[COFF] Kids these days....

[COFF] Kids these days....

[Norman Wilson]

Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Norman Wilson wrote:

> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.

A former boss of mine insisted that everyone had better know how to use 
"ed", because after a system crash it might be the only editor 
available...

-- Dave, who had to use "ed" over a 300bd modem

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.

It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
least not fluently.  For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.

	  	      	     		- Ted

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[John Levine]

It appears that Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> said:
>On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
>> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
>
>It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
>default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
>least not fluently.  For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
>a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.

On all the unices I know, vi is also called ex, and if you invoke it
as ex, it looks enough like ed to get your editing done.

R's,
John

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[Aron Insinga]

I can't check the size of vi or ex right now (not installed), but ed is 
*tiny* and starts up very quickly.

On 2/12/25 15:48, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> said:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
>>> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
>> It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
>> default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
>> least not fluently.  For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
>> a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.
> On all the unices I know, vi is also called ex, and if you invoke it
> as ex, it looks enough like ed to get your editing done.
>
> R's,
> John

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[John Levine]

It appears that Aron Insinga <aki@insinga.com> said:
>I can't check the size of vi or ex right now (not installed), but ed is 
>*tiny* and starts up very quickly.

On debian ex is vim.tiny whcih is about 1.6M, on FreeBSD it's nvi
which is about 400K. While those are a lot bigger than ed which is
about 50K, by current standards they're also tiny and they start up
faster than you can see.

If you want to edit something and you like ed, ex is a perfectly adequate substitute.

R's,
John

>
>On 2/12/25 15:48, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> said:
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
>>>> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
>>> It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
>>> default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
>>> least not fluently.  For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
>>> a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.
>> On all the unices I know, vi is also called ex, and if you invoke it
>> as ex, it looks enough like ed to get your editing done.

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[Larry McVoy]

On my 3.7Ghz Intel box vim takes 0.4 to start up and exit and I'm pretty
sure 90% of that is the time it takes me to paste

:q

We aren't running on under 1 mhz CPUs any more.  A 10 year old Rasberry Pi
had 4 cores @ 900mhz.

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:03:12PM -0500, Aron Insinga wrote:
> I can't check the size of vi or ex right now (not installed), but ed is
> *tiny* and starts up very quickly.
> 
> On 2/12/25 15:48, John Levine wrote:
> >It appears that Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> said:
> >>On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
> >>>Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
> >>It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
> >>default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
> >>least not fluently.  For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
> >>a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.
> >On all the unices I know, vi is also called ex, and if you invoke it
> >as ex, it looks enough like ed to get your editing done.
> >
> >R's,
> >John

-- 
---
Larry McVoy           Retired to fishing          http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[Dan Cross]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:40 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> It appears that Aron Insinga <aki@insinga.com> said:
> >I can't check the size of vi or ex right now (not installed), but ed is
> >*tiny* and starts up very quickly.
>
> On debian ex is vim.tiny whcih is about 1.6M, on FreeBSD it's nvi
> which is about 400K. While those are a lot bigger than ed which is
> about 50K, by current standards they're also tiny and they start up
> faster than you can see.
>
> If you want to edit something and you like ed, ex is a perfectly adequate substitute.

That's rather subjective.

The `ex` command set is very close to `ed`, but subtly different in
(possibly?) annoying ways.  As a trivial example, `q` repeated twice
in `ed` will exit even if the file being edited is not saved; to do so
in `ex` one uses the `vi`-like `q!`.  Maybe that's splitting fine
hairs, but if the desire is for a "muscle-memory" editor in a
constrained environment, that kind of thing can be maddening.

An issue here is that the Internet has never reached the Padlipsky
ideal of resource sharing: under Plan 9, I brought all the resources I
wanted to interact with to me by importing them into some namespace on
my terminal (terminal in the Plan 9 sense, not the VT102 sense), where
I could interact with them using familiar and comfortable tools.  But
that never caught on, and the rest of the world still thinks that
`ssh` is a nifty idea.  Since most of us live in the real world, all
too often we're constrained to remote access environments and whatever
tools they come with.  (Ted: I get it, man; I really do.)

Incidentally, for these pragmatic reasons, I've been playing with the
Helix editor, and I kinda prefer it to vi/vim.  Even though I don't
think that character-mode interfaces are all that cool in 2025, at
least I can confidently say that I have moved boldly into the 1980s.

        - Dan C.

> >On 2/12/25 15:48, John Levine wrote:
> >> It appears that Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> said:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
> >>>> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
> >>> It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
> >>> default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
> >>> least not fluently.  For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
> >>> a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.
> >> On all the unices I know, vi is also called ex, and if you invoke it
> >> as ex, it looks enough like ed to get your editing done.

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[segaloco via COFF]

On Wednesday, February 12th, 2025 at 2:13 PM, Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:40 PM John Levine johnl@taugh.com wrote:
> 
> > It appears that Aron Insinga aki@insinga.com said:
> > 
> > > I can't check the size of vi or ex right now (not installed), but ed is
> > > tiny and starts up very quickly.
> > 
> > On debian ex is vim.tiny whcih is about 1.6M, on FreeBSD it's nvi
> > which is about 400K. While those are a lot bigger than ed which is
> > about 50K, by current standards they're also tiny and they start up
> > faster than you can see.
> > 
> > If you want to edit something and you like ed, ex is a perfectly adequate substitute.
> 
> 
> That's rather subjective.
> 
> The `ex` command set is very close to `ed`, but subtly different in
> (possibly?) annoying ways. As a trivial example, `q` repeated twice
> in `ed` will exit even if the file being edited is not saved; to do so
> in `ex` one uses the `vi`-like `q!`. Maybe that's splitting fine
> hairs, but if the desire is for a "muscle-memory" editor in a
> constrained environment, that kind of thing can be maddening.
> 
> An issue here is that the Internet has never reached the Padlipsky
> ideal of resource sharing: under Plan 9, I brought all the resources I
> wanted to interact with to me by importing them into some namespace on
> my terminal (terminal in the Plan 9 sense, not the VT102 sense), where
> I could interact with them using familiar and comfortable tools. But
> that never caught on, and the rest of the world still thinks that
> `ssh` is a nifty idea. Since most of us live in the real world, all
> too often we're constrained to remote access environments and whatever
> tools they come with. (Ted: I get it, man; I really do.)
> 
> Incidentally, for these pragmatic reasons, I've been playing with the
> Helix editor, and I kinda prefer it to vi/vim. Even though I don't
> think that character-mode interfaces are all that cool in 2025, at
> least I can confidently say that I have moved boldly into the 1980s.
> 
> - Dan C.
> 
> > > On 2/12/25 15:48, John Levine wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It appears that Theodore Ts'o tytso@mit.edu said:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
> > > > > > It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
> > > > > > default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
> > > > > > least not fluently. For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
> > > > > > a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.
> > > > > > On all the unices I know, vi is also called ex, and if you invoke it
> > > > > > as ex, it looks enough like ed to get your editing done.

I made a fool of myself in the not too distant past regarding ed.  I wasn't
aware of the "ed is the standard UNIX text editor" meme and in earnest opened an
issue on the Manjaro GitLab concerning the lack of ed in the base install.
Context was I had just gotten a Pinebook Pro, which has Manjaro by default, and
was doing some initial setup stuff when I found that ed simply wasn't there.

I thought to myself, gee, that's been around since the beginning and is still in
the POSIX standard, perhaps I'm doing something helpful by pointing it out to
the Manjaro folks.  Needless to say the ticket was swiftly locked and I found
myself unable to open new issues with them.  I in all honesty didn't realize I
was treading into such laughable territory and thought I was genuinely pointing
out a missing piece in their UNIX-like operating system offering.  Now all the
wiser and admittedly still feel silly that it isn't there...but the existence of
this whole thing as a meme I believe has really only served to guarantee that
any feedback in any project requesting that ed be installed by default is only
ever seen as being an internet troll, no matter what references one cites...

I for one like the idea that I can drop into something called a "UNIX-like" and
follow tutorials like "UNIX for Beginners" without having to install a bunch of
stuff...but less and less folks use these systems "like UNIX" these days so
can't say I'm too surprised.  All the more reason I forego a packaged distro
on my daily driver.

- Matt G.

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[Michael Parson]

On 2025-02-11 22:31, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Norman Wilson wrote:
> 
>> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
> 
> A former boss of mine insisted that everyone had better know how to use
> "ed", because after a system crash it might be the only editor
> available...

A bunch of years ago (~1997), I had a customer in my colo DC hose up
their Solaris box, changed root's shell to /user/local/bin/bash, then
logged out.  Didn't have 'sudo' installed (we just log in as root when
we need to do things as root).  I don't remember if they even had any
non-priv accounts on there.

They needed my help to fix it.

They didn't want me to fix it, he could do it himself...

So, I went and fetched a Solaris install CD, got him to boot that
into single-user mode.  He immediately tried to edit /etc/passwd, but
1) that was the file on the CD, not the OS, 2) for some reason the
termcap/terminfo stuff wasn't working properly, so, vi didn't work,
neither did ex.  I then had to walk him through mounting the real / fs,
then give him keystroke by keystroke ed commands to edit the proper
passwd file.  Not that ed is/was hard, but he'd never used it and had
no idea how to even get started with it.

Could we have done this from the live system? Yeah, but he was a bit of
a pain as a customer, so, I decided to be a bit malicious.  Guy tended
to be a bit of a know-it-all, but still needed my help with lots of
pretty basic tasks.  The pure fact that he tried to change root's shell
AND borked the attempt might give you an idea.

-- 
Michael Parson
Pflugerville, TX

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[Stuff Received]

On 2025-02-12 10:30, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
>> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
> 
> It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
> default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
> least not fluently.  For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
> a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.
> 
> 	  	      	     		- Ted

Amusing given that MacOS comes with ed (as required).

S.

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[John R Levine]

>> If you want to edit something and you like ed, ex is a perfectly adequate substitute.
>
> That's rather subjective.
>
> The `ex` command set is very close to `ed`, but subtly different in
> (possibly?) annoying ways.

I believe it, but if you've just booted up a linux box and you need to 
edit some config file, ex is close enough to ed to get the job done.  It's 
a lot easier than trying to install emacs.

Once things have settled down, sure, use whatever editor you want.

R's,
John

[COFF] Re: Kids these days....

[Joseph Holsten]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, at 16:56, Stuff Received wrote:
> On 2025-02-12 10:30, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:09:16PM -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
>>> Remind them that ed (pronounced e d) is the standard editor.
>> 
>> It's annoying for me that many Linux distros install vi/vim as the
>> default editor, and not ed --- and I never learned how to use vi, at
>> least not fluently.  For me, it's either ed or emacs (or emacs-nox on
>> a server/VM), so I have to install ed explicitly after a new install.
>> 
>> 	  	      	     		- Ted
>
> Amusing given that MacOS comes with ed (as required).

On my iPad, I’ve taken to using Blink.app as an SSH or Mosh client to real unix systems. But occasionally I just want to edit a local file. For a while ed (presumably from busybox) was “available” but crashing. Apparently they have removed ed in favor of full vim. No, the vi command  is not linked to it.

[COFF] Kids these days....

[Dan Cross]

File under "What a Drag it is Getting Old"....

My kids have now reached the age where they have started to mock me.
Not only must I contend with the fact that I'm not cool anymore (if,
indeed, I ever really was) but I also realize that I have no idea what
the slang they're using means. None whatsoever; it's all
unintelligible gibberish to me. They clearly revel in my ignorance.

But I have found a way to get even: I have started spelling out
commands verbally, punctuated with random words, and acting like this
has more general meaning (and like, you're just not hip with the rizz
if you don't understand).  For example, "Yo, tar x v; on cat. Sig
Pipe, amirite?"  I'll throw one of these out, and they stare at me
with faux comprehension while I silently, inwardly gloat.

Just thought I'd share.

        - Dan C.