[gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Alexander Gretencord]

Well I haven't noticed till now, but there is no real editor in /bin to use 
when you have to recover the system. Of course you can use ed or sed to edit 
whatever file you have to, but if that's what you want then why have nano on 
the install cd :) The problem of course only arises when /usr can't be 
mounted (being an nfs mount or whatever).

So wouldn't it be wise to either install nano in /bin if that's gentoo's 
default editor *sigh* or put vi into /bin as you normally know that on any 
unix the one editor that's always there is vi. (no I'm not neccessarily 
talking vim tho it can be made quite small too :))


Alex

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Eric Jacoboni]

>>>>> "Alexander" == Alexander Gretencord <arutha@gmx.de> writes:

Alexander> So wouldn't it be wise to either install nano in /bin if
Alexander> that's gentoo's default editor *sigh* or put vi into /bin
Alexander> as you normally know that on any unix the one editor that's
Alexander> always there is vi.

I admit it's rather disturbing to not have vi as part of the base
system. nano is perhaps ok for new Unix users but it's a mess for
me. That's the first ebuild i've emerged.
-- 
Éric Jacoboni, né il y a 1334764725 secondes

Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Jacoboni" <jaco@scrogneugneu.org>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?


> I admit it's rather disturbing to not have vi as part of the base
> system. nano is perhaps ok for new Unix users but it's a mess for
> me. That's the first ebuild i've emerged.

Same here.  And I would REALLY like to see a nicer vi than ex emulating vi.
I once ran across the BSD vi ported to Linux.  FreeBSD (and presumably
NetBSD and OpenBSD) has a very nice vi, one I am very familiar with and
like.

Tom Veldhouse

Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Eric Jacoboni]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas T Veldhouse <veldy@veldy.net> writes:

Thomas> Same here.  And I would REALLY like to see a nicer vi than ex
Thomas> emulating vi.  I once ran across the BSD vi ported to Linux.
Thomas> FreeBSD (and presumably NetBSD and OpenBSD) has a very nice
Thomas> vi, one I am very familiar with and like.

Seconded, using Free/NetBSD, i always forget to ESC before to move my
cursor in insert mode ;-) I'm always surprised with the GenToo Vi
package, which seems to not allow this by default (but, that's the good
old vi default behaviour, if i remember).

I know i'm corny, but there is A Unix Editor, and VI is its
name. Given this, we may prefer another one : nano (humph...) or
Emacs (that's the one i'm using for all my work) but it must be a VI
somewhere. 
-- 
Éric Jacoboni, né il y a 1334770626 secondes

Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Antti Sykari]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:31:38AM -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> From: "Eric Jacoboni" <jaco@scrogneugneu.org>
> > I admit it's rather disturbing to not have vi as part of the base
> > system. nano is perhaps ok for new Unix users but it's a mess for
> > me. That's the first ebuild i've emerged.
> 
> Same here.  And I would REALLY like to see a nicer vi than ex emulating vi.
> I once ran across the BSD vi ported to Linux.  FreeBSD (and presumably
> NetBSD and OpenBSD) has a very nice vi, one I am very familiar with and
> like.

NetBSD uses nvi, which can be found at app-editors/nvi:

Version $Revision: 1.80 $ (2001-06-18) The CSRG, University of
California, Berkeley.

app-editors/vi is vi 3.7 by Bill Joy, posixized by Gunnar Ritter:

Version 3.7, 6/7/85 (gritter) 4/3/02

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Ah, not that is much better.  nvi -- I think I will continue to use that.

Tom Veldhouse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Antti Sykari" <jsykari@gamma.hut.remove-this.fi>
To: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net>
Cc: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; "Eric Jacoboni" <jaco@scrogneugneu.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?


> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:31:38AM -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > From: "Eric Jacoboni" <jaco@scrogneugneu.org>
> > > I admit it's rather disturbing to not have vi as part of the base
> > > system. nano is perhaps ok for new Unix users but it's a mess for
> > > me. That's the first ebuild i've emerged.
> >
> > Same here.  And I would REALLY like to see a nicer vi than ex emulating
vi.
> > I once ran across the BSD vi ported to Linux.  FreeBSD (and presumably
> > NetBSD and OpenBSD) has a very nice vi, one I am very familiar with and
> > like.
>
> NetBSD uses nvi, which can be found at app-editors/nvi:
>
> Version $Revision: 1.80 $ (2001-06-18) The CSRG, University of
> California, Berkeley.
>
> app-editors/vi is vi 3.7 by Bill Joy, posixized by Gunnar Ritter:
>
> Version 3.7, 6/7/85 (gritter) 4/3/02
>
> A.
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Friday 06 September 2002 17:44, Eric Jacoboni wrote:

> I'm always surprised with the GenToo Vi package, which seems to not allow
> this by default (but, that's the good old vi default behaviour, if i 
> remember).

Well if your vimrc says nothing about not being compatible to vi that's the 
default behavior yes, but nothing that can't be solved.

> I know i'm corny, but there is A Unix Editor, and VI is its
> name. Given this, we may prefer another one : nano (humph...) or
> Emacs (that's the one i'm using for all my work) but it must be a VI
> somewhere.

Well my first concern is the no-editor-in-/bin problem, the second is that 
gentoo might choose to not have vi sitting there which would be bad :)

So it's not only me that has no editor in /bin right ?

Alex

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

[gentoo-dev] Re: No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Paul]

Alexander Gretencord <arutha@gmx.de>, on Fri Sep 06, 2002 [07:14:52 PM] said:
> On Friday 06 September 2002 17:44, Eric Jacoboni wrote:
> 
> > I'm always surprised with the GenToo Vi package, which seems to not allow
> > this by default (but, that's the good old vi default behaviour, if i 
> > remember).
> 
> Well if your vimrc says nothing about not being compatible to vi that's the 
> default behavior yes, but nothing that can't be solved.
> 
> > I know i'm corny, but there is A Unix Editor, and VI is its
> > name. Given this, we may prefer another one : nano (humph...) or
> > Emacs (that's the one i'm using for all my work) but it must be a VI
> > somewhere.
> 
> Well my first concern is the no-editor-in-/bin problem, the second is that 
> gentoo might choose to not have vi sitting there which would be bad :)
> 
> So it's not only me that has no editor in /bin right ?
> 
> Alex

	Hi;
	
	Well, I gave nano a shot, but it screwed up my files (no
-w on invokation; my fault) Thankfully ed was there. ed is all
anyone needs.
	And the Standard Text Editor is Ed!

	http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html

	All Jokes aside, anyone who can get around in vi should
be fine in ed, or they should reconsider their unix  skills. I
personally think that if I cant have vim, ed is best. And praise
be gentoo that I can emerge vim without all the stunning bloat
with my USE settings...
	At least baselayout seems to have droped that piggy termcap..

Paul
set@pobox.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Piers Cawley]

Eric Jacoboni <jaco@scrogneugneu.org> writes:

>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas T Veldhouse <veldy@veldy.net> writes:
>
> Thomas> Same here.  And I would REALLY like to see a nicer vi than ex
> Thomas> emulating vi.  I once ran across the BSD vi ported to Linux.
> Thomas> FreeBSD (and presumably NetBSD and OpenBSD) has a very nice
> Thomas> vi, one I am very familiar with and like.
>
> Seconded, using Free/NetBSD, i always forget to ESC before to move my
> cursor in insert mode ;-) I'm always surprised with the GenToo Vi
> package, which seems to not allow this by default (but, that's the good
> old vi default behaviour, if i remember).
>
> I know i'm corny, but there is A Unix Editor, and VI is its
> name. 

No it isn't. 'ed' is its name. But nobody in their right mind actually
*uses* it unless they're very, very desperate...

-- 
Piers

   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?

[gentoo-dev] Re: No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Monday 09 September 2002 08:45, Paul wrote:

> 	Well, I gave nano a shot, but it screwed up my files (no
> -w on invokation; my fault)

Umn well I don't think it's you fault but a design fault in nano (or gentoos 
fault for choosing nano as default without aliasing nano to nano -w :))

> Thankfully ed was there. ed is all anyone needs.

Well as I said ed sucks :P

> 	All Jokes aside, anyone who can get around in vi should
> be fine in ed, or they should reconsider their unix  skills.

Well ed is even worse than vi from a newbies pov and even when you're quite 
used to vi I think ed sucks.

> I personally think that if I cant have vim, ed is best.

When I can't have vim I still like vi.


Alex

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Re: [gentoo-dev] No 'real' editor in /bin ?

[oford]

On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 03:09, Piers Cawley wrote:

> > I know i'm corny, but there is A Unix Editor, and VI is its
> > name. 
> 
> No it isn't. 'ed' is its name. But nobody in their right mind actually
> *uses* it unless they're very, very desperate...
> 

I used it just the other day fixing a single flag in an httpd.conf.

I had completed the edit in under 15 seconds.  I think ed is extremely
handy pretty useful.  And I'm not even an old assembly geek ;)

Owen