Re: Emergency Editors (was Stabble Tag move)

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

rg> <20050314125226.GB27654@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <20050314125226.GB27654@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <423599ae$0$715$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 218.253.82.16
X-Trace: 1110809006 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 715 218.253.82.16
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:2097

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:17:04PM +0800, Bill Hacker wrote:
> 
>>What is needed is a better simple  'emergency' (single-user mode)
>>editor than an 'ed'  - which is for *real* emergencies,
>>or an over-qualified vi you can't even invoke.
> 
> 
> Why do we need such an editor? Heck, we are talking about a situation
> where you can't mount /usr. In which situation would an editor be
> needed for that? I can't imagine any.
> 
> Joerg

I spend time administering, not coding.

*N*X is controlled by a huge number of text files.

The ability to edit these at the lowest level, immediately, and with the
least time spent waiting, is often crucial to getting a server online NOW.

Their complexity dictates a need to see a screenful of text at a time.
ed is not good for that.

That need predates CP/M, DOS, and all the UNIX variants, and has had
a number of solutions - many still in the ports tree.

A basic text editor is small.  8 KB in Forth gets you block moves,
search and replace, pretty-printing, and all.

Just about ten times that will get you a basic editor coded in compiled C
(teco, pico, nano).

But when they are dependent on 'not here' libs, their usefullness has 
dropped
below that of a CP/M binary or a PDA.

Why not fix that?

Bill