Active Topics
-
Old stuff for Nokia 770 (0)
to Nokia 770 by teroyk - 23 mins ago - more...
|
2012-01-20
, 19:59
|
|
Posts: 2,225 |
Thanked: 3,822 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Florida
|
#232
|
F'ing hate talk.maemo.org's quick reply box - why is it that if I use a normal make-a-new-post page and accidentally press back/forward or load a different page, a browser knows to save my text, but it can't do the same for the quick-reply?
Lost my post twice in a row just now.
Anyway, request: Please enable the '
' command in vi in the next version of busybox-power - I'm one of those wierd people who use vi for everything, but because vi lacks proper support for the system-wide copy-paste buffer, the only way to get copy-paste going in vi is by opening multiple files using the same vi instance and being able to switch between them, or by reading in the entirety of another file into the one you're working with using the :r command (which is just painful for large files). The current busybox-power's vi has the :n command, which lets it go to the next file, but not the command to go to the previous file, and since it doesn't loop around, having only :n makes copasting code or w/e between files a much more convoluted endeavor.
On an unrelated note, although I haven't been on this forum in a while, I appreciate the regular busybox-power updates coming from you iDont.
Lost my post twice in a row just now.
Anyway, request: Please enable the '
' command in vi in the next version of busybox-power - I'm one of those wierd people who use vi for everything, but because vi lacks proper support for the system-wide copy-paste buffer, the only way to get copy-paste going in vi is by opening multiple files using the same vi instance and being able to switch between them, or by reading in the entirety of another file into the one you're working with using the :r command (which is just painful for large files). The current busybox-power's vi has the :n command, which lets it go to the next file, but not the command to go to the previous file, and since it doesn't loop around, having only :n makes copasting code or w/e between files a much more convoluted endeavor.On an unrelated note, although I haven't been on this forum in a while, I appreciate the regular busybox-power updates coming from you iDont.
|
|
2012-01-22
, 20:14
|
|
Posts: 268 |
Thanked: 1,053 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ The Netherlands
|
#234
|
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
Been there. I've made a habit of typing pretty much all of my posts in a text editor prior to posting
F'ing hate talk.maemo.org's quick reply box - why is it that if I use a normal make-a-new-post page and accidentally press back/forward or load a different page, a browser knows to save my text, but it can't do the same for the quick-reply?
Lost my post twice in a row just now.
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
It looks like there's no support for : p in busybox' vi, so it can't be enabled. However, I've written a small patch to implement it. The patch is attached to this post and a precompiled deb can be found here. Please test it and let me know if you encounter any issues with it.
Anyway, request: Please enable the '
One question though: (I only have superficial knowledge of vi, so I could've done something wrong) : p doesn't make vi go back one file on my notebook either, so is this a standard command (at least in the latest release of vi)? I did found some cheat sheets referring to : p as "Go to previous file" though.
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
:rew is supported by busybox's vi, so you could use that as well.
The current busybox-power's vi has the :n command, which lets it go to the next file, but not the
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
Thank you
On an unrelated note, although I haven't been on this forum in a while, I appreciate the regular busybox-power updates coming from you iDont.
| The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to iDont For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2012-01-23
, 00:20
|
|
Posts: 1,986 |
Thanked: 7,698 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ Dayton, Ohio
|
#235
|
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
Hey, as another weird person who uses vi for everything, maybe I can suggest pulling down the full "vim" package -- I don't know if you're pressed for space or something, but having the full desktop version of vim at your beck and call is a wondrous thing. Not only can you switch between files with :n and :N, you can actually ":sp" split-screen to see multiple files at once. The thing is just ridiculously powerful.
I'm one of those wierd people who use vi for everything, but because vi lacks proper support for the system-wide copy-paste buffer, the only way to get copy-paste going in vi is by opening multiple files using the same vi instance and being able to switch between them, or by reading in the entirety of another file into the one you're working with using the :r command (which is just painful for large files).
(I love being able to browse source code with syntax highlighting and all right on my phone...)
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-01-23
, 07:30
|
|
Posts: 2,225 |
Thanked: 3,822 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Florida
|
#236
|
iDont, how do you manage to be so awesome? Explain.
Precompiled .deb downloaded and tested, seems to work perfectly in a short test I did.
You were also correct in that it would seem that my VirtualBox debian environment (where I do packaging for the maemo repositories and such) also has a vi that doesn't have a : p command.
Granted, vi there just works badly so on there I just use vim usually, so that vi may not be representative either.
At any rate, I just supposed full-featured vi must have it since some cheat sheets I found online included it.
Are you going to submit the : p patch upstream if it keeps proving stable, or incorporate it into the repo version of busybox-power, like you did with the history+ram patch (which, btw, was also awesome, and was one of my earlier clues as to how awesome you are)?
Since I now know from your post that there's a ':rew' command (what would I do without you, seriously) it's not as pressing of an issue for me, but the : p is certainly convenient as well.
Copernicus: I'm aware that vim exists for the N900, but it's just not simplistic enough, I guess. I almost didn't like ls's file coloring when busybox-power added it - took me a while to decide I liked it. There's also a part of me that likes vi over vim on principle, kinda like how I like C over C++. There's a certain charm in my mind to doing things a somewhat more primitive way. Another consideration for me is the inclusion of vi into busybox - I always keep the latest .debs of certain files on my N900s for quick restoration to minimal usability (which funny enough includes aircrack-ng suite and macchanger in my mind) after a reflash, which serves as another motive for sticking to vi. (Doubt you were interested in my little ramble about my psyche just now, but oh well.)
However, this split screen feature I did not know of, and it intrigues me. I'll look into it and consider it. Your recommendation may well lead me towards switching.
And nay, I don't have space issues - I have a haxed eMMC flasher image with a 9 GiB /opt partition that my N900s get treated to and I manually move and symlink a bunch of stuff out to opt (such as all the contents of the C library for gcc compiling on-device, etc).
Precompiled .deb downloaded and tested, seems to work perfectly in a short test I did.
You were also correct in that it would seem that my VirtualBox debian environment (where I do packaging for the maemo repositories and such) also has a vi that doesn't have a : p command.
Granted, vi there just works badly so on there I just use vim usually, so that vi may not be representative either.
At any rate, I just supposed full-featured vi must have it since some cheat sheets I found online included it.
Are you going to submit the : p patch upstream if it keeps proving stable, or incorporate it into the repo version of busybox-power, like you did with the history+ram patch (which, btw, was also awesome, and was one of my earlier clues as to how awesome you are)?
Since I now know from your post that there's a ':rew' command (what would I do without you, seriously) it's not as pressing of an issue for me, but the : p is certainly convenient as well.
Copernicus: I'm aware that vim exists for the N900, but it's just not simplistic enough, I guess. I almost didn't like ls's file coloring when busybox-power added it - took me a while to decide I liked it. There's also a part of me that likes vi over vim on principle, kinda like how I like C over C++. There's a certain charm in my mind to doing things a somewhat more primitive way. Another consideration for me is the inclusion of vi into busybox - I always keep the latest .debs of certain files on my N900s for quick restoration to minimal usability (which funny enough includes aircrack-ng suite and macchanger in my mind) after a reflash, which serves as another motive for sticking to vi. (Doubt you were interested in my little ramble about my psyche just now, but oh well.)
However, this split screen feature I did not know of, and it intrigues me. I'll look into it and consider it. Your recommendation may well lead me towards switching.
And nay, I don't have space issues - I have a haxed eMMC flasher image with a 9 GiB /opt partition that my N900s get treated to and I manually move and symlink a bunch of stuff out to opt (such as all the contents of the C library for gcc compiling on-device, etc).
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mentalist Traceur For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-01-23
, 08:55
|
|
Posts: 1,680 |
Thanked: 3,685 times |
Joined on Jan 2011
|
#237
|
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
Split screen is just the beginning! Full-fat vim pwns the **** out of busybox vi in every conceivable way.
...However, this split screen feature I did not know of, and it intrigues me. I'll look into it and consider it. Your recommendation may well lead me towards switching.
Dang, maybe I should have called myself vim instead.
__________________
N900: One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vi_ For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-01-24
, 20:07
|
|
Posts: 268 |
Thanked: 1,053 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ The Netherlands
|
#238
|
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
I don't know, although it's rather obvious that I am
iDont, how do you manage to be so awesome? Explain.
.
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
Great!
Precompiled .deb downloaded and tested, seems to work perfectly in a short test I did.
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
The patch will be be included in the next busybox-power release. And yes, I do have plans to submit it upstream. That's actually also why I asked if : p is a standard command
You were also correct in that it would seem that my VirtualBox debian environment (where I do packaging for the maemo repositories and such) also has a vi that doesn't have a : p command.
Granted, vi there just works badly so on there I just use vim usually, so that vi may not be representative either.
At any rate, I just supposed full-featured vi must have it since some cheat sheets I found online included it.
Are you going to submit the : p patch upstream if it keeps proving stable, or incorporate it into the repo version of busybox-power, like you did with the history+ram patch (which, btw, was also awesome, and was one of my earlier clues as to how awesome you are)?
Since I now know from your post that there's a ':rew' command (what would I do without you, seriously) it's not as pressing of an issue for me, but the : p is certainly convenient as well.
. Anyhow, standard or not, I'll send it to the BusyBox mailing list anyway and leave it up to the BusyBox developers to decide whether they include it or not.Edit: the patch has been included upstream!
Last edited by iDont; 2012-01-31 at 15:34.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to iDont For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-02-01
, 12:29
|
|
Posts: 1,397 |
Thanked: 2,126 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Dublin, Ireland
|
#239
|
I have had a strange problem with history in version 1.19.3power4.
I have now a file .ash_history that contains ordinary words (probably fron writing SMS or emails) separated by a question mark '?' and my useful history has been moved to a file .ash_history.3055.new. More that that, the words are placed in a way that are similar to a dictionary.
As in the current .ash_history appears the question mark, every time a try to CTRL+R any past command it tries to use the ordinary words from the current file.
To solve it, I just removed the bad file and replaced with the correct one, but I thought it would be worth to mention it here.
Edit: The file with .number was too old, it seems I have lost most of my command history.
Last edited by ivgalvez; 2012-02-01 at 13:18.
I have now a file .ash_history that contains ordinary words (probably fron writing SMS or emails) separated by a question mark '?' and my useful history has been moved to a file .ash_history.3055.new. More that that, the words are placed in a way that are similar to a dictionary.
As in the current .ash_history appears the question mark, every time a try to CTRL+R any past command it tries to use the ordinary words from the current file.
To solve it, I just removed the bad file and replaced with the correct one, but I thought it would be worth to mention it here.
Edit: The file with .number was too old, it seems I have lost most of my command history.
Last edited by ivgalvez; 2012-02-01 at 13:18.
|
|
2012-02-02
, 05:36
|
|
Posts: 2,225 |
Thanked: 3,822 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Florida
|
#240
|
Awesome @ : p now being accepted upstream, as well as it being in the latest update.
As for the post by ivgalvez, I had something like this happen - I did not investigate, I just had my N900 (old unstable one, not the one I bought from dr_frost_dk) randomly crash, and when it rebooted, instead of old commands, I had what appeared to be the contents of some system file as my shell history. I did figure out at the time what the file was, but now I don't recall. It was absolutely unrelated to either shell history, nor did it contain random words separated by ?s.
Idk what that was about, but a while later, after some new history had been written to the history file, it was once again replaced with the correct history, and I haven't had it happen again since.
As for the post by ivgalvez, I had something like this happen - I did not investigate, I just had my N900 (old unstable one, not the one I bought from dr_frost_dk) randomly crash, and when it rebooted, instead of old commands, I had what appeared to be the contents of some system file as my shell history. I did figure out at the time what the file was, but now I don't recall. It was absolutely unrelated to either shell history, nor did it contain random words separated by ?s.
Idk what that was about, but a while later, after some new history had been written to the history file, it was once again replaced with the correct history, and I haven't had it happen again since.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Mentalist Traceur For This Useful Post: | ||
Cheers to you, and thanks again.