From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from member.michigannet.com (mail.michigannet.com [208.49.116.30]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC100ABDB2 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:45:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from squish.home.loc (annex-0-4-port-33.dialup.coast.net [207.158.181.33]) by member.michigannet.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g896mLn11644; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:48:22 -0400 Received: by squish.home.loc (Postfix, from userid 666) id A560214723; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:45:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:45:55 -0400 From: Paul To: Alexander Gretencord Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20020909064555.GA4727@squish.home.loc> References: <200209061556.07881.arutha@gmx.de> <015101c255ba$7f85fa40$8204dca7@northamerica.corp.microsoft.com> <87heh3ruky.fsf@titine.scrogneugneu.org> <200209061914.52073.arutha@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200209061914.52073.arutha@gmx.de> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: No 'real' editor in /bin ? Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 2dbec3df-235b-4d4d-ad83-a8fad9fcc5fb X-Archives-Hash: 4275797ca61ff30a779c21104e8dbf53 Alexander Gretencord , 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