On 25 Jun 1998, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been away a few days.
>
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 17 Jun 1998, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > > Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > Did you use X and x as declared on the help sc
Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been away a few days.
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 17 Jun 1998, Martin Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This is the old .rc file, left behind by a dpkg artifact during the
> > > upgrade. While future vers
Igor Grobman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some time around Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:07:24 +1000,
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > elvis-tiny is small enough to fit on too (although that may have
> > changed now that we use slang rather than ncurses - can
> > elvis-tiny use slang??) and pro
On Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 09:30:17AM -0400, Ray Kinsella wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
>
> > * Michael Dietrich (Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 04:31:52AM +0200)
> > > if you all do not stop this discussion i start writing an editor. easy
> > > to use just as EDIT.EXE. for anybod
> > if you all do not stop this discussion i start writing an editor.
> > easy to use just as EDIT.EXE. for anybody, especially a beginner.
> > also for professionals.
> > :wq
> Go ahead, it wouldn't hurt, would it? :-)
OK, i would start if everybody promisses to stop the discussion if or
if not a
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> * Michael Dietrich (Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 04:31:52AM +0200)
> > if you all do not stop this discussion i start writing an editor. easy
> > to use just as EDIT.EXE. for anybody, especially a beginner. also for
> > professionals.
> > :wq
>
> Go ah
* Michael Dietrich (Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 04:31:52AM +0200)
> if you all do not stop this discussion i start writing an editor. easy
> to use just as EDIT.EXE. for anybody, especially a beginner. also for
> professionals.
> :wq
Go ahead, it wouldn't hurt, would it? :-)
--
SSM - Stig Sandbeck Mat
if you all do not stop this discussion i start writing an editor. easy
to use just as EDIT.EXE. for anybody, especially a beginner. also for
professionals.
:wq
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some time around Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:07:24 +1000,
Craig Sanders wrote:
> elvis-tiny is small enough to fit on too (although that may have changed
> now that we use slang rather than ncurses - can elvis-tiny use slang??)
> and provides a decent editor for people who can't/won't use cr
On 17 Jun 1998, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is the old .rc file, left behind by a dpkg artifact during the
> > upgrade. While future versions of ae will be able to remove this file, I
> > don't see Brian letting it into hamm, but as it is only usef
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is the old .rc file, left behind by a dpkg artifact during the
> upgrade. While future versions of ae will be able to remove this file, I
> don't see Brian letting it into hamm, but as it is only useful in this
> mode during an install, everything wi
On 15 Jun 1998, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, but note that the current version of ae fixes a lot of these
> > problems. [I found this out while attempting to verify some
> > of my gripes about ae.]
>
> Is it just me, or does the vi mode in the curr
On 15 Jun 1998, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, but note that the current version of ae fixes a lot of these
> > problems. [I found this out while attempting to verify some
> > of my gripes about ae.]
>
> Is it just me, or does the vi mode in the curr
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, but note that the current version of ae fixes a lot of these
> problems. [I found this out while attempting to verify some
> of my gripes about ae.]
Is it just me, or does the vi mode in the current version of ae not work
at all? I tried
ae -f /etc
Jeff Sheinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that `ae' is what's available. I just go bananas
> trying to use it. It just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps others
> react to ae in a similar way?
Yes, but note that the current version of ae fixes a lot of these
problems. [I found thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree tottally. Personally..my favoprite editor right now is ee. I use it
I suppose ee is also a candidate for the rescue disks if it fits (it
offers searching, which is something that ae doesn't do, and it's
smaller than elvis-tiny).
Also, note th
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Absolute novices unwilling to learn should be lead gently to
> the nearest windows box.
As I see it, it's not a matter of `learning' but of `using' what
is available on the boot disk.
My usual editor is emacs. Today I used `ee' for the first time,
while install
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 10:27:52AM -0400, Z-Y [Jerry] wrote:
> greet all,
>
> I am no guru. But let's stop this war!
yes...wars are unproductive..and in the case of this type of war
doesn't even have the benefit of getting rid of some people off the planet.
> To me, choice of editor depends on
Michael Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> do you really think an absolute novice would understand why he or she
> should press j or k and not those fancy key with the arrows with the
> correct direction instead and that those key should won't insert those
> letters printed on them into the text
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 03:08:15PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Remember that we're talking theory here, even elvis-tiny is
> currently bigger than ae, and space is cramped on the rescue
> disk.
How about gzexe?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
L
> > Absolute novices unwilling to learn should be lead gently to
> > the nearest windows box.
> How about something like:
[..]
> This editor has two modes, in Input mode you may enter text,
> in Command mode you may alter previously entered text.
>
> To enter input mode from command mode, hi
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe the text you wrote could be displayed when vi is started (like emacs
> has some text at start-up) ?
Remember that we're talking theory here, even elvis-tiny is
currently bigger than ae, and space is cramped on the rescue
disk.
That said, I was
> I know that this is sufficient for simple edits, and this is
> all I really know about Vi.
>
> We should have a Debian tutorial soon (IIRC). If we have a good chapter on
> Vi in it, I think vi on the rescue disk should not be a problem.
>
> Maybe the text you wrote could be displayed when vi is
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 09:53:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Absolute novices unwilling to learn should be lead gently to
> > the nearest windows box.
>
> How about something like:
I think you made a good summarize of my total vi knowledge :)
Z-Y [Jerry] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am no guru. But let's stop this war!
I apologize for everything I said which seemed combative.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Most features? *VI*? or you mean XEmacs? Since when has vi
> been an editor with features? ;-)
>
> manoj
Kidding, right ?
Do ":help" in VIM and enjoy reading about "Vi features" till the end of the
month :)
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +-
greet all,
I am no guru. But let's stop this war! To me, choice of editor depends on
your experience, skill and task on hand. I use vi and my boss at work uses
emacs. We both like our own choice very much and enjoy the way our choice
works for us. But we never try to "convert" each other, fortunat
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most features? *VI*? or you mean XEmacs? Since when has vi
> been an editor with features? ;-)
The biggest advantage of vi over xemacs is that vi is easier on the
wrists. For example, vi's . command (repeat last command which changed
the text) i
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Absolute novices unwilling to learn should be lead gently to
> the nearest windows box.
How about something like:
introductory vi help (unmap '?' to restore reverse searching)
This editor has two modes, in Input mode you may enter text,
in Com
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 03:49:29AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> Frankly, is is a disservice to introduce anyone with that
> opinion to Linux, for they shall never be able to take care of the
> machine itself, and they shall go away bad mouthing Debian. Actually,
> anyone who thi
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 03:53:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marcus> Problem is, you'll never be able to convince a DOS user of a
> Marcus> text editor with different modes. Sorry, I don't think a dumb
> Marcus> newbie
Hi,
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Jason> Manoj, does the kernel package always build bzimages or does it look at
Jason> the size of gzip -9 vmlinux and decide based on that?
The kernel makefile defaults to a
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Oh, cool.
Marcus> "DEBIAN: Sorry, you need a ph.d. in computer science,
Marcus> 10-year-experience in unix system administration or a good
Marcus> handbook on the obscure "vi" program before you can edit a
Marcus> file du
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Problem is, you'll never be able to convince a DOS user of a
Marcus> text editor with different modes. Sorry, I don't think a dumb
Marcus> newbie should be able to install a workstation, but he should
Marcus> be able to ins
Tomislav Vujec wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 09:53:16PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Problem is, you'll never be able to convince a DOS user of a text editor
> > with different modes. Sorry, I don't think a dumb newbie should be able to
> > install a workstation, but he should be able t
On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 09:53:16PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Problem is, you'll never be able to convince a DOS user of a text editor
> with different modes. Sorry, I don't think a dumb newbie should be able to
> install a workstation, but he should be able to install the base system and
> p
On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 02:41:56PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "DEBIAN: Sorry, you need a ph.d. in computer science, 10-year-experience
> > in unix system administration or a good handbook on the obscure "vi" program
> > before you can edit a file dur
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "DEBIAN: Sorry, you need a ph.d. in computer science, 10-year-experience
> in unix system administration or a good handbook on the obscure "vi" program
> before you can edit a file during installation process.
> Don't even think of installing it."
Er..
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 03:38:59PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> If vi would fit on the rescue disk, do you think we would be discussing
> ae?
>
> To be able to do an install with the rescue disk the space priorities
> don't allow anything but ae in that environment. When you can get vi's
> binary
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > ae already does this, and provides a reasonably vi ish interface, just to
> > satisfy those whose fingers are only programmed for vi.
>
> Personally, I find ae's vi-compatibility even worse then normal ae: it
> tric
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > everyone can use joe. it might be very frustrateing but it's possible.
>
> We already have that with ae. Is Joe smaller than ae?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ ll /bin/ae /usr/bin/joe
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root ro
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>
> editor.exe is the only editor that you can count on being there if all else
> fails and it's absence or replacement would be VERY notable to those who
> expect editor.exe
> lets do a ratio of dos/win* users that will install linux,
> and unix users that will install l
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
: Previously Dale Scheetz wrote:
: > ae already does this, and provides a reasonably vi ish interface, just to
: > satisfy those whose fingers are only programmed for vi.
:
: Personally, I find ae's vi-compatibility even worse then normal ae: it
: tric
On Thu 11 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > everyone can use joe. it might be very frustrateing but it's possible.
>
> We already have that with ae. Is Joe smaller than ae?
no. much bigger and much more useable IMO.
andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
new installations are done by windows users, not by unix system admins.
at least 90% ...
while ed, vi and emacs might be nice for old unix hackers,
joe is the right choice for old dos hackers.
i'm useing vim everyday, and i will rather use sed than ae or that mini vi.
joe would be acceptable, too.
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > ae already does this, and provides a reasonably vi ish interface, just to
> > satisfy those whose fingers are only programmed for vi.
>
> Personally, I find ae's vi-compatibility even worse then normal ae: it
> tric
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> everyone can use joe. it might be very frustrateing but it's possible.
We already have that with ae. Is Joe smaller than ae?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
> If vi would fit on the rescue disk, do you think we would be discussing
> ae?
> To be able to do an install with the rescue disk the space priorities
> don't allow anything but ae in that environment. When you can get vi's
> binary size down to the footprint of ae, I will be glad to replace it.
(vi)
> It is the only editor that you can count on being there if all else fails
> and it's absence or replacement would be VERY notable to those who expect
> vi.
editor.exe is the only editor that you can count on being there if all else
fails and it's absence or replacement would be VERY notabl
i'm useing vim every day. i cannot even open or save a file in emacs, or your
it (hey, i tried !).
a working joe is better than a brain damaged vi or ae.
andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At a client's place with a broken SunOS 4 box? Need to fix the /usr
> partition and password file. Chances are are you'll have to use vi.
> Similarly, BSD, SCO, etc, etc...
maybe you should learn edlin, it's the only editor available on computers
running msdos 2.11.
or how to use vms, maybe on
new installations are done by windows users, not by unix system admins.
at least 90% ...
while ed, vi and emacs might be nice for old unix hackers,
joe is the right choice for old dos hackers.
i'm useing vim everyday, and i will rather use sed than ae or that mini vi.
joe would be acceptable, too
On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 04:15:33PM +0200, Michael Dietrich wrote:
> > If vi would fit on the rescue disk, do you think we would be discussing
> > ae?
> i think it's not a good idea to put vi there. this editor can be used
> by a profi only and a prof can use any other editor too. a beginner
> won't
Previously Dale Scheetz wrote:
> ae already does this, and provides a reasonably vi ish interface, just to
> satisfy those whose fingers are only programmed for vi.
Personally, I find ae's vi-compatibility even worse then normal ae: it
tricks me into thinking it's vi, but I can never resist using
Quoting Dale Scheetz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Another solution is the one that slackware provides. They build a "bunch"
> of kernels, each one for a specific hardware configuration (broad enought
> to cover a range of hardware, and chosen to keep incopatibly drivers out
> of the picture {like the wd9
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Michael Dietrich wrote:
> > > > Alright, the more I think about this, the more I think that
> > > > James
> > > > is probably right. (NO flames, people can change there minds
> > > > can't
> > > > they?) Mc doesn't belong in the base set.
> > > i agre
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:17:20PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > When you boot the kernel it copies the Image from the disk to 0x1000
> > (about 64k). If the Image is beyond 600k then you have a problem because
> > it suddenly will not all fit in lo
> If vi would fit on the rescue disk, do you think we would be discussing
> ae?
i think it's not a good idea to put vi there. this editor can be used
by a profi only and a prof can use any other editor too. a beginner
won't be able to use vi but the easy to use small editor. maybe ae is
bad, but it
> > path without saying what that set path should be. So, why do the
> > vi users like _using_ vi? (Someone already said "it's standard"...
> > can I get real reasons now? :)
i'm faster with vi. that's all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
> > > Alright, the more I think about this, the more I think that James
> > > is probably right. (NO flames, people can change there minds can't
> > > they?) Mc doesn't belong in the base set.
> > i agree to this. neither does vi or emacs belong there, even if emacs
> > whould be an 30KB size
> I'm told problem is related to turning on the "A12 Gate" and the
> cache. It was never explained to me in detail, but it has something
> to do with the cache having the wrong contents (or rather the wrong
> tags on the contents) after the A12 line was set. It was never clear
> to me why they co
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > Tried booting from a floppy created with dd?
> >
> > Same problem, if memory serves correctly. Will check it out asap.
> Upon reflection it occures to me that there are two other possibilities
> 1)
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Tried booting from a floppy created with dd?
>
> Same problem, if memory serves correctly. Will check it out asap.
Upon reflection it occures to me that there are two other possibilities
1) The bios calls to access high memory make it so that the
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:44:53PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:39:01PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > I've no idea why my desktop hates it. Everything else about the machine
> > > > is
> > > > perfect, and it's
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:39:01PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > I've no idea why my desktop hates it. Everything else about the machine is
> > > perfect, and it's a custom-built clone rather than some IBM or Compaq
> > > box, the sought with wei
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:39:01PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > I've no idea why my desktop hates it. Everything else about the machine is
> > perfect, and it's a custom-built clone rather than some IBM or Compaq
> > box, the sought with weird BIOSen.
>
> What is your boot loader? I've only i
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > If your kernel is > 600k you MUST use a bzImage and you MUST load it into
>
> So is there any other advantage? 600k is pretty big for a default
> kernel, especially since we are making heavy use of modules. My custom 2.0.34
> is 300k odd, although o
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:17:20PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> When you boot the kernel it copies the Image from the disk to 0x1000
> (about 64k). If the Image is beyond 600k then you have a problem because
> it suddenly will not all fit in low memory.
>
> A bzImage is more sinister. After it
> Can someone give me a quick summary of bzImage vs zImage and why Debian
> needs to use bzImage on the root disks at all? Not only does it cause
> problems with some notebooks, it causes problems my desktop -- spontaneous
> reboots after "Uncompressing Linux" sometimes.
Well. It goes like t
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 05:24:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> kernel image files (some laptops still can't boot a bzImage) as well as
> some alternative root.bin choices. A more powerful rescue disk, separate
> from the installation disk would be a great place to start.
Can someone give me a qui
Dale Scheetz writes:
> To be able to do an install with the rescue disk the space priorities
> don't allow anything but ae in that environment. When you can get vi's
> binary size down to the footprint of ae, I will be glad to replace it.
> Until then all talk of superior usability are nothing but
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If vi would fit on the rescue disk, do you think we would be discussing
>ae?
$ ll elvis-tiny
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root67244 Feb 22 15:45 elvis-tiny*
$ ll /bin/ae
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root24012 Apr 13 15
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Christopher C Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > If vi would fit on the rescue disk, do you think we would be discussing
> > ae?
>
> I guess not, then...
>
> > To be able to do an install with the rescue disk the space priorities
> > don't a
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> If vi would fit on the rescue disk, do you think we would be discussing
> ae?
I guess not, then...
> To be able to do an install with the rescue disk the space priorities
> don't allow anything but ae in that environment. When you can get vi's
> binary
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Like I said, overall, I think this issue is being discussed on a comfort
> level right now. I think we should really be hashing out whether or not
> we want to cater to newbies (ae) or to experienced systems admins (vi).
> I'm for the latter,
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> > PS: If you say that a sysadmin expects "vi" to be there, link vi to ae on a
> > rescue disk. He *will* have an editor, this should be sufficient.
>
> Argh!
>
> Please don't do this. It used to drive me nuts to type vi and get ae
> (whether
> in ae
Philip Hands wrote:
>
> Please don't do this. It used to drive me nuts to type vi and get ae (whether
> in ae or braindamaged-vi mode). If there is some vital reason for removing
> vi, it should be replaced with a script that says something along the lines
> of:
>
> VI is missing from this r
> PS: If you say that a sysadmin expects "vi" to be there, link vi to ae on a
> rescue disk. He *will* have an editor, this should be sufficient.
Argh!
Please don't do this. It used to drive me nuts to type vi and get ae (whether
in ae or braindamaged-vi mode). If there is some vital reason fo
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 04:30:42PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jim wrote:
> >
> > Vi is a standard. Everyone who considers themselves a 'systems
> > administrator' should learn how to use vi. This is because even on very
> > ol
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 04:30:42PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jim wrote:
>
> Vi is a standard. Everyone who considers themselves a 'systems
> administrator' should learn how to use vi. This is because even on very
> old systems, you will find vi on the base system.
When it c
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jim wrote:
> What is it people see in vi in terms of _using_ it? My opinion FWIW is that
> vi's presentation rivals that of dselect in general, with vi inching dselect
> out for not forcing one to follow a set path without saying what that set
> path should be. So, why do the
Jim wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> The editor expert who cannot even break his lines at 80 characters ..
>
>So shoot me; I'm using exmh, which appears to wrap words and doesn't get aro
>und
>to actually inserting the carriage returns...
>
That's a preference setting:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The editor expert who cannot even break his lines at 80 characters ..
So shoot me; I'm using exmh, which appears to wrap words and doesn't get around
to actually inserting the carriage returns...
And I'm no expert... I just wanna know what all the furor is over vi :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Alright, the more I think about this, the more I think that James
is probably right. (NO flames, people can change there minds can't they?)
Mc doesn't belong in the base set. However I do think more attention
should be paid to the user. (not alot more ju
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 11:02:55AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why? I think you see vi as I see gpm and they see mc: as an "essential
> > convenience".
>
> vi has the advantage of being backward compatible into the early '80s.
>
> The only unix editors which vi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>What is it people see in vi in terms of _using_ it? My opinion FWIW is that
>vi's presentation rivals that of dselect in general, with vi inching dselect
>out for not forcing one to follow a
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't ease of use more important than standardness when it comes to
> an editor to be used for a rescue situation? I think that I would try
> doing an alternative set of boot disks to see how folx liked them. Is
> it possible to make mc use vi? On the rescue disk, s
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why? I think you see vi as I see gpm and they see mc: as an "essential
> > > convenience".
> >
> > vi has the advantage of being backward compatible into the early '80s.
> >
> > The only unix editors which vie
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 05:28:46PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim) writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > > We _must_ have a vi (or at worst, vi clone) available in the base
> > > system.
ME TOO
> This doesn't touch the fact that MC would be a very convenient additional
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This doesn't touch the fact that MC would be a very convenient
> additional feature for a user friendly Debian base system.
a) I don't think it would be, b) that's not what the proposal was; the
proposal was to remove ae *and elvis-tiny* from the base sys
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why? I think you see vi as I see gpm and they see mc: as an "essential
> > convenience".
>
> vi has the advantage of being backward compatible into the early '80s.
>
> The only unix editors which vie with vi for standa
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? I think you see vi as I see gpm and they see mc: as an "essential
> convenience".
vi has the advantage of being backward compatible into the early '80s.
The only unix editors which vie with vi for standardness are ed (the
unix standard), and emacs (backwards
Hi all... another comment from the peanut gallery (i.e., non-voter) :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> We _must_ have a vi (or at worst, vi clone) available in the base
> system.
Why? I think you see vi as I see gpm and they see mc: as an "essential
convenience".
Fact about VI: it has two modes whic
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > We could then get rid of both `elvis-tiny' and `ae', and be
> > > left with a powerful tool that is easy for beginners and
> > > experienced folks alike.
> >
> > And we would be left without an editor which works when in single
> > user mode. Wha
On 7 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
>
> > I would like to have `mc' and the two packages it depends on placed
> > into the base set.
>
> I think this is a horrendously bad idea.
>
> > We could then get rid of both `elvis-tiny' and `ae', and be lef
> > I would like to have `mc' and the two packages it depends on placed
> > into the base set.
> I think this is a horrendously bad idea.
agreed
--
see header
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Jun 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>
> I would like to have `mc' and the two packages it depends on placed
> into the base set. We could then get rid of both `elvis-tiny' and
> `ae', and be left with a powerful tool that is easy for beginners and
> experienced folks alike. There ought t
> > I would like to have `mc' and the two packages it depends on placed
> > into the base set.
>
> I think this is a horrendously bad idea.
Seconded.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> I would like to have `mc' and the two packages it depends on placed
> into the base set.
I think this is a horrendously bad idea.
> We could then get rid of both `elvis-tiny' and `ae', and be left
> with a powerful tool that is easy for beginner
I would like to have `mc' and the two packages it depends on placed
into the base set. We could then get rid of both `elvis-tiny' and
`ae', and be left with a powerful tool that is easy for beginners and
experienced folks alike. There ought to be room for it; the total
size of `mc', `gpm',
100 matches
Mail list logo
