On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:47:08 -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
dunno how you know im using the zsh, but yup.
This is because of my magical allknowinglyness. :-)
You wrote:
pts/14 17:11 tao [5011] vi!
zsh: command not found: vi!
^^^
This gave me the impression you're using the Z shell
.
This is because of my magical allknowinglyness. :-)
You wrote:
pts/14 17:11 tao [5011] vi!
zsh: command not found: vi!
^^^
This gave me the impression you're using the Z shell.
The C shell says:
% vi!
vi!: Command not found.
And bash says:
$ vi
been using vi [nvi], there are
*still* things I never had need to learn. so it turns out that
a lot of theses clever sh scripts are over my head it
takes mins - hours to figure out.
You notice that you're saying that to a programmer whose
shell scripts are usually
got to google this; been tooo long since I glanced at the code!
Probably zsh has something similar.
(for as many centuries as ive been using vi [nvi], there are
*still* things I never had need to learn. so it turns out that
a lot of theses clever sh scripts are over
after ~10. [?]
(for as many centuries as ive been using vi [nvi], there are
*still* things I never had need to learn. so it turns out that
a lot of theses clever sh scripts are over my head it
takes mins - hours to figure out.
You notice that you're saying
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:58:19 -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
Organization: Thought Unlimited. Public service Unix since 1986.
Of_Interest: With 27 years of service to the Unix community.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:05:06PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
I also assume the zsh has some settings on how
| less +G ;;
*) fc -ln 1 | grep ${1+$@} ;;
esac
}
If I dork up my history beyond belief, edit and reload the whole thing:
histedit () {
x=$HOME/.histedit
fc -W $x vi $x fc -R $x rm $x
}
In a previous message:
P % history 20 | awk 'BEGIN {cmds
Organization: Thought Unlimited. Public service Unix since 1986.
Of_Interest: With 27 years of service to the Unix community.
folks,
am I misremembering this feature, or didnt vi have a syntax where
you typed something like:
% vi[#] or % vi [-2] [or vi [-N
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:27:41 -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
am I misremembering this feature, or didnt vi have a syntax where
you typed something like:
% vi[#] or % vi [-2] [or vi [-N]
to repeat the last or the second from last command? with my
shoulder
Organization: Thought Unlimited. Public service Unix since 1986.
Of_Interest: With 27 years of service to the Unix community.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:23:27AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:27:41 -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
am I misremembering this feature, or didnt vi
wrote:
am I misremembering this feature, or didnt vi have a syntax where
you typed something like:
% vi[#] or % vi [-2] [or vi [-N]
to repeat the last or the second from last command? with my
shoulder sore bloody sore I need to save every key stroke
Unix since 1986.
Of_Interest: With 27 years of service to the Unix community.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:23:27AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:27:41 -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
am I misremembering this feature, or didnt vi have a syntax
where
Gary == Gary Kline kl...@thought.org writes:
Gary several months ago i asked this list if there were any =easier= text
Gary editors than vi[m] that had the abbrev ability.
GNU Emacs is easier for me than vim is. And it has abbrev mode.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 03:40:39AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 03:40:39 -0700
From: Randal L. Schwartz mer...@stonehenge.com
Subject: Re: what are the plain GUI text editors that use the abbrev [as in
vi]?
To: Gary Kline kl...@thought.org
Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List
[as in
vi]?
To: Gary Kline kl...@thought.org
Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Gary == Gary Kline kl...@thought.org writes:
Gary several months ago i asked this list if there were any =easier= text
Gary editors than vi[m] that had the abbrev ability.
GNU Emacs
Ok, so it's KATE or kwrite or whatever the KDE editor is. I
found something about 5yy (yank 5 lines). But nothing about setting
up the vi/vim abbrevs feature; how to use the abbreviations feature
in this KDE edititor. most of us---or, really, 100%---know how to
use the abbrev feature in vi
several months ago i asked this list if there were any =easier= text
editors than vi[m] that had the abbrev ability.
ab u you
ab r are
ab thz these
ab plz please
etc.
now that i have my key-click program working--however tententively--
it is time to work on the rest of my 'speech computer
vi(1) motion commands ]] and [[ move to
beginning of next or previous section respectively.
Using vi(1) :set sect command I can verify
that a section in my case is set to:
sections=NHSHH HUnhsh
Why then on a *.tex file the above motion
commands move to { in the first column?
For example
vi [[ or ]] move to line 5.
Maybe I'm the wrong person to say that, but I'm doing it wrong
all the time:
You are using \em, scoped by { ... } to emphasize text. The
recommended way is to use \textem{ ... }. If you try to use
the non-fragile LaTeX command instead of the low level TeX
macros
+++ Matthias Apitz [17/04/11 06:25 +0200]:
El día Saturday, April 16, 2011 a las 09:47:58PM -0400, david coder escribió:
interesting suggestions that i hadn't thought of, esp knowing nothing about
LaTeX. the 1st, however, results in spaces between characters, whereas what
i wanted was
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:25:45 +0200, Matthias Apitz g...@unixarea.de wrote:
El día Saturday, April 16, 2011 a las 09:47:58PM -0400, david coder escribió:
interesting suggestions that i hadn't thought of, esp knowing nothing about
LaTeX. the 1st, however, results in spaces between
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:59:55 -0400, david coder daco...@dcoder.net wrote:
+++ Matthias Apitz [17/04/11 06:25 +0200]:
El día Saturday, April 16, 2011 a las 09:47:58PM -0400, david coder escribió:
interesting suggestions that i hadn't thought of, esp knowing nothing about
LaTeX. the 1st,
can anybody tell me how to set vi, vim, or cream so that text is
double-spaced
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:02:36 -0400, david coder daco...@dcoder.net wrote:
can anybody tell me how to set vi, vim, or cream so that text is
double-spaced
+++ Polytropon [17/04/11 00:28 +0200]:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:02:36 -0400, david coder daco...@dcoder.net wrote:
can anybody tell me how to set vi, vim, or cream so that text is
double-spaced
El día Saturday, April 16, 2011 a las 09:47:58PM -0400, david coder escribió:
interesting suggestions that i hadn't thought of, esp knowing nothing about
LaTeX. the 1st, however, results in spaces between characters, whereas what
i wanted was double-spacing between lines in a piece to be
iF we throw out gvim since it is simply the GUI variant of
vim, are there are other GUI editors that use the kinds of :ab
abbreviations that vi does? I ask this because I don't know
wmany many people with speech imopairments or who cannot speak
at all would
On 02/21/11 18:32, Gary Kline wrote:
iF we throw out gvim since it is simply the GUI variant of
vim, are there are other GUI editors that use the kinds of :ab
abbreviations that vi does? I ask this because I don't know
wmany many people with speech imopairments
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
iF we throw out gvim since it is simply the GUI variant of
vim, are there are other GUI editors that use the kinds of :ab
abbreviations that vi does?
kate, the bundled text editor for KDE can use vi
On 21 February 2011 20:49, Fred f...@blakemfg.com wrote:
On 02/21/11 18:32, Gary Kline wrote:
iF we throw out gvim since it is simply the GUI variant of
vim, are there are other GUI editors that use the kinds of :ab
abbreviations that vi does? I ask this because I don't
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 06:49:18PM -0700, Fred wrote:
On 02/21/11 18:32, Gary Kline wrote:
iF we throw out gvim since it is simply the GUI variant of
vim, are there are other GUI editors that use the kinds of :ab
abbreviations that vi does? I ask this because I don't know
abbreviations that vi does?
kate, the bundled text editor for KDE can use vi bindings.
--
Adam Vande More
Interesting. I have use kate by accident a few times. But my
fingers did /pattern anf [hjkl] just by habit. So I quit out of
it and went back to [n]vi
This may apply to other systems that can use a vi clone, not just
the BSD's. I am looking for an easy way of turning on/off my list of
homonyms that I am trying to set up for my :abbreviation list.
So, is there a failsafe way of
(1) including my ~150 :ab list in vim and turning
Hello,
vi coredumps if one is resizing the xterm within the vi session runs. OS
is FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE/amd64 r207308: Wed Apr 28 09:10:03 CEST 2010,
ports are most recent, X11 has been recompiled in favor of
WITHOUT_NOUVEAU=YES
Kernel also utilises
options TEKEN_UTF8
options
Hi, all:
How could I use vi to repeat a word, say, 100 times in the same line, of course
with a space in between?
Thanks in advance
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
On 2010.02.19 16:11, gahn wrote:
Hi, all:
How could I use vi to repeat a word, say, 100 times in the same line, of
course with a space in between?
Yes. Using the word 'this' as an example:
100ithis ESC
Steve
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010, gahn wrote:
Hi, all:
How could I use vi to repeat a word, say, 100 times in the same line, of
course with a space in between?
Use a repeat count. The following is generated by this:
20a thiswordESC
thisword thisword thisword thisword thisword thisword thisword thisword
According to gahn ipfr...@yahoo.com on Fri, 02/19/10 at 16:11:
How could I use vi to repeat a word, say, 100 times in the same
line, of course with a space in between?
Edit your file: (vi xyz)
On an empty line, enter: ispacewordspace(esc)
Back up (left arrow) to the front of this line
Hi gurus:
I am trying to add a word on every line (right in front of every line) via vi.
Right now I have:
x
x
x
after that, I want to have:
new word x
new word x
new word x
How could I do that with vi
preface each line:
:%s/^/new word /g
--
J.D. Bronson
Information Technology
Aurora Health Care - Milwaukee WI
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:37:49 -0800 (PST) gahn wrote:
I am trying to add a word on every line (right in front of every line) via
vi. Right now I have:
x
x
x
Type this:
:%s/^/new word /
after that, I want to have:
new word x
new word x
new word
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:11:32PM -0600, J.D. Bronson wrote:
preface each line:
:%s/^/new word /g
The trailing g isn't needed because you only need one substitution on
each line. Thus:
:%s/^/new word /
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
On Friday 15 January 2010, gahn wrote:
Hi gurus:
I am trying to add a word on every line (right in front of every
line) via vi. Right now I have:
x
x
x
after that, I want to have:
new word x
new word x
new word x
How could I do
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:37:49 -0800 (PST), gahn ipfr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi gurus:
I am trying to add a word on every line (right in front of every line) via
vi. Right now I have:
x
x
x
after that, I want to have:
new word x
new word x
new word
Polytropon free...@edvax.de 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
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
-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500
Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
I like M$ Notepad - is there a version of that for FBSD?
Actually, there is. Wine implements it's own version of notepad
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 ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
I like M$ Notepad - is there a version of that for FBSD?
Actually, there is. Wine implements it's
Erich Dollansky wrote:
On 26 June 2009 am 10:02:30 Polytropon wrote:
Polytropon
From Magdeburg, Germany
big brother is watching me.
An xterm just came up with this message:
The default editor in FreeBSD is vi, which is efficient to use
when you have learned it, but somewhat user
2009/6/28 Mark E Doner nuint...@amplex.net:
Erich Dollansky wrote:
On 26 June 2009 am 10:02:30 Polytropon wrote:
Polytropon
From Magdeburg, Germany
big brother is watching me.
An xterm just came up with this message:
The default editor in FreeBSD is vi, which is efficient to use when
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com 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
ever need.
Well, I'm not good at vi. As a lazy guy (TM) I honestly prefer
ee, as long as the cursor keys work. If they don't, well, I
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
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 pm 14:01:02 Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:23:17 -0700, Gary Kline
kl...@thought.org 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
\search
and that's 97 and 44/100ths of what you'll ever need.
Well, I'm not good at vi. As a lazy guy (TM) I honestly prefer
ee, as long as the cursor keys work. If they don't, well, I
have a vi keyboard reference in my extremely important
documentation folder - and yes, it is a real
not need an editor programmers are used to edit their
source files.
I won't say anything different. For the usual maintenance and
get the damn thing working again tasks the /rescue editor,
especially vi, should be enough. Commands are i, a, and :wq.
From my experience, I can't remember
of what you'll ever need.
gary
ps: when bill j. dies and meets st. pete at the pearly
gate, pete'll say: So what did you do-- And bill
will say, I wrote vi. red-carpet is rolled out
:_)
You really should give credit where it is due.
I wrote
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500
Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com 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
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
2009/6/25 Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com:
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.
;
5992604 bytes and 50 library dependencies in my installation) and probably
beyond.
One of them, ed, is available in /bin and therefore in single-user mode.
Two of them, ed and vi, are available in /rescue and therefore in single-user
mode even when something horrible happens and libraries are broken
to allow the full system to start
again.
Rescue does not need an editor programmers are used to edit their
source files.
I won't say anything different. For the usual maintenance and
get the damn thing working again tasks the /rescue editor,
especially vi, should be enough. Commands are i
(60920 bytes) (both with two library dependencies) to emacs (in ports;
5992604 bytes and 50 library dependencies in my installation) and probably
beyond.
One of them, ed, is available in /bin and therefore in single-user mode.
Two of them, ed and vi, are available in /rescue and therefore
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:50 +0800, Erich Dollansky er...@apsara.com.sg 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
Hi,
On 27 June 2009 am 07:08:01 Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:50 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg 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
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 Flash. With
one reason. Secondly,
how many times does an average commandline user even think of
using ed when he needs to edit a file, even in the extreme case
where there are no alternatives ?
isn't there ee in the base system?
Till the improvements are in place, we need the alternative of
having vi
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
tool has to clearly fall either under the category of
non-interactive (grep, sed, ex) or interactive (vi, wget, sysinstall).
Oh really? Many Unix programs have traditionally had both a command
line mode of operation and an interactive mode, and that's still pretty
much still true. Usually when
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 were
the category of
non-interactive (grep, sed, ex) or interactive (vi, wget, sysinstall). The
case of non-interactive tools is simple : just do what you are told on the
commandline and exit. For interactive tools, at a minimum, the application
has to be show what data it is working on and what it does
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
2009/6/24 Manish Jain invalid.poin...@gmail.com:
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.
--
--
___
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:20:42 -0400, ill...@gmail.com ill...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/24 Manish Jain invalid.poin...@gmail.com:
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
?
ee is in /usr/bin, just like vi.
Till the improvements are in place, we need the alternative of
having vi under /bin rather than /usr/bin.
I do not see any reason to have a monster like vi there.
I agree, but for different reasons.
Though I love vi(m), I realize that not everyone does
snip
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
...@googlemail.com
bf1...@googlemail.com; FreeBSD Mailing List freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Thu Jun 25 15:50:01 2009
Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin
snip
20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code on a silly
rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible
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 been
vi.
my mistake.
To be honest, I never have had a problem with /usr since disks are
large enough to have all on only one. Of course, those days, when
it was two or more disks in a system and /usr died, it could have
helped.
It would be even better to have an editor like joe in /bin
than
-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 ed
not believe you. This must have been 30 years back.
As far as 16 years back, VT220/VT320 terminals were in wide use
in universities. Some of us learned our first regexp stuff by
reading the source of ed(1) and typing small programs in those
terminals. vi(1) was available for a long time before 1993
. There are many many
arguments pro and contra partitioning. It's a matter of intention.
It would be even better to have an editor like joe in /bin
than anything like vi.
Certainly.
Ok, then let us support joe.
Or the Midnight Commander's editor, mcedit. :-)
The good thing about vi
-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 Edition
even those
days anymore.
reading the source of ed(1) and typing small programs in those
terminals. vi(1) was available for a long time before 1993,
but this doesn't mean other editors had died out by then :)
If I remember right, I used something like ed only in the
Seventies.
A collegue
disk.
That /usr does not have to be on the same disk, is a different
question. If I do this, I will also be aware of the consequences.
It would be even better to have an editor like joe in
/bin than anything like vi.
Certainly.
Ok, then let us support joe.
Or the Midnight
was not the editor of choice even those
days anymore.
Heh, true. I only later found out though, when a local admin hit me in
the head with a SunOS vi manual. I've lost contact with him a long time
ago, but boy am I glad he pointed me at those SunOS manuals...
If I remember right, I used something like ed
in
maintenance mode (SUM) is often important for recovery
purposes. The OS leaves it to the admin to take such important
decisions. :-)
The good thing about vi - yes, there is such a thing - is the
fact that it even works completely under the weirdest
circumstances, e. g. if you
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 10:02:30 Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:55:48 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg 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.
On 26 June 2009 am 10:02:30 Polytropon wrote:
Polytropon
From Magdeburg, Germany
big brother is watching me.
An xterm just came up with this message:
The default editor in FreeBSD is vi, which is efficient to use
when you have learned it, but somewhat user-unfriendly. To use
ee (an easier
in FreeBSD is vi, which is efficient to use
when you have learned it, but somewhat user-unfriendly. To use
ee (an easier but less powerful editor) instead, set the
environment variable EDITOR to /usr/bin/ee
Isn't this the best reasoning why it should stay as it is?
The ee editor isn't
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 10:58:08 Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:33:56 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 26 June 2009 am 10:02:30 Polytropon wrote:
Polytropon
From Magdeburg, Germany
big brother is watching me.
Yes, Dr. Schäuble does so. :-)
yeah, he
files.
I won't say anything different. For the usual maintenance and
get the damn thing working again tasks the /rescue editor,
especially vi, should be enough. Commands are i, a, and :wq.
From my experience, I can't remember to have used anything
else.
--
Polytropon
From Magdeburg, Germany
Happy
not need an editor programmers are used to edit their
source files.
I won't say anything different. For the usual maintenance and
get the damn thing working again tasks the /rescue editor,
especially vi, should be enough. Commands are i, a, and :wq.
Don't forget about dd ;)
--
Glen Barber
learned our first regexp stuff by
not only there, but ed was not the editor of choice even those
days anymore.
reading the source of ed(1) and typing small programs in those
terminals. vi(1) was available for a long time before 1993,
but this doesn't mean other editors had died out
Heuer wrote:
Of course, only for VT-100 Terminals.
This is interesting. I learned vi on an ADM-3A, late-70's.
this was the dream terminal of mine during those days. It has had
a decent keyboard with an acceptable screen.
I really forgot the names of the terminals I have had to use
, 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
termcap, without which there would be no vi) were written later, at
UC Berkeley.
If you had a nice video terminal then you used vi
Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
Of course, only for VT-100 Terminals.
This is interesting. I learned vi on an ADM-3A, late-70's.
this was the dream terminal of mine during those days. It has had
a decent keyboard
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
I hope the next release will address these problems, as well as a pretty
reasonable request from me much earlier to move vi from /usr/bin to
/bin. Even in single-user mode, you almost always need an editor.
Which is why you have ed(1
for the sake of compliance with the
original concept of Unix.
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.
...
That's the whole problem of /rescue/vi. When
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 Unix with
2009/6/24 cpghost cpgh...@cordula.ws:
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
1 - 100 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
