Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:24:35 +0530 From: Manish Jain <invalid.pointer@gmail.com> To: "John L. Templer" <green_tiger@comcast.net> Cc: bf1783@googlemail.com, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin Message-ID: <4A432D3B.5030809@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A430CDF.2010205@comcast.net> References: <4A430505.2020909@gmail.com> <4A430CDF.2010205@comcast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John L. Templer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Manish Jain wrote: >>> If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going to have >>> to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so, not just make a >>> (long and hyperbolic) statement that you don't like it. >>> >> Any Unix tool has to clearly fall either under the category of >> non-interactive (grep, sed, ex) or interactive (vi, wget, sysinstall). > > Oh really? Many Unix programs have traditionally had both a command > line mode of operation and an interactive mode, and that's still pretty > much still true. Usually when you run a program you put arguments on > the command line, and the program does what those arguments tell it to > do. But for many programs, if you run them with no arguments they run > in interactive mode and wait for the user to issue commands telling the > program what to do. > >> The case of non-interactive tools is simple : just do what you are told >> on the commandline and exit. For interactive tools, at a minimum, the >> application has to be show what data it is working on and what it does >> with the data when the user presses a key (or a series of them). ed was >> never meant to be non-interactive, and it does not fulfil the basic >> requirements of being interactive. That's one reason. Secondly, how many >> times does an average commandline user even think of using ed when he >> needs to edit a file, even in the extreme case where there are no >> alternatives ? > > ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as such, > at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main editors, > ex, vi, and ed. If you had a nice video terminal then you used vi. But > if you were stuck using a hard copy terminal like a Decwriter, then you > used ex. And ed was the simplified (dumbed down) editor for newbies. > > ed is an interactive program because the user "interacts" with it. You > give it command, it does something, you give it some more commands, it > does more stuff, etc. Interactive does not mean screen based. > >> Till the improvements are in place, we need the alternative of having vi >> under /bin rather than /usr/bin. >> >> Actually, it surprises me to what extent the core of the FreeBSD >> community is enamoured with this idea of a micro-minimalistic base, in >> which it is practically impossible to do anything except run fsck. >> Matters don't stop there. Seeing the limitations of this approach, the >> community churns up wierd workarounds like /rescue/vi, when all that was >> needed was shift vi from /usr. You talk about the need for compliance >> with old hardware and embedded systems to save a few kilos. How old is >> the hardware that you have in mind ? The oldest system running FreeBSD I >> know of is a 1997 Pentium with a 2 GB disk, and even that can easily >> withstand the change I am suggesting. Machines older than that are >> actually DEAD and don't have to be factored in. As for embedded systems, >> the primary target of FreeBSD is servers, workstations and *tops. The >> embedded world hasn't survived riding on FreeBSD, nor the other way >> round. So from the viewpoint of the greatest good of the largest number, >> over-indulging a mindset fixed around minimizing the base only leads to >> degradation, not improvement. Getting to boast of a 900K / won't do any >> good when people are thinking of having decent firepower (even while in >> single-user mode) and its ease of use. > > It's not just keeping the core system small, it's ensuring that if the > disk containing /usr fails to mount, then you still have enough of the > system to fix the problem. Admittedly this isn't as much of a concern > now, what with rescue disks and CDs with bootable live systems, but it's > still nice to have. > > John L. Templer > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkpDDM0ACgkQjkAlo11skePG4wCgjq4plp71Yattn34UP9YIyv4k > VagAoKDcLGVPQBxae6FABGa5hLI9w4gM > =+Ed7 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > Hi John, I really think you need to go through Unix's history again to get your facts anywhere close to reality. -- Regards Manish Jain invalid.pointer@gmail.com +91-96500-10329 Laast year I kudn't spell Software Engineer. Now I are won.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A432D3B.5030809>