State of the SysAd art (was: vi or emacs for editing Python on Linux?)

Cameron Laird claird at starbase.neosoft.com
Fri Dec 28 02:53:22 CET 2001


In article <a08g6c$jiqe9$1 at ID-11957.news.dfncis.de>,
Emile van Sebille <emile at fenx.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>>      Then how are you getting onto the machine?  I hope not plain old
>telnet.
>> Furthermore there are other options of gettimg things onto that machine
>than
>> scp.  That was, of course, an example to point out that one doesn't need
>to
>> edit on that machine to get work done.  I have been on a machine where ssh
>was
>> available but scp out of it was not.
>>
>> cat > sift.pl
>>
>>     Any other questions or can we finally put the bullshit argument to
>rest?
>>
>
>I still support clients running xenix, sco, hpux and aix on dial-in modem
>lines running getty.  Sometimes I have to go on site because they don't have
>dial-in capabilities.  The argument may be bullshit for recent installs, and
>yes I'd certainly prefer they all upgraded immediately.  OTOH, vi works just
>fine for all those cases where one needs to edit on the machine to get work
>done.
			.
			.
			.
What--no Ultrix?

I entirely agree that in-place editing is not strictly
necessary.  I was arguing for ssh, CVS, and IP reacha-
bility while some readers were ... well, younger than
they are now.  At the same time, I ask for tolerance of
our brethren who cope with more conservative computing
regimes.

vi happens to fit my personal style better than emacs,
but I'm very, very wary of generalizing that experience
at all.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html



More information about the Python-list mailing list