The question of moving vi to /bin

[Erich Dollansky]

Hi,

On 26 June 2009 am 09:07:00 Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:24:13 +0800, Erich Dollansky 
<erich at apsara.com.sg> wrote:
> > To be honest, I never have had a problem with /usr since
> > disks are large enough to have all on only one.
>
> Mostly, partitioning according to directory structures has
> nothing to do with disk space, but with intention. There are
> many many arguments pro and contra partitioning. It's a matter
> of intention.
>
this is not what I mean. I wanted to say, as long as the boot disk 
come up, I also have /usr available when I have the space to have 
it all on the same disk.

That /usr does not have to be on the same disk, is a different 
question. If I do this, I will also be aware of the consequences.

> > > > It would be even better to have an editor like joe in
> > > > /bin than anything like vi.
> > >
> > > Certainly.
> >
> > Ok, then let us support joe.
>
> Or the Midnight Commander's editor, mcedit. :-)
>
> The good thing about vi - yes, there is such a thing - is the
> fact that it even works completely under the weirdest
> circumstances, e. g. if you are on a terminal line that does
> not have cursor keys or function keys, then you can still
> use the full power of vi, as long as you know how to master
> it, but that's true for anything in the UNIX world.
>
Aren't all - or at least most - of the Unix editors like this?

> > But isn't there emacs in the ports too?
>
> Sure, let's take emacs into the OS, as well as any other editor
> one could imagine. And because most people like graphical
> applications, let's include OpenOffice for editing
> configuration files in maintenance mode. :-)

Yes, this is the idea of the ideas.

But why don't we take Microsoft Word running under wine?

I mean, if we strike, we should have a real strike.

Erich