On 05/04/2017 13:27, alister wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:12:14 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:49:09 +0100, rickman  wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/4/2017 6:27 AM, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 22:42:16 +0100, Rob Morley 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:21:50 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Martin Gregorie  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That was a rather off-topic comment for this NG: apologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might have inspired someone to go develop a fault-tolerant cluster
>>>>> using Pi compute modules ...
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Off topic?? there's a thread on the merits (or not) of metric units
>>>> and electric sockets. It's easy to miss the header is "ARMv8.1?"
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of getting it vaguely back on topic-ish as Yet Another vi
>>>> v emacs debate!
>>>
>>> Which side are you on.  My old editor, Codewright has had a stroke and
>>> I
>>
>> Neither. I was "forced" to learn a bit of vi, as at the command prompt
>> there's little available after a failed boot of a pi.
>
> IIRC nano is installed as standard on a PI
> it is far simpler for basic editing that either of the two   
> behemoths that are treated as rights of passage by some UNIX gurus.
> I am reminded of two quotes:
>
> 1 Vi is a text editor with two modes mode 1 beeps continuously & mode 2
> corrupts files.
>
> 2 EMACS has everything needed to make a great operating system except a
> good text editor.

I never learned emacs but reach for vi as a matter of course. I suppose
I've used it for so long that I don't think about it BUT I probably only
use a tiny part of it. And that's the point - one doesn't need to learn
it all. A few simple commands are enough.

They follow a familiar pattern, too. So once that is understood then vi
can be quite useful.

--
James Harris

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05