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 >> it, >> 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: >>> >>> http://xkcd.com/378/ >>> >>> (personally, I'm a BBEdit user, but fall back to vi as needed ... >>> and >> ex >>> for those rare times when you have to tip into a Solaris box to fix >> the >>> vfstab and your TERM is completely hosed) >>> >>> -Joe >> >> 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. >> (When >> I have to edit a file in my shell account, which is rare, I use >> pico... >> 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