Interesting comparison of OSes.
"I think that our choice of Linux, BSD, Windows, Apple or whatever really boils down to how we look at life. To put things in a simpler way the different types of operating systems floating around in the ether can be broken down into two classes. The first class in which I will include Windows and Apple is what I would compare to an automatic car. You don't need to know how it works you just get in and drive. The second class in which I obviously include Linux, BSD and their ilk I would put in the manual car analogy. In a manual car you don't just get in and drive, the car becomes an extention of yourself."
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/are-you-the-linux-type-174...
On 7/6/07, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting comparison of OSes.
"I think that our choice of Linux, BSD, Windows, Apple or whatever really boils down to how we look at life. To put things in a simpler way the different types of operating systems floating around in the ether can be broken down into two classes. The first class in which I will include Windows and Apple is what I would compare to an automatic car. You don't need to know how it works you just get in and drive. The second class in which I obviously include Linux, BSD and their ilk I would put in the manual car analogy. In a manual car you don't just get in and drive, the car becomes an extention of yourself."
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/are-you-the-linux-type-174...
Is there a good online resource about the pros and cons of using car analogies everywhere?
On Friday 06 Jul 2007 16:18:33 Nishit Dave wrote:
Is there a good online resource about the pros and cons of using car analogies everywhere?
I don't know about that; but speaking of car analogies; I came across this once:
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q2/3785.4.html
On 06-Jul-07, at 5:36 PM, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
On Friday 06 Jul 2007 16:18:33 Nishit Dave wrote:
Is there a good online resource about the pros and cons of using car analogies everywhere?
I don't know about that; but speaking of car analogies; I came across this once:
editors with two wheelers:
vi, joe - handy mopeds, can park anywhere kwrite - scooter without gears - can go anywhere but not very macho vim - motorbike with gears - can zip around, but not all that easy to handle eclipse - actualy a luxury car, so doesnt fit in here emacs - harley davidson, owners spend more time tuning it than actualy going anywhere - a monster to control
Hi,
On 7/6/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
emacs - harley davidson, owners spend more time tuning it than actualy going anywhere - a monster to control
On the contrary, my ~/.emacs is only 15 lines. I don't spend time customizing it, at all. Just use it for development.
SK
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 02:44:04PM +0200, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
On 7/6/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
emacs - harley davidson, owners spend more time tuning it than actualy going anywhere - a monster to control
On the contrary, my ~/.emacs is only 15 lines. I don't spend time customizing it, at all. Just use it for development.
emacs: while on the drive, even on a highway, can reconfigure and morph into another car at the speed of thought.
emacs is intuitive and even if one doesnt customize it, it will still do the job but in far less time than anything in the world.
On 7/7/07, alpesh gajbe alpeshgajbe@gmail.com wrote:
emacs is intuitive and even if one doesnt customize it, it will still do the job but in far less time than anything in the world.
<rant> Sorry to play the devil's advocate but I think not. I used xemacs and am still trying learn it. It uses keybindings different from so many other editors that it leads confusion when you have to use emacs *and* other editors. For e.g. C-g goes to a specific line number in most other editors, whereas in xemacs it aborts the currently running command or he one being typed. I still haven't found an equivalent to <esc>:q!<enter> that is, to exit losing all changes, no questions asked. In xemacs I still have to type "yes" when emacs asks me whether I want to exit without saving. Of course, I could do M-~ and exit. There is no text copy facility: you have to cut, and paste twice. </rant>
The above is marked as a rant because I know there is a lot to learn, but I felt it should not be so uphill.
Regards, Mohan S N
On 7/8/07, Mohan Nayaka mohansn@gmail.com wrote:
<rant> Sorry to play the devil's advocate but I think not. I used xemacs and am still trying learn it. It uses keybindings different from so many other editors that it leads confusion when you have to use emacs *and* other editors. For e.g. C-g goes to a specific line number in most other editors,
Why would you want to use other editors when you have emacs ;) </joke>
whereas in xemacs it aborts the currently running command or he one being typed. I still haven't found an equivalent to <esc>:q!<enter> that is, to exit losing all changes, no questions asked. In xemacs I still have to type "yes" when emacs asks me whether I want to exit without saving. Of course, I could do M-~ and exit.
I've found <ctrl>+x+s and <ctrl>+x+c much faster than <esc>+:w and <esc>+:q.
There is no text copy facility: you have to cut, and paste twice.
Again, I've found emacs copy paste easier to use than vi's. Take your cursor to the start of the point where you want to copy and press <ctrl>+<space>. Then go to the end of the section your want to copy and press <Esc> and then <shift>+w.
To cut+paste do <ctrl>+<space> and <Esc> and <ctrl>+w.
On Sunday 08 Jul 2007 11:31:30 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
I've found <ctrl>+x+s and <ctrl>+x+c much faster than <esc>+:w and <esc>+:q.
There's always <esc>+ZZ
Again, I've found emacs copy paste easier to use than vi's. Take your cursor to the start of the point where you want to copy and press <ctrl>+<space>. Then go to the end of the section your want to copy and press <Esc> and then <shift>+w.
To cut+paste do <ctrl>+<space> and <Esc> and <ctrl>+w.
Tried the visual mode in vim? <esc>+v at the start, then use any other navigation command to take you to the end. Either yank or delete with y or d. Then paste with p or P. Equally easy methinks.
Oh, and the visual block mode is yummy.
Then again, I haven't used the original vi. All of the above applies to vim.
On 7/8/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
Tried the visual mode in vim? <esc>+v at the start, then use any other navigation command to take you to the end. Either yank or delete with y or d. Then paste with p or P. Equally easy methinks.
I didn't know this one. Thanks, since I have to use vim at work; sadly no emacs on our systems there. Vim is really cool -- it's just that I prefer emacs if given a choice.
Btw, this discussion could head to yet another 'vi vs emacs' type debate.
On Sunday 08 Jul 2007 13:24:48 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 7/8/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
Tried the visual mode in vim? <esc>+v at the start, then use any other navigation command to take you to the end. Either yank or delete with y or d. Then paste with p or P. Equally easy methinks.
I didn't know this one. Thanks, since I have to use vim at work; sadly no emacs on our systems there. Vim is really cool -- it's just that I prefer emacs if given a choice.
Btw, this discussion could head to yet another 'vi vs emacs' type debate.
Nah. Right now it is quite civilised and informative. As it is, I've been a vim user since day 1; but I'm really interested in learning Emacs anyway.
Methinks; its a big advantage to know vim; since; by default it'll be available on most systems. If you're not satisfied or just want to check out emacs; nothing wrong with learning it. I'd say; know both; master one so as to be productive and to not get stuck.
On 7/8/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 08 Jul 2007 13:24:48 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 7/8/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
Tried the visual mode in vim? <esc>+v at the start, then use any other navigation command to take you to the end. Either yank or delete with
y
or d. Then paste with p or P. Equally easy methinks.
I didn't know this one. Thanks, since I have to use vim at work; sadly no emacs on our systems there. Vim is really cool -- it's just that I prefer emacs if given a choice.
Btw, this discussion could head to yet another 'vi vs emacs' type
debate.
Nah. Right now it is quite civilised and informative. As it is, I've been a vim user since day 1; but I'm really interested in learning Emacs anyway.
Same here. The side-effect benefit is that you get a lisp environment as a bonus.
Methinks; its a big advantage to know vim; since; by default it'll be
available on most systems.
True, but with nasty terminals/terminal settings, I've seen people curse vi/vim for requiring to hammer the 'i' key a few times to get into insert mode.
Regards, Mohan S N
On 08-Jul-07, at 2:59 PM, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
Methinks; its a big advantage to know vim; since; by default it'll be available on most systems. If you're not satisfied or just want to check out emacs; nothing wrong with learning it. I'd say; know both; master one so as to be productive and to not get stuck.
I for one refuse to admin any system that doesnt have joe - although nano is usualy there by default. Incidently, once when i got rootkitted, the rootkitter used nano (or was it pico) to create/ modify files. Joe 'just works' without huge config files - I know a guy who has as many as 25 lines in his emacs config file ;-)
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 06:59:28AM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
works' without huge config files - I know a guy who has as many as 25 lines in his emacs config file ;-)
That guy must be an emacs novice, or must have stopped customizing within a short while. 25 lines is too short a .emacs to have for an experienced emacs user (exceptions exist).
Kumar
On 7/8/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and the visual block mode is yummy.
Any comment on vim macros?
Regards, Mohan S N
Mohan Nayaka wrote:
On 7/8/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and the visual block mode is yummy.
Any comment on vim macros?
vi has been acting strangely in my pc since the last few distros. I had to switch to nano.
On 7/9/07, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
vi has been acting strangely in my pc since the last few distros. I had to switch to nano.
-> and <- arrows inserting alphabets A,B etc. ? Same here since a few days. No idea why...
Btw, is Divert a typically used tag? Is there a standard on such tags/headers? RFC 1855 talks of adding a [long] header to warn of long messages.
Regards, Mohan S N
On Tuesday 10 Jul 2007 05:48:41 Mohan Nayaka wrote:
Btw, is Divert a typically used tag? Is there a standard on such tags/headers? RFC 1855 talks of adding a [long] header to warn of long messages.
Nah, I just conjured it up when I made it OT. Well, related, but still OT. Hence I said `divert' instead of 'OT'.
On 10-Jul-07, at 12:43 PM, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
Btw, is Divert a typically used tag? Is there a standard on such tags/headers? RFC 1855 talks of adding a [long] header to warn of long messages.
Nah, I just conjured it up when I made it OT. Well, related, but still OT. Hence I said `divert' instead of 'OT'.
why do people on this list insist on marking ontopic stuff OT?
On Tuesday 10 Jul 2007 12:49:10 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 10-Jul-07, at 12:43 PM, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
Btw, is Divert a typically used tag? Is there a standard on such tags/headers? RFC 1855 talks of adding a [long] header to warn of long messages.
Nah, I just conjured it up when I made it OT. Well, related, but still OT. Hence I said `divert' instead of 'OT'.
why do people on this list insist on marking ontopic stuff OT?
I didn't mean OT for the list; just for the thread. Hence, `divert'.
On 7/10/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
why do people on this list insist on marking ontopic stuff OT?
The original topic is still reflected in the subject line, and I had tried to degenerate it into a discussion on car analogies, but nobody took the bait...they let it degenerate to a discussion about vi and emacs. Which is another meme for discussion forums on Linux. It seems the discussion has been civil so far because of the M.A.D. theory. That, or nobody is interested in starting a flamewar.
Why oh why can't we have some good clean fun?
Mohan Nayaka wrote:
On 7/9/07, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
vi has been acting strangely in my pc since the last few distros. I had to switch to nano.
-> and <- arrows inserting alphabets A,B etc. ? Same here since a few days. No idea why...
It was a real pain to enter data. It kept adding junk characters. I had to quit without saving many times for editing a single file. It gave trouble in the terminal too. Finally I dumped it when I accidentally discovered nano while surfing some website.
On 10-Jul-07, at 4:20 PM, Rony wrote:
No idea why...
It was a real pain to enter data. It kept adding junk characters. I had to quit without saving many times for editing a single file. It gave trouble in the terminal too. Finally I dumped it when I accidentally discovered nano while surfing some website.
try joe - if you are old enough to remember wordstar, you will enjoy it. It used to come by default on all distros - but now it is just an apt-get install / rpm -i joe
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 10-Jul-07, at 4:20 PM, Rony wrote:
No idea why...
It was a real pain to enter data. It kept adding junk characters. I had to quit without saving many times for editing a single file. It gave trouble in the terminal too. Finally I dumped it when I accidentally discovered nano while surfing some website.
try joe - if you are old enough to remember wordstar, you will enjoy it. It used to come by default on all distros - but now it is just an apt-get install / rpm -i joe
Ya, I have used wordstar. It was in my first pc that had no hard disk and a princely 640Kb RAM with a green monitor. I will try joe.
On 10-Jul-07, at 8:04 PM, Rony wrote:
try joe - if you are old enough to remember wordstar, you will enjoy it. It used to come by default on all distros - but now it is just an apt-get install / rpm -i joe
Ya, I have used wordstar. It was in my first pc that had no hard disk and a princely 640Kb RAM with a green monitor. I will try joe.
mine also had a green monitor - 256 kb RAM and one 360 kb FDD - I had wordstar and my wife's Phd thesis on one of those floppies
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 10-Jul-07, at 8:04 PM, Rony wrote:
try joe - if you are old enough to remember wordstar, you will enjoy it. It used to come by default on all distros - but now it is just an apt-get install / rpm -i joe
Ya, I have used wordstar. It was in my first pc that had no hard disk and a princely 640Kb RAM with a green monitor. I will try joe.
mine also had a green monitor - 256 kb RAM and one 360 kb FDD - I had wordstar and my wife's Phd thesis on one of those floppies
:)
Installed joe and its very powerfull. Its help menu list itself is so long. Thanks.
On 11-Jul-07, at 7:12 PM, Rony wrote:
mine also had a green monitor - 256 kb RAM and one 360 kb FDD - I had wordstar and my wife's Phd thesis on one of those floppies
:)
Installed joe and its very powerfull. Its help menu list itself is so long. Thanks.
i found to my suprise that the latest joe even has automatic syntax highlighting for sql, html and python. Maybe I should get some emacs guy to work on my joerc file ...
On 7/11/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 10-Jul-07, at 8:04 PM, Rony wrote:
try joe - if you are old enough to remember wordstar, you will enjoy it. It used to come by default on all distros - but now it is just an apt-get install / rpm -i joe
Ya, I have used wordstar. It was in my first pc that had no hard disk and a princely 640Kb RAM with a green monitor. I will try joe.
mine also had a green monitor - 256 kb RAM and one 360 kb FDD - I had wordstar and my wife's Phd thesis on one of those floppies
I was first introduced to computers on a similar machine, but with a 5.25" FDD - way back in 1988. And I remember being so happy when I first had my own 3.5" floppy!
2007/7/10, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk:
-> and <- arrows inserting alphabets A,B etc. ? Same here since a few days. No idea why...
It was a real pain to enter data. It kept adding junk characters. I had to quit without saving many times for editing a single file. It gave trouble in the terminal too. Finally I dumped it when I accidentally discovered nano while surfing some website.
That is because you have not used the vi navigation keys it is 'h j k l" instead of left, down, up and right arrows - works on any version of vi (while on the command mode).
Cheers Praveen
On 7/10/07, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
That is because you have not used the vi navigation keys it is 'h j k l" instead of left, down, up and right arrows - works on any version of vi (while on the command mode).
That is a pain to use and remember. Why not the arrow keys?
Regards, Mohan S N
On Tuesday 10 Jul 2007 22:43:51 Mohan Nayaka wrote:
On 7/10/07, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
That is because you have not used the vi navigation keys it is 'h j k l" instead of left, down, up and right arrows - works on any version of vi (while on the command mode).
That is a pain to use and remember. Why not the arrow keys?
Because once upon a time, not all keyboards had arrow keys. Another reason I've heard is that its much faster to scroll with these keys since your fingers don't have to travel around too much. And as it is, once you get used to it, there's nothing to remember. I end up using j and k in less. My man pages are also opened in vim. It allows me to click the references to other man pages.
function vimman() { vim -R -c "Man $1 $2" -c "bdelete 1" -c "set nonumber"; } alias man=vimman
Add that to your environment file.
Btw, vim does support the arrow keys. If yours doesn't check if the vi compatibility mode is on.
Praveen A wrote:
2007/7/10, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk:
-> and <- arrows inserting alphabets A,B etc. ? Same here since a
few days.
No idea why...
It was a real pain to enter data. It kept adding junk characters. I had to quit without saving many times for editing a single file. It gave trouble in the terminal too. Finally I dumped it when I accidentally discovered nano while surfing some website.
That is because you have not used the vi navigation keys it is 'h j k l" instead of left, down, up and right arrows - works on any version of vi (while on the command mode).
I have used vi without any problems on older distros.
On 7/10/07, Mohan Nayaka mohansn@gmail.com wrote:
-> and <- arrows inserting alphabets A,B etc. ? Same here since a few days. No idea why...
Happens with me too, after installing some plugins. But, I haven't yet bothered to check which one caused it. Did you install any plugins or maybe some updates to vi, before that happened?
On 7/8/07, Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you want to use other editors when you have emacs ;) </joke>
You are missing an opening tag there :)
There is no text copy facility: you have to cut, and paste twice.
Again, I've found emacs copy paste easier to use than vi's. Take your cursor to the start of the point where you want to copy and press <ctrl>+<space>. Then go to the end of the section your want to copy and press <Esc> and then <shift>+w.
Thanks for that
To cut+paste do <ctrl>+<space> and <Esc> and <ctrl>+w.
Regards, Mohan S N
On 7/8/07, Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/8/07, Mohan Nayaka mohansn@gmail.com wrote:
<rant> Sorry to play the devil's advocate but I think not. I used xemacs and am still trying learn it. It uses keybindings different from so many other editors that it leads confusion when you have to use emacs *and* other editors. For e.g. C-g goes to a specific line number in most other
editors,
Why would you want to use other editors when you have emacs ;) </joke>
whereas in xemacs it aborts the currently running command or he one
being
typed. I still haven't found an equivalent to <esc>:q!<enter> that is,
to
exit losing all changes, no questions asked. In xemacs I still have to
type
"yes" when emacs asks me whether I want to exit without saving. Of
course, I
could do M-~ and exit.
I've found <ctrl>+x+s and <ctrl>+x+c much faster than <esc>+:w and <esc>+:q.
There is no text copy facility: you have to cut, and paste twice.
Again, I've found emacs copy paste easier to use than vi's. Take your cursor to the start of the point where you want to copy and press <ctrl>+<space>. Then go to the end of the section your want to copy and press <Esc> and then <shift>+w.
To cut+paste do <ctrl>+<space> and <Esc> and <ctrl>+w.
That's all very nice, I'm sure, but could you please explain it with a car
analogy? I am a layperson when it comes to programming.
{ducks}
On 7/8/07, Mohan Nayaka mohansn@gmail.com wrote:
<rant> Sorry to play the devil's advocate but I think not. I used xemacs and am still trying learn it. It uses keybindings different from so many other editors that it leads confusion when you have to use emacs *and* other editors. For e.g. C-g goes to a specific line number in most other editors, whereas in xemacs it aborts the currently running command or he one being typed. I still haven't found an equivalent to <esc>:q!<enter> that is, to exit losing all changes, no questions asked. In xemacs I still have to type "yes" when emacs asks me whether I want to exit without saving. Of course, I could do M-~ and exit. There is no text copy facility: you have to cut, and paste twice. </rant>
C-g: read this as Control-god :-). that is what some people say when they repent
True. emacs' keybindings are different from other editors. emacs took birth when others did not exist, can't help. But, consider changing them to whatever you like. I heard, though did not try, the new gtk-snapshot of emacs can emulate the common behavior, as well as access to clip board.
It is not a good idea to compare vi with emacs, though lot of people try to do it and end up into unnecessary flame wars. vi is indeed an editor, a very good one. I learnt, and it is a must for any one willing to do sysadm. On the other hand emacs is a complete reconfigurable desktop environment, where editing is an option. Indeed, you can emulate vi within emacs.
It is easy to get what other applications do within emacs, but what is difficult is to get others do what emacs does. It absorbed every new invention and stood up for almost 30 years. This is one single reason that I never gave up emacs in the last 18 years.
To the best my knowledge, nothing is ever invented that can be legitimately compared with emacs, except of course a number of clones of emacs.
Nagarjuna
On 7/8/07, Mohan Nayaka mohansn@gmail.com wrote:
The above is marked as a rant because I know there is a lot to learn, but I felt it should not be so uphill.
i do admit at first it is quite intimidating to learn emacs but please understand that you can grow with emacs and emacs would grow on you. Once you get hooked to emacs you would have no logical reason to use anything else. Please do not make the mistake of thinking it is just an editor it is above and beyond it.
-
alpesh gajbe -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Kumar Appaiah -
mehul -
Mohan Nayaka -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Nagarjuna G. -
Nishit Dave -
Praveen A -
Rony -
Shakthi Kannan -
Siddhesh Poyarekar