Arch Linux uses nano in its boot drive. Pretty simple, gets the job
done. (They also include vi.)
Dave Raymond
On 11/16/19, Roderick wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, U'll Be King of the Stars wrote:
>
>> I assumed that the canonical reference for ed was K, "The Unix
>> Programming
>
>
On 2019-11-15, gwes wrote:
> Still not huge. I don't know what the current upper limit for
> programs in the install medium is. As this is a totally irrelevant
> thread, I suspect that squashing teco into the single install
> executable would only raise it 250K because it uses only very
> vanilla
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, U'll Be King of the Stars wrote:
I assumed that the canonical reference for ed was K, "The Unix Programming
Reference = man page. Under /usr/share/doc/usd/ in an old BSD System
you may find Brian W. Kernighan ed Tutorial. Just google for it.
Sam looks very interesting
U'll Be King of the Stars writes:
> This has gotten me thinking about whether line-based editing is really
> the best abstraction for simple editors.
Yes. Yes it is. You can prise ed out of my cold dead hands.
I don't get where the desire for an editor in the installer comes
from. If you have
On 11/15/19 1:59 PM, gwes wrote:
TECOC from github...
For general amusement:
without video (curses)
UID PID PPID CPU PRI NI VSZ RSS WCHAN STAT TT TIME COMMAND
1000 29775 86827 0 28 0 540 1296 - T p2 0:00.00 ./tecoc
$ size tecoc
text data bss dec hex
On 16/11/2019 06:55, Roderick wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 1970, Chris Bennett wrote:
Yes, but ed also allows one to easily work with only 1-3 lines of
screen.
I think with every line editor is so?
I don't know of any line editors aside from ed, Vi's open mode, Sam,
Edlin, and QED and its
On Thu, 22 Jan 1970, Chris Bennett wrote:
Yes, but ed also allows one to easily work with only 1-3 lines of
screen.
I think with every line editor is so?
The power of ed is in the regular expressions, search and substitution.
The only thing that I find more comfortable in sos and miss in
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:02:16PM +, Roderick wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> > Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> > > How large is a C implementation of TECO?
> >
> > he probably means cat plus the shell's redirection capability.
>
> I think, TECO is much more
TECOC from github...
For general amusement:
without video (curses)
UID PID PPID CPU PRI NI VSZ RSS WCHAN STAT TT TIME COMMAND
1000 29775 86827 0 28 0 540 1296 - T p2 0:00.00 ./tecoc
$ size tecoc
text data bss dec hex
102449 13096 13424 128969
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 1:17 PM Roderick wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Ian Darwin wrote:
> > Who needs cat when you have echo?
>
> Echo? Necessary?! Terrible waste of paper in a teletype terminal!
> I remember editing with sos in TOPS 10 after giving the command:
> tty noecho.
This is starting
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Ian Darwin wrote:
Who needs cat when you have echo?
Echo? Necessary?! Terrible waste of paper in a teletype terminal!
I remember editing with sos in TOPS 10 after giving the command:
tty noecho.
Rod.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
How large is a C implementation of TECO?
he probably means cat plus the shell's redirection capability.
I think, TECO is much more powerfull that ed and vi.
But perhaps DEC 10s SOS?
I do not know if it runs in
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:08:26AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> > > I think, for editing config files, there are sure editors that
> > > are simpler, smaller, not so powerful, but easier to use than ed.
> >
> > By all means, do not keep us in suspense and tell
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > I think, for editing config files, there are sure editors that
> > are simpler, smaller, not so powerful, but easier to use than ed.
>
> By all means, do not keep us in suspense and tell us the names of
> these editors.
>
> How large is a C implementation of
On 2019-11-15, Roderick wrote:
>> ed is included in the ramdisk, but if your use case is using vi to fix a
>
> I imagine, it is there for using it in scripts.
Interestingly enough, the installer itself does not use ed, as far
as I can tell.
* I pretty regularly use ed to perform some
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Noth wrote:
ed is included in the ramdisk, but if your use case is using vi to fix a
I imagine, it is there for using it in scripts.
I think, for editing config files, there are sure editors that
are simpler, smaller, not so powerful, but easier to use than ed.
Rod.
seen without some form
of vi.
The ramdisk space is extremely tight. We include what we feel is
necessary, PUSHING OUT other stuff as priorities shift. If you have watch
the commits closely, you would have seen drivers vanish from the ramdisks
on tight archs as new functionality was added.
Given
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:57 PM Brennan Vincent
wrote:
> I am asking this out of pure curiosity, not to criticize or start a debate.
>
> Why does the ramdisk not include /usr/bin/vi by default? To date,
> it is the only UNIX-like environment I have ever seen without some
Brennan Vincent wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am asking this out of pure curiosity, not to criticize or start a debate.
>
> Why does the ramdisk not include /usr/bin/vi by default? To date,
> it is the only UNIX-like environment I have ever seen without some
> form of vi.
For the same reasons it
Hello,
I am asking this out of pure curiosity, not to criticize or start a debate.
Why does the ramdisk not include /usr/bin/vi by default? To date,
it is the only UNIX-like environment I have ever seen without some form
of vi.
20 matches
Mail list logo
