| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 10:15 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 16:03 +0200, Spider wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> [STUFF].. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Oh, and unless you have another editor as binary built into your shell, |
| 8 |
> > don't remove ed. A "trusted" editor is good. Sash is seldom used for |
| 9 |
> > "My system is haxxored" however its often used for "I fucked up glibc" |
| 10 |
> > and an editor is a handy thing, even if its as obscure as "ed" |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> busybox.static would provide a minimal vi editor. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> A default compile should produce the following applets (give or take a |
| 15 |
> few based on what the new ebuild will provide) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
<snip> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yep, and the vi editor would be a very good choice as an builtin. |
| 20 |
Especially since its far easier to use than Ed is. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
( yes, this is an area I feel rather strongly about, its not a single |
| 24 |
time that I've been in static shells doing system recovery after either |
| 25 |
hardware,software or administrator failure. Having a good recovery |
| 26 |
system on-disk is wonderful ) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
//Spider |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
begin .signature |
| 33 |
Tortured users / Laughing in pain |
| 34 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 35 |
end |
Archives