If you’re using any Unix at all, then ed really will always be there,
no matter how old or limited the system.
If you’re using any Unix at all, then ed really will always be there,
no matter how old or limited the system.
They did specify Unix.
then all unix systems have 'ed'
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/ed....
If arch linux doesn't include it, it's not a 'unix'; it's not even a good "not unix". So the author wouldn't have needed to correct his article but Arch would need to include 'ed' :)
> If arch linux doesn't include it, it's not a 'unix'
...but according to that version of SUS, I'm sure the original unix isn't unix either. In any case, I don't think you can just assume any particular spec when someone says the word 'unix', most people usually just mean *nix-family (and if the spec is relevant they'll probably cite it).
> it's not even a good "not unix". I imagine arch is much closer to compliance if you install everything in the 'core' repository (which is recommended and includes ed). In any case, if lacking ed makes something a "bad not unix", I'm not sure most people mind being wrong ;)
In my experience, the closest approximation of an editor which will always be there in the real world is sed, not ed.
If you’re using any Unix at all, then ed really
will always be there, no matter how old or limited
the system. Well, unless you use Arch Linux, anyway.My bad. I just assumed he skimmed the article as I often do.
Either way, thanks for the article. I've considered my grip on native Unix tools to be a weakness, but there's generally not much good intro material like this.