T o n g wrote:
>
> Thanks for your feedback, Emanoil. Could you elaborate more? unison
> "looks" promising to me, and I've just learned that there are no ocaml
> runtime dependency for it on i386, amd64. So usability is the most
> important issue to me now. Anyone has positive experience with uni
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 07:32:57AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:26:37AM +, T o n g wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Anyone knows a good bi-directional file-synchronization tool that can
> > synchronize changes to files and directories in both directions on
> > diffe
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:26:37AM +, T o n g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone knows a good bi-directional file-synchronization tool that can
> synchronize changes to files and directories in both directions on
> different hosts, propagating the changes between them?
>
> This is mainly use to synchr
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:40:03PM +, T o n g wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:03:47 +0200, Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
>
> >> This is mainly use to synchronize files and directories between my
> >> notebook and desktop (at home and at work). Any good recommendation?
> >> . . .
> > Hi, so far I have
Hello,
On 18-09-2009, T o n g wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:03:47 +0200, Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
>
>>> This is mainly use to synchronize files and directories between my
>>> notebook and desktop (at home and at work). Any good recommendation?
>>> . . .
>> Hi, so far I have not found any nice and
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:03:47 +0200, Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
>> This is mainly use to synchronize files and directories between my
>> notebook and desktop (at home and at work). Any good recommendation?
>> . . .
> Hi, so far I have not found any nice and useful software that can do
> this (I mean wit
On 18-09-2009, T o n g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone knows a good bi-directional file-synchronization tool that can
> synchronize changes to files and directories in both directions on
> different hosts, propagating the changes between them?
>
> This is mainly use to synchronize files and directories
09/18/2009 06:26 AM, T o n g:
syrep is too limited, unison seems to be the exact tool that I'm looking
for, just I want to avoid its dependency (OCaml) if possible.
- You dont need ocaml to use unison
- OCaml is a very good programming language
--
Architecte Informatique chez Blueline/Gu
T o n g:
>
> Anyone knows a good bi-directional file-synchronization tool that can
> synchronize changes to files and directories in both directions on
> different hosts, propagating the changes between them?
>
> This is mainly use to synchronize files and directories between my
> notebook and
T o n g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone knows a good bi-directional file-synchronization tool that can
> synchronize changes to files and directories in both directions on
> different hosts, propagating the changes between them?
>
> This is mainly use to synchronize files and directories between my
> no
T o n g wrote:
> This is mainly use to synchronize files and directories between my
> notebook and desktop (at home and at work).
I run a CVS server on Debian and use it to sync files between GNU/ Linux, BSD,
and Windows machines. CVS can do DOS/ Unix line-ending conversion of text
files for yo
T o n g writes:
>Anyone knows a good bi-directional file-synchronization tool that can
>synchronize changes to files and directories in both directions on
>different hosts, propagating the changes between them?
>syrep is too limited, unison seems to be the exact tool that I'm looking
>for, ju
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
[ a bunch of correct things about emacs and vi]
An anecdote regarding vi and emacs use:
We had a whole department who were using vi under System V.2 on
3b2/400s back in the middle 80s. I installed microEmacs (whatever was
current at the time). By the m
> The issue relevant to this group is: what editor should someone
> expect to find on a system's boot/rescue disk? That someone
> presumably being a person with enough unix experience to recover
> from the usual problems that can make your machine fail to boot.
> The lastthing you need at that poi
On 17 Apr 1997, Alair Pereira do Lago wrote:
> Neither do I. Even in X, I almost do not use the mouse. Indeed, inside a
> console or inside an xterm (emacs -nw) I could only use the mouse if I have
> done
> some non-standard configuration. Just don't use the mouse if you prefer. You
> can do e
[ I do not like this kind of discussion but I thing some things could be
helpful to some people. Indeed, I have been using emacs for a long long
time and I started to read this trhead because I would like to learn some
things about vi. Perhaps I will stop writing in this thread. ]
Vadi
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Pete Templin wrote:
> I agree with Joey's original message: let's let the editor debate rest a
> bit, folks, or give it focus and a new thread name.
i disagree. I see two valuable results from the thread:
1. people get to show off neat tricks that they've learnt/figured o
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> The issue relevant to this group is: what editor should someone
> expect to find on a system's boot/rescue disk? That someone
> presumably being a person with enough unix experience to recover
> from the usual problems that can make your machine fail
> what does it matter if one editor is faster than another? Or if one
> is more powerful than any other? Nothing! The particular user has
> to be familiar with at least one editor in that way that _he_ can
> use it for his purposes.
The issue relevant to this group is: what editor should someo
Folks,
what does it matter if one editor is faster than another? Or if one
is more powerful than any other? Nothing! The particular user has
to be familiar with at least one editor in that way that _he_ can
use it for his purposes.
It doesn't make any sense discussing wether one particular ed
On 16 Apr 1997, Alair Pereira do Lago wrote:
> Here, I was not saying anything about fastness or slowness of any editor, but
> about a powerful use of emacs.
Emacs is powerful, but in vi the work is faster not only because the
editor is faster, but also because you don't have to move your fingers
Vadim Vygonets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 15 Apr 1997, Alair Pereira do Lago wrote:
>
> > I do not know vi well but I do not see how it could be simpler than
> > ctr-alt-s
> > in emacs. There, while you are filling the regular expression you can see
> > the text that the incomplete regula
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Vadim wrote:
Vadim> > My beloved Vadik, :) there is nothing objectively "fast"
Vadim> > about slang and nothing "slow" about lisp. Emacs seems to
Vadim> > be alot more complicated then jed that's all. (maybe jed is
Vadim> > faster just because it meant to be "fast
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Boris D. Beletsky wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Vadim wrote:
>
> Vadim> Two reasons emacs is slow: 1. Lisp (jed is faster than emacs
> Vadim> because it uses S-Lang (however they spell it)).
>
> My beloved Vadik, :) there is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Vadim wrote:
Vadim> Two reasons emacs is slow: 1. Lisp (jed is faster than emacs
Vadim> because it uses S-Lang (however they spell it)).
My beloved Vadik, :) there is nothing objectively "fast" about slang
and nothing "slow" abo
On 15 Apr 1997, Alair Pereira do Lago wrote:
> I do not know vi well but I do not see how it could be simpler than ctr-alt-s
> in emacs. There, while you are filling the regular expression you can see the
> text that the incomplete regular expression is matching. If you put one letter
> more and
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a key point to make here is that regexps aren't difficult to learn
> because of vi, they are difficult to learn because they are complex -
> but you MUST learn them if you want to have any proficiency with unix.
> vi actually makes them easier to learn b
On 14 Apr 1997, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
> Well, vi is not the only choice. If they're using X, why don't you
> tell them to use xedit? It's about as braindead as pico but can do
> search and replace, so it should be very easy to use.
To take this silly editor thread a bit off-topic (and away fro
> Jason Costomiris writes:
Jason> I get calls from users all the time asking "How do I search
Jason> and replace in my file?" 9 times out of 10, they are using
Jason> pico, which has to be the most brain dead editor ever
Jason> created. I always tell them, use vi, [...]
Well, vi is
> > I stay versed in vi commands because I have to be, not because I want
> > to be. There may be a better bare-bones editor for debian than ae, but
> > it should not be vi.
>
> no, it should be vi because that is the standard unix text editor. you
> want something else, then install something el
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:
> Sorry. I was watching these vi msgs go back and forth and had to jump in and
> make it worse. I think everyone should use whatever they want to. I agree
> 100% about emacs. I have better things to do than to memorize all that crap.
> That's why I use the GUI
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Craig Sanders wrote:
> IMO, the base system should have vi AND some crappy editor like ae or
> pico, with some note saying "if you can't use vi, then XXX is installed"
s/XXX/ed/
--
Vadim Vygonets * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Unix admin
If you think C++ is not ov
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:
> Sorry. I was watching these vi msgs go back and forth and had to jump in and
> make it worse. I think everyone should use whatever they want to. I agree
> 100% about emacs. I have better things to do than to memorize all that crap.
> That's why I use the GU
Ralph Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Teco.
> >
> When you've said teco, you've said it all! vi is superb, and emacs (for
> those who've spent the weeks required to master it) is way cool, but
> teco RULES!!! Anybody out there have the source for the greatest text
> editor cum programmi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 12-Apr-97 Jason Costomiris wrote:
>I never said the various emacsen couldn't do it. I find emacs very
>confusing. 47 bazillion different "modes" to do everything, a googleplex
>of command key sequences, and sucks RAM like it's going out of style.
>Sounds li
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:
> I do search and replace in Xemacs all the time. I'm fairly sure that regular
> emacs will do it too.
I never said the various emacsen couldn't do it. I find emacs very
confusing. 47 bazillion different "modes" to do everything, a googleplex
of command key seq
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Why not just echo > text.file and echo >> text.file??
Or maybe use this to write a small C program that will write the text file?
Just kidding. I know all these things play important roles. I just don't
believe in buying a convertible and never putting the to
Jason Costomiris writes:
> On 11 Apr 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
> >
> > Teco.
>
> Bwah. Real men edit with cat, sed, awk, head and tail. Better yet, they
> write directly to the disk with a hex sector editor.
>
sed, head AND tail? Isn't that
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, mike horansky wrote:
> vi is a modal editor, so has a much steeper learning curve than
> something like ae.
modal vs modeless isn't the only criterion for difficulty - there are
many other factors involved.
the more complex things about vi can be difficult to learn, but you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Maybe you should upgrade your computer if your resources are that bad off.
I do fifty things at once in X without a problem. Hmm?
On 11-Apr-97 Ralph Winslow wrote:
>Rick wrote:
>>
>
>> My point is if Linux is moving forward in time why do vi-hards get
up-in-a
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:
> I do search and replace in Xemacs all the time. I'm fairly sure that
> regular emacs will do it too.
>
> My point is if Linux is moving forward in time why do vi-hards get
> up-in-arms about it being left out. vi is good for what it is. I
> think it should move
Ralph Winslow wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
>
> > My point is if Linux is moving forward in time why do vi-hards get
> > up-in-arms
> > about it being left out. vi is good for what it is. I think it should move
> > into the GUI world since it is really too much for this application.
>
> What
Rick wrote:
>
> My point is if Linux is moving forward in time why do vi-hards get up-in-arms
> about it being left out. vi is good for what it is. I think it should move
> into the GUI world since it is really too much for this application.
What would one need a real editor for in the GUI w
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Jason Costomiris wrote:
> I get calls from users all the time asking "How do I search and replacein
> my file?" 9 times out of 10, they are using pico, which has to be the
> most brain dead editor ever created.
Except ae (may Debian forgive me).
Vadik.
--
Vadim Vygonets * [
On 11 Apr 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Miquel van Smoorenburg writes:
> > Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
>
> Teco.
Heard of it, never saw it. Where can I find it? (Seriously, maybe
I'm a pervert, but I want to see it -- please tell me where one can
find it).
Perversely yours,
Vadi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Miquel van Smoorenburg writes:
> > ...
> > THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
>
> Teco.
>
When you've said teco, you've said it all! vi is superb, and emacs (for
those who've spent the weeks required to master it) is way cool, but
teco RULES!!! Anybody out there have the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I do search and replace in Xemacs all the time. I'm fairly sure that regular
emacs will do it too.
My point is if Linux is moving forward in time why do vi-hards get up-in-arms
about it being left out. vi is good for what it is. I think it should move
into th
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Jason Costomiris wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:
>
> > What is it that is so special about vi? Does it decompile programs or write
> > them all by itself or leap tall buildings with a single bound?
>
> I get calls from users all the time asking "How do I search an
On 11 Apr 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
>
> Teco.
Bwah. Real men edit with cat, sed, awk, head and tail. Better yet, they
write directly to the disk with a hex sector editor.
Jason Costomiris | Finger for PGP 2.6.2 Public Key
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:
> What is it that is so special about vi? Does it decompile programs or write
> them all by itself or leap tall buildings with a single bound?
I get calls from users all the time asking "How do I search and replace in
my file?" 9 times out of 10, they are using
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes:
> Ed, man! !man ed
> ...
> Computer Scientists love ed
> ...
> RUNS ED!!
> ...
> ...the mighty ed...
> ...
> Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
> ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA!
> ...
> THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
Teco.
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
> I'm going to finally ask this question.
>
> What is it that is so special about vi? Does it decompile programs or write
> them all by itself or leap tall buildings with a single bound?
It works from any keyboard, you don't need arrows, f-keys or other
unlikely stuff. You keep your hands on th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Are you saying that I should use vi all the time so I know what to do when I
have no other choice? Or are you saying that vi is a solid standby editor to
use in an emergency and you don't understand why ppl use it all the time?
On 11-Apr-97 Rick Macdonald wrote
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rick Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:
>
>> Really. I've been on unix boxes for about 7 years and only used vi when I
>> had no other choice.
>
>That's it, exactly. When you have no other choice. Some people seem
>to force them
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:
> Really. I've been on unix boxes for about 7 years and only used vi when I
> had no other choice.
That's it, exactly. When you have no other choice. Some people seem
to force themselves to use it _all_ the time, just they they know what to do
when they have n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I'm going to finally ask this question.
What is it that is so special about vi? Does it decompile programs or write
them all by itself or leap tall buildings with a single bound?
Really. I've been on unix boxes for about 7 years and only used vi when I
had no
56 matches
Mail list logo
