|Julien Mills on 28 Feb 2012 12:13:48 -0800|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [PLUG] VI without a swapfile?|
Having said that, 'ed' should work, if it is actually installed on the "minimal" system. It's required by SUS/POSIX, but depending on how formal and minimal the file system is trying to be... 'ed' is even scriptable, though that sounds like overkill in this case. Remember that 'ed' is a line editor designed for teletypes, so it's even more stone knives and bear claws than 'vi'. (And I say that with affection, since I *like* vi. :)
You will likely need a cheat sheet, see the man page on basically any Unix or Linux system installed in the last, oh, 35 years or so... :-) Or start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_%28text_editor%29.
I used 'ed' for recipe 17.14 Editing a File in Place in the _bash Cookbook_ precisely because (in my 'stat' tests at the time) it really does overwrite the same file, it's scriptable, and it's always there.
Ha, just for fun I went and looked and I still have c:\windows\system32\edlin on XP. I don't find it on Win7, though you can get a FreeDOS version with support for long file names now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edlin is short and interesting and just proves there is *nothing* more permanent than a temporary solution.
___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug