> The standard editor is not always standard, it seems.
Linux distros don’t follow a standard anymore, as as I can tell. And Linux was never entirely POSIX compliant.
yeah, unfortunately, despite literally being specified in posix (hell, macos bundles it)
one of these days i will go around pestering distro release engineers to include it; after all, it's less heavyweight than any one of their homespun lightdm greeters
Re:Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
by mananaysiempre on Thursday July 07, 2022 @12:20PM
(#32015950)
The set of utilities specified in POSIX is, erm, not entirely sensible[1]. Though POSIX is more helpful than most large standards I’ve seen, it still ends up mostly having partial implementations (are there any completely 2008-compliant systems, I wonder?).
Why not use sed?
Re:Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
by hestefisk on Thursday July 07, 2022 @07:49PM
(#32021215)
Because it’s not standard.
No, it is. And as other people have pointed out, it ships on more distros.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604499/utilities/se...
It's "ed" which is de facto non-standard.
I think this is my ed use-case as well. I've noticed I need to "apt-get install ed" sometimes. The standard editor is not always standard, it seems.