[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, or one of the forks.

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 11 points 1 year ago

break a lot of backwards compatibility or radically change the current way of doing things

Plan 9. We can still have textual interfaces without emulating the ancient use of teletypewriters.

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The things I've read (admittedly mostly from the OpenBSD camp) from BSD devs, they seem to not worry about corporations building from their source that much, instead they actively try to get rid of GPL code because it isn't permissive enough for their standards.

Theo wrote "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time.

But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back."

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 9 points 1 year ago

People use ed because they want an editor. They don't want an emacsitor or vimitor. Those aren't even words.

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 2 points 1 year ago

The option to not set a root password and instead let the regular user use sudo seems to be mentioned in the installer for the first time around 2007, so it's been there for a while.

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 1 points 1 year ago

Also OpenBSD use different versions, I'm guessing their vi is the original since it can't handle utf-8. And iirc ex(1) is also a vim variant on Linux. I've never met anyone who actually uses ex though. ed(1) I think is just GNU ed. I am not certain about these versions though.

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The original vi has not been maintained for many years. Most distributions, including Debian, Fedora, etc, use a version of Vim which (mostly) is similar to how Vi was.

From Fedoras wiki:
"On Fedora, Vim (specifically the vim-minimal package) is also used to provide /bin/vi. This vi command provides no syntax highlighting for opened files, by default, just like the original vi editor. The vim-minimal package comes pre-installed on Fedora."

From the vim-tiny package description on Debian:
"This package contains a minimal version of Vim compiled with no GUI and a small subset of features. This package's sole purpose is to provide the vi binary for base installations."

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 2 points 1 year ago

It is, they have the same text.

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 1 points 1 year ago

Nowadays vi is just a symlink to vim.tiny, so you're actually running vim (in vi mode).

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 5 points 1 year ago

https://www.maketecheasier.com/assets/uploads/2020/08/debian-install-set-password.png.webp

Third paragraph. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I also installed Debian a few times without seeing it.

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 2 points 1 year ago

The installer says this when it asks you to type a root password. I don't know why, but for some reason the information is both right there and easy to miss.

1
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org to c/openbsd@lemmy.ml

I'm trying to figure out if the following happens just to me or for everyone. If you have a file, let's call it "myfile", that you know is encoded in UTF-8, what is your output for:
$ file myfile
?

I have a freshly installed OpenBSD 7.3, where I think I've set the locale to en_US.UTF-8. If I manually make a file with some characters like "åäö", file outputs "ISO-8859 text". If I copy/paste some unicode characters from the web, file outputs "Non-ISO extended-ASCII text". If I send these files to a Linux computer and run file it outputs "UTF-8".

Maybe relevant info:
$ locale
LANG=
LC_COLLATE="C"
LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8
LC_MONETARY="C"
LC_NUMERIC="C"
LC_TIME="C"
LC_MESSAGES="C"
LC_ALL=

$ env | grep "UTF"
LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8
XTERM_LOCALE=en_US.UTF-8

[-] quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org 13 points 1 year ago

A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.

view more: next ›

quat

joined 1 year ago