On Tue, 25 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, in that case we'll have to make a break between the boot _floppies_
and the floppy images used on the CDs. El Torito _only_ supports 720K,
1440K and 2880K. And I'm not sure about the last one...
I'm pretty sure that it will also support a hard
At 08:35 +0100 1999-05-25, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
No it won't, as the slang library on the rescue floppy is a stripped-down
version that includes only the symbols that are actually used. (Have a
look at generate-library.sh on the boot-floppies sources. It's a really
smart hack).
A hack that no
Jules Bean wrote:
I don't want to start a flame-war, so be gentle..
Oh well. I did, anyhow.
I was just mindlessly (in a tongue-in-cheek way) evangalising Debian on
a mailing list I'm on, and I got a private response from a SuSE user.
He had installed Debian from a CD (he didn't say
Quoting Jules Bean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
OK. We didn't really come to a consensus, be here's my what, IMO, best
summarises our opinions:
1) If we don't have vi on the disks, we shouldn't pretend to. So, the
vi-compatibility mode goes. (Has gone.)
2) We choose between 'ae' and 'ee' on
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
I don't want to start a flame-war, so be gentle..
I was just mindlessly (in a tongue-in-cheek way) evangalising Debian on
a mailing list I'm on, and I got a private response from a SuSE user.
He had installed Debian from a CD (he
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 03:09:02PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 21 May 1999 14:57:26 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Maybe joe or something? The standard joe package is way too big and
someone would almost certainly have to come up with a
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 04:33:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 22 May 1999 09:02:24 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
*i* know it's not really vi. but my fingers don't. hail eris!
Well, according to that logic joe should be on there.
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 10:51:03PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 May 1999 22:38:14 -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
I think ee is a good choice, I'm not sure it's the right choice, I'm
not sure there is a right choice. If we put a vi on, we get a
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 08:53:06AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 07:49:11PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
some version of vi is essential on a rescue disk, regardless of what some
windows using loudmouth happens to think (and no, i'm not referring to
you here joseph).
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:33:08AM +0200, Martin Kahlert wrote:
Quoting Jules Bean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
OK. We didn't really come to a consensus, be here's my what, IMO, best
summarises our opinions:
1) If we don't have vi on the disks, we shouldn't pretend to. So, the
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 11:51:48AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
As for the editor that should go on the boot floppies? I'll stay out of
that discussion, except: Should anyone come up with an editor
that emulates the old DOS edit program, and takes the same order of
space on the boot floppy as
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:21:02PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 07:49:11PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
some version of vi is essential on a rescue disk, regardless of what some
windows using loudmouth happens to think (and
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:05:27PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Joseph Carter wrote:
Okay, let me offer this a bit here... Do the rescue floppies currently
use libncurses at all? I think they don't. Okay, now then:
Slang does have minimal ncurses support, you can link ncurses apps against
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 07:54:57PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 09:47:33AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
that extra 30k (if it is actually available on the rescue disk) would be
better used either as part of the space needed by elvis-tiny (**) or by
I still don't
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 12:15:38PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hamish What if we make the help text mode-sensitive? eg
Do that, and still have the editor small enough (isn't ae like
25Kb or something?), and then we shall
Quoting Sven LUTHER ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I downloaded and tried it.
it compiled fine on my solaris box here at work, but it didn't work so fine
(it
was 110k before i striped it, 67k after. using only libc)
i was able to open a new file, enter insert mode with i, type hello (it frooze
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:38:11PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
no, but vi as been standard unix editor since times immemorial, and people
expect to find it on any unix system.
The boot disk is not a system at all - it is crippled in every way.
And we don't have a vi that would fit in 25KB.
--
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:31:15PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
remove this help stuff, and have just some sort of help binding that will
bring
it up. That would be nicer, and let more space for editign.
That's okay too, as long as it is clearly written (e.g. like in joe,
Ctrl-K H for help).
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 02:19:48PM +0200, Martin Kahlert wrote:
Quoting Sven LUTHER ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I downloaded and tried it.
it compiled fine on my solaris box here at work, but it didn't work so fine
(it
was 110k before i striped it, 67k after. using only libc)
i was able
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 02:27:39PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Sure this happened to me a long time ago, didn't try ae since because of it
though.
One question: how can you blame ae for not working, when you rely on
outdated information about it?! (today we'd call that plain FUD :)
I
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:38:11PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
no, but vi as been standard unix editor since times immemorial, and people
expect to find it on any unix system.
The boot disk is not a system at all - it is crippled
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 11:51:48AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
As for the editor that should go on the boot floppies? I'll stay out of
that discussion, except: Should anyone come up with an editor
that emulates the old DOS edit program, and takes the
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:21:02PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 07:49:11PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
some version of vi is essential on a rescue disk, regardless of what
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 08:11:42AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 11:51:48AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
As for the editor that should go on the boot floppies? I'll stay out of
that discussion, except: Should anyone come up with
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 08:20:51AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:21:02PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 07:49:11PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
some
Sven LUTHER writes (Re: An 'ae' testimony):
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 02:27:39PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Sure this happened to me a long time ago, didn't try ae since because of it
though.
One question: how can you blame ae for not working, when you rely on
outdated information about
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is one of the most infuriating thing with a base debian system, no
true vi.
On the rescue disk, there's no true vi, but elvis-tiny is in the
base system and it's no vim but it still is a complete vi (and only 64K)
Quoting Sven LUTHER ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Will try at home, if it works fine, i could package it.
Do you have any idea about the license of this stuff ?
there seem to be no mention of it in the sources.
Sorry, no.
You will have to ask the author for it.
I looked into the sources a bit, and i
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Every Unix system is distributed with a working vi, and most people know how
to
use vi. So finding a non standard editor on the base system is not so nice,
and
can cause lots of confusions. and ae is a lot confusing, and don't behave
Read the instructions on the top of
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 07:13:46AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Every Unix system is distributed with a working vi, and most people know
how to
use vi. So finding a non standard editor on the base system is not so nice,
and
can cause lots of confusions. and ae is a
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 04:00:00PM +0200, EXT Martin Kahlert wrote:
Quoting Sven LUTHER ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Will try at home, if it works fine, i could package it.
Do you have any idea about the license of this stuff ?
there seem to be no mention of it in the sources.
Sorry, no.
You will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 26 May 1999 12:44:26 +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Every Unix system is distributed with a working vi, and most people know how
As has been pointed out, several times, FreeBSD does not.
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 26 May 1999 12:49:03 +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
after the emacs vs. vi flamewar, you want to start a unix still editor (vi or
emacs) vs. microsoft still key binding thread ?
Sven... Joe is UNIX. WordStar is not Microsoft. Get your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 26 May 1999 13:38:11 +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
no, but vi as been standard unix editor since times immemorial, and people
expect to find it on any unix system.
Here's one person who doesn't. Blows your theory, doesn't it?
- --
Would it be feasible to have a /bin directory on the base cd and in
there store some binaries of vi and some other basic utilities that could
be used along with the rescue/install disk? Anyone who is installing will
have access to the media in some form. Anyone just using it as a rescue
disk
-Original Message-
From: Christian Leutloff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 11:42 AM
To: Mark Blunier
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org; debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: why one rescue boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)
Mark Blunier [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 24 May 1999, Christian Leutloff wrote:
superb, IMHO that's called a Live-CD. Would it be possible to
integrate the creation stuff into the debian-cd script? It would be
really nice if people can test Debian on a CD-ROM first.
I suppse that could be done. I've been making the
CD's image
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Blunier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: why one rescue boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)
Resent-Date: 24 May 1999 17:57:07 -
Resent-From: debian-devel
Enrique Zanardi writes:
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:33:43AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
I really thing Tom's Root Boot or something similar is the way to go. Tom's
crams an amazing amount of stuff into one floppy, using tricks like
rewriting common unix utilities in awk so they take up less space.
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I don't know about that. I'll soon be working on some console-based software.
I thought I'd go with slang since it is nice and modern, as opposed to
ncurses. I read some of the doco -- actually, I don't need an embedded
program language, just a text display library! So I
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
On 21 May 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
This is an *emergency* editor we're talking about here, not something
you'll end up using day after day. It really doesn't need to be
perfect, just good enough. Let's not loose sight of the goal here.
/me hides :)
As I have stated several times on irc,
On Mon, 24 May 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Slang is quite usable as just a text display library. You can ignore the
embedded language aspects.
It's a weird library. Should really be two separate libs I think.
That would help the space problem on the boot disks
Mark
On Mon, 24 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: superb, IMHO that's called a Live-CD. Would it be possible to
: integrate the creation stuff into the debian-cd script? It would be
: really nice if people can test Debian on a CD-ROM first.
And it would be triply cool if you could front end
On Mon, May 24, 1999 at 09:50:46PM -0500, Mark Blunier wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Slang is quite usable as just a text display library. You can ignore the
embedded language aspects.
It's a weird library. Should really be two separate libs I
-Original Message-
From: Steve McIntyre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 5:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An 'ae' testimony
Enrique Zanardi writes:
snippage
OK, in that case we'll have to make a break
Hi,
David == David Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:44:58PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
The reason it has this problem is because it uses its own special terminal
data files (/etc/joe/terminfo) instead of the standard ones.
This, FYI, is why I sopped using joe. Not only is it buggy if used from a
buggy
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 10:55:28PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
All the more reason to use slang-based stuff right? ;
I don't know about that. I'll soon be working on some console-based software.
I thought I'd go with slang since it is nice and modern, as opposed to
ncurses. I read some of the
Mark Blunier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My latest recovey floppy is not a floppy at all, but a bootable CD,
that runs root the root fs in a ram disk, and then links back to the
CD which is a complete copy of a working debian image. This gives
me vi, emacs, X, copies of all the library files,
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 05:34:58PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
ae barely even WORKS! It's crap in vi mode, it's crap in every other
mode, it's just crap! = I'd have to say that _PICO_ is a more
functional editor than ae, at least it works.
Isn't PICO non-free? (similar to pine).
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 11:51:48AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
OK, I haven't read all of this thread, but I've read enough to know that
most of what I haven't read is either reguarding a replacement editor or
of no value to me ;-)
First of all, I only have one complaint, and it goes to Joseph
Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Two seperate functions. Why are we trying to cram two seperate
functions
into one?
Good question. If we're getting very cramped (I'm sure we are :-), it might
be time to think about splitting the two.
From what I've been seeing, it does look
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 04:18:45PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 05:34:58PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
ae barely even WORKS! It's crap in vi mode, it's crap in every other
mode, it's just crap! = I'd have to say that _PICO_ is a more
functional editor than
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 09:47:33AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
that extra 30k (if it is actually available on the rescue disk) would be
better used either as part of the space needed by elvis-tiny (**) or by
I still don't understand the sentiment that people can only understand
vi. Are other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 23 May 1999 09:47:33 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
2, so far. maybe more. nowhere near as many as those who want vi in some
form on the boot disks (which is why we have ae's vi emulation mode
now...and we'd have elvis-tiny too if we hadn't had
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 07:54:57PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 09:47:33AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
that extra 30k (if it is actually available on the rescue disk) would be
better used either as part of the space needed by elvis-tiny (**) or by
I still don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 23 May 1999 10:10:56 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
it's not that vi is the only editor which is understood. it's more that
when you're in a hurry trying to fix some system that has gone down you
don't have time to mess around learning some
May I put in a word on behalf of anyone like me who comes from a dos/windows
environment and loves the whole concept of linux and debian in particular
but feels absolutely lost in it? I've spent hours a day for the last few
weeks trying to edit configuration files and cut down the size of log
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 10:10:56AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
it's more that
when you're in a hurry trying to fix some system that has gone down you
don't have time to mess around learning some stupid editor which doesn't
do any of the things you need it to do.
being restricted to a
Craig Sanders wrote:
being restricted to a primitive editor after you have become
proficient with vi is akin to re-learning how to talk after having a
stroke...you've lost some really fundamental ability which you take
for granted.
This sounds like a great arguement to use any editor other
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 02:40:12AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Well, what can the bootdisk makers say about that, but - who cares?!
I use joe all the time, but I do not complain that the boot disk
doesn't contain it, and that I am restricted to a primitive editor
and I have to think about each
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 03:16:18PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Well put, Dale. I think you have done the correct thing here. If the
vi emulation is not sufficiently complete to work as expected of vi,
and esp. if it's really bad, remove it.
i disagree. while ae's vi emulation is far from
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:13:29AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
Well, what can the bootdisk makers say about that, but - who cares?!
I use joe all the time, but I do not complain that the boot disk
doesn't contain it, and that I am restricted to a primitive editor
and I have to think about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 23 May 1999 03:58:32 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
know ksh scripting. For these people, ae is a perfectly valid editor, not
too different from vi, joe, pico, ee, or anything similar (by look).
Craig == Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 03:16:18PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Well put, Dale. I think you have done the correct thing here. If
the vi emulation is not sufficiently complete to work as expected
of vi, and esp. if it's really bad, remove
On 22 May 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
a) keep ae, but remove the vi emulation mode -- I haven't seen anyone
claim that ae sans emulation mode is good enough. The list seems to
agree, the ae maintainer agrees, and it's easy to implement, so I
suggest this is the course of action we take.
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 07:09:09PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
After all of this I took a look at both ae and ee. Both lack something
that I think needs to be addressed. AE's movement keys don't appear to have
any rhyme or reason to them. They're not grouped together and not in any
On 22 May 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Aside from that, I think the best we can hope for is an expanded
rescue situation, i.e., an optional two- or three- floppy rescue
image, or (Corel is working on this) a rescue system bootable from a
CD or other media.
I've already done it. My 'rescue' CD
Hi,
Craig == Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig i disagree. while ae's vi emulation is far from perfect, it
Craig should not be removed until there is a replacement which can
Craig fit on the rescue disk.
That is an opinion. Well, in my opinion we do not need a vi
clone
Hi,
Craig == Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig it's not that vi is the only editor which is understood. it's more that
Craig when you're in a hurry trying to fix some system that has gone down you
Craig don't have time to mess around learning some stupid editor which doesn't
Hi,
Craig == Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig you are also making the mistake of assuming that joe is in any
Craig way a standard tool. it is not. the only two text editors
Craig which can lay claim to being a standard part of any unix are
Craig ed and vi.
Historical
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 09:47:33AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
Isn't PICO non-free? (similar to pine). Slap me if I am wrong here.
Yes, but it is the standard newbie editor.
it's not debian's standard newbie editor and can't be because it's
non-free.
end of story. pico is out of the
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Aside from that, I think the best we can hope for is an expanded
rescue situation, i.e., an optional two- or three- floppy rescue
image, or (Corel is working on this) a rescue system bootable from a
CD or other media.
I really thing Tom's Root Boot or something similar is
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 09:07:21PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
joe is not discontinued upstream. Joe Allen just hasn't worked on it in
3+ years as he worked on other things. Recent posts from him on
comp.editors
suggests that he is going to start working on joe again.
That's great
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:17:14PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
The reason it has this problem is because it uses its own special terminal
data files (/etc/joe/terminfo) instead of the standard ones.
This, FYI, is why I sopped using joe. Not only is it buggy if used from a
buggy terminal emulator
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 05:46:29PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
joseph It didn't work right console, that was my issue. It may work
joseph better now, but the thing is still messy and the editor
joseph doesn't allow you to do basic editor functions.
How can you sit there, with your bare
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 07:54:57PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
that extra 30k (if it is actually available on the rescue disk) would be
better used either as part of the space needed by elvis-tiny (**) or by
I still don't understand the sentiment that people can only understand
vi. Are
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 10:10:56AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
Are other editors really so difficult?
yes. difficult and clumsy and lacking basic functionality.
All that missing functionality in ee (and ae in normal mode) is present
in ae in vi mode? Yeah. You argued that vi mode SHOULD
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 02:35:37AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What doesn't ae to? As an editor for a damaged system, it seems to
work well.
you can't yank lines. you can't cut and paste. you can't exec a program
and have the output inserted in the bufer. you don't have multiple undo
and
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 03:31:37AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Okay, let me offer this a bit here... Do the rescue floppies currently
use libncurses at all? I think they don't.
You're right, they don't.
Seems that we have to move to 3 floppies for potato anyway because a 2.2
kernel takes
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:46:18AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
This, FYI, is why I sopped using joe. Not only is it buggy if used from a
buggy terminal emulator like windoze telnet, it had occasional bugs running
in an xterm (not screen display, but failure to reset the terminal properly
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 02:40:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
and that includes a decent editor.
That rules vi out, then.
for politeness' sake i will interpret your remarks in the most positive
light possible: you are mistaken.
craig
--
craig sanders
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 02:11:03AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 10:10:56AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
Are other editors really so difficult?
yes. difficult and clumsy and lacking basic functionality.
All that missing functionality in ee (and ae in normal mode)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 23 May 1999 20:36:10 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
you can't yank lines.
Joe can do that.
you can't cut and paste.
Joe can do that.
you can't exec a program and have the output inserted in the bufer.
Joe can do that.
you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 23 May 1999 20:48:50 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
ee, it should be used for something useful - a decent vi, preferably.
Vi isn't useful to a newbie who doesn't know vi. Hell, it isn't useful
to experienced unix people who have never had
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josip Rodin writes:
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:13:29AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
[..]
you are also making the mistake of assuming that joe is in any way a
standard tool. it is not. the only two text editors which can lay claim
to being a standard part of
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:46:18AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:17:14PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
The reason it has this problem is because it uses its own special terminal
data files (/etc/joe/terminfo) instead of the standard ones.
This, FYI, is why I sopped
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 03:57:02AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 23 May 1999 20:48:50 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
ee, it should be used for something useful - a decent vi, preferably.
Vi isn't useful to a newbie who doesn't know vi.
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:46:43PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
joe and ae are no more intrinsically friendly, they just have help
windows at the top of the screen. If we put one in a small vi, would
that shut you up?
I disagree: a modal editor is intrisically easier to get stuck in,
because
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:20:11PM +0200, Guenther Thomsen wrote:
you are also making the mistake of assuming that joe is in any way a
standard tool. it is not. the only two text editors which can lay claim
to being a standard part of any unix are ed and vi.
On a rescue disk you
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 09:56:06AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:46:43PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
joe and ae are no more intrinsically friendly, they just have help
windows at the top of the screen. If we put one in a small vi, would
that shut you up?
I
Just thought that i would throw my two cents in since i still remember the
switch from DOS/Windows to Linux.
I had some problems with ae on my first install (1.3). I just installed off of
floppies and only new about ae. So i was using it for editing. After i learned
a little about bash i edited
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 23 May 1999 23:46:43 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
joe and ae are no more intrinsically friendly, they just have help
windows at the top of the screen. If we put one in a small vi, would
that shut you up?
Nope, because vi also is modal.
Hi,
Craig == Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig ae is an adequate minimal no-frills, no-features text editor.
Bingo. That is what we absolutely need -- the rest of the
features are what you just said -- frills.
Craig it's better than cat. it's even better than pico
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 02:27:57AM +0200, moron wrote:
I've spent hours a day for the last few
weeks trying to edit configuration files and cut down the size of log files
(Am I supposed to do that?) and wishing I had something as intuitive as dos
edit, where arrow-up goes up one and
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 11:34:24PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If ee does this (I dunno, but my friend swears by it), then so be it,
install it, move on.
Again, ae is *half* the size of ee, and ee doesn't even offer the
option of vi emulation. If we can't
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:04:20AM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
ae is one of Debian's most overlooked weak spots IMHO... :-(
i don't think it's overlooked...this discussion comes up too often for
that.
it's more that space is very limited on the boot disks. even elvis-tiny
needs 65K.
craig
--
On Fri, 21 May, 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 1999 14:57:26 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Joe might also be a good option because of its wordstar-esque keys. DOS
Edit has some convergence with joe on thse key bindings. IE, CNTL-Y is
delete line in both, etc. It isn't perfect,
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 01:48:03PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
someone (miquel, perhaps) made elvis-tiny a year or two back, and it fit
on the boot disk. would be nice if it could be made to fit again. elvis
isn't as good as vim, but it's much better
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
