ping Slack dev team
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: LewPitcher.ca tops Google Search!
Next: Xorg and Intel Integrated Graphics Chipset: low resolution
From: Keith Keller on 26 Nov 2009 14:16 On 2009-11-26, Loki Harfagr <l0k1(a)thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> wrote: > > Note please that UW may be creaky because old but not so crappy and > it's only since version 1.1+ that dovecot is making a clean test > while the oldie UW was still quite "correct" :-) > (synth. report on http://imapwiki.org/ImapTest/ServerStatus) Perhaps, but at my last check, UW imapd did not support Maildir format, which means it didn't support subfolders, which means it was not usable for my purposes. Since I haven't received any complaints about dovecot in over five years, I have to assume that they never hit the bugs mentioned on that page. > Now, for the SMTP part (which weighs around 3/4 of my work) For SMTP, I actually prefer postfix, and I install it separately when I use Slackware. But I am only one user, and one who doesn't have an existing Sendmail installation, at that; those Slackware users take priority over users like me, IMO. > So, I'm not against the idea of a postfix extra package but the > main line must keep solid. Agreed ATM. But things always change. Remember when people were against Slackware dropping support for floppy disk images? ;-) --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: notbob on 26 Nov 2009 14:30 On 2009-11-26, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: Trim yer damn posts!
From: Joe on 26 Nov 2009 15:09 Mike Jones wrote on 11/26/09 08:46: > Responding to Sylvain Robitaille: > > [...] >> For day-to-day text editting, vim is hard to beat. You don't need to >> use any of the "enhanced" features. In fact, vim has a mode of >> operation in which it behaves like an ordinary vi. For emergency work, >> especially on an unfamiliar system, a predictable "unenhanced" vi is far >> more desirable. > > > If you've had your brain rewired, maybe. For us normal mortals with > limited lifespans, its a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" puzzle game, and > typically appears in the precise situation where we need a text editor > that actually makes sense and works at least /something/ like all the > other editors we've seen and\or used. This is NOT Vi(m). Then you learn it. When you have to fix somebody else's system, you don't have the time to install another editor. You make do with what is there. And that always is vi. > Crisis plus deadline plus Vi. Shudder! >:| That what you get. Live with it. In a crisis, you don't have the time to install some other editor. So, you better learn how to use vi, and be done with it. -Joe
From: Sylvain Robitaille on 26 Nov 2009 15:13 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:49:12 -0800, Keith Keller wrote: (referring to vi and emacs) > ... All sysadmins beyond beginner should learn at least one of these > two editors.) Agreed, and should be able to at least be functionally familiar with the other. Sysadmins _at_ the "beginner" stage should be aiming to acquire at least basic functional knowledge of at least one of the two, and expecting to eventually do the same for the other. When I started as a sysadmin some years ago, I used and liked Emacs for all my text editing. I had come from a Wordstar (and Wordstar-like) environment prior to that, so I took to Emacs relatively easily. I didn't understand why anyone would want to use vi for anything other than when absolutely necessary. I had, at that time, as a workstation, a DecStation 1200, running NetBSD. Anyone even remotely familiar with these systems likely will understand how at some point it occured to me how little sense there was in launching Emacs every time I wanted to make minor edits to simple files. And so I became more and more comfortable with vi to the point where I was using it by default and using Emacs only when I wanted some enhanced feature that either I couldn't or didn't know how to get in vi. Then I saw colleagues doing some things with vim that I'd been wishing I could figure out how to do with Emacs (let alone vi). I don't even bother installing Emacs on my own systems any more, and if I were in a position where it was the only editor available, I likely could still fumble my way through basic editing, but certainly nothing advanced. That said, some of vim's "features" annoy me, so they're explicitly disabled in my .vimrc. The ability to do that is, of course, the best feature of the editor. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvain Robitaille syl(a)encs.concordia.ca Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe on 26 Nov 2009 15:15
Eef Hartman wrote on 11/26/09 04:37: > Lew Pitcher <lewpitcher(a)lewpitcher.ca> wrote: >> If you want to think in a minimal, survivalist manner, you should >> lookup the "ex" command. > > If you really wanna go minimal, look up "ed" (i.e. the stream editor, > sed, is derived from THAT, nor from the EXtended editor ex). sed is really powerful, with regex. I use it regularly in my scripts (I have to write multiline documentation, though, to be able remember 6 months later what the one-line regex does...) -Joe |