From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 25 07:54:42 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8F51065709 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:54:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from invalid.pointer@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f186.google.com (mail-qy0-f186.google.com [209.85.221.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9E98FC16 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:54:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from invalid.pointer@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qy0-f186.google.com with SMTP id 16so1685577qyk.3 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:54:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZWCnmZ2ZIG5D7aN+yf+2Cgjcx6izcyP7kzPcFT8UId4=; b=qEGE53XYZYNOHEV2xWqXc+ax2V50bNW2bf7Q3OVlAikl1hCNUy6Zni0WJEJtyRpDGQ IOYBu26O4Hbs9La+ppSo6EJJZmouFD4srq0TZ4wjhYNWulyCQufKp7o/FSnpZZIwXM1w a0TwSmrOB7rAY04XxKI8rW+y43F+1m34tMIGw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=q0DUwfyja2pl4wYY2kJhACuNOYJwnqkbsenshN8gPgY3PKmYXsO/Ni+mNu8MrqDXN8 FbkgghRJWY+oKKQSUgvXfkgBs7g6IjMFe8zayFo0Wgl/NVPZrDiMG8VoXuqLn2SQL9F3 9GeXyVuN3D6dpDSSOqkf/d4nS1YbsEHfd/mB0= Received: by 10.224.37.143 with SMTP id x15mr1835711qad.146.1245916481972; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?152.144.218.35? ([203.92.44.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm2420824qwh.21.2009.06.25.00.54.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A432D3B.5030809@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:24:35 +0530 From: Manish Jain User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John L. Templer" References: <4A430505.2020909@gmail.com> <4A430CDF.2010205@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <4A430CDF.2010205@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bf1783@googlemail.com, FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:54:42 -0000 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.