sco 5.06 WHAT'S up with this?
Concerned_Netizen
the changes disappear. Is there something running in the background I don't
know about?
dhh
presumably you're using vi to do this and i would guess that you're not
saving correctly - after all your edits, type :wq! including the colon
and the exclamation mark.
and I apologize if this seems too basic...
regards, Dirk
Jean-Pierre Radley
More basic, to me, is saving keystrokes. :wq! involves two uses of the
SHIFT key and the typing of four characters. ZZ does the same job with
one use of the SHIFT key and typing just two characters. :-)
--
JP
Bill Vermillion
I avoided use of ZZ since the old days [about 1984 or so] when ZZ
would do what it said it would, write and quit, but with the
glaring exception that if it could not write the file it would quit
anyway leaving you with the mistaken impression that you had
written the file, when it had not. I got into the habit of avoiding
it then and the habit stuck.
I can spare the extra time for the :wq - and I always go that way -
and and if it gives me an error - it keeps me alert and makes me
think if I really want to write the file - or should I be on the
save side and may a copy of the existing file before I :wq! .
I still don't trust computers :-)
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bela Lubkin
I use "ZZ", since it doesn't have that problem these days. However,
there is still a serious problem with it, if you aren't paying
attention. "ZZ" means "_If_ this buffer is dirty, write it. Then
exit." If you've ever seen a USENET posting where someone looks like
they tried to reply, but ended up posting just a quoted copy of someone
else's message, they might have been using `vi` and "ZZ".
How does it happen? Let's say you just wrote the best reply ever,
you're about to post it, but you think "Gee, I should save myself a copy
this fine work." So you enter ":w ~/precious/what.a.great.post". Then
you hit "ZZ". `vi` exits without writing back to the file you were
editing -- after all, the buffer wasn't dirty -- you just wrote it into
your private file. But the "edited" file that your news poster gets
back is exactly the same as it started -- a quoted copy of someone
else's message, and none of what you wrote.
So beware, pay attention...
>Bela<
Bill Campbell
...
>I use "ZZ", since it doesn't have that problem these days. However,
...
>So beware, pay attention...
The other thing that frequently gets the unwary is to hit ctrl-Z instead of
ZZ, putting vi in background mode if the shell has job control. I've seen
this many times in Unix classes where students would have multiple copies
of vi running on the same file (vim would give a hint when it found the
.swp files).
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``When dealing with any spammer, one must always keep in mind that you
are dealing with someone who makes their living through forgery, fraud,
theft, subterfuge and obfuscation. Stated simply, spammers lie.''
David Ritz <dr...@primenet.com>
Bill Vermillion
Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 04:41:15AM +0000, Bela Lubkin wrote:
>...
>>I use "ZZ", since it doesn't have that problem these days. However,
>>there is still a serious problem with it...
>...
>>So beware, pay attention...
>The other thing that frequently gets the unwary is to hit ctrl-Z
>instead of ZZ, putting vi in background mode if the shell has job
>control. I've seen this many times in Unix classes where students
>would have multiple copies of vi running on the same file (vim
>would give a hint when it found the .swp files).
So I guess I'm not being totally paranoid by not using ZZ.
Thanks Bela [first reply] and Bill [this reply].
I don't think the saved keystroke on ZZ vs :wq is worth it.
And I always start with just :wq as it will complain if the file
is a read-only, and that keeps me from sometimes making stoopid
mistreaks.
Concerned_Netizen
called d3. And I most definetly wrote the item out. Thanks for starting at
the beginning though.
"dhh" <d...@priest.com> wrote in message news:3B65E574...@priest.com...
steve lancour
The default installation for D3 is to run the virtual machine as user
pick. If you're executing vi from within the D3 enviornment and you
installed D3 with the default user ID, you don't have permission to
write the file.
Steve Lancour
steve lancour
>
> Concerned_Netizen wrote:
> >
> > No, actually I'm using what's called the Pick Editor from an application
> > called d3. And I most definetly wrote the item out. Thanks for starting at
> > the beginning though.
> The default installation for D3 is to run the virtual machine as user
> pick. If you're executing vi from within the D3 enviornment and you
> installed D3 with the default user ID, you don't have permission to
> write the file.
>
> Steve Lancour
I should correct this to say that any interaction with the Unix file
system from within the D3 enviornment (not just vi) is as the user
specified in /usr/lib/pick/pick0 (normally user pick).
Steve Lancour
Tony Lawrence
> I don't think the saved keystroke on ZZ vs :wq is worth it.
> And I always start with just :wq as it will complain if the file
> is a read-only, and that keeps me from sometimes making stoopid
> mistreaks.
Same here. Same reason :-)
Also, for those of use who hunt and peck to type, finding the SHIFT key is
actually harder than :wq :wq is one hand, SHIFT ZZ needs two.
--
Tony Lawrence (to...@aplawrence.com)
SCO/Linux articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.pcunix.com
Ian Peattie
>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
>> I don't think the saved keystroke on ZZ vs :wq is worth it.
>> And I always start with just :wq as it will complain if the file
>> is a read-only, and that keeps me from sometimes making stoopid
>> mistreaks.
>
>
>Same here. Same reason :-)
>
>Also, for those of use who hunt and peck to type, finding the SHIFT key is
>actually harder than :wq :wq is one hand, SHIFT ZZ needs two.
How do you type the : without using SHIFT....?
--
Ian Peattie i...@john-richard.co.uk
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Bill Vermillion
>> I don't think the saved keystroke on ZZ vs :wq is worth it.
>> And I always start with just :wq as it will complain if the file
>> is a read-only, and that keeps me from sometimes making stoopid
>> mistreaks.
>Same here. Same reason :-)
>Also, for those of use who hunt and peck to type, finding the SHIFT
>key is actually harder than :wq :wq is one hand, SHIFT ZZ needs
>two.
So how do you get : without using two hands :-)
Ronald J Marchand
key????? but then I also use the left pinky a lot to hold down the right
shift key and press one of the keys qwerasdfzxcv
;-} no offense intended.
Bill Vermillion
Ronald J Marchand <roj...@telocity.com> wrote:
>Bill Vermillion <bi...@wjv.com> wrote in message news:GHE4t...@wjv.com...
>> In article <3B67DA88...@pcunix.com>,
>> Tony Lawrence <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>> >Bill Vermillion wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't think the saved keystroke on ZZ vs :wq is worth it.
>> >> And I always start with just :wq as it will complain if the file
>> >> is a read-only, and that keeps me from sometimes making stoopid
>> >> mistreaks.
>>
>> >Same here. Same reason :-)
>>
>> >Also, for those of use who hunt and peck to type, finding the SHIFT
>> >key is actually harder than :wq :wq is one hand, SHIFT ZZ needs
>>
>> So how do you get : without using two hands :-)
>>
>by holding down the shift key with the right ring finger and tapping the ";"
>shift key and press one of the keys qwerasdfzxcv
>;-} no offense intended.
>
That solution still looks like two hands to me.
Tony Lawrence
Because I use my RIGHT hand to type, and I can hit the right hand shift and :
easily with that, but althought I can easily hit the left hand shift with my
left when I have to, I lack the dexterity to do shift zz with the left hand.
See?
Brian K. White
"Bill Vermillion" <bi...@wjv.com> wrote in message news:GHBGB...@wjv.com...
I've been using :x since my first days. Is there any reason not to
continue?
It seems exactly the same as :wq to me, and like you, if I ever get a
warning, I'd like to see the warning and decide to add the ! deliberately.
working as root though usually editing system files, I never do see the
warning unless I take some other persons word that they were logged in as
root (such as my boss...) and after walking him through a bunch of edits we
find out he was full of ... :)
--
Brian K. White -- br...@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani