Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:58:08 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Erich Dollansky <erich@apsara.com.sg> Cc: bf1783@googlemail.com, Manish Jain <invalid.pointer@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Erik Osterholm <freebsd-lists-erik@erikosterholm.org> Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /binHi, Message-ID: <20090626045808.fb3b0c8d.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <200906261033.58894.erich@apsara.com.sg> References: <4A430505.2020909@gmail.com> <200906260955.50697.erich@apsara.com.sg> <20090626040230.18f606b1.freebsd@edvax.de> <200906261033.58894.erich@apsara.com.sg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:33:56 +0800, Erich Dollansky <erich@apsara.com.sg> w= rote: >=20 > On 26 June 2009 am 10:02:30 Polytropon wrote: > > Polytropon > > From Magdeburg, Germany >=20 > big brother is watching me. Yes, Dr. Sch=E4uble does so. :-) > An xterm just came up with this message: >=20 > "The default editor in FreeBSD is vi, which is efficient to use=20 > when you have learned it, but somewhat user-unfriendly. To use=20 > ee (an easier but less powerful editor) instead, set the=20 > environment variable EDITOR to /usr/bin/ee" >=20 > Isn't this the best reasoning why it should stay as it is? The ee editor isn't that bad. Especially ^K and ^L are more easy to use than vi's edit buffer equivalent. While there's ed and ex in /rescue, ee isn't. % which ee | xargs ldd /usr/bin/ee: libncurses.so.7 =3D> /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28088000) libc.so.7 =3D> /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280c6000) Relies on ncurses, but so does dialog / sysinstall... --=20 Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090626045808.fb3b0c8d.freebsd>