vi ? :))
TheKingOfSeljuk
I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
Solaris.
I read some study notes about vi.
:) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
commands to edit for a few words in a file.
Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
...or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
Thanks
TheKingOfSeljuk
Ian Collins
> Hello All,
> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> Solaris.
> I read some study notes about vi.
>
> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
> commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
> Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
>
> mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
>
Everyone has their favourite editor, some use vi, others the default
desktop editor. There are may others to choose from.
--
Ian Collins.
TheKingOfSeljuk
>
> - Alıntıyı göster -
...anyway, I did a small research and found that xemacs and gedit are
good editors ;)
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
> On 2 Nisan, 03:04, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > TheKingOfSeljuk wrote:
> > > Hello All,
> > > I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> > > Solaris.
> > > I read some study notes about vi.
>
> > > :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
> > > commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
> > > Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
> > > in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
>
> > > ....or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
> > > mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
> > > another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
>
> > u doesn't post here any more.
>
> > Everyone has their favourite editor, some use vi, others the default
> > desktop editor. There are may others to choose from.
>
> > --
>
> > - Alýntýyý göster -
>
> ...anyway, I did a small research and found that xemacs and gedit are
> good editors ;)
Both of which are pretty useless unless you are running X11. When I am
coding or writing an article via troff or tex(ick) then xemacs is my
choice. When I am system wrangling I use vi. Unless you need the
features of xemacs (X11 version of eight megabytes and it continously
swaps) use the lighter weight vi, not vim, vi
TheKingOfSeljuk
>
> - Alıntıyı göster -
I just installed them and didn't like. Gedit is x-window editor and
xemacs is another trouble source and made my tension up. There is no
file/new, close, quit, save save as and similiar menus on program... I
can not understand why people develop so useless programs.
I am just looking for a text editor which is like edit.com (DOS) . It
mustn't be so hard
ThanksButNo
The best thing about vi is that it's always available on any Unix-
style system.
There are plenty of editors -- "joe" and "vim" are vi-styled
improvements -- "nedit" is a GUI based editor available at sunfreeware
that needs X11 -- the ubiquitous emacs, of course, that probably as
many people swear *by* as swear *at* -- the list is probably endless.
But there's one attribute that, IMHO at least, trumps all of them --
vi is always there. You don't have to acquire it, you don't have to
install it. You don't have to convince your SysOp to go get it and
put it on the system for you. You don't have to convince management
to allocate funds to buy it. It's just -- there.
So I always recommend that people who use Unix should have at least a
rudimentary knowledge of how vi works -- coz even when you get some
other editor, you're probably still going to need vi to edit the
configuration or preference files before you can fire up your favorite
editor the first time. And you may still need an editor that works
from a telnet screen when there's no GUI available. And you may still
need an editor that works strictly on a 7-bit ANSI basis, and doesn't
add any 8-bit non-printable chars for word-processing etc. (although,
strictly speaking, that probably shouldn't be called an "editor"
anyway).
And yes -- out in the "real world", some of us use vi all the time.
It's a pain sometimes, yes -- but, like I said, it's always there.
Once you've learned it, you don't *need* to learn any other editor. I
can quit my job today and get another job tomorrow at another company
with a Unix system, and I have every confidence -- vi will be there
for me.
And it'll work the same there as it does here.
Just my thoughts.
:-)
Oscar del Rio
> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world?
I wouldn't use any other editor than vi.
> Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
download and install "nano" or "pico" editors.
Your homework is to find them and learn how to install them.
I would recommend learning at least the basics of "vi". You're going to
need it sooner or later.
Ian Collins
>
> I just installed them and didn't like. Gedit is x-window editor and
> xemacs is another trouble source and made my tension up. There is no
> file/new, close, quit, save save as and similiar menus on program...
>
--
Ian Collins.
Giorgos Keramidas
> Hello All,
> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> Solaris. I read some study notes about vi.
>
> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world?
Yes. Hundreds, if not thousands of people.
> There are really stupid commands to edit for a few words in a file.
That's a very debatable aphorism :-)
> Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
Yes, there are dozens of editors which can run on Solaris. You can
certainly use any editor you prefer, instead of "vi". There are editors
which run on console-only mode, or inside a terminal emulator. There
are full-blown, GUI editors, with fancy syntax highlighting and
elaborate user interfaces, plug-ins and what not.
> ...or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris?
You'd be surprised, but many prefer vi :-)
Giorgos Keramidas
>> ...anyway, I did a small research and found that xemacs and gedit are
>> good editors ;)
>
> Both of which are pretty useless unless you are running X11. When I am
> coding or writing an article via troff or tex(ick) then xemacs is my
> choice. When I am system wrangling I use vi. Unless you need the
> features of xemacs (X11 version of eight megabytes and it continously
> swaps) use the lighter weight vi, not vim, vi
In the age of 'browsers' which start up with a gazzilion plugins, and
allocate more than 200+ MB of memory before their "hello world" window
pops up, ain't it about time we let that old 'eighty megabytes and
constantly swapping' joke die a peaceful death?
XEmacs or GNU Emacs is a fine editor, even in a terminal :)
/me ducks quickly to avoid the editor flamewar
Alexander Skwar
> Hello All,
> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> Solaris.
> I read some study notes about vi.
>
> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world?
Sure. A lot of people, just because vi is something you'll find
close to everywhere and also because vi is so user friendly and
fast.
> Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
Like edit.com? I don't know. You might want to have a look at
nano, which you need to install.
> ...or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
I use vi (or rather vim, a vi clone with more features).
> mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
Well. As said: I use vi/vim.
Alexander Skwar
--
"Some people are heroes. And some people jot down notes."
-- (Terry Pratchett, The Truth)
Alexander Skwar
> ...anyway, I did a small research and found that xemacs and gedit are
> good editors ;)
So you ARE a troll. Fine.
I say so, because vi vs. emacs is a classical flame theme.
Anyway: You cannot compare gedit with vi, as gedit doesn't
offer the features you asked for (it doesn't work on the
console).
Alexander Skwar
--
Seeing is believing. You wouldn't have seen it if you hadn't believed it.
Alexander Skwar
> On Apr 1, 7:12 pm, "TheKingOfSeljuk" <sultanofsel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...anyway, I did a small research and found that xemacs and gedit are
>> good editors ;)
>
>
> Both of which are pretty useless unless you are running X11.
Nope. xemacs works on the console as well, if I'm not completely
mistaken.
> choice. When I am system wrangling I use vi. Unless you need the
> features of xemacs (X11 version of eight megabytes and it continously
> swaps) use the lighter weight vi, not vim, vi
Why do you advice to NOT use vim?
Alexander Skwar
--
Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult
than to understand him.
- Fyodor Dostoevski
Alexander Skwar
> I am just looking for a text editor which is like edit.com (DOS) . It
> mustn't be so hard
I don't know about any edit.com port.
Alexander Skwar
--
Bipolar, adj.:
Refers to someone who has homes in Nome, Alaska, and Buffalo, New York.
Thomas Tornblom
>
> I just installed them and didn't like. Gedit is x-window editor and
> xemacs is another trouble source and made my tension up. There is no
> file/new, close, quit, save save as and similiar menus on program... I
> can not understand why people develop so useless programs.
"Menus"? We don't need no stinkin menus ;-)
I started using emacs on a Dec-20 in 1981, and I felt vi was pretty
useless when I used it the first time. Boy, that's more than 25 years
ago :-|
For small edits I use vi, as it is always available. When I do larger
hacks I use xemacs.
>
> I am just looking for a text editor which is like edit.com (DOS) . It
> mustn't be so hard
Can't comment on that as I don't use DOS.
Martin Bergien
> TheKingOfSeljuk wrote:
>
>> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world?
Ist there anyone, using unix but not vi?
> I wouldn't use any other editor than vi.
me too.
Dick Hoogendijk
> I use vi (or rather vim, a vi clone with more features).
>
>> mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
>> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
>
> Well. As said: I use vi/vim.
In my experience vi != vim. The first thing to do in vimrc is include
the "set nocompatible" to use vim settings. I find working with vi very
diffecult, while working with vim is a thing I do for years now.
--
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ http://nagual.nl/ | Solaris 10 11/06 ++
Thommy M.
> On Apr 1, 7:12 pm, "TheKingOfSeljuk" <sultanofsel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 Nisan, 03:04, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > TheKingOfSeljuk wrote:
> > > > Hello All,
> > > > I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> > > > Solaris.
> > > > I read some study notes about vi.
>
> > > > :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
> > > > commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
> > > > Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
> > > > in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
>
> > > > ....or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
> > > > mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
> > > > another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
>
> > > u doesn't post here any more.
>
> > > Everyone has their favourite editor, some use vi, others the default
> > > desktop editor. There are may others to choose from.
>
> > > --
> > > Ian Collins.- Alýntýyý gizle -
>
> > > - Alýntýyý göster -
>
> > ...anyway, I did a small research and found that xemacs and gedit are
> > good editors ;)
>
> Both of which are pretty useless unless you are running X11.
Can't you go xemacs -nw ??? Or just emacs -nw
However, if you gonna do sysadmin in anyting related to UNIX, you need
to learn vi. Just learn it, it's not that hard. See the cheat sheets
like http://www.digilife.be/quickreferences/QRC/Vi%20Reference%20Card.pdf
Richard B. gilbert
A lot of people use vi. Its command set is no stupider than that of
other editors that can be used from a dumb terminal.
Emacs is another popular editor but, if you don't like vi, you'll
probably hate emacs!
The CDE desktop has a screen editor that allows you to cut and paste or
insert and delete in a more intuitive manner.
Richard B. gilbert
Go ahead and port edit.com or write your own editor.
Gary R. Schmidt
Perhaps we should point him at TECO???
Or is that too cruel???
On second thought, it is the *perfect* fate for a drongo who attempts to
re-ignite the editor wars.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries
Tim Bradshaw
wrote:
> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
> commands to edit for a few words in a file.
yeah, vi is awful: use ed, it's much simpler and better.
"Thommy M. Malmström"
> "TheKingOfSeljuk" <sultano...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I just installed them and didn't like. Gedit is x-window editor and
>> xemacs is another trouble source and made my tension up. There is no
>> file/new, close, quit, save save as and similiar menus on program... I
>> can not understand why people develop so useless programs.
>
> "Menus"? We don't need no stinkin menus ;-)
>
> I started using emacs on a Dec-20 in 1981, and I felt vi was pretty
> useless when I used it the first time. Boy, that's more than 25 years
> ago :-|
Back then I was on the VMS EDT/EVE/TPU editors. Didn't start with
UNIX/Emacs 'till -86. But that's +20 years so there has been a couple of
rows of code written...
> For small edits I use vi, as it is always available. When I do larger
> hacks I use xemacs.
>
>> I am just looking for a text editor which is like edit.com (DOS) . It
>> mustn't be so hard
>
> Can't comment on that as I don't use DOS.
The Denial Of Service OS? ;-)
To OP: I wouldn't be to hard for M$ to include vi as it's free code
since long. Try to remember that UNIX is much older than any DOS/Windows
and that they just have tried to catch up. They (M$) still are...
"Thommy M. Malmström"
Rich Teer
> > yeah, vi is awful: use ed, it's much simpler and better.
> >
> Yeah, now we're talking...
Bah, ed is for nancy boys. Real Men edit raw disk blocks using fsdb... :-)
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
Rich Teer
> In the age of 'browsers' which start up with a gazzilion plugins, and
> allocate more than 200+ MB of memory before their "hello world" window
> pops up, ain't it about time we let that old 'eighty megabytes and
> constantly swapping' joke die a peaceful death?
Nah, we just need to scale it for the times: how about eight-hundred megabytes
and constantly swapping? :-)
Bernd Haug
Colin B.
> quoting Alexander Skwar (Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:53:05 +0200):
>> I use vi (or rather vim, a vi clone with more features).
>>
>>> mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
>>> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
>>
>> Well. As said: I use vi/vim.
>
> In my experience vi != vim. The first thing to do in vimrc is include
> the "set nocompatible" to use vim settings. I find working with vi very
> diffecult, while working with vim is a thing I do for years now.
Ironically, the first thing I do when I'm forced to use vim, is make it as
compatible as possible to vi, and disable as many of the annoying "features"
as possible. Colours are absolutely the first thing to go--I do NOT need a
colourful editor for 99% of my stuff.
But each to his own, even if other people are WRONG! :-)
Colin
Richard B. gilbert
> On 2007-04-02, Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Perhaps we should point him at TECO???
>
>
>
>
>
Actually, the best editor for the OP's purposes might be EDLIN (from
MSDOS). ;-)
Giorgos Keramidas
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> In the age of 'browsers' which start up with a gazzilion plugins, and
>> allocate more than 200+ MB of memory before their "hello world"
>> window pops up, ain't it about time we let that old 'eighty megabytes
>> and constantly swapping' joke die a peaceful death?
>
> Nah, we just need to scale it for the times: how about eight-hundred megabytes
> and constantly swapping? :-)
Nah[2]. Emacs now barely makes it into top-10:
| PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME CPU COMMAND
| 1561 keramida 1 96 0 280M 24380K CPU0 0 14:58 2.39% Xorg
| 913 root 1 96 0 259M 1092K select 0 0:00 0.00% rpc.statd
| 20339 keramida 5 20 0 110M 74576K kserel 0 31:06 0.00% firefox-bin
| 2778 keramida 1 96 0 45860K 19928K select 0 5:53 0.93% gaim
| 1587 keramida 5 20 0 45584K 14768K kserel 0 0:29 0.00% xfdesktop
| 1585 keramida 1 96 0 42880K 15728K select 1 0:39 0.00% xfce-mcs-manager
| 1588 keramida 1 96 0 37692K 11920K select 0 0:50 0.00% xfce4-panel
| 1589 keramida 1 96 0 36212K 9040K select 1 0:56 0.00% xfce4-mixer-plugin
| 1581 keramida 1 96 0 35476K 8116K select 1 0:19 0.00% xfce4-session
| 1586 keramida 1 96 0 31548K 13644K select 1 0:37 0.00% xfwm4
| 60732 keramida 1 96 0 19868K 18068K select 1 0:13 1.76% emacs
:-)
Oscar del Rio
I hate it when vim clears the screen when you exit or ^Z the editor.
Most of the time I want to see what I was editing to copy/paste into
another command, etc.
ThanksButNo
> On 2007-04-02, ThanksButNo <no.no.tha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And it'll work the same there as it does here.
>
> Sadly, this isn't necessarily true. vi's vary between OS flavours.
>
Well, yes -- but not much.
It's better than, say, you zip up the ELF binary for your favorite
editor on Solaris to take with you, then you move to company that uses
AIX or HPUX. Obviously your Solaris binary won't work. Hopefully you
can find a version of it that does run at your new home.
But vi will be there -- you always know it will be there -- perhaps
with some minor variations to discover, but essentially the same vi
you've already become familiar with.
:-)
Thommy M.
Just like the less pager is set default in Linux(*) for man pages.
Drives me crazy...
*) Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, SuSE is the ones that I've tried lately.
Alexander Skwar
> I hate it when vim clears the screen when you exit or ^Z the editor.
vim doesn't do that. At least not on my Gentoo Linux system.
Alexander Skwar
--
Wenn dir meine Art nicht passt steck mich in dein Killfile.
-- Norbert Tretkowski in de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc
2001-12-23 <slrna2bm0v.a...@rollcage.bzimage.de>
Alexander Skwar
> Just like the less pager is set default in Linux(*) for man pages.
What's so bad about easy ways to scroll? And afterall, isn't it so,
that you can use less exactly the same you use more?
Alexander Skwar
--
The Hollywood tradition I like best is called "sucking up to the stars."
-- Johnny Carson
Casper H.S. Dik
>Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>> In the age of 'browsers' which start up with a gazzilion plugins, and
>>> allocate more than 200+ MB of memory before their "hello world"
>>> window pops up, ain't it about time we let that old 'eighty megabytes
>>> and constantly swapping' joke die a peaceful death?
>>
>> Nah, we just need to scale it for the times: how about eight-hundred megabytes
>> and constantly swapping? :-)
>Nah[2]. Emacs now barely makes it into top-10:
>| 60732 keramida 1 96 0 19868K 18068K select 1 0:13 1.76% emacs
Clearly emacs development has been stagnating ...
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Alexander Skwar
> In article <14186285....@m-id.message-center.info>,
> Alexander Skwar <use...@alexander.skwar.name> wrote:
>
>> · TheKingOfSeljuk <sultano...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > I am just looking for a text editor which is like edit.com (DOS) . It
>> > mustn't be so hard
>>
>> I don't know about any edit.com port.
>>
>> Alexander Skwar
>
> Try pico.
That's not quite edit.com. It doesn't have the menus the way edit has
it and it doesn't support copy, cut, paste in the same way edit does.
Or am I mistaken? Is there a "edit.com compatability mode" for pico?
Alexander Skwar
Tim Bradshaw
> Bah, ed is for nancy boys. Real Men edit raw disk blocks using fsdb... :-)
You have never met a Real Man. Real Men edit using a magnet and a pin.
Ian Collins
--
Ian Collins.
Thomas Dickey
> I hate it when vim clears the screen when you exit or ^Z the editor.
> Most of the time I want to see what I was editing to copy/paste into
> another command, etc.
That's a feature of the terminal emulator which is made available by the
terminfo/termcap description. vim has some builtin fallback for the
termcap - you may be using that. If that's not the case, any
application such as vi would do the same thing.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
Oscar del Rio
> That's not quite edit.com. It doesn't have the menus the way edit has
> it and it doesn't support copy, cut, paste in the same way edit does.
> Or am I mistaken? Is there a "edit.com compatability mode" for pico?
if you like menus, check
JED: http://www.texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JED
LE: http://www.texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?LE
(they are NOT "edit.com" ports)
Colin B.
> Hello All,
> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> Solaris.
> I read some study notes about vi.
>
> commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
>
> ...or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
You are making two mistakes here.
First of all, you believe that because you're familiar with edit.com,
it's a good editor. It ain't. (Although there are _worse_ out there...)
Secondly, you are assuming that because vi isn't intuitive or familiar,
that it's bad. In fact, vi is an exceedingly fast, efficient, and powerful
editor--once you get used to it. Many sysadmins tend to use it exclusively,
and ALL admins are at least familiar with it.
So my advice is to learn vi. Maybe learn emacs as well if you need to do
some heavy editing, but vi knowledge will serve you very well, and will
also teach you a great deal about the philosophy of Unix.
Colin
Rich Teer
> You have never met a Real Man. Real Men edit using a magnet and a pin.
Oooohhhhh. I'm not worthy!
Colin B.
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
>> You have never met a Real Man. Real Men edit using a magnet and a pin.
>
> Oooohhhhh. I'm not worthy!
How about real programmers then? Here's a chestnut from the archives.
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html
Colin
Rich Teer
> How about real programmers then? Here's a chestnut from the archives.
>
> http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html
Ah yes, good old Mel. I remember reading that story in the New
Hacker's Dictionary, many moons ago...
Ian Collins
transition from hardware engineer to software bloke was a week spent on
a DEC PDP-11 machine code course. I learned more about how real
computers worked in that week than I did in 3 years at university. I
probably drank more beer as well, which was probably the true
significance of the week.
--
Ian Collins.
Tim Bradshaw
> I can sympathise with Mel, one of the most epiphanic events in my
> transition from hardware engineer to software bloke was a week spent on
> a DEC PDP-11 machine code course. I learned more about how real
> computers worked in that week than I did in 3 years at university. I
> probably drank more beer as well, which was probably the true
> significance of the week.
Of course, the real point here is: how real computers work has *nothing
at all* to do with how PDP11s worked[*], and the fact that universities
spew out an endless stream of graduates[**] believing that real
computers are, in fact, giant PDP11s, says more about the state of
education in the west than I ever could.
This has been a Topic Drift(TM) article.
[*] Even when PDP11s were current, real computers didn't work like them.
[**] I don't mean you, other than statistically
Keith Thompson
> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> Solaris.
> I read some study notes about vi.
>
> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
> commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
> Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
>
> ...or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
> mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
Telling us that vi is "stupid" isn't going to get you anywhere. I've
been using vi for decades, and I find it extremely intuitive, but
that's because my intuition has been shaped by vi. If I had started
off using some other editor, I'm sure I'd feel differently.
What you're looking for is an editor that works similarly to the one
you're accustomed to. There's nothing wrong with that. You might
consider learning vi or emacs (they're both much more powerful than
edit.com), but that's up to you.
Incidentally, vi isn't "internal" or "built-in". It's really just
another program you can run. It happens to be provided along with the
operating system, but that makes no difference in how it works.
There are a number of editors available under Solaris, some provided
with the operating system, others available to build or install
yourself. I'm not familiar without with how edit.com works to be more
specific.
There's a "comp.editors" newsgroup; you might try asking there, but
please be sensitive about the fact that different people have
perfectly valid reasons to prefer different editors.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Colin B.
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Colin B. wrote:
>
>> How about real programmers then? Here's a chestnut from the archives.
>>
>> http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html
>
> Ah yes, good old Mel. I remember reading that story in the New
> Hacker's Dictionary, many moons ago...
Yep, me too. And then years later just about fell flat on my ass in
surprise when I came across an actual Royal McBee computer in a museum.
(Which actually might have been an LGP-21) Prior to that, I'd always
assumed that the story, the man, and the company were all apocryphal.
Colin
ra...@vt.edu
> "TheKingOfSeljuk" <sultano...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> > Solaris.
> > I read some study notes about vi.
> >
> > :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
> > commands to edit for a few words in a file.
> Telling us that vi is "stupid" isn't going to get you anywhere. I've
> been using vi for decades, and I find it extremely intuitive, but
> that's because my intuition has been shaped by vi. If I had started
> off using some other editor, I'm sure I'd feel differently.
> What you're looking for is an editor that works similarly to the one
> you're accustomed to. There's nothing wrong with that. You might
> consider learning vi or emacs (they're both much more powerful than
> edit.com), but that's up to you.
Well, I remember how it feels. I moved from IBM's VM and using Xedit
over to Unix, and vi about drove me nuts for the first 6 months or so.
Now, of course, I edit everything with vi, except an occasional Word doc.
I was a pretty good database admin/programmer for a few years in a
DBMS that nobody uses anymore. I can do SQL but moved into more
sys admin work so I haven't built up those programmer muscles there.
It's like kids moving from a high school library whining because
the university doesn't use Dewey decimal it uses Library of Congress
for cataloging. It's just not as *good* I tell you . . . ;-)
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Ian Collins
> On 2007-04-03, Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> wrote:
>
>
>>[*] Even when PDP11s were current, real computers didn't work like them.
>
>
>
>
They didn't contain valves?
--
Ian Collins.
"Thommy M. Malmström"
> · Thommy M. <thommy.m....@gmail.com>:
>
>> Just like the less pager is set default in Linux(*) for man pages.
>
> What's so bad about easy ways to scroll? And afterall, isn't it so,
> that you can use less exactly the same you use more?
More or less... ;-) Sure, when in Solaris (xterm|dtterm|gnome-terminal)
and I set PAGER=less (which I always do), it doesn't clear the screen by
default when I exit. It's some stupid (penguins my call it fancy)
setting in Linux...
"Thommy M. Malmström"
> Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> "TheKingOfSeljuk" <sultano...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
>>> Solaris.
>>> I read some study notes about vi.
>>>
>>> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
>>> commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
>> Telling us that vi is "stupid" isn't going to get you anywhere. I've
>> been using vi for decades, and I find it extremely intuitive, but
>> that's because my intuition has been shaped by vi. If I had started
>> off using some other editor, I'm sure I'd feel differently.
>
>> What you're looking for is an editor that works similarly to the one
>> you're accustomed to. There's nothing wrong with that. You might
>> consider learning vi or emacs (they're both much more powerful than
>> edit.com), but that's up to you.
>
> Well, I remember how it feels. I moved from IBM's VM and using Xedit
> over to Unix, and vi about drove me nuts for the first 6 months or so.
> Now, of course, I edit everything with vi, except an occasional Word doc.
>
For which I hope you user Star/OpenOffice.
Tim Bradshaw
> In what way are PDP11s not real computers?
Sorry, I deviously changed the meaning of "real" to be "modern" in a
thread where it was being used (by me even) to mean "how things were
in the elder days". That was a nasty trick.
The thing I meant by 'nothing like real [modern] machines' was that
PDP11s had (relatively) low-latency uniform memory access, and modern
machines don't, at all. And it's depressing that many programmers
still have a mental model which is basically a giant PDP11, often
resulting in programs which have just dreadful performance ("chasing
random pointers is cheap, right?").
(And of course even when PDP11s were current, larger machines had many
of the issues that modern machines do in terms of latency etc.)
--tim
Richard B. gilbert
>
>
>
>
Well, real computers are smaller, cheaper, several hundred times faster
and have about a thousand times more RAM!
TheKingOfSeljuk
<thommy.m.malmst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Tornblom wrote:
> > "TheKingOfSeljuk" <sultanofsel...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> I just installed them and didn't like. Gedit is x-window editor and
> >> xemacs is another trouble source and made my tension up. There is no
> >> file/new, close, quit, save save as and similiar menus on program... I
> >> can not understand why people develop so useless programs.
>
> > "Menus"? We don't need no stinkin menus ;-)
>
> > I started using emacs on a Dec-20 in 1981, and I felt vi was pretty
> > useless when I used it the first time. Boy, that's more than 25 years
> > ago :-|
>
> Back then I was on the VMS EDT/EVE/TPU editors. Didn't start with
> UNIX/Emacs 'till -86. But that's +20 years so there has been a couple of
> rows of code written...
>
> > For small edits I use vi, as it is always available. When I do larger
> > hacks I use xemacs.> > Can't comment on that as I don't use DOS.
>
> The Denial Of Service OS? ;-)
>
> To OP: I wouldn't be to hard for M$ to include vi as it's free code
> since long. Try to remember that UNIX is much older than any DOS/Windows
> and that they just have tried to catch up. They (M$) still are...
Ok Guys!
I was persuaded :(
I am trying to use ONLY vi .
Regards
Bill Waddington
Museum? Hell, my college roommate did his first programming on an
LGP-21. Mechanical delay-line memory IIRC. Was that what we called
the "CADET" computer - "can't add, doesn't even try" - that did its
math via a look-up table, or was that the 1620? I should remeber,
but you know what they say, the memory is the 2nd thing to go...
Back to editors, the only reason I keep XP on my laptop is that I like
the way vim works in winxx.
(really old) Bill
--
William D Waddington
william.w...@beezmo.com
"Even bugs...are unexpected signposts on
the long road of creativity..." - Ken Burtch
Thommy M.
> Giorgos Keramidas <kera...@ceid.upatras.gr> writes:
>
>> Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> writes:
>>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>>> In the age of 'browsers' which start up with a gazzilion plugins, and
>>>> allocate more than 200+ MB of memory before their "hello world"
>>>> window pops up, ain't it about time we let that old 'eighty megabytes
>>>> and constantly swapping' joke die a peaceful death?
>>> Nah, we just need to scale it for the times: how about eight-hundred megabytes
>>> and constantly swapping? :-)
>
>> Nah[2]. Emacs now barely makes it into top-10:
>
>> | 60732 keramida 1 96 0 19868K 18068K select 1 0:13 1.76% emacs
>
>
> Clearly emacs development has been stagnating ...
Or it has reached nirvana... ;-)
Ian Collins
> On Apr 4, 8:49 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>In what way are PDP11s not real computers?
>
>
> Sorry, I deviously changed the meaning of "real" to be "modern" in a
> thread where it was being used (by me even) to mean "how things were
> in the elder days". That was a nasty trick.
>
> The thing I meant by 'nothing like real [modern] machines' was that
> PDP11s had (relatively) low-latency uniform memory access, and modern
> machines don't, at all. And it's depressing that many programmers
> still have a mental model which is basically a giant PDP11, often
> resulting in programs which have just dreadful performance ("chasing
> random pointers is cheap, right?").
>
crap, it'll never last" and went back to 68K. We all make the
occasional mistake!
--
Ian Collins.
ra...@vt.edu
> ra...@vt.edu wrote:
> >
> > Now, of course, I edit everything with vi, except an occasional Word doc.
> For which I hope you user Star/OpenOffice.
Well, yes, OpenOffice for the infrequent times when
someone sends me a Word doc attached to an email. Actually,
I get more spreadsheets than Word docs.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it?
It never was.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid
Rich Teer
> The first time I read up on the 8086 segmented memory, I thought "that's
> crap, it'll never last" and went back to 68K. We all make the
> occasional mistake!
Unfortunately, IBM was the entity making the mistake. If they'd chosen
a decent CPU like the 68000 when the first threw together the PC, I'm
sure we'd be better off.
Richard L. Hamilton
ra...@vt.edu writes:
> Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> "TheKingOfSeljuk" <sultano...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
>> > Solaris.
>> > I read some study notes about vi.
>> >
>> > :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
>> > commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
>> Telling us that vi is "stupid" isn't going to get you anywhere. I've
>> been using vi for decades, and I find it extremely intuitive, but
>> that's because my intuition has been shaped by vi. If I had started
>> off using some other editor, I'm sure I'd feel differently.
>
>> What you're looking for is an editor that works similarly to the one
>> you're accustomed to. There's nothing wrong with that. You might
>> consider learning vi or emacs (they're both much more powerful than
>> edit.com), but that's up to you.
>
> Well, I remember how it feels. I moved from IBM's VM and using Xedit
> over to Unix, and vi about drove me nuts for the first 6 months or so.
> Now, of course, I edit everything with vi, except an occasional Word doc.
Yeah; I used to like the mainframe [I]SPF editor, and also the Rand editor
(with custom keyboards with lots of function keys) on Unix (and the
descendant of the latter, ISC's INed editor). I still have a copy of
the Rand editor around somewhere that more or less works on Solaris,
although it's a pain without lots of tweaks.
--
eMail: mailto:rlh...@smart.net
Home page: http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/yesterdays_geek
AIM, Yahoo, etc: ask
Dave (from the UK)
> Hello All,
> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> Solaris.
> I read some study notes about vi.
>
> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
> commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
>
> ...or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
> mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
>
> TheKingOfSeljuk
>
I used vi for 99.9% of the text editing I do on UNIX.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month...@althorne.org
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
Ian Collins
>
> I used vi for 99.9% of the text editing I do on UNIX.
>
I only edited two files on that platform last year :)
--
Ian Collins.
Casper H.S. Dik
This depends on your terminfo entry for xterm; I use a special one which
does restore the screen after vi and less.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
"Thommy M. Malmström"
> =?UTF-8?B?IlRob21teSBNLiBNYWxtc3Ryw7ZtIg==?= <thommy.m....@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>> · Thommy M. <thommy.m....@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Just like the less pager is set default in Linux(*) for man pages.
>>> What's so bad about easy ways to scroll? And afterall, isn't it so,
>>> that you can use less exactly the same you use more?
>
>> More or less... ;-) Sure, when in Solaris (xterm|dtterm|gnome-terminal)
>> and I set PAGER=less (which I always do), it doesn't clear the screen by
>> default when I exit. It's some stupid (penguins my call it fancy)
>> setting in Linux...
>
> This depends on your terminfo entry for xterm; I use a special one which
> does restore the screen after vi and less.
Yeah, I know it's terminfo. But the default differ between Solaris and
Linux and I prefer the Solaris default i.e. _not_ to clear/restore the
screen. I cannot see the benefit of it. When I've looked at a man page I
mostly want to type a command and where I left the man page the info I
need is. Then why hide/remove it for me? But penguins are strange
birds. Can't fly, so they will never really take off...
Robert Gruener
> Install Cygwin and use vi there, too. S'what I do...
>
>
Oh yes. And there is a vim for windows and other vi clones as well.
So cygwin is a good choice but not a must.
--
Gruss / Cheers
Robert
Thomas Dickey
> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>> This depends on your terminfo entry for xterm; I use a special one which
>> does restore the screen after vi and less.
> Yeah, I know it's terminfo. But the default differ between Solaris and
> Linux and I prefer the Solaris default i.e. _not_ to clear/restore the
SunOS 4.x's default was the other way (did not match Solaris default).
But since it's been configurable for more than fifteen years,
there's little point in complaining about it.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
Thomas Dickey
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
...
>> The thing I meant by 'nothing like real [modern] machines' was that
>> PDP11s had (relatively) low-latency uniform memory access, and modern
btw - this statement also was inaccurate.
> The first time I read up on the 8086 segmented memory, I thought "that's
> crap, it'll never last" and went back to 68K. We all make the
> occasional mistake!
When I first read about the 8086 segmented memory (this was before 68K
was introduced btw), the discussion pointed out that the paragraph size was
designed to support a range of values. The later models such as the 386
did support those. Whether page-oriented memory is deemed good or not
doesn't account for more than a decade in which such architectures were
common.
"Thommy M. Malmström"
> "Thommy M. Malmström" <thommy.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>> This depends on your terminfo entry for xterm; I use a special one which
>>> does restore the screen after vi and less.
>
>> Yeah, I know it's terminfo. But the default differ between Solaris and
>> Linux and I prefer the Solaris default i.e. _not_ to clear/restore the
>
> SunOS 4.x's default was the other way (did not match Solaris default).
> But since it's been configurable for more than fifteen years,
> there's little point in complaining about it.
I thought that in c.u.s any complaints on the penguin team was to be
honored... ;-)
Thomas H Jones II
TheKingOfSeljuk <sultano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ok Guys!
>I was persuaded :(
>I am trying to use ONLY vi .
Heh... Peer-pressure works!
-tom
--
"You can only be -so- accurate with a claw-hammer." --me
J.F. Cornwall
> Hello All,
> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
> Solaris.
> I read some study notes about vi.
>
> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
> commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>
> Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
>
> ...or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
> mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
>
> Thanks
> TheKingOfSeljuk
>
from my desktop Windows machines to our Solaris development and testing
systems, using ssh and opening up a bunch of xterm windows displayed
back to my PCs. Tried emacs, I find it horribly counterintuitive.
Some people like vi, some emacs, some like the CDE default editor.
Whatever *you* like.
Jim
da...@smooth1.co.uk
> On Apr 2, 12:45 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 2007-04-02, ThanksButNo <no.no.tha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And it'll work the same there as it does here.
>
> > Sadly, this isn't necessarily true. vi's vary between OS flavours.
>
> Well, yes -- but not much.
>
> It's better than, say, you zip up the ELF binary for your favorite
> editor on Solaris to take with you, then you move to company that uses
> AIX or HPUX. Obviously your Solaris binary won't work. Hopefully you
> can find a version of it that does run at your new home.
>
> But vi will be there -- you always know it will be there -- perhaps
> with some minor variations to discover, but essentially the same vi
> you've already become familiar with.
>
> :-)
vi is available on almost any platform, I even saw it on Novell
Netware!
David Combs
David Combs
>"TheKingOfSeljuk" <sultano...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> xemacs is another trouble source and made my tension up. There is no
>> file/new, close, quit, save save as and similiar menus on program... I
>> can not understand why people develop so useless programs.
>
>"Menus"? We don't need no stinkin menus ;-)
>
>I started using emacs on a Dec-20 in 1981, and I felt vi was pretty
Hey, give emacs an actual try:
Start it, and then, once started, type in:
control-H and then t (tee).
That will get you into the tutorial == and proceed from there.
Myself, along with *lots* of people, simply "live" in emacs,
doing virtually everything from within it.
(except when you need to run a program like vi that can
"jump" around the screen -- that's much better (faster, too)
than trying to do *that* from within emacs.)
David
David Combs
Martin Bergien <m.be...@web.de> wrote:
>Oscar del Rio schrieb:
>> TheKingOfSeljuk wrote:
>>
>>> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world?
>
>
Just about anyone EXCEPT those who run *only* other's application
programs (especially who use only mouse when possible) --
know how to use vi -- and it's line-mode inner-self, "ex".
And that includes almost any emacs-user, too.
(For some things, vi (or ex) is just *so* fast!)
>> I wouldn't use any other editor than vi.
>
>me too.
That's really too bad.
And people think emacs is hard to learn?
Emacs isn't more *difficult* than other editors --
if it truly were, no one would use it!
Why do you think so many people "use the computer"
from within emacs.
Because it makes their getting their daily jobs
done much *easier*.
Anyway, I can't convince you of anything. The only
one who can do that is YOU.
So get someone to *demonstrate* emacs to you, show
you *shell*, dired, *Occur*, *grep*, and ten thousand
other things.
Again difficulty: there's probably no one who knows *all*
of emacs, especially when you include the extensions
that come along when you install it, and for sure
when you include the ones that *don't* come along
with it! (Who even knows what they are, or where
they live!)
Please, at least try that tutorial, via control-H t,
and after a bit of that, try this: M-x doctor.
enjoy.
David
David Combs
Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, "Thommy M. Malmström" wrote:
>
>> > yeah, vi is awful: use ed, it's much simpler and better.
>> >
>> Yeah, now we're talking...
>
>Bah, ed is for nancy boys. Real Men edit raw disk blocks using fsdb... :-)
Have you ever tried using ed with the prompt turned OFF?
And if you ever get confused, just type a "P", and
all will be clear.
>
>--
>Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
>
>CEO,
>My Online Home Inventory
>
>Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
>URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
> http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
>-=-=-=-=-=-
David Combs
Bill Waddington <william.w...@beezmo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:19:24 GMT, "Colin B."
><cbi...@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>
>>Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Colin B. wrote:
>>>
>>(Which actually might have been an LGP-21) Prior to that, I'd always
>>assumed that the story, the man, and the company were all apocryphal.
>
>Museum? Hell, my college roommate did his first programming on an
>LGP-21. Mechanical delay-line memory IIRC. Was that what we called
>the "CADET" computer - "can't add, doesn't even try" - that did its
>math via a look-up table, or was that the 1620? I should remeber,
Yes, was the 1620.
You get it into a loop for maybe a second, place a
radio on top of the computer, and you'd get a tone.
And as I recall you could, on the 1620, make it add
numbers of any length (am I correct about this?).
Anyway, you get it into a loop adding numbers, and
via the radio you'd get the tone -- and by varying
the length of the numbers, different tones.
Anyway, one of the college's main songs was
"<college's Name>'s In Town Again, Run Girls Run ..."
and someone had the radio playing its tune.
>but you know what they say, the memory is the 2nd thing to go...
>
>Back to editors, the only reason I keep XP on my laptop is that I like
>the way vim works in winxx.
XP? How does it work differently than anywhere else?
David
Ian Collins
>
> Yes, was the 1620.
Why are you responding to a month old troll thread?
--
Ian Collins.
David Combs
Well, it sure was nice working on a pdp-10 (or dec-20), no worry
about those ibm-360-style "base registers" and limit to only
so far away you could address without using one.
Yeah, limited to 256k (words), but that was *huge*, being
that no one needed any more (back then).
And *vastly* simpler to program!
David
David Combs
Colin B. <cbi...@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>TheKingOfSeljuk <sultano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> I am studying solaris 10. I saw an internal editor as named "vi" in
>> Solaris.
>> I read some study notes about vi.
>>
>> :) Is there anyone uses vi on the world? There are really stupid
>> commands to edit for a few words in a file.
>>
>> Is there any useful normal text editors in Solaris which can be used
>> in black screen? (Simliar to edit.com in DOS).
>>
>> ...or, in real world, which way do people edit files in Solaris? I
>> mean, do u edit them from another computer/windows or do u install
>> another text editor or is there any built-in text editor in Solaris?
>
>
>First of all, you believe that because you're familiar with edit.com,
>it's a good editor. It ain't. (Although there are _worse_ out there...)
>
>Secondly, you are assuming that because vi isn't intuitive or familiar,
>that it's bad. In fact, vi is an exceedingly fast, efficient, and powerful
>editor--once you get used to it. Many sysadmins tend to use it exclusively,
>and ALL admins are at least familiar with it.
>
>So my advice is to learn vi. Maybe learn emacs as well if you need to do
>some heavy editing, but vi knowledge will serve you very well, and will
>also teach you a great deal about the philosophy of Unix.
>
>Colin
Actually, why not start out with it's "ex". Very few commands,
still very powerful (vi didn't exist until whats-his-name
(now sun guru still employed by sun but now living
in (a cave in?) the Colorado mountains) created it (along with?)
bsd -- when, 1980 or the like? Until then it was strictly
"ed" as the editor that Bell Labs used when writing software
for its switches, etc.).
And you also learn the *concepts* quickly: that there's a
vector of lines, each with a line-number, and you reference
them by eg ".+7", and how inserted lines push all following
lines further down in the vector, with line numbers changing
so they still are integers going from 1 thru number-of-lines,
AND you also learn the super-useful "g/regexpr/<any non-g command>",
and of course, regular expressions --
all of which is much less likely to be understood when
in vi and being swamped with cursor-motions and a thousand
other things.
Learn ex, and THEN expand it to vi.
My suggestion, anyway.
David
David Combs
Robert Gruener <rgru...@online.de> wrote:
>Huge wrote:
>
>> Install Cygwin and use vi there, too. S'what I do...
>>
>>
>
>Oh yes. And there is a vim for windows and other vi clones as well.
>So cygwin is a good choice but not a must.
To say nothing of ntemacs, also available.
David
Thomas Dickey
> Well, it sure was nice working on a pdp-10 (or dec-20), no worry
A pdp-10 is arguably not a microcomputer; I'm certain that I never met
anyone who had one for a personal computer. ditto dec-20's which came
later - both were several years later than the ibm 360's (which weren't
the only machines with segmented addressing, as anyone who did real
programming during the 60's and 70's would know).
Tim Bradshaw
> ...
> >> The thing I meant by 'nothing like real [modern] machines' was that
> >> PDP11s had (relatively) low-latency uniform memory access, and modern
>
> btw - this statement also was inaccurate.
In what sense? For other than very weird PDP11s what was the maximum
latency to main memory in cycles? What is it on a typical current
machine? (Yes, I know that some PDP11s had caches, that's not what I
mean by non-uniform.)
--tim
Thomas Dickey
> On Apr 5, 11:41 am, Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> >> The thing I meant by 'nothing like real [modern] machines' was that
>> >> PDP11s had (relatively) low-latency uniform memory access, and modern
>>
>> btw - this statement also was inaccurate.
> In what sense? For other than very weird PDP11s what was the maximum
> latency to main memory in cycles? What is it on a typical current
The context of the discussion made it apparent that it was referring
to one of the extended addressing schemes such as the 11/70.
Otherwise, you certainly would have put an appropriate disclaimer on
the remark.
Tim Bradshaw
> The context of the discussion made it apparent that it was referring
> to one of the extended addressing schemes such as the 11/70.
Gosh, how curious, since the root of this branch was an article by me,
and no one had mentioned segmented memory or anything like that when I
posted the article you responded to, and I later made it quite clear I
was talking about latency. How strange that the context should have
been something different all along.
Thomas Dickey
well, since you've certainly had some time to think about where the
thread went, perhaps you'll repair the damage by pointing out that
none of what you said can be construed as what the followups used it for.
Giorgos Keramidas
> Actually, why not start out with it's "ex". Very few commands, still
> very powerful (vi didn't exist until whats-his-name (now sun guru
> still employed by sun but now living in (a cave in?) the Colorado
> mountains) created it (along with?) bsd -- when, 1980 or the like?
> Until then it was strictly "ed" as the editor that Bell Labs used when
> writing software for its switches, etc.).
The name was Bill Joy, and he's not just 'any' Sun guru. He's one of
the founders of Sun. At least you got it right when you wrote that he
was related to BSD (even though he didn't "create" all of it)... Oh
well.
Please take a few moments to Google for whats-his-name in the future :)
Giorgos Keramidas
Marshall Kirk McKusick describes in one of his videos, called ``History
of the Berkeley Software Distributions, Part I: Twenty Years of Berkeley
Unix: From AT&T Owned to Freely Redistributable'', something which may
be interesting: In some of the machines BSD UNIX ran on, it was faster
to swap out parts of the memory and page it in later, than to use memory
copy.
The video contains a wealth of other interesting bits of the history of
porting Unix from one system to another, so I recommend it to anyone who
can get his hands on a copy from Marshall Kirk McKusick's site:
https://www.mckusick.com/history/videoorderform.html
It's definitely worth watching :)
Thommy M.
> In article <euqfbl$vu6$0...@news.t-online.com>,
M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead
;-)