out of space on /root

[Xen]

Ralf Mardorf schreef op 13-03-2017 11:48:

> that they will hurt themselves by using vi(m) or emacs:

Actually there is truth in that.

I hurt myself more with vi(m) when I am less well ;-).

I seriously get in trouble by doing things in a way that I do not really 
like, forcing me to undo what I just did and trying to find a way that I 
can keep doing indefinitely in the way that I do like.

For example, how do you start a new line in between two lines? There are 
so many possibilities:

1) go to the previous line, press A, enter, and start writing at the 
(indented) place.
2) go to the next line, and press O, press several tabs to get the 
identation right.
3) go to the previous line, press o, do the same.

Consequently, I generally prefer to use 1), but I really get in trouble 
with it ;-), because I use all forms interchangably ;-).

Same with pasting, I *prefer* to paste with "P" a block of text while 
standing on the line that I wanted to be shoved down below the new 
block.

This is because "p" seems to be treacherous to me ;-), you never really 
know in full where it is going to put the stuff.

I also don't like using "a" when "i" and "A" could both do the trick, so 
I try to avoid using "a" now at all costs, just trying to reduce my 
command set :p.

The less options there are, the less you can get confused by any of them 
;-).

And the less ways there are, of doing something, the more likely you are 
to do automatically the one way that works without getting confused by 
anything, because you don't have to think about anything either.

I mean to say that "choice" is taken out of the equation so with less 
choices to make you can focus more on the text you want to write.

The benefit of "A" over "a" (particularly at the end of a line) is that 
A always shows you if there are any remaining spaces at the end of the 
line that "a" would insert into.

And if you don't want "a" you can always move to the right first and 
then use "i". Which coincides more what any other editor would do.

So for me I might even really take "a" and "p" out of my arsenal and 
unbind those keys.

But they are not keys, they are commands.... anyway.

I don't want to use "W" either because it always deletes too much (or 
often times) and "w" deletes too little. So even though I think I 
sometimes need it, because w deletes so little, I always then end up 
deleting too much when using "dW". For example,

a,b  c

"dw" on a will delete only "a"
"dW" on a will delete "a,b  "

But:

a, b  c

which is semantically almost the same in most programmer languages 
(actually all of them I guess)

"dw" on a will delete "a"
"dW" on a will delete "a, ", leaving "b"

But the same goes for

a-b-c-d

This can be one word, but "dw" will see it as several.

I know this is meant to like mirror what a programming language would 
see as a term, but there is just a huge difference between what w" can 
delete and what W" can delete. Sometimes you need five presses of w for 
one W, particularly if you want to delete up till the next " or the next 
); or something.

Which W will then also delete.

So quoted text, which does NOT agree to a programmer's paradigm, is 
treated the same way, and there is no key to delete only the quoted text 
but not the surrounding ); while there is no reason for "w" to be 
behaving in this way if you are not dealing with programmer's code.

Well anyway.