Actually using Ed

Re:Actually using Ed by exch on Saturday June 16, 2012 @09:54AM (#4120657)

    If you’re using any Unix at all, then ed really will always be there,
    no matter how old or limited the system.

So as it turns out, my Arch Linux setup does not actually have ed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Actually using Ed by mhurron on Saturday June 16, 2012 @12:48PM (#4121001)

> Arch Linux setup does not actually have ed.

They did specify Unix.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Actually using Ed by jvm on Saturday June 16, 2012 @01:47PM (#4121126)

I don't know if unix is the most ahem "specific" specification ever given. What specification of unix do you think the author was referring to? In any case, they have corrected themselves in the blogpost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Actually using Ed by swa14 on Saturday June 16, 2012 @02:24PM (#4121247)

well, if he was referring to 'unix' as specified in the Single Unix Specification (which incorporates IEEE Std 1003.1)

then all unix systems have 'ed'

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/ed....

If arch linux doesn't include it, it's not a 'unix'; it's not even a good "not unix". So the author wouldn't have needed to correct his article but Arch would need to include 'ed' :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Actually using Ed by jvm on Sunday June 17, 2012 @09:04PM (#4124387)

I get where you're coming from but I just want to raise two quibbles:

> If arch linux doesn't include it, it's not a 'unix'

...but according to that version of SUS, I'm sure the original unix isn't unix either. In any case, I don't think you can just assume any particular spec when someone says the word 'unix', most people usually just mean *nix-family (and if the spec is relevant they'll probably cite it).

> it's not even a good "not unix". I imagine arch is much closer to compliance if you install everything in the 'core' repository (which is recommended and includes ed). In any case, if lacking ed makes something a "bad not unix", I'm not sure most people mind being wrong ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Actually using Ed by cliffbean on Saturday June 16, 2012 @12:01PM (#4120888)

My OpenWRT box does not have ed either.

In my experience, the closest approximation of an editor which will always be there in the real world is sed, not ed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Actually using Ed by bmelton on Saturday June 16, 2012 @10:37AM (#4120746)

  If you’re using any Unix at all, then ed really 
  will always be there, no matter how old or limited 
  the system. Well, unless you use Arch Linux, anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Actually using Ed by tyrmored on Saturday June 16, 2012 @10:44AM (#4120757)

Yeah, I corrected that after I noticed a few people commenting to that effect. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Actually using Ed by bmelton on Saturday June 16, 2012 @10:47AM (#4120763)

That's cheating!

My bad. I just assumed he skimmed the article as I often do.

Either way, thanks for the article. I've considered my grip on native Unix tools to be a weakness, but there's generally not much good intro material like this.

[ Parent | on HN ]