[Toybox] [PATCH] optional fatter cat(1)

[Rich Felker]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 01:39:21AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/03/2015 10:07 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 10:41:22PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> On 01/01/2015 01:04 PM, dmccunney wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, David Seikel <onefang at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I have a simple test to decide if I like an editor as a result of these
> >>>> decades of random editor usage.  If I can't sit down with the editor
> >>>> and figure out how to do basic editing and saving in less than a
> >>>> minute (sans documentation), then in my opinion it's a crap editor.
> >>>> Both TECO and vi fail this test miserably, though oddly enough I have a
> >>>> soft spot for TECO.
> >>>
> >>> These days, the general assumption is that you can open a file in an
> >>> editor with "<editor> <filename>", and that once up, cursor keys can
> >>> be used to move around in the file and that text can be added where
> >>> desired by typing it at the cursor location and deleted with Backspace
> >>> or Delete keys.
> >>>
> >>> Vi originated in the days when some of those assumptions might not be
> >>> true.  Some early terminals on Unix systems didn't *have* cursor keys
> >>> or F-keys.  The vi command set and separation between input and
> >>> command modes was a result.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> However, ubuntu's decision to only allow you to cursor around in insert
> >> mode when you call "vim" and to _disable_ that when you call it as "vi"
> >> (so the cursor keys instead crap B[ and such all over your text) is
> >> insane and stupid. And the fix is to delete /etc/vim/vimrc.tiny and make
> >> it a symlink to just "vimrc" in the same directory. And the fact you
> >> _need_ to do that on each new ubuntu install is just one more way that
> >> Mark Shuttleworth is trying to cram his personal preferences down
> >> people's throats.
> > 
> > Yes this is idiotic.
> > 
> >> (Redirecting /bin/sh to point to dash instead of bash was still a dumber
> >> move, though.)
> > 
> > I fail to see how this was dumb. It made shellshock a non-issue
> 
> When they switched to dash I _segfaulted_ the thing multiple times. It
> was a buggy pile of crap for _years_.
> 
> It's interesting you think shellshock was a non-issue, presumably that's
> why it didn't make the news or anything? (I'm consistently amused that

I don't think shellshock was a non-issue. I just think it was mostly a
non-issue for systems that don't use bash as /bin/sh or their login
shell for restricted accounts (forced command in authorized_keys
file), and this is one reason I think it was a good move not to make
/bin/sh be a link to bash.

Yes some people write crappy scripts that depend on bash but don't use
#!/bin/bash. I don't and I don't like paying the penalty for people
who do this. They should fix their broken scripts, and preferably they
should write portable shell script instead of bash. I suspect you'll
be more agreeable to this position once more bash-specific scripts
start depending on post-GPLv3 versions of bash... :-)

Rich