not what I mean. I wanted to say, as long as the boot
> > disk come up, I also have /usr available when I have the
> > space to have it all on the same disk.
>
> I see. The
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:55:48 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> this is not what I mean. I wanted to say, as long as the boot disk
> come up, I also have /usr available when I have the space to have
> it all on the same disk.
I see. The fact that /usr isn't available after booting in
maintenance m
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:50:31 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> As far as 16 years back, VT220/VT320 terminals were in wide use
>> in universities. Some of us learned our first regexp stuff by
>
> not only there, but ed was not the editor of ch
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 09:07:00 Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:24:13 +0800, Erich Dollansky
wrote:
> > To be honest, I never have had a problem with /usr since
> > disks are large enough to have all on only one.
>
> Mostly, partitioning according to directory structures has
> nothing
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich Dollansky
wrote:
> >On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
> >> Maybe you're right, maybe not.
> >>
> >> 20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran
> >> code on a silly rs2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>> ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as
>> such, at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main
>> editors, ex, vi, and ed.
>
> ed goes back at least as far as the Bell Labs 6th
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:24:13 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> To be honest, I never have had a problem with /usr since disks are
> large enough to have all on only one.
Mostly, partitioning according to directory structures has nothing
to do with disk space, but with intention. There are many man
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
>On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
>> Maybe you're right, maybe not.
>>
>> 20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code
>> on a silly rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible, and one
>
> I do not believe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ruben de Groot wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:36:31AM -0400, John L. Templer typed:
>> ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as such,
>> at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main editors,
>> ex, vi, and
Ho,
On 26 June 2009 am 04:32:31 Erik Osterholm wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:28:54PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > On 25 June 2009 pm 13:03:01 Manish Jain wrote:
> > > > If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're
> >
> > isn't there ee in the base system?
>
> ee is in /usr/bi
Hi,
On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Manish Jain wrote:
>
> Maybe you're right, maybe not.
>
> 20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code
> on a silly rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible, and one
I do not believe you. This must have
Jun 25 15:50:01 2009
Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin
> 20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code on a silly
> rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible, and one can learn basics of
> ed in less than a hour. Don't you think so?
>
Not whe
> 20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code on a silly
> rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible, and one can learn basics of
> ed in less than a hour. Don't you think so?
>
Not when editors like ee and vi are available and more spoken of in
today's topics.
And I know it
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:28:54PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 25 June 2009 pm 13:03:01 Manish Jain wrote:
> > > If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going
> > > to have to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so,
> > > not just make a (long and hyperbolic)
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:20:42 -0400, "ill...@gmail.com" wrote:
> 2009/6/24 Manish Jain :
> > everyone has hundreds of GB's
> > on the disk
>
> No. No they don't. Please hang up and try again. If you need
> to make a collect call, please dial zero to speak with an oper-
> ator.
Dial all the num
2009/6/24 Manish Jain :
> everyone has hundreds of GB's
> on the disk
No. No they don't. Please hang up and try again. If you need
to make a collect call, please dial zero to speak with an oper-
ator.
--
--
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
Ruben de Groot wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:36:31AM -0400, John L. Templer typed:
ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as such,
at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main editors,
ex, vi, and ed. If you had a nice video terminal then you used vi
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Manish Jain wrote:
If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going to have
to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so, not just make a
(long and hyperbolic) statement that you don't like it.
Any Unix tool has to clearly fall either under the category
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:36:31AM -0400, John L. Templer typed:
>
> ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as such,
> at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main editors,
> ex, vi, and ed. If you had a nice video terminal then you used vi. But
> if you
John L. Templer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manish Jain wrote:
If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going to have
to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so, not just make a
(long and hyperbolic) statement that you don't like it.
Any Unix t
> ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as
> such, at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main
> editors, ex, vi, and ed.
ed goes back at least as far as the Bell Labs 6th Edition (PDP-11),
where it was the only editor in the distribution. ex and vi (and
Hi,
On 25 June 2009 pm 13:03:01 Manish Jain wrote:
> > If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going
> > to have to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so,
> > not just make a (long and hyperbolic) statement that you
> > don't like it.
>
> requirements of being interactive.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manish Jain wrote:
>>
>> If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going to have
>> to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so, not just make a
>> (long and hyperbolic) statement that you don't like it.
>>
>
> Any Unix tool has
If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going to have
to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so, not just make a
(long and hyperbolic) statement that you don't like it.
Any Unix tool has to clearly fall either under the category of
non-interactive (grep, sed, ex) or
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:13:49 -0700
"b. f." wrote:
> ??? Who is giving them that credit? This isn't new. You already have
> some control over swapping via several oids:
>
> vm.swap_enabled
> vm.disable_swapspace_pageouts
> vm.defer_swapspace_pageouts
> vm.swap_idle_enabled
> vm.swap_idle_thresh
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:13:49AM -0700, b. f. wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
>
> >That's the whole problem of /rescue/vi. When you suddenly find yourself
> >in single-user mode, the last thing you want to do is realise that
> >tweaking is needed for something whic
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 04:22:19PM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
>
> You also suggested doing away with ed and /rescue/vi altogether. You may not
> need statically-linked tools very often, but when you do need them, you
> *REALLY* need them. Don't suggest throwing them away without thinking thr
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 12:59:13 Manish Jain wrote:
> About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in
> this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares
> which he managed to reproduce in Unix with great precision. By no
> stretch of imagination would
2009/6/24 cpghost :
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:13:49AM -0700, b. f. wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
>>
>> >About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in
>> >this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares
>> >which he
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:13:49AM -0700, b. f. wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
>
> >About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in
> >this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares
> >which he managed to reproduce in U
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
...
>About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in
>this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares
>which he managed to reproduce in Unix with great precision. By no
>stretch of imagination woul
51 matches
Mail list logo
