Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:13:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Konrad Heuer <kheuer2@gwdg.de> To: Manish Jain <invalid.pointer@gmail.com> Cc: bf1783@googlemail.com, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin Message-ID: <20090625130725.V13789@gwdu60.gwdg.de> In-Reply-To: <4A430505.2020909@gmail.com> References: <4A430505.2020909@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, 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). 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 ? > >> There have been some recent changes: >> >> http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/194628 >> <http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/194628>; >> >> that suggest that this problem is being addressed. > > 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. > > But I guess my words are of no use when the people who matter just won't > listen. So I give any hopes in this regard. Maybe you're right, maybe not. 20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code on a silly rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible, and one can learn basics of ed in less than a hour. Don't you think so? Best regards Konrad Heuer GWDG, Am Fassberg, 37077 Goettingen, Germany, kheuer2@gwdg.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090625130725.V13789>