I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:57:29 -0800 (PST), Falscher Bruce wrote:
>
> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.

I seem to recall on my recent Debian installation nano was used when I
edited the first text file.

Of course I changed $EDITOR to vim soon after. :-)
--
Andreas

Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:
> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard
> issue.

Given the vast number of distributions, I suspect that probabililty is
high that you would find no other editor besides vi (and mabye ed) as
always available standard issue editors.

Falscher Bruce wrote:
> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.

nano - Repology

https://repology.org/project/nano/versions

The only "standard" is vi which is included in all distros. Each of the
various desktops have some sort of GUI text editor. nano might well be an
emerging "standard". vi is a bit "intimitating" for most new users and nano
is likely more "friendly".

At Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:57:29 -0800 (PST) Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:

>
> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.
>
>

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:57:29 -0800, Falscher Bruce wrote:

> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.

Yes, sed(1)

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"

Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:
> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.

ed(1) is THE standard editor

https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html

On 27/01/2022 14:17, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:57:29 -0800 (PST), Falscher Bruce wrote:
>>
>> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.
>
> I seem to recall on my recent Debian installation nano was used when I
> edited the first text file.
>
> Of course I changed $EDITOR to vim soon after. :-)

I think nano is pretty ubiquitous in debian and children

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:
> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.

Slackware comes with nano plus many other editors
that other distros do not include from their base
CD/DVD/flash media.

You just need to set your environment to default to it.

John

--
csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

On 2022-01-27, jan Anja wrote:
> Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:
>> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.
>
> ed(1) is THE standard editor

I was working on a VPS the other day that was running CentOS and it
didn't even have vi(1) installed. To avoid having to use scp to copy
files down so I could edit them just to copy them back up I used sed(1).

Luckily I only had to change one line, but now I'm kicking myself that I
didn't use that as an opportunity to learn me som ed(1)

--
() www.asciiribbon.org | Jeremy Brubaker
/\ - against html mail | јЬruЬаkе@оrіоnаrtѕ.іо / neonrex on IRC

<Culus-> libc6 is not essential :|

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 14:17, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:57:29 -0800 (PST), Falscher Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.
> >
> > I seem to recall on my recent Debian installation nano was used when I
> > edited the first text file.
> >
> > Of course I changed $EDITOR to vim soon after. :-)

> I think nano is pretty ubiquitous in debian and children

I remember pico before nano!
--
Slammy Thursday after yesterday's slammy humpy day with an unhappy body. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:44:22 -0600, Ant wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 27/01/2022 14:17, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:57:29 -0800 (PST), Falscher Bruce wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard
>> >> issue.
>> >
>> > I seem to recall on my recent Debian installation nano was used when
>> > I edited the first text file.
>> >
>> > Of course I changed $EDITOR to vim soon after. :-)
>
>> I think nano is pretty ubiquitous in debian and children
>
> I remember pico before nano!

Which was the text editor component of the pine email client.

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"

....
> >> I think nano is pretty ubiquitous in debian and children

> > I remember pico before nano!

> Which was the text editor component of the pine email client.

Ah, I never knew that. I prefer pico and nano. I used to be a big pine
user during the 90s, but then I became a mutt user even though it was
hard to use at first.

--
Slammy Thursday after yesterday's slammy humpy day with an unhappy body. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 1/27/22 7:57 AM, Falscher Bruce wrote:
> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.

It is becoming thus ... although some hard-asses STILL
think everybody should use vi "because THEY had to".
Screw vi - I remove/disable or in some cases use a
symlink so it starts nano instead. Nobody uses "edlin"
in Winders anymore and there's no reason to use
primitive line editors in Linux/BSD either. It'd be
like a country that can build sports-cars demanding
all their citizens ride donkeys.

Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:
> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.

In the last few Fedora nano is the default editor, but vi (not vim) is still
installed.

G

On 28/01/2022 04:34, 3.BB963 wrote:
> On 1/27/22 7:57 AM, Falscher Bruce wrote:
>> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.
>
>   It is becoming thus ... although some hard-asses STILL
>   think everybody should use vi "because THEY had to".
>   Screw vi - I remove/disable or in some cases use a
>   symlink so it starts nano instead. Nobody uses "edlin"
>   in Winders anymore and there's no reason to use
>   primitive line editors in Linux/BSD either. It'd be
>   like a country that can build sports-cars demanding
>   all their citizens ride donkeys.

When I started out making Unix boxes do stuff, the ONLY editor that was
ALWAYS there was 'vi'.

Since I still remember enough to make it usable, it's my default console
editor.
Familiarity wins over gruesomeness! :-)

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 23:34:11 -0500, "3.BB963" <z24ba74.net> wrote:
>
> On 1/27/22 7:57 AM, Falscher Bruce wrote:
>> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.
>
> It is becoming thus ... although some hard-asses STILL
> think everybody should use vi "because THEY had to".
> Screw vi - I remove/disable or in some cases use a
> symlink so it starts nano instead. Nobody uses "edlin"
> in Winders anymore and there's no reason to use
> primitive line editors in Linux/BSD either. It'd be
> like a country that can build sports-cars demanding
> all their citizens ride donkeys.

You cannot compare vi with edlin. More like with ed.
--
Andreas

Am Donnerstag, 27. Januar 2022, um 14:23:17 Uhr schrieb Rich:

> Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:
> > I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard
> > issue.
>
> Given the vast number of distributions, I suspect that probabililty
> is high that you would find no other editor besides vi (and mabye ed)
> as always available standard issue editors.

There are already Ubuntu docker containers that do not include vi, but
nano. This is PITA.

Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. Januar 2022, um 14:23:17 Uhr schrieb Rich:
>
>> Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:
>> > I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard
>> > issue.
>>
>> Given the vast number of distributions, I suspect that probabililty
>> is high that you would find no other editor besides vi (and mabye
>> ed) as always available standard issue editors.
>
> There are already Ubuntu docker containers that do not include vi,
> but nano. This is PITA.

In that case, the answer to the OP's question becomes: "no, there is no
standard editor that you can depend upon always being available in
every distribution".

On 27.01.2022 at 14:23, Rich scribbled:

> Falscher Bruce <bruce56@topmail.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard
> > issue.
>
> Given the vast number of distributions, I suspect that probabililty
> is high that you would find no other editor besides vi (and mabye ed)
> as always available standard issue editors.

Every distribution I've used since 1999 has had emacs alongside of vi.
nano didn't exist yet back then, but pico did — it came as part of the
alpine package — and nano is basically the standalone version of pico.

Every distribution I've used since 1999 also carried mc (Midnight
Commander), which comes wxith its own editor, mcedit. It is somewhat
comparable to nano and pico in terms of its abilities, but it has a
different look & feel.

Manjaro — which is what I'm using now — carries both vi and nano as
standard tty-mode editors out-of-the-box. emacs/emacs-nox and others are
available from the repos. ed is not installed, but its man page is,
suggesting ed will be in the repos — I haven't checked.

YMMV.

--
With respect,
= Aragorn

On 28.1.22 13.26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 04:34, 3.BB963 wrote:
>> On 1/27/22 7:57 AM, Falscher Bruce wrote:
>>> I know all have vi, just wondering if another editor is standard issue.
>>
>>    It is becoming thus ... although some hard-asses STILL
>>    think everybody should use vi "because THEY had to".
>>    Screw vi - I remove/disable or in some cases use a
>>    symlink so it starts nano instead. Nobody uses "edlin"
>>    in Winders anymore and there's no reason to use
>>    primitive line editors in Linux/BSD either. It'd be
>>    like a country that can build sports-cars demanding
>>    all their citizens ride donkeys.
>
> When I started out making Unix boxes do stuff, the ONLY editor that was
> ALWAYS there was 'vi'.
>
> Since I still remember enough to make it usable, it's my default console
> editor.
> Familiarity wins over gruesomeness! :-)

If we want to go back, we need to use 'ed'. 'vi' is an
advanced version.

'ed' is the trusted editor to use with an ASR-33 TTY.

I still vote for nano.

--

-TV

Jeremy Brubaker <jbrubake.362@orionarts.invalid> writes:

> Luckily I only had to change one line, but now I'm kicking myself that I
> didn't use that as an opportunity to learn me som ed(1)

I actually use ed in a script to edit a file in place. Not that I
figured it out myself or anything, I found it on the net somewhere.

Of course, these days GNU sed has --in-place but it didn't
always. There's also that tool called 'sponge' which can turn filters
into in-place editors.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 23:34:11 -0500, 3.BB963 wrote:

> there's no reason to use
> primitive line editors in Linux/BSD either. It'd be
> like a country that can build sports-cars demanding
> all their citizens ride donkeys.
>

Yes, there are reasons.

Ed, for example, is used in shell scripts, and I suppose
that this is the main reason for keeing it around.

In comp.os.linux.misc, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> There are already Ubuntu docker containers that do not include vi, but
> nano. This is PITA.

I'm not doubting you, but that sure is weird. If you're going to strip
down a container like that, why leave nano? Why even use Ubuntu instead
of Alpine?

(And I wonder, is vi there in the form of busybox?)

Elijah
------
has been sad to find systems without ed installed

On 1/28/22 3:24 PM, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 23:34:11 -0500, 3.BB963 wrote:
>
>> there's no reason to use
>> primitive line editors in Linux/BSD either. It'd be
>> like a country that can build sports-cars demanding
>> all their citizens ride donkeys.
>>
>
> Yes, there are reasons.
>
> Ed, for example, is used in shell scripts, and I suppose
> that this is the main reason for keeing it around.

Past time to update those old scripts then ...