I prefer to edit the filesystem directly with a hex editor. No
mounting required! I've given up on using magents directly on the hard
drive, I tend to do more damage that way...
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:54 AM, David Fiander wrote:
> Vi is just as programmable as emacs. It's possible to write a vi macro
> that runs a turing machine.
> - David
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Cloutman, David
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I use nano, which is the same thing as pico, more or less. I wrote my
>> first web pages using pico in a unix shell. I always thought it was a
>> great editor. I use nano almost daily, even on my Windows machines.
>> I just don't see the attaction to vi. I understand the need to know
>> but the fundamentalist furvor that some people have for the program
>> baffles me.
>> - David
>> David Cloutman <[log in to unmask]>
>> Electronic Services Librarian
>> Marin County Free Library
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of
>> K.G. Schneider
>> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:09 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] K&R (was: Gartner on OSS)
>>> I now open up the vi vs. emacs discussion:
>>> (personally, I'm a BBEdit user, but fall back to vi as needed ...
>>> for those rare times when you have to tip into a Solaris box to fix
>>> vfstab and your TERM is completely hosed)
>> Back when that was my choice, I used emacs exactly once, during
>> which I
>> removed every instance of the letter "m" from a lengthy document.
>> I have to edit a file in my shell account, which is rare, I use
>> yes, I know that makes me a sissy *and I don't care.*)
>> K.G. Schneider
>> Email Disclaimer: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/nav/misc/EmailDisclaimer.cfm
Ryan Ordway E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Unix Systems Administrator [log in to unmask]
OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331 Office: Valley Library #4657