Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used
> commands, and another
> 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized.
Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole "insert" thing just blows my
mind. I prefer the ISPF ed
> Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used
> > commands, and another
> > 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized.
>
> Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole "insert" thing just blows my
> mind. I prefe
On Thursday, 02/20/2003 at 11:18 EST, John Campbell/Tampa/IBM@IBMUS wrote:
> vi is no more evil than xedit (ick) or SPF or emacs; it's *all* a
matter
> of what you're used to- and what works for YOU.
That's true except for *my* favorite editor. It is morally and
technically superior to all othe
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
|
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:41:07AM -0800, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
> I am surprised that some of you
> can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode.
The problem is that typig text at vi in command mode is often catastrophic,
and there's no good way to tell if you're in comman
echo :set smd > ~/.exrc
should take care of that.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Jay Maynard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:41:07AM -0800, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
>
ys for the same reason.
-Original Message-
From: James Melin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
I know the difference between command mode and insert mode in vi. I happen
to hate that there IS a difference.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:05:29 -0500, Peter Flass
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used
>> commands, and another
>> 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized.
>
>Simpler, but extre
What part of this discussion did you think _wasn't_ religion?
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Fargusson.Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
This is religion. I happen to like that there ar
Try ":set showmode". You can put this in ~/.exrc so it will be on each time you use
vi.
-Original Message-
From: Jay Maynard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:41:
At 10:48 AM 2/20/2003 -0600, you wrote:
I know the difference between command mode and insert mode in vi. I happen
to hate that there IS a difference. It's ugly. The designer of vi has
committed a barney/teletubbie level crime against humanity. There are
better ways to do an editor.
But to list
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:41:07AM -0800, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
> > I am surprised that some of you
> > can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode.
>
> The problem is that typig text at vi in command mode is often catastrophic,
>
I find it amusing that the the Unix purists are defending a 1950's type
line editor (with input and command mod) designed for a teletype keyboard
and paper roll output then converted to the glass teletype equivalent. The
keyboards on teletypes were notoriously slow, heavy to the touch, and the
line
m Support
- Forwarded by John Campbell/Tampa/IBM on 02/20/2003 11:10 AM -
John Summerfield
cc:
Sent by: Linux on 390Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs.
ISPF
Port
<[EMAIL PRO
> Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card,
1928.
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/hollerith.html
--
Phil Payne
http://www.isham-research.com
+44 7785 302 803
+49 173 6242039
Jim Sibley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m.com>cc:
Sent by: LinuxSubject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
on 390 Port
<[EMAIL P
I just found a really interesting message. I tried to go into VI on my real 3270 type
terminal under the OMVS command that runs under TSO in Unix on MVS. I get the
following message:
FSUM9140 Terminal "dumb" has insufficient capabilities for Curses.
That's just what I thought - curses.
On Thursday 20 February 2003 09:05 am, Peter Flass wrote:
> Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used
> > commands, and another
> > 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized.
>
> Simpler, but extremely annoying
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Jim Sibley wrote:
> I find it amusing that the the Unix purists are defending a 1950's type
> line editor (with input and command mod) designed for a teletype keyboard
> and paper roll output then converted to the glass teletype equivalent. The
> keyboards on teletypes were no
On Thursday, 02/20/2003 at 11:10 PST, Jim Sibley/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS wrote:
> Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card,
> transfered on the 3270 glass tube was enshrined on MVS as ispf and VM as
> xedit. Neither of them work very well for long, variable length
"records"
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of
> Phil Payne
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs. ISPF
>
> > Its just as amusing that the 1970'
rom: Peter Flass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: vi vs. ISPF
>
>
> Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used
> > co
>
> I am a died in the wool EDGAR/XEDIT/KEDIT curmoudgeon. I have kedit
> macros which I have been using for 12 years which make it look very
> much like EDGAR.
I met Edgar once. I was called on to fix an adamint bug, and kept scrolling the
wrong way!
(my fix worked, better (according to the cu
rgument --
you win :-)
--Jim--
James S. Tison
Senior Software Engineer
TPF Laboratory / Architecture
IBM Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jay Maynard
cc:
Sent by: Linux onSubject:
- Original Message -
From: "Tzafrir Cohen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
You probably won't be able to get this work. A 3270 data stream is block oriented, and
requires a much mor
> Actually vi was written for use on VT100 class terminals at 300 baud.
Umm, no. Lear-Siegler ADM1s and 3's, maybe the VT05, but vi and it's ilk
certainly predate the VT100.
> It
> was the son, or grandson of ed, which was written for use on hardcopy
> terminals.
True.
-- db
> More like 1880s, Phil. The card was invented by him, for the sole
purpose of tabulating the mountain of data from the census from that
year. The machines that he designed went on to build one portion of
IBM's industries.
If you bother to click on the link I posted:
>> http://www.columbia.edu/ac
0 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of
> Phil Payne
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs. ISPF
>
> > More like 1880s, Phil. The card was invented by him, for the sole
> purpose of tabulating the
y, February 20, 2003 11:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs. ISPF
>
> Hello from Gregg C Levine
> Hmm. Been there. Have read his bio. It happens that he first used
the
> French card shapes, which were closer to the ones used by the
> System/3. Then by
hard to do.
Thanks,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Tzafrir Cohen
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Jim Sibley wrote:
> I find it amusing that the the Uni
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Paul Raulerson wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tzafrir Cohen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
>
>
> You probably won't be a
mode.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Flass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: vi vs. ISPF
Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used
> commands,
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Flass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 February 2003 14:05
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: vi vs. ISPF
> Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole "insert" thing
> just blows my
> mind. I prefer the ISPF e
> Flame war alert!
>
> Discussions about editors gradually decline to religious issues. Once vi is
> involved can emacs/xemacs be far behind?
Bring back the IBM 029 - a REAL MAN's editor.
There is a dedicated newsgroup on Usenet - comp.editors
(Walks away muttering: "Personally, I liked EDI unde
ed by John Campbell/Tampa/IBM on 02/20/2003 12:24 PM -
Alan
Altmark/Endicott/To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM@IBMUScc:
Sent by: Linux onSubject: Re: [LINUX-390] v
At 18:25 20.02.2003, John Campbell wrote:
>On Thursday, 02/20/2003 at 11:18 EST, John Campbell/Tampa/IBM@IBMUS wrote:
>> vi is no more evil than xedit (ick) or SPF or emacs; it's *all* a
>matter
>> of what you're used to- and what works for YOU.
>
>That's true except for *my* favorite editor. It
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 20:53, Herbert Szumovski wrote:
> Alan is right for editors.
> But vi is not an editor, it's a pitiable condition.
"vi vi vi" the number of the beast
37 matches
Mail list logo
