posix to linux is what web standards are to chrome
The POSIX specification of vi
41–50 of 50 posts
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to clarify, Emacs came from ITS, predating GNU by IIRC almost a decade and even the actual construction of any Lisp machines. GNU Emacs was at least the fifth Emacs, following the original PDP-10 Emacs, Multics Emacs, Zmacs, and Gosmacs.
I hope the downvote isn't because of your answer, because I already mentioned that. I even emulated ITS under Simh, and I tried both Emacs and MacLisp.
I hope not too; your comment was very good, just a little confusing.
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope the downvote isn't because of your answer, because I already mentioned that. I even emulated ITS under Simh, and I tried both Emacs and MacLisp.
I hope not too; your comment was very good, just a little confusing.
Who got downvoted? Both of your comments were accurate. The music comparison stuff is subjective, but that's not worth a downvote.
(I don't know how to see downvotes in Hacki, hence why I ask.)
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#44Huawei EulerOS is one of the few POSIX compliant Linux distros, but it’s a commercial one [0] But it has a FOSS release, openEuler [1] I actually want to download it now to check if the vi there is really that POSIX version 0, https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3622.htm 1, https://www.openeuler.org/en/
Wikipedia says it's based off RHEL and this[1] suggests it just vim. 1: https://dl-cdn.openeuler.openatom.cn/openEuler-25.03/source/... Are they actually UNIX Conformant? That PDF just says they've entered a trademark license agreement. They're not listed in the conformance database. https://www.opengroup.org/csq/search/t=XY1.html
FWIW, OS X uses vim so if any of the conformance tests check, it can be made to pass.
Solaris, AIX, and probably everyone else use the BSD/AT&T vi.
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope not too; your comment was very good, just a little confusing.
Who got downvoted? Both of your comments were accurate. The music comparison stuff is subjective, but that's not worth a downvote. (I don't know how to see downvotes in Hacki, hence why I ask.)
Possibly at some point anthk's comment was downvoted?
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#46Huawei EulerOS is one of the few POSIX compliant Linux distros, but it’s a commercial one [0] But it has a FOSS release, openEuler [1] I actually want to download it now to check if the vi there is really that POSIX version 0, https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3622.htm 1, https://www.openeuler.org/en/
Wikipedia says it's based off RHEL and this[1] suggests it just vim. 1: https://dl-cdn.openeuler.openatom.cn/openEuler-25.03/source/... Are they actually UNIX Conformant? That PDF just says they've entered a trademark license agreement. They're not listed in the conformance database. https://www.opengroup.org/csq/search/t=XY1.html
> Are they actually UNIX Conformant? That PDF just says they've entered a trademark license agreement. They're not listed in the conformance database.
They were an official UNIX – https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3622.htm – but they aren't any more.
To be an official UNIX, you need to both pass the test suite and pay the trademark license fee. And the license fee needs to be renewed once every X years. And if you don't pay the renewal, you are no longer an official UNIX, even if you still pass all the tests.
This is why Solaris is no longer an official UNIX – someone at Oracle decided paying UNIX trademark license fees was a waste of money, so they stopped – and hence Solaris is no longer officially UNIX any more.
An I'm pretty sure the same thing happened with Huawei EulerOS. Probably someone at Huawei realised that zero customers cared whether EulerOS was officially "UNIX", and hence decided that paying the renewal was a waste of money. And they are probably right about that. 30 years ago, being officially "UNIX" or not could be a deal-breaker, nowadays I doubt a single customer cares.
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#47It's notable that vi has been specified by POSIX (along with ed and ex), but not emacs.
vi was born on UNIX early enough that every UNIX wound up with it. Emacs was born on mainframes and made its way to UNIX much later, after vi had already become the standard.
> Emacs was born on mainframes and made its way to UNIX much later, after vi had already become the standard.
Berkeley released the first version of vi in 1978–development had started in 1976 but I don't believe pre-1978 versions were released publicly. The first versions of Unix for Emacs (James Gosling's implementation, and Warren Montgomery's implementation, developed independently of each other) were released in 1981. But I don't think that three year head start was the biggest factor here.
I think a much bigger factor was the fact that vi came with BSD Unix for free, while Gosling Emacs was being sold as a commercial product (although also freely available under rather restrictive terms); I'm not sure what terms Montgomery Emacs (from Bell Labs) was available under, but it soon evolved into CCA Emacs (a commercial product). Free very often beats commercial. The first release of GNU Emacs wasn't until 1985.
And then another major factor was that in 1983, AT&T decided to make vi part of UNIX System V. I think the reasons they decided against Emacs included the fact that they could get vi for free from Berkeley, whereas the most popular Unix Emacs implementations in 1983 they'd have to pay licensing fees for commercial use. Montgomery Emacs was developed by Bell Labs so they owned that, but it was relatively primitive and obscure; CCA Emacs was derived from Montgomery's, but had rewritten all the code so no longer was under Bell Labs copyright; GNU Emacs likewise started out as a modified version of Gosling's Emacs and then escaped Gosling's copyright by rewriting all his code, but in 1983 it wasn't an option yet, and its (proto-GPL) licensing terms likely would have been too scary for AT&T's lawyers anyway.
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
COPY CON ... on DOS, bro. nuttin else comes close or if ur 2 weak, edlin.
I did my high school typewriting test in PC skills using edlin, and never ever used it again. For coding in MS-DOS, I was using Borland IDEs, and there was the nice Q programmers editor as well.
I used many text editors over the years.
At one time, I used PFE, the Programmer's File Editor, which was lightweight and fast, on Windows.
It had a feature of being able to open large files.
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
COPY CON ... on DOS, bro. nuttin else comes close or if ur 2 weak, edlin.
I actually use "COPY CON" a fair amount. Also a decent amount of "cat > foo.sh".
Ha ha.
Same here.
Also, in shell,
>file
And:
echo *
And similarly dd is that man's cat command. :)
Re: The POSIX specification of vi
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
COPY CON ... on DOS, bro. nuttin else comes close or if ur 2 weak, edlin.
I actually use "COPY CON" a fair amount. Also a decent amount of "cat > foo.sh".
yes, it makes sense in some situations, because if all you want to do create a small batch (.BAT) file of a few lines, and you are a careful / good typist, the COPY CON method can be a lot faster then firing up your favourite editor, even a fast one like vim, to create the file, save it and exit.
and the same applies for UNIX.