On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 01:39:21AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > > > On 01/03/2015 10:07 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 10:41:22PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > >> On 01/01/2015 01:04 PM, dmccunney wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, David Seikel <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I have a simple test to decide if I like an editor as a result of these > >>>> decades of random editor usage. If I can't sit down with the editor > >>>> and figure out how to do basic editing and saving in less than a > >>>> minute (sans documentation), then in my opinion it's a crap editor. > >>>> Both TECO and vi fail this test miserably, though oddly enough I have a > >>>> soft spot for TECO. > >>> > >>> These days, the general assumption is that you can open a file in an > >>> editor with "<editor> <filename>", and that once up, cursor keys can > >>> be used to move around in the file and that text can be added where > >>> desired by typing it at the cursor location and deleted with Backspace > >>> or Delete keys. > >>> > >>> Vi originated in the days when some of those assumptions might not be > >>> true. Some early terminals on Unix systems didn't *have* cursor keys > >>> or F-keys. The vi command set and separation between input and > >>> command modes was a result. > >> > >> Indeed. > >> > >> However, ubuntu's decision to only allow you to cursor around in insert > >> mode when you call "vim" and to _disable_ that when you call it as "vi" > >> (so the cursor keys instead crap B[ and such all over your text) is > >> insane and stupid. And the fix is to delete /etc/vim/vimrc.tiny and make > >> it a symlink to just "vimrc" in the same directory. And the fact you > >> _need_ to do that on each new ubuntu install is just one more way that > >> Mark Shuttleworth is trying to cram his personal preferences down > >> people's throats. > > > > Yes this is idiotic. > > > >> (Redirecting /bin/sh to point to dash instead of bash was still a dumber > >> move, though.) > > > > I fail to see how this was dumb. It made shellshock a non-issue > > When they switched to dash I _segfaulted_ the thing multiple times. It > was a buggy pile of crap for _years_. > > It's interesting you think shellshock was a non-issue, presumably that's > why it didn't make the news or anything? (I'm consistently amused that
I don't think shellshock was a non-issue. I just think it was mostly a non-issue for systems that don't use bash as /bin/sh or their login shell for restricted accounts (forced command in authorized_keys file), and this is one reason I think it was a good move not to make /bin/sh be a link to bash. Yes some people write crappy scripts that depend on bash but don't use #!/bin/bash. I don't and I don't like paying the penalty for people who do this. They should fix their broken scripts, and preferably they should write portable shell script instead of bash. I suspect you'll be more agreeable to this position once more bash-specific scripts start depending on post-GPLv3 versions of bash... :-) Rich _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
