Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Adam Rogoyski]

   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 would have access to it if they have a cdrom and the cd there.  And
if not, there's still ae right there on the diskette.  

   Adam

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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?

- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0wiMHpf7K2LbpnFEQIZMACgy3Ai1YvIPn4y00CUIlzPFgPYDYYAoLQE
F89HKWARcYCsDo56IOW1TMAu
=cCli
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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 facts
straight.

- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0whzXpf7K2LbpnFEQL4wwCg1AEMT3ho8yc6H3z8OEwJVEW/m88AoI9o
DqBeYYJZzhee6nECtMPpjjdC
=FBxO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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 priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0whUnpf7K2LbpnFEQLyrgCfaOuqb+hqr8aGKdGTODKiDaJxKfYAnRK7
2CW111R/rDbu0tNeniGwh/5p
=u2/B
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony (suggestion)

[Fabrizio Polacco]

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 have to ask the author for it.

>From the manpage:
   Copyright (c) 1982-1997 David L Parsons
   All rights reserved.

   Redistribution  and  use  in  source  and binary forms are

Linux 29 August 1998   17

LEVEE(1)  Mastodon Linux LEVEE(1)

   permitted provided that the  above  copyright  notice  and
   this  paragraph  are duplicated in all such forms and that
   any documentation, advertising materials, and other  mate­
   rials  related  to  such  distribution and use acknowledge
   that  the  software  was  developed  by  David  L  Parsons
   ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).   My name may not be used to endorse
   or promote products derived  from  this  software  without
   specific  prior written permission.  THIS SOFTWARE IS PRO­
   VIDED AS IS'' AND WITHOUT  ANY  EXPRESS  OR  IMPLIED  WAR­
   RANTIES,  INCLUDING,  WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WAR­
   RANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS  FOR  A  PARTICULAR
   PURPOSE.



fab
-- 
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]  gsm: +358 (0)40 707 2468

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 lot confusing, and don't behave
> 
> Read the instructions on the top of the screen in ae. RTFS. Not everyone
> knows vi, and it's very confusing if you don't know it. It's also too
> large to go on the base floppies.

Sure but most confusing is an editor who provide help screen, but the commands
described in the help screen don't work. don't lets you exit it, hand the
editor, or even worse do strange things to your file while saving.

this has nothing to do with vi or not vi.

but still a true unix system has vi on his rescue system ...

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[David Starner]

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 the screen in ae. RTFS. Not everyone
knows vi, and it's very confusing if you don't know it. It's also too
large to go on the base floppies.

Re: An 'ae' testimony (suggestion)

[Martin Kahlert]

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 think it needs a lot of
polishing (it's pre ANSI, and full of #ifdefs for Amiga/Atari ST...) 
Try to compile it with 'gcc -O -Wall' - that is fun!
When i have some time left, perhaps i hack a bit into it.

On my linux box the executable's size is 36952 Bytes (striped)
compiler was egcs-1.1.2.

With friendly wishes,
Martin.

-- 
esa$ gcc -Wall -o ariane ariane5.c
ariane5.c: 666: warning: long float implicitly truncated to unsigned type
esa$ ariane5

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

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)

Mike.
-- 
Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Richard Kaszeta]

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 it?! (today we'd call that plain FUD :)
>
>I just told what i experienced, and it was so bad an experience, that i never
>wanted to use it since, to the point that i better used echo, grep, cat and
>other such stuff when editing fstab files.

Well, I still experience the ae 'hang on exit' bug, and my version of
'ae' is the one from 2.1:

%dpkg -l ae
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ NameVersionDescription
+++-===-==-
ii  ae  962-21.1   Anthony's Editor -- a tiny full-screen edito

So, I got curious and decided to try the one from potato, seeing as it
didn't require me to do any other upgrades.

%dpkg -l ae
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ NameVersionDescription
+++-===-==-
ii  ae  962-24 Anthony's Editor -- a tiny full-screen edito

And I still get ae to hang at least 1 time in 20 one exiting normally,
about 1 time in 5 in "vi emulation" mode.  And it only seems to happen
on a text console, not in an xterm.

Shall I submit a new bug or reopen the old one?

-- 
Richard W Kaszeta   PhD. Candidate and Sysadmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   University of MN, ME Dept
http://www.menet.umn.edu/~kaszeta

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 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).
> > > > 
> > > > That's just silly. If someone can figure out vi, they really ought to be
> > > > able to figure out how to use an editor with on-screen help. We're not
> > > > forcing anyone to write a book with it, just use it for a couple of
> > > > seconds in an emergency.
> > > > 
> > > > > ae is fine except for the vi emulation mode.  it does the job, a 
> > > > > simple
> > > > > no-frills no-features text editor.
> > > > 
> > > > I disagree: I think it's still more complicated than it needs to be.
> > > 
> > > Complicated?
> > > 
> > > > E.g., the big block of commands at the upper left is a bit too
> > > > cluttered. 
> > > 
> > > Upper left? You _are_ refering to the help screen aren't you? This screen
> > > coveres the top third of the screen, and includes every operation ae will
> > > perform. How would you suggest that I make it less "cluttered"?
> > > 
> > > The phrase, "a bit too cluttered" is not something I can convert into a
> > > patch ;-)
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> In your last posting you asked for "more" help information. Now you are
> asking for less. Is it any wonder that I have trouble satisfying the
> divers needs of the editing community?
> 
> Your comments make it clear that you haven't used ae in a long time, if

january 99, i think.

and it was from the base tarball, not even from the boot floppies, anyway,
boot floppies are not supported on my hardware. There could be some nice vi
implementation in the tarballs, no problem ...

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 an editor
> > > that emulates the old DOS "edit" program, and takes the same order of
> > > space on the boot floppy as ae, I would be in favor of replacing ae with
> > > that editor. (or one that fits the same space/function constraints)
> > > Other than that I could honestly care less what editor is on the boot
> > > floppies, I'm sure I will be able to use it ;-)
> > 
> > You said above that ae keybinding can be edited. why not provide an optional
> > /etc/aerc or whatever with said edit bindings ? or maybe i misunderstood 
> > some
> > stuff.
> 
> This is what caused the probems with the vi mode (I provided an
> alternative rc file).

Yes, but you said the problem comes from vi being a modal editor, and ae not. A
simple edit compatible rc file would not cause the same problems, would it.

> The actual situation is that ae only does a small handfull of functions,
> and it does them in a specific way (save file always prompts for the name
> which some folks have objected to.). The fact that you can load a file,
> add text, cut and paste text, and delete text, seems to fall short of the
> "required" tools for fixing a broken system. Personally, I don't get it.

Myself i think what is most important is load afile, write into it, and ærase
some stuff, and then save it. not more is needed, but i think most problem that
set people at odd with ae was that it wouldn't save files correctly, didn't let
you go out and abort stuff. I even encoutered some case were it would garble my
file a lot, me no more knowing what i changed and what not. This was in vi mode
naturally.

> 
> > 
> > Also is there a simple ans small help text on how to use ae that could go on
> > the boot floppies also ?
> 
> ae, carries it's own help, and presents it at the first screen. Something
> during the installation needs to indicate the name of the editor available
> on the boot disk. I don't see any need for more than that.

yes, but like i said, the help page is too big, and not all that informative.
Also (again in vi mode) the command in it not always did what the help text
said it would do.

So a little help text would be fine, something that ae could call when needed
(called by ctr-h or something like that), and just the minimal information in
the help screen. And you say it will take 1/3 the screen size, that maybe true
in your screen resolution, but on my 640x480 screen, it took a bit more than
half the screen if i remember correctly.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Dale Scheetz]

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 
> > > > some
> > > > windows using loudmouth happens to think (and no, i'm not referring to
> > > > you here joseph).
> > > 
> > > That's just silly. If someone can figure out vi, they really ought to be
> > > able to figure out how to use an editor with on-screen help. We're not
> > > forcing anyone to write a book with it, just use it for a couple of
> > > seconds in an emergency.
> > > 
> > > > ae is fine except for the vi emulation mode.  it does the job, a simple
> > > > no-frills no-features text editor.
> > > 
> > > I disagree: I think it's still more complicated than it needs to be.
> > 
> > Complicated?
> > 
> > > E.g., the big block of commands at the upper left is a bit too
> > > cluttered. 
> > 
> > Upper left? You _are_ refering to the help screen aren't you? This screen
> > coveres the top third of the screen, and includes every operation ae will
> > perform. How would you suggest that I make it less "cluttered"?
> > 
> > The phrase, "a bit too cluttered" is not something I can convert into a
> > patch ;-)
> 
> 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.

In your last posting you asked for "more" help information. Now you are
asking for less. Is it any wonder that I have trouble satisfying the
divers needs of the editing community?

Your comments make it clear that you haven't used ae in a long time, if
ever. When you first enter ae, the help screen takes up the top third of
the screen. One of the items on that screen tells you how to toggle the
help screen on and off. If I set it up so that there is no help screen on
startup, how is the uninformed vi expert to know how to get the help
screen?

> 
> > 
> > >   The prompts sometimes leave something to be desired (When I
> > > type ^X^C after changing a file, why does the prompt have n^H at the end
> > > of it?)
> > 
> > This is a bug that both the author and myself have been unable to resolve.
> > It seems to be an artifact of key encoding, but, since the error isn't
> > obvious, it could just as easily be caused by something else (like a
> > curses difficulty of a completely different nature). As it is only visual
> > cruft, and doesn't effect the opperation of the program, I have not been
> > too frantic about it...
> 
> yes, but someone who is editing his systems config file file be distrustfull 
> to
> such garbage.

Send me a patch.

> 
> > 
> > > And it _is_ possible for people to get trapped in ae--but people
> > 
> > While this was true for several "broken" releases of ae, this has not been
> > possible for a long time. The reason this missinformation remains in play
> > for so long is that folks continue to use old, broken rescue disks. The
> > current version of ae does not suffer from this problem, and hasn't for
> > some time.
> 
> Sure this happened to me a long time ago, didn't try ae since because of it
> though.
> 
So, whenever a program exhibits a bug, you stop using it? You must have a
very sparse system ;-)

Seriously, if you wish to be helpful with your comments it would help if
your understanding of the situation weren't ancient history.

Luck,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Dale Scheetz]

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 same order of
> > space on the boot floppy as ae, I would be in favor of replacing ae with
> > that editor. (or one that fits the same space/function constraints)
> > Other than that I could honestly care less what editor is on the boot
> > floppies, I'm sure I will be able to use it ;-)
> 
> You said above that ae keybinding can be edited. why not provide an optional
> /etc/aerc or whatever with said edit bindings ? or maybe i misunderstood some
> stuff.

This is what caused the probems with the vi mode (I provided an
alternative rc file).

The actual situation is that ae only does a small handfull of functions,
and it does them in a specific way (save file always prompts for the name
which some folks have objected to.). The fact that you can load a file,
add text, cut and paste text, and delete text, seems to fall short of the
"required" tools for fixing a broken system. Personally, I don't get it.

> 
> Also is there a simple ans small help text on how to use ae that could go on
> the boot floppies also ?

ae, carries it's own help, and presents it at the first screen. Something
during the installation needs to indicate the name of the editor available
on the boot disk. I don't see any need for more than that.

Luck,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 in every way.
> And we don't have a vi that would fit in 25KB.

i am investigating levee, the author claims it is 27kb big, no slang nor
ncurses, let see how it runs on my debian box.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 just told what i experienced, and it was so bad an experience, that i never
wanted to use it since, to the point that i better used echo, grep, cat and
other such stuff when editing fstab files.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony (suggestion)

[Sven LUTHER]

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 to open a new file, enter insert mode with i, type hello (it 
> > frooze
> > some time between "hel" and "lo", and i was not able to save with ESC :wq. 
> > not
> > even releasing the shell back to me, nor accepting ^c nor ^z, very strange.
> > 
> > didn't try a lot more.
> Strange, but it's the same here on our solaris boxes.
> On Linux, it runs like a charm.
> I am wondering, if it works on Linux-AXP, i'll try it at home.
> (Perhaps, Solaris has different opinions about esc-sequences?)

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.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Josip Rodin]

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"). OTOH You can turn off the help window with some
key combination on runtime.

> > > And it _is_ possible for people to get trapped in ae--but people
> > 
> > While this was true for several "broken" releases of ae, this has not been
> > possible for a long time. The reason this missinformation remains in play
> > for so long is that folks continue to use old, broken rescue disks. The
> > current version of ae does not suffer from this problem, and hasn't for
> > some time.
> 
> 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 :)

-- 
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Josip Rodin]

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.

-- 
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/

Re: An 'ae' testimony (suggestion)

[Martin Kahlert]

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
> some time between "hel" and "lo", and i was not able to save with ESC :wq. not
> even releasing the shell back to me, nor accepting ^c nor ^z, very strange.
> 
> didn't try a lot more.
Strange, but it's the same here on our solaris boxes.
On Linux, it runs like a charm.
I am wondering, if it works on Linux-AXP, i'll try it at home.
(Perhaps, Solaris has different opinions about esc-sequences?)

Best wishes,
Martin.

-- 
esa$ gcc -Wall -o ariane ariane5.c
ariane5.c: 666: warning: long float implicitly truncated to unsigned type
esa$ ariane5

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 have something to talk
>  about. In the meanwhile, vi is not an option as the sole editor at
>  install/rescue times.

huh, this should not be more than 1K binary code, just a test for the mode, and
a small output message. As long as you don't put something like the complete vi
howto or whatever that is ...

and for the flamewar : vi rulez ...

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 understand the sentiment that people can only understand
> vi. Are other editors really so difficult?

no, but vi as been standard unix editor since times immemorial, and people
expect to find it on any unix system.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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
> slang using a compatability header and it often works ok.

but an editor on a rescue floppy must work fine all the time, not 'often' ...

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 no, i'm not referring to
> > > you here joseph).
> > 
> > That's just silly. If someone can figure out vi, they really ought to be
> > able to figure out how to use an editor with on-screen help. We're not
> > forcing anyone to write a book with it, just use it for a couple of
> > seconds in an emergency.
> > 
> > > ae is fine except for the vi emulation mode.  it does the job, a simple
> > > no-frills no-features text editor.
> > 
> > I disagree: I think it's still more complicated than it needs to be.
> 
> Complicated?
> 
> > E.g., the big block of commands at the upper left is a bit too
> > cluttered. 
> 
> Upper left? You _are_ refering to the help screen aren't you? This screen
> coveres the top third of the screen, and includes every operation ae will
> perform. How would you suggest that I make it less "cluttered"?
> 
> The phrase, "a bit too cluttered" is not something I can convert into a
> patch ;-)

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.

> 
> >   The prompts sometimes leave something to be desired (When I
> > type ^X^C after changing a file, why does the prompt have n^H at the end
> > of it?)
> 
> This is a bug that both the author and myself have been unable to resolve.
> It seems to be an artifact of key encoding, but, since the error isn't
> obvious, it could just as easily be caused by something else (like a
> curses difficulty of a completely different nature). As it is only visual
> cruft, and doesn't effect the opperation of the program, I have not been
> too frantic about it...

yes, but someone who is editing his systems config file file be distrustfull to
such garbage.

> 
> > And it _is_ possible for people to get trapped in ae--but people
> 
> While this was true for several "broken" releases of ae, this has not been
> possible for a long time. The reason this missinformation remains in play
> for so long is that folks continue to use old, broken rescue disks. The
> current version of ae does not suffer from this problem, and hasn't for
> some time.

Sure this happened to me a long time ago, didn't try ae since because of it
though.

> 
> > are able to escape ee by typing the escape key and answering the
> > prompts.
> 
>  Q works in ae.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 ae, I would be in favor of replacing ae with
> that editor. (or one that fits the same space/function constraints)
> Other than that I could honestly care less what editor is on the boot
> floppies, I'm sure I will be able to use it ;-)

You said above that ae keybinding can be edited. why not provide an optional
/etc/aerc or whatever with said edit bindings ? or maybe i misunderstood some
stuff.

Also is there a simple ans small help text on how to use ae that could go on
the boot floppies also ?

Friendly,

Sven LTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony (suggestion)

[Sven LUTHER]

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
> > vi-compatibility mode goes. (Has gone.)
> > 
> > 2) We choose between 'ae' and 'ee' on their merits.  At the moment, 'ae'
> > is in the ascendant.  If an 'ee' fan creates a version of 'ee' which
> > fits on the floppies, and is sufficiently functional, maybe that'll be
> > OK.  Any other editor is also a candidate here, but we have space
> > problems.
> 
> I found a very small vi-clone named levee on
> http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~orc/Code
> its exefile is 36K. Would that be small enough?

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
some time between "hel" and "lo", and i was not able to save with ESC :wq. not
even releasing the shell back to me, nor accepting ^c nor ^z, very strange.

didn't try a lot more.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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).
> 
> That's just silly. If someone can figure out vi, they really ought to be
> able to figure out how to use an editor with on-screen help. We're not
> forcing anyone to write a book with it, just use it for a couple of
> seconds in an emergency.

but there is something wrong with an editor not exciting normally like it is
supposed to do.

Hell the first time, i went down to edit my fstab with cat, grep and other such
stuff, or was it ed ? do we have ed on the boot floppies ?

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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
> >(probably deserved) reputation for newbie hostility.  If we don't, we
> >alienate all the experienced people, who expect vi to be a basic tool
> >available everywhere.
> 
> Then we should ditch the vi idea altogether.  Why?  Sure, *some*
> experienced people will expect it.  Here's one experienced person who
> doesn't, however.  What I *do* expect is an *easy* editor, not one that
> conforms to how I work.
> 
> It is the very fact that experienced users are, well, experienced that
> they should be excluded from consideration.  Anyone who, if they are like me,
> can switch from joe to vim to CUA in the span of 1 minute (done it at work
> more than once in the past week) can read the fscking help screen.  It is the
> newbies who don't know RTFM yet that need to be catered to. 
> 
> When setting up a system we don't need something that we can code the
> bible in 20 different languages.  All we need is this:
> 
> Up/Down/Left/Right
> PgUp/PgDn
> Delete character
> Backspace
> Delete line
> Mark a block
> Cut/copy/move/paste block

But would be nice to have something that saves and exits cleanly when you ask
it, i think that is the most important feature, something ae don't do all the
time in his current incarnation.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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.  My fingers know
> joe.

but vi has been _the_ unix editor since the begining of unix, after ed that is.

we should have a working vi on the boot disks.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 joe-tiny package or
> >something, but it'd at least work---compared to ae which does not!
> 
> Well...
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} ls -l `which ae`
> - -rwxr-xr-x   1 root root23548 Oct 30  1998 /bin/ae
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} ls -l `which joe`
> - -rwxr-xr-x   5 root root   174020 Dec 10 13:19 /usr/bin/joe
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} ldd `which joe`
> libncurses.so.4 => /lib/libncurses.so.4 (0x4000e000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4004e000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} ldd `which ae`
> libslang.so.1 => /lib/libslang.so.1 (0x4000e000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40055000)
> libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x400fa000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000)
> 
>...joe is bigger than ae, but ae uses slang (does something else use
> slang?) so the sizes might offset each other in that regard.  All joe needs
> to be quite functional (which is why I like it so) is just the executable,
> the libraries, and a joerc.
> 
> 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, but at least joe does tell
> people that ^KH is help.  Hell, we can enable the following line in the rc
> file and they'll get help all the time.

huh ?

after the emacs vs. vi flamewar, you want to start a unix still editor (vi or
emacs) vs. microsoft still key binding thread ?

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Sven LUTHER]

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 didn't say which version, I'm
> afraid) and 'vi fstab' to mount his old partitions.

Yes, this is one of the most infuriating thing with a base debian system, no
true vi.

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
exactly the sameas you are used, especially in the saving and exciting part of
it, very anoying ,and can make nasty things to your install.

even pure ed would be nicer :)

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: An 'ae' testimony (suggestion)

[Martin Kahlert]

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 their merits.  At the moment, 'ae'
> is in the ascendant.  If an 'ee' fan creates a version of 'ee' which
> fits on the floppies, and is sufficiently functional, maybe that'll be
> OK.  Any other editor is also a candidate here, but we have space
> problems.

I found a very small vi-clone named levee on
http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~orc/Code
its exefile is 36K. Would that be small enough?

(There is no active development, now)

Bye,
Martin.

-- 
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?

Re: An 'ae' testimony (SUMMARY)

[Jules Bean]

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 which version, I'm
> afraid) and 'vi fstab' to mount his old partitions.
> 
> Then he had attempting to do something which would have worked in vi (he
> didn't give specifics) but doesn't work in 'ae', which resulted in the
> file getting mangled, and saved.
> 
> So he switched to SuSE.

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 their merits.  At the moment, 'ae'
is in the ascendant.  If an 'ee' fan creates a version of 'ee' which
fits on the floppies, and is sufficiently functional, maybe that'll be
OK.  Any other editor is also a candidate here, but we have space
problems.

3) We ought to have at the back of our minds the possibility of
separating the boot and rescue floppies.

4) We ought to investigate the possiblity of a CD-ROM based boot/rescue
using more space, and hence giving us a better selection of editors.

The bottom line, IMO, is that the vi-emulation mode caused more harm
than good.  I think the example I started the thread with was important,
and only one person seems to disagree.

Jules


-- 
/+---+-\
|  Jelibean aka  | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  6 Evelyn Rd|
|  Jules aka |   |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  TW9 2TF *UK*   |
++---+-+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.  |
\--/

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joel Klecker]

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 longer works, I might add.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)Debian GNU/Linux Developer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://web.espy.org/>   http://www.debian.org/>

RE: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve McIntyre]

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 disk partition image.  That
>means that we can use a nice-sized debian system image as the rescue/install
>from CD.
>
>Take a look at :
>
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/2996/readme.html  and
>http://www.nikko.simplenet.com/goldentime/bootcd1b.htm

Thanks, I will...

-- 
Steve McIntyre, CURS CCE, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Whenever you eat, chew"
"Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky, +--
"Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I..."  |Finger for PGP key

RE: An 'ae' testimony

[Dean . Carpenter]

-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:



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 disk partition image.  That
means that we can use a nice-sized debian system image as the rescue/install
from CD.

Take a look at :

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/2996/readme.html  and
http://www.nikko.simplenet.com/goldentime/bootcd1b.htm

--
Dean Carpenter  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
94 TT :)[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Enrique Zanardi]

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 think.
> 
> That would help the space problem on the boot disks

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).
 
--
Enrique Zanardi[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)

[Mark Blunier]

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 it with a small kernel
> selector, to pick a kernel that supports your hardware.  The current kernels
> are pretty good, but there are a couple of choices.  Then it could be a
> generic rescue CD.

In some of my test disks, I have included ide (and sbpcd) support in the
kernel.  After booting, the modules for sound, printing, serial, etc,
are on the CD and can be loaded.  A ide/scsi boot kernel should cover a
large number of systems that can boot off CD.  The disk is rather
tight on space, and modules for sbpcd, aztcd, etc, don't fit on the
boot disk.  I'd need a mount a second floppy to get load the modules.

As a side not, since the el torito CD's can use 1.44 or 2.88 meg
boot images, a 2.88 meg boot image would provide a lot of space for
jumbo kernels.  I don't have a 2.88 meg drive, and haven't found
a way to make one without one.  If someone could send me the image
of a 2.88 meg disk that has been made bootable with syslinux, I'd
appreciate it.

> 
> And by the way, why isn't this a package ?  At least the iso-image
> generation part of it if the cd image is too big (I would think it is).
> Share the wealth, this sounds like a really, really nice tool.

A few reasons.
1) I still consider my scripts to be in alpha development
2) In its current form, LiveCD depends on patches to the kernel to
load a .tgz file as the root file system.  The patch does seem
to make the kernel bigger, but at this stage (alpha code), it makes
the development cycle much easier than trying to create a boot disk
with a compressed file system on it.
3)  Other people havent shown much interest in the project.
4)  I'm not a developer.

Mark Blunier

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Mark Blunier]

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

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Adam Heath]

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, and been laughed at several times, I
use ae on a daily basis.  All my editting is done with it, including my
programming.  I am quite familiar with the keystrokes that it binds to.

Adam

NDN: Re: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)

[Post Office]

Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:

Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joey Hess]

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 will stick with ncurses.

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.

-- 
see shy jo

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve McIntyre]

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.
>
>We have a lot of common unix utilities on just a single program: busybox.
>But Tom's disks use another little trick: non-common disk format (1680 KB
>IIRC). I tried using a non-common format for slink and almost drowned
>under the waterfall of bug reports, so I moved back to 1.44 MB. I'll try
>a different format for potato, let's see what happens...

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...

-- 
Steve McIntyre, CURS CCE, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use Debian GNU/Linux - upgrade your Windoze box today!  http://www.debian.org/
"Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky, +--
"Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I..."  |Finger for PGP key

Re: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)

[David Bristel]

Well, for as long as I've been using Debian(shortly after 1.3.1 came out), the
CD has been bootable, and useable as a rescue disk.  Sure, it's not completely
useful, but you can boot from it, get a shell, etc...for compatability with
older systems without the "boot from CD" in their BIOS, we need to continue
development of the floppy install method, but I agree that the CD boot could
give more features than the floppies.

Dave Bristel


On 24 May 1999, Christian Leutloff wrote:

> Date: 24 May 1999 17:42:21 +0200
> From: Christian Leutloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Mark Blunier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "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@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> 
> 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, and anything I'd
> > might need to repair something thats broke.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Bye
>   Christian
> 
> -- 
> Dipl.-Ing. Christian Leutloff, Aachen, Germany  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   http://www.oche.de/~leutloff/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>   Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.de.debian.org/
> 


pgpyF2yEeyCHo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)

[Mark Blunier]

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 from a partition with debian installed (hdb3), but running
linux off an installation on hdb2.  This made things easier for
developement work.

Mark Blunier

Live CD project  http://www.ocslink.com/~blunier/

RE: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)

[Dean . Carpenter]

-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]> 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, and anything I'd
> might need to repair something thats broke.

: 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 it with a small kernel
selector, to pick a kernel that supports your hardware.  The current kernels
are pretty good, but there are a couple of choices.  Then it could be a
generic rescue CD.

And by the way, why isn't this a package ?  At least the iso-image
generation part of it if the cd image is too big (I would think it is).
Share the wealth, this sounds like a really, really nice tool.

--
Dean Carpenter  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
94 TT :)[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)

[Christian Leutloff]

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, and anything I'd
> might need to repair something thats broke.

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.

Bye
  Christian

-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Christian Leutloff, Aachen, Germany  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.oche.de/~leutloff/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.de.debian.org/


pgpxpqOSDqptA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Hamish Moffatt]

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 doco -- actually, I don't need an embedded
program language, just a text display library! So I will stick with ncurses.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD). 
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.


pgp57hnaW6LOz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Enrique Zanardi]

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.

We have a lot of common unix utilities on just a single program: busybox.
But Tom's disks use another little trick: non-common disk format (1680 KB
IIRC). I tried using a non-common format for slink and almost drowned
under the waterfall of bug reports, so I moved back to 1.44 MB. I'll try
a different format for potato, let's see what happens...

--
Enrique Zanardi[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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 terminal emulator like windoze telnet, it had occasional bugs 
> > > running
> > > in an xterm (not screen display, but failure to reset the terminal 
> > > properly
> > > on exit).
> > 
> > In screen and console too.
> 
> When I use rxvt, LOTS of programs have trouble restoring the screen on
> exit. vi, for one. I'd guess all ncurses programs, but I'm not sure.

All the more reason to use slang-based stuff right?  ;>

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
 tomorrow there will be a great disturbance in the workforce
-- May 18, 1999


pgpAjhxjtZS0k.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"David" == David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[David Frey]

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 fix some of the more noticable
>problems of ae, and *still* come in smaller than ee, there's something
>wrong with us.

I personally *hate* ae. I think it is essential to have some vi-clone
installed on the bootdisk or at least ed for the advanced users (so that
one can fix e.g. /etc/fstab without cut and paste and grep alone).
Of course, an ee (or if you must ae) for the newbies should be there too.

David
-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
  -- Henry Spencer

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Riku Voipio]

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 arrow-left goes left one and (not
> intuitive, but easily learnt) the shift key marks it and the delete key
> removes it.

You may want to try fte and fte-console. They work exectly as you
defined. 

-- 
Riku Voipio|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Poutamäentie 15 B 78   |+358 50 3313498  --+--
00360 Helsinki |   |
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.  |

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Manoj Srivastava]

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 (which isn't
 Craig> hard). it's no substitute for vi.

Opinions. Anything, IMHO, is better than vi ;-)

 >> > 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..
 >> 
 >> Ahem. vi non-primitive heh-heh-heh.

 Craig> yes, vi IS non-primitive.  do not mock what you fail to understand.

Oh, I understand vi. I have been using it for 12 years now. I
 just find it incredibly primitive. We do seem to be trading opinions
 in this thread, so I just added mine. Or is it that only some people
 can flaunt their opinions, and dissenters can't? 


 >> Are vi users less capable, or more inflexible, than users of better
 >> editors? I think you are doing vi users a dissservice, labeling them
 >> so incapable and unadapting.

 Craig> no, vi users are not less capable or more inflexible (and there are
 Craig> no better editors -- emacs is not a text editor, it's a programmable
 Craig> editing environment. if you like that kind of thing then more power to
 Craig> you...but emacs is also no substitute for vi).

 Craig> i thought i explained it well enough. vi is the sort of tool that when
 Craig> you get good at it becomes like an extension of your thoughts - you
 Craig> don't have to consciously think about HOW to do something, you just
 Craig> think about WHAT you want to do and it happens.

Yes. And in a full fledged system you should probably have
 access to this paragon of productivity. However, we are talking about
 impaired systems, where everyone has to settle for less. 

 Craig> this doesn't mean that vi users are less flexible or less
 Craig> capable.

I seem to only hear them complaining. I used occams razor to
 decide what the reason could be.

 Craig> it means that trying to use some other less capable editor is like
 Craig> trying to edit with one hand tied behind your back and three fingers of
 Craig> your remaining hand chopped off. you can do so much more with vi that
 Craig> anything less is a major handicap.

The same could be said of XEmacs. Unfortunately, this is an
 impaired system we are talking about. 


 Craig> i fail to see any further point in this thread. it's gone on way too
 Craig> long already. the fact is that vi is a basic unix tool which should
 Craig> be availablenot providing it on the rescue disk when we can do so
 Craig> would be absurdly laughable if it weren't so outrageously blinkered and
 Craig> pedestrian.

I see. 

 >> Anyway, every one knows that vi is primitive ;-)

 Craig> i expected better of you than pointless cheap shots like this. guess i
 Craig> was mistaken.

I see that your cool has not been the sole victim of this
 thread. Your sense of humour has died too. (You do know what a smiley
 means, don't you?)

manoj
 who has not had a good editor war in years
-- 
 To find a friend one must close one eye; to keep him -- two. Norman
 Douglas
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Manoj Srivastava]

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 have something to talk
 about. In the meanwhile, vi is not an option as the sole editor at
 install/rescue times.

manoj
-- 
 I can't stand squealers; hit that guy. Albert Anastasia
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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.  That, by default, makes it intristically
less friendly.  
- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0gnxXpf7K2LbpnFEQJGQgCeOPEf+aH5eNkIPkUhfEfo2JoZsI0AoIu9
ZcLMeGb4zsBrwWjPBrpUtMb0
=IlHC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Justin N. Penney]

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 my bash profile and added some aliases. None of
them worked cuz ae actually inserted ^M when i hit return. So i got on irc (on
a windows box) and asked a friend what the errors that i was getting were. He
told me to edit the file again in vi and see if there wer any control
characters that were in the file. So i typed 'vi .bash_profile' and was lost.
I did see hte ^M's though so i knew i could fix it from there and bought UNIX
for Dummies to learn vi. I still liked ae though.

Next install (2.0) ae was completely different. None of the keystrokes were
the same and some of them just seemed to not work. I learned more about vi,
installed vim and went on with that.

Well i tried to install FreeBSD about 5 months ago. I did NOT go smoothly
especially the dialing my isp and ftping it, Just would not work right. So my
friend set up his box for ip-masq and i installed it that way. well ee was the
editor and my only thought was "Well this is easy." I wish it had been on the
debian boot disks at the time that i needed them.

I will agree with the vi zealots that vi is fast, easy and once you learn it
like second nature. But remembering what it was actually like to come from
where most new linux users come from i remember how hard vi was and how weird
ae was. 

-- 
  _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _  Justin N. Penney
 / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ 
( s | p | a | n | k | e | n | s | t | e | i | n )
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/@mindless.com 
 http://echo.sound.net/~clancey/
 http://egb.home.dhs.org/

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Hamish Moffatt]

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 disagree: a modal editor is intrisically easier to get stuck in,
> because most beginners don't understand the modality concept.

What if we make the help text mode-sensitive? eg

--EDIT MODE--
Enter text. Hit ESCAPE to return to command mode.


--COMMAND MODE--
i - insert at current cursor position   :wq - Save
a - insert after current cursor position:d  - Delete a line
arrow keys to move (assuming they work)



Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD). 
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Josip Rodin]

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 don't need standard tools. You need any kind of
> > tools that do their job. If there would be standard tools on it, then
> > we would have to include X and at least two emacs variants on it ;)
>  Yes, but we need minimalistic tools, which behave in a standard (i.e. well
> known) way. 

It's better to have an unknown set of keybindings, because if there was
a standard one (emacs, vi, wordstar, MS Word^H^H^H^H^H^H^H), we'd have
another flamewar

> > However, the situation is a bit more complicated than what it may seem
> > to an innocent bystander - we have the boot disk, and the rescue disk
> > in the same image, i.e. on the same 1.44MB  - and that is a really practical
> > reason why we needed to put a very very small (yet functional) editor on it.
> > Debian should not be criticized because of that decision, it was completely
> > logical in these circumstances.
>  Well, than should Debian be criticizied for the decision, to use just one
> disk? I would prefer to swap disks (a _few_ times) instead of using a 
> crippled editor. I can cope with ae (and measured by its size, it is an 
> awesome tool), but more than once, I wished to have something closer to vi.
> Vi might scare newbies to death, but at least, it's documented in most Unix
> beginner's books.

Complain to debian-boot@lists.debian.org, or file a bug against
boot-floppies.

-- 
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Michael Stone]

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 most beginners don't understand the modality concept.

Mike Stone

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Hamish Moffatt]

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.  Hell, it isn't useful
> to experienced unix people who have never had to touch vi.  Go away, Craig,
> please, just go away.

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?


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD). 
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Hamish Moffatt]

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 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 exit).
> 
> In screen and console too.

When I use rxvt, LOTS of programs have trouble restoring the screen on
exit. vi, for one. I'd guess all ncurses programs, but I'm not sure.



Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD). 
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.


pgpYxogNdKLKE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Guenther Thomsen]

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 any unix are ed and vi.  
> 
> On a rescue disk you don't need standard tools. You need any kind of
> tools that do their job. If there would be standard tools on it, then
> we would have to include X and at least two emacs variants on it ;)
 Yes, but we need minimalistic tools, which behave in a standard (i.e. well
known) way. 

> 
> > > You have to have a broader view (is that the expression?) in this
> > > case, since it is not only yours boot disk, but everyone elses.
> > 
> > i think it is you who needs the broader view. the world is not composed
> > entirely of newbies seeking escape from dos/windows. in fact, it's fair
> > to say that complete newbies aren't our target market, we make a high
> > quality distribution perfectly suited to experienced unix users. even
> > so, we support them by including a simple editor (ae) on the rescue
> > disk...why should we do less for our target market?
> 
> No, I don't think that including ae was done becuse of the
> user-friendliness - ae, as any usual unix text editor, is something that
> complete newbies don't like. If we cared about newbies, we would get a
> MS-DOS edit clone or even start up the X just after booting (I don't exactly
> know how, but you get the point).
 I like to second that. Newbies are likely to be overtaxed by the very 
situation, where a _rescue_ disk is necessary. They're starting to whine
and yell and call for help from a friend or contractor anyway.

> 
> > debian has been criticised in the past for failing to include vi on the
> > rescue floppy. we copped a lot of flack for not having one as it is a
> > tool which any experienced unix user can reasonably expect to find on a
> > rescue floppy.
> 
> However, the situation is a bit more complicated than what it may seem
> to an innocent bystander - we have the boot disk, and the rescue disk
> in the same image, i.e. on the same 1.44MB  - and that is a really practical
> reason why we needed to put a very very small (yet functional) editor on it.
> Debian should not be criticized because of that decision, it was completely
> logical in these circumstances.
 Well, than should Debian be criticizied for the decision, to use just one
disk? I would prefer to swap disks (a _few_ times) instead of using a 
crippled editor. I can cope with ae (and measured by its size, it is an 
awesome tool), but more than once, I wished to have something closer to vi.
Vi might scare newbies to death, but at least, it's documented in most Unix
beginner's books.

Guenther

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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 to touch vi.  Go away, Craig,
please, just go away.

- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0fe/npf7K2LbpnFEQK1UgCdGTP0uJYV69L1ABQ2hd6xvuGcUbAAoIZb
sWKlSxCGUgNuYSr/S0NMUPaA
=aWLc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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 don't have multiple undo and redo. 

Joe can do that.

>you can't pipe a block of text through a program. 

Joe can do that.

>you can't join lines reliably. 

Joe can do that.

>to change anything you first have to delete the old text and then type the
>new text. 

Joe can replace instead of insert.

>you can't do regexp search and replace.  

Joe can.

>there is no way to visually distinguish between tabs and spaces. 

You know, I don't even need that in vim.  Something about the cursor
jumping back and forth kinda clues me in.

>these are just some of the basic things that are missing or wrong in
>ae...there are many more, without even beginning to count the more useful
>advanced functions.

Your point?  For a basic install/rescue editor *NONE* of that is *NEEDED*.

>ae is an adequate minimal no-frills, no-features text editor. it's
>better than cat. it's even better than pico (which isn't hard). it's no
>substitute for vi.

Then will you shut up about vi?  You just admited what we've been trying
to tell you all the long!

>yes, vi IS non-primitive.  do not mock what you fail to understand.

vi is primitve.  I say that even as I type this message in vim.

>i thought i explained it well enough. vi is the sort of tool that when
>you get good at it becomes like an extension of your thoughts - you
>don't have to consciously think about HOW to do something, you just
>think about WHAT you want to do and it happens.

What do you know.  Joe does everything you say VI does, I consider joe an
extension of myself, I don't think, I do.  Therefore, Joe should go onto the
boot disk!  Thanks, Craig, the next time I ever use it I'll be most
appreciative of your logic!

>it means that trying to use some other less capable editor is like
>trying to edit with one hand tied behind your back and three fingers of
>your remaining hand chopped off. you can do so much more with vi that
>anything less is a major handicap.

And how does this fit into the context of an install/rescue disk.  *IT*
*DOESN'T*.

>i fail to see any further point in this thread. it's gone on way too
>long already. the fact is that vi is a basic unix tool which should
>be availablenot providing it on the rescue disk when we can do so
>would be absurdly laughable if it weren't so outrageously blinkered and
>pedestrian.

Yup, so laughable, FreeBSD, which adheres to the historical aspect of unix
more than Debian ever will, doesn't put vi on its install/rescue disk.  They
go with ee.  H, food for thought.

>i expected better of you than pointless cheap shots like this. guess i
>was mistaken.

Well, craig, it seems to be the only thing that you respond to.  It
appears most of your arguements fall into that catagory.  What is best for
Craig Sanders, God of the Internet, Master of Debian and to hell with the
peons.  

Jeez, Craig, I consider joe in the same vein you consider vi and I'm
willing to use ee or ae if it gets the job done because they are better for
the distribution.  Noone except for idiot blowhards like you give a damn
about vi anymore.


- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0fenXpf7K2LbpnFEQJ7XQCgzG00U619tWAaJVYH8QCaI2OMGmQAn04T
SG+cDMrJMLqVna6Zrj6Y1fKh
=py/A
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[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) is present
> in ae in vi mode?  Yeah.  

no, most of that functionality is missing from ae's crappy vi mode. that
is why it would be good if there were room for elvis-tiny to fit on the
boot disks, and that is why i object to the idea of wasting space on the
rescue floppy on 'ee' when it is basically the same as 'ae'. if there is
any extra space on the boot floppy then it should not be squandered on
ee, it should be used for something useful - a decent vi, preferably.

> You argued that vi mode SHOULD be preserved even if it was broken.

yes, i have argued that ae's vi emulation is better than nothing.

craig

--
craig sanders

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Craig Sanders]

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

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Josip Rodin]

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 exit).
> 
> In screen and console too.

I cannot confirm this, since I have never experienced it - it has never
had any problems in neither xterm, screen nor console, wherever I used it.
Only when you run it remote from non-Linux software.

-- 
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Enrique Zanardi]

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 really that much.  This of course requires that ee use
> slang.

We need a modular kernel for potato, not the huge beast we call our
official kernel (heck, soon it won't fit on a single floppy!).
Moving to 3 floppies is the wrong answer, sorry.

--
Enrique Zanardi[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Craig Sanders]

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 redo. you can't pipe a block of text through a program. you can't
join lines reliably. to change anything you first have to delete the old
text and then type the new text. it's more reliable and less hassle to
just re-type an entire line than it is to edit it. you can't do regexp
search and replace. there is no way to visually distinguish between tabs
and spaces. these are just some of the basic things that are missing or
wrong in ae...there are many more, without even beginning to count the
more useful advanced functions.

ae is an adequate minimal no-frills, no-features text editor. it's
better than cat. it's even better than pico (which isn't hard). it's no
substitute for vi.


> > 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..
>
> Ahem. vi non-primitive heh-heh-heh.

yes, vi IS non-primitive.  do not mock what you fail to understand.


> >  .you've lost some really fundamental ability which you take
> > for granted. when you know vi you don't need to remember the
> > commands, you just think about what changes you want to make and
> > (metaphorically speaking) your fingers do the rest. having to use a
> > primitive editor reduces you to hunt-and-peck typing and having to
> > think about each individual keystroke.
>
> Are vi users less capable, or more inflexible, than users of better
> editors? I think you are doing vi users a dissservice, labeling them
> so incapable and unadapting.

no, vi users are not less capable or more inflexible (and there are
no better editors -- emacs is not a text editor, it's a programmable
editing environment. if you like that kind of thing then more power to
you...but emacs is also no substitute for vi).

i thought i explained it well enough. vi is the sort of tool that when
you get good at it becomes like an extension of your thoughts - you
don't have to consciously think about HOW to do something, you just
think about WHAT you want to do and it happens.

this doesn't mean that vi users are less flexible or less capable.
it means that trying to use some other less capable editor is like
trying to edit with one hand tied behind your back and three fingers of
your remaining hand chopped off. you can do so much more with vi that
anything less is a major handicap.


i fail to see any further point in this thread. it's gone on way too
long already. the fact is that vi is a basic unix tool which should
be availablenot providing it on the rescue disk when we can do so
would be absurdly laughable if it weren't so outrageously blinkered and
pedestrian.


> Anyway, every one knows that vi is primitive ;-)

i expected better of you than pointless cheap shots like this. guess i
was mistaken.

craig

--
craig sanders

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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 be preserved
even if it was broken.

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
"my biggest problem with RH (and especially RH contrib packages) is that
they DON'T have anything like our policy.  That's one of the main reasons
why their packages are so crappy and broken.  Debian has the teamwork
side of building a distribution down to a fine art."


pgpEDxshmFxaw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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 other editors really so difficult?

No, but vi users are.  ;>

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
 RMS for President???
 ...or ESR, he wants a new job ;)


pgplKFGJEagq3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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 face hanging out, and say in one
> breath that you haven't tried it for a while, and in the other breath,
> claim it's broken?

because the version is 962-23 and I last tried 962-21.1, aaand...

ae (962-23) unstable; urgency=low

  * Set up "fake" vi mode to work with update-alternatives instead of script.
  *   * Use a wrapper script, ae.vi.sh, to use the correct rc file.
  *   * Set update-alternatives to call the script for calls to vi.
  *   * Set priority for update-alternatives to -20 for immediate replacement.
  * This should fix the problem for the HURD caused by the original script.

 -- Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sat, 17 Apr 1999 12:22:17 -0400

ae (962-22) frozen unstable; urgency=high

  * recompiled under slang1 to match non-maintainer upload
  * added patch so LD = $(CC): fixes 31545
  * added glibc 2.1 patch for strdup: fixes 22530 and 22637
  * removed extra reference to ^? in ae2vi.rc: fixes 23572

 -- Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Wed,  6 Jan 1999 17:39:12 -0500


Nothing there indicates a fix for the problems I've had with it.  In
fact, the only thing that could come close is the ^? reference which is
in the vi mode, not the normal mode.

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
 anyone around?
 no, we're all irregular polygons


pgpEWx0lykmxm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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 like windoze telnet, it had occasional bugs running
> in an xterm (not screen display, but failure to reset the terminal properly
> on exit).

In screen and console too.

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
* Tv lives in X.
* Knghtbrd lives in console
* wichert lives in the netherlands
* Espy is dead


pgpQ28Tw5YPzJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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 news!
> 
> > I've never seen a problem with its termcap/ncurses interface.  Could you
> > explain?
> 
[.. joe problems ..]
> 
> Still, it's the best editor around =%o)

It also has a habit (curses related) that sometimes it changes your stty
settings and doesn't change them back, leaving you with a mess rquireing
stty sane to fix.  This is a bug against the package, but nobody has any
idea what causes it.

It may have gone away with ncurses 4.  If so, I think I need to have a
look at a couple other programs that had the problem.  =>

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
* m2 stares at the monitor... it looks like a hamburger...
 m2 - that's a bad sign


pgpg46OdEvHV2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joey Hess]

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 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.

-- 
see shy jo

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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 picture.
> 
> if you like pico then write a free clone.

Please aquire a clue.  I even said two messages up in this thread that
pico was totally unsuitable for the base disks.  It's 360k last I looked,
and it's non-free.

Debian has not had an officially recommended newbie editor.  However I've
been hearing more and more people suggesting ee for this because it's
much more functional than pico and almost 1/8th the size!


> > I think a growing segment of people agree that ee should replace ae
> 
> 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 to switch to slang).

Yes, MAYBE more.  I've counted at least 4, plus more on irc.  Given that
there have been at most 8 people involved in this thread, I think we seem
to be approaching the point at which you can no longer ignore those of us
who think ee is a good choice.

Well, you may choose to ignore us, but I hope others will not as
willfully ignorant of what's been said.  And before you answer that, I
will point out that your comments above about me and pico ARE willfully
ignorant.


> > for the base disks.  I'm guessing slcurses would be used for that, and
> > I think there is some slight bit of porting involved for that.  I'd be
> > interested to know how much there is if anything, I'd be interested
> > in building mp3blaster and joe against slang. curses sometimes has
> > annoying bugs.
> 
> ae does the job of a simple no-frills editor in ~20K. ee does it in
> ~50k (*)
> 
> ae wins.
> 
> 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
> a second copy of ae hacked to remove the non-modalness which dale said
> were what is causing the problems with the vi emulation.
> 
> if the second copy didn't have to carry the baggage of supporting a
> non-modal mode :-) , it may be possible to get the vi emulation to a
> decent state. it *almost* works now, which is what is so annoying about
> it.

Do the math.  I did.  On the base disks there are ae, a little sh script
for making ae act like vi, and a pair of ~4k rc files.  Adding those up
ee is only 17k bigger than ae is.  Granted, you lose the vi mode this
way, but the vi mode doesn't work anyway.  Of course, that's raw
filesizes..  That doesn't really matter much because we have to talk
inodes here, not raw sizes.

du says:
49  /usr/bin/ee
25  /bin/ae
1   /bin/ae.vi.sh
4   /etc/ae/ae2vi.rc
4   /etc/ae.rc

Seems that du thinks the difference is 15k.

If you can find a vi that will fit in the difference .  ;>


> (*) ee requires ncurses now...but i'm assuming it can be ported to
> slang's slcurses.h if somebody is motivated enough to do it.

At least someone else has said this is not difficult.  It didn't just
build when I tried it, so there's probably at least a couple of things I
would need to do.  Of course, it includes a new_curse.[hc] which I told
it not to use when I tried to build it.  Looks straight forward enough,
but I'll need to spend a good 20 minutes tinkering with it.

If it settles this thread faster, I'll do so.  Otherwise I won't put any
rush on it, I was planning to make other mods as well.  I started all
this last night when I tried ee and realized it might be a nice general
purpose editor with some changes---and if I could get rid of the curses
dependency.

Of course this evening I discovered zed.  It doesn't use curses or slang,
it uses its own hardcoded stuff.  Of course it's 170k or so, not suitable
for a boot disk.  BUT OTOH it's almost identical to qedit!!  I have
missed qedit so much that provided I can get it to behave sanely inside
screen, joe is going byebye.


> (**) elvis-tiny needs ncurses now. again, i'm assuming it can be ported
> to slang using slcurses.h. i made a start on this yesterday and cleared
> up a few dozen trivial problems (elvis' own curses.h redefines many
> slcurses.h macros) but ran into a problem with elvis' qfaddch macro
> which requires more knowledge about curses than i currently have.

agh.  I don't see why you're so insistant that there be a vi on the boot
disk.  My complaint with ae is that it's broken.  If it weren't broken,
I'd say leave it be.  OTOH ee is not broken and it's a whole 15k bigger. 
If it can be built with slcurses, PLEASE replace ae with it.

I've confirmed that FreeBSD doesn't ship with a vi on their disk, they
use ee.  Why ee and not ae?  ee works.  why not elvis-tiny?  Too big.

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Manoj Srivastava]

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 inertia is rarely a good argument. We are making a
 better system than unices used to be. Easier to use (which unices
 never were). 

 >> You have to have a broader view (is that the expression?) in this
 >> case, since it is not only yours boot disk, but everyone elses.

 Craig> i think it is you who needs the broader view. the world is not
 Craig> composed entirely of newbies seeking escape from
 Craig> dos/windows. in fact, it's fair to say that complete newbies
 Craig> aren't our target market, we make a high quality distribution
 Craig> perfectly suited to experienced unix users. even so, we
 Craig> support them by including a simple editor (ae) on the rescue
 Craig> disk...why should we do less for our target market?

Our target market, for the most part, is smart, adaptive, and
  perfectly capable of living with ae  when they have to. Inflexible
  users of a primitive visual editor are not my concern.


 Craig> debian has been criticised in the past for failing to include
 Craig> vi on the rescue floppy. we copped a lot of flack for not
 Craig> having one as it is a tool which any experienced unix user can
 Craig> reasonably expect to find on a rescue floppy.which is why
 Craig> we ended up with ae's vi emulation. it may not be real vi, but
 Craig> it's infinitely better than nothing.

Actually, in the opinion of a lot of people, it is not better
  than nothing, it is worse. I tend to concur.

 >> If you want all of the stuff you commonly use on the boot disk, modify
 >> it yourself. Simple :)

 Craig> i don't want all the stuff i commonly use. i just want the bare minimum,
 Craig> and that includes a decent editor.

That rules vi out, then.

manoj
-- 
 "It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." Rick
 Obidiah
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Manoj Srivastava]

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
 Craig> do any of the things you need it to do.

What doesn't ae to? As an editor for a damaged system, it
 seems to work well.

 Craig> being restricted to a primitive editor after you have become
 Craig> proficient with vi is akin to re-learning how to talk after having a
 Craig> stroke..

Ahem. vi non-primitive heh-heh-heh.



 Craig>  .you've lost some really fundamental ability which you take
 Craig> for granted. when you know vi you don't need to remember the commands,
 Craig> you just think about what changes you want to make and (metaphorically
 Craig> speaking) your fingers do the rest. having to use a primitive editor
 Craig> reduces you to hunt-and-peck typing and having to think about each
 Craig> individual keystroke.

Are vi users less capable, or more inflexible, than users of
 better editors? I think you are doing vi users a dissservice,
 labeling them so incapable and unadapting. 

Anyway, every one knows that vi is primitive ;-)

manoj

-- 
 One of the worst of my many faults is that I'm too critical of
 myself.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Manoj Srivastava]

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 on the rescue disk. So there.

manoj

-- 
 A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it. Oscar
 Wilde, "The Portrait of Mr. W.H."
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Mark Blunier]

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 is an image of a working Debian
system (including X, ftp server, emacs, vi, and anything else I want
to put on a 600 meg system), that boots from either a floppy or the CD.
The scripts that I've used to create it are at:
http://www.ocslink.com/~blunier

Mark Blunier

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Michael Stone]

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
> direction.  
> AE's isn't either, but at least they're mnemonic.  ^Up, ^Down, ^Left, ^Right.

Or you could just use the arrows...which works fine in either editor...

Mike Stone



pgprNAgO715MF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Dale Scheetz]

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.
> 
>  b) replace ae with something else, the only real contender AFAICT
>  being 'ee'
> 
> Dale, do you agree with (a)?   Should we just go with that?

Done,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Adam Di Carlo]

> "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 it.

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.

Well, I think you're in the minority.  Most agree (including myself)
that the vi emulation mode in ae does more harm then good.

When we have a vi-alike which is small enough to squeeze on an
oversqueezed floppy, then we'll consider it.  Right now it's moot,
because we don't.

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.

--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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).

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Josip Rodin]

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 each individual keystroke" etc etc...
> 
> you are making the mistake of assuming that the boot disk is solely for
> installation of new debian systems.
> 
> it's not.
> 
> it's called the "rescue" disk for a reason.

How did you come to that conclusion (that I don't know that it is a
rescue disk)?

> 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 don't need standard tools. You need any kind of
tools that do their job. If there would be standard tools on it, then
we would have to include X and at least two emacs variants on it ;)

> > You have to have a broader view (is that the expression?) in this
> > case, since it is not only yours boot disk, but everyone elses.
> 
> i think it is you who needs the broader view. the world is not composed
> entirely of newbies seeking escape from dos/windows. in fact, it's fair
> to say that complete newbies aren't our target market, we make a high
> quality distribution perfectly suited to experienced unix users. even
> so, we support them by including a simple editor (ae) on the rescue
> disk...why should we do less for our target market?

No, I don't think that including ae was done becuse of the
user-friendliness - ae, as any usual unix text editor, is something that
complete newbies don't like. If we cared about newbies, we would get a
MS-DOS edit clone or even start up the X just after booting (I don't exactly
know how, but you get the point).

> debian has been criticised in the past for failing to include vi on the
> rescue floppy. we copped a lot of flack for not having one as it is a
> tool which any experienced unix user can reasonably expect to find on a
> rescue floppy.

However, the situation is a bit more complicated than what it may seem
to an innocent bystander - we have the boot disk, and the rescue disk
in the same image, i.e. on the same 1.44MB  - and that is a really practical
reason why we needed to put a very very small (yet functional) editor on it.
Debian should not be criticized because of that decision, it was completely
logical in these circumstances.

Also, I don't think that most of the people using Debian are experienced
Unix users. The majority of the users aren't dumb, but they also don't
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).

> > If you want all of the stuff you commonly use on the boot disk, modify
> > it yourself. Simple :)
> 
> i don't want all the stuff i commonly use. i just want the bare minimum,
> and that includes a decent editor.

Ae is an editor decent enough for the bare minimum cathegory... but you're
free to disagree.

-- 
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 23 May 1999 11:13:29 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:

>it's called the "rescue" disk for a reason.

Then it should have all the rescue tools on there, not bare minimum. 
Wait, that would make it too bit for an install disk, wouldn't it.  Either,
or, Craig, not both.

>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.  

vi is no longer a "Standard" tool either except for historical purposes. 
In case you missed it, over the past decade a lot of people who are quite
experienced with Unix have never touched vi.  Historical reasons alone are
not enough to put a vi or vi emulation on an install disk.

>debian has been criticised in the past for failing to include vi on the
>rescue floppy.

Debian is critizied for a lot of things, so what?

>i don't want all the stuff i commonly use. i just want the bare minimum,
>and that includes a decent editor.

If you want the bare minimum, then you need to ask for a lot more than
just an editor.

- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0dYDXpf7K2LbpnFEQKgCwCff0+iklRIF87y7Gv3IC9H7T3Z9+EAoLhY
6iirsG9G3asJPLnADAdOG4rO
=nmWt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Craig Sanders]

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 perfect, it should not
be removed until there is a replacement which can fit on the rescue
disk.

craig

--
craig sanders

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Craig Sanders]

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 individual keystroke" etc etc...

you are making the mistake of assuming that the boot disk is solely for
installation of new debian systems.

it's not.

it's called the "rescue" disk for a reason.


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.  


> You have to have a broader view (is that the expression?) in this
> case, since it is not only yours boot disk, but everyone elses.

i think it is you who needs the broader view. the world is not composed
entirely of newbies seeking escape from dos/windows. in fact, it's fair
to say that complete newbies aren't our target market, we make a high
quality distribution perfectly suited to experienced unix users. even
so, we support them by including a simple editor (ae) on the rescue
disk...why should we do less for our target market?

debian has been criticised in the past for failing to include vi on the
rescue floppy. we copped a lot of flack for not having one as it is a
tool which any experienced unix user can reasonably expect to find on a
rescue floppy.which is why we ended up with ae's vi emulation. it
may not be real vi, but it's infinitely better than nothing.


> If you want all of the stuff you commonly use on the boot disk, modify
> it yourself. Simple :)

i don't want all the stuff i commonly use. i just want the bare minimum,
and that includes a decent editor.

craig

--
craig sanders

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Mark Blunier]

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 than vi for
anything.  In order to protect new users from the evils of vi, lets 
replace vi with a script that echos:
"The use of vi can cause learning disabilties, as though you had a stroke"

If you can't figure out how to use ae (in a not vi emulation mode), are
you sure you want to install Linux on your own?  As far as a recovery disk
goes, you are much better off with a real recovery disk.  The boot disk
is severely crippled when compared to other recovery disks that are
readily available.

Mark Blunier

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Josip Rodin]

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 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. when you know vi you don't need to remember the commands,
> you just think about what changes you want to make and (metaphorically
> speaking) your fingers do the rest. having to use a primitive editor
> reduces you to hunt-and-peck typing and having to think about each
> individual keystroke.

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 individual keystroke" etc etc...

You have to have a broader view (is that the expression?) in this case,
since it is not only yours boot disk, but everyone elses.

If you want all of the stuff you commonly use on the boot disk, modify
it yourself. Simple :)

-- 
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[moron]

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 files
(Am I supposed to do that?) and wishing I had something as intuitive as dos
edit, where arrow-up goes up one and arrow-left goes left one and (not
intuitive, but easily learnt) the shift key marks it and the delete key
removes it.  I use ae because it seems to me (as someone coming from dos) a
little less unpredictable than vi, and with the trouble I've had so far I
don't feel like experimenting with emacs or joe or jed or whatever else.

David

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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 stupid editor which doesn't
>do any of the things you need it to do.

So then, because I use joe almost exclusively and don't have time to
learn vi we should put joe on there as well?  


- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0dJZHpf7K2LbpnFEQIRZACg7gR8vhX6oXGze9sZquXRXAvFz+0AmQEb
T+7AgQftcvZrk+CPGJtCfiXt
=CIk9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Craig Sanders]

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 understand the sentiment that people can only understand
> vi.

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 stupid editor which doesn't
do any of the things you need it to do.

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. when you know vi you don't need to remember the commands,
you just think about what changes you want to make and (metaphorically
speaking) your fingers do the rest. having to use a primitive editor
reduces you to hunt-and-peck typing and having to think about each
individual keystroke.


> Are other editors really so difficult?

yes.  difficult and clumsy and lacking basic functionality.

craig

--
craig sanders

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Steve Lamb]

-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 to switch to slang).

Oh come off it, Craig.  From where I've been reading damn near everyone
has been saying that if ee fits the bill use it.  I think the 2 you mentioned
were those who were completely apposed and one of them is you.  Geez.


- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN0dHb3pf7K2LbpnFEQIOaACdGEgswYAD6mMwrMQPjdijIyFOulsAniMe
M0KQgMSV8oGLSTgIvojMko5z
=bgdh
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Michael Stone]

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 editors really so difficult?

Mike Stone

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Craig Sanders]

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 ae, at least it works.
> > 
> > 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 picture.

if you like pico then write a free clone.


> I think a growing segment of people agree that ee should replace ae

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 to switch to slang).

> for the base disks.  I'm guessing slcurses would be used for that, and
> I think there is some slight bit of porting involved for that.  I'd be
> interested to know how much there is if anything, I'd be interested
> in building mp3blaster and joe against slang. curses sometimes has
> annoying bugs.

ae does the job of a simple no-frills editor in ~20K. ee does it in
~50k (*)

ae wins.

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
a second copy of ae hacked to remove the non-modalness which dale said
were what is causing the problems with the vi emulation.

if the second copy didn't have to carry the baggage of supporting a
non-modal mode :-) , it may be possible to get the vi emulation to a
decent state. it *almost* works now, which is what is so annoying about
it.


(*) ee requires ncurses now...but i'm assuming it can be ported to
slang's slcurses.h if somebody is motivated enough to do it.

(**) elvis-tiny needs ncurses now. again, i'm assuming it can be ported
to slang using slcurses.h. i made a start on this yesterday and cleared
up a few dozen trivial problems (elvis' own curses.h redefines many
slcurses.h macros) but ran into a problem with elvis' qfaddch macro
which requires more knowledge about curses than i currently have.


craig

--
craig sanders

Re: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)

[Mark Blunier]

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 like the boot disk is getting
cramped.  Putting something bigger that ae on the boot disk seems
ludicrous to me, as the install doesn't need a editor for most installs
anyway.

> I can see one very big advantage
> to using the same disk for two thing though. It means that a new user, who
> has just installed debian, magically has a rescue disk, without any extra
> work. If making a rescue disk was an additional step, most newbies wouldn't
> do it.

I made them all the time, but then I'd misplace them, or reuse them later.
If I needed a rescue disk, I'd end up downloading the latest version of
tom's, and use that.  But then again, as long as I stuck with stable
(Debian) releases, and followed the directions, I didn't have a broken
system.  I doubt if too many newbies breaking their systems are going to
be able to fix their systems with a only boot disk.

> (It may also mean less work by the boot floppies guys. Or not - if we used
> say, Tom's Root Boot as our rescue disk, we wouldn't have to maintain all
> that stuff and could devote more time to the basic install. I've heard very
> good things about Tomsrtbt.)

It used to work for me.  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, and
anything I'd might need to repair something thats broke.

Mark

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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 Carter's
> snide remarkes about the non-functional nature of ae in general. This is
> simply not true. ae is a nice, functional, compact editor, who's only
> claim to fame is that it is smaller than anything else. The only current
> bugs against ae have to do with key bindings.

It's been confirmed that if you press some exotic key that ae doesn't
know about, ae starts treating things like arrow keys as if they were
three discrete characters typed at the keyboard and they get totally
ignored.

I don't know exactly what caused this.  It happened while I was trying to
use it for rescue purposes and it made a complete mess of things and I in
fact had to resort to doing odd things just to kill it and try again.  If
this was a bug that has been fixed, I apologize.  However if someone can
still duplicate that kind of thing still (and it seems that one can), ae
suddenly becomes dangerous to rely on.


> In the next release of ae, there will be no support for the editor
> impared. ae will only run as ae, and will no longer masquerade as
> something that it is not. If there needs to be a vi script that notifies
> the finger-programmed to type something else, it will need to reside
> somewhere in the boot floppies, and be discribed on some information
> screens during installation.
> 
> ae will no longer support any reference to vi.

Good.  This at the very least is almost certainly a very good thing.

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
 rit/ara:  There's something really demented about UNIX
underwear...


pgpr2eGJz9QUo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: An 'ae' testimony

[Joseph Carter]

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). Slap me if I am wrong here.

Yes, but it is the standard newbie editor.


> > Maybe joe or something?
> 
> joe is discontinued upstream IIRC, and doesn't work quite right on the Hurd.
> Obviously, it's termcap/ncurses interface is slightly broken. I have not
> investigated it further yet, because ae, vi and emacs work :)

I think a growing segment of people agree that ee should replace ae for
the base disks.  I'm guessing slcurses would be used for that, and I
think there is some slight bit of porting involved for that.  I'd be
interested to know how much there is if anything, I'd be interested in
building mp3blaster and joe against slang.  curses sometimes has annoying
bugs.

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
I sat laughing snidely into my notebook until they showed me a PC running
Linux. And oh! It was as though the heavens opened and God handed down a
client-side OS so beautiful, so graceful, and so elegant that a million
Microsoft developers couldn't have invented it even if they had a hundred
years and a thousand crates of Jolt cola.
-- LAN Times


pgpCpdkRaG7E2.pgp
Description: PGP signature