Portable OpenBSD vi for Unix systems (opens in new tab)

(github.com)

96 pointsrdpintqogeogsaa2y ago26 comments

26 comments

There are many unofficial efforts to bring OpenBSD software to other systems. For example, there are at least two maintained ports of OpenBSD ksh, https://github.com/dimkr/loksh (Linux) and https://github.com/ibara/oksh (cross-platform). There are also at least two of doas, https://github.com/slicer69/doas and https://github.com/nholstein/OpenDoas. I wish they were catalogued somewhere, like an "awesome list".

I would love to see portable OpenBSD cron. Features like random ranges with steps (https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20230507122935) and `-s` (https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-7.2/crontab.5#s) put it ahead of almost every other. It could replace many uses of systemd timers on Linux.

Edit: Added doas ports.

ligurio2y ago

> I wish they were catalogued somewhere, like an "awesome list".

Sure, they are listed here

https://github.com/ligurio/awesome-openbsd#portable-openbsd-...

networked2y ago

Haha, this is exactly what I asked for. :-) I should have checked Awesome OpenBSD. Thanks for making this list.

CameronNemo2y ago

FYI the doas ports you added are poorly maintained.

The nholstein repo clearly states: This repository temporarily unmaintained.

And the slicer69 project has had some insecure code added in the past: https://xn--1xa.duncano.de/slicer69-doas.html

The awesome-openbsd repo only links to the Duncaen OpenDoas repo: https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas

networked2y ago

Sorry, I meant to link to https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas instead of https://github.com/nholstein/OpenDoas. Thank you for correcting my mistake.

rollcat2y ago

> the slicer69 project has had some insecure code added in the past

Ouch... surely no distribution would package this garbage, right?

hulitu2y ago

What is so difficult in porting ? OpenBSD is a (duck) UNIX so it shouldn't be any issue.

pravus2y ago

It's really just the effort and time to understand the data structures and API considerations between the two systems. Saying something is a UNIX doesn't absolve you of the duty of knowing how the specific UNIX was implemented. Also, Linux has no UNIX heritage so relying on UNIX knowledge isn't as helpful as you might think and most of the commonalities are through things like POSIX standards which don't necessarily drive kernel internals directly. If the application relies on a specific kernel features, you might have a very complicated or impossible task ahead.

Also, OpenBSD really doesn't have a huge install base. It's a fairly niche project and the people that work on it really don't care about Linux at all. You'd have to find someone with the skills to be able to translate between the two, the time to do it, and the desire to do it. I have the skills and most of the desire but not the time otherwise I'd be working on projects like this. I've been getting pretty sick of the Linux eco-sphere for a while now so it'd be nice to have some saner production tools. Unfortunately I have to have a day job and no one at work even knows about OpenBSD.

4 more replies

SomeoneFromCA2y ago

Openbsd has some security related syscalls not present in say Linux and FreeBSD.

ainar-g2y ago

I'll be able to try a bit later, but does it handle UTF-8 correctly? I remember having some versions of nvi split characters through the middle when doing e.g. folding back in the day.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm a dum-dum, it's written in the README:

> No support for Unicode / UTF-8 / wide character display

> Multibyte support is planned, but is unfortunately non-trivial, […]

rahen2y ago

If you want a small, portable vi with Unicode, you can static build the version from Busybox. That's what I do.

anthk2y ago

Nvi2 from packages/ports it's almost the same as core vi but with Unicode support.

cpach2y ago

“Multibyte characters are shown as individual bytes, rather than glyphs”

suprjami2y ago

You mean to tell me vi from the 1970s doesn't support LSP? This is an outrage!

DougMerritt2y ago

Ok, you're joking, but still, are you referring to the 1987 Liskov Substitution Principle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle

andrewjf2y ago

Language Server Protocol - https://langserver.org

1 more reply

anthk2y ago

Most OpenBSD users with Unicode needs will use nvi2 from ports.

ninjin2y ago

Indeed, but it would be nice to have that support in the base install. Sadly I do not have the skill set to work towards it.

anthk2y ago

ed it's in base and it will support anything you throw at it under an XTerm with a Unicode locale in X.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

26 comments

networked2y ago

Edit: Added doas ports.

ligurio2y ago

> I wish they were catalogued somewhere, like an "awesome list".

Sure, they are listed here

https://github.com/ligurio/awesome-openbsd#portable-openbsd-...

networked2y ago

Haha, this is exactly what I asked for. :-) I should have checked Awesome OpenBSD. Thanks for making this list.

CameronNemo2y ago

FYI the doas ports you added are poorly maintained.

The nholstein repo clearly states: This repository temporarily unmaintained.

And the slicer69 project has had some insecure code added in the past: https://xn--1xa.duncano.de/slicer69-doas.html

The awesome-openbsd repo only links to the Duncaen OpenDoas repo: https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas

networked2y ago

Sorry, I meant to link to https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas instead of https://github.com/nholstein/OpenDoas. Thank you for correcting my mistake.

rollcat2y ago

> the slicer69 project has had some insecure code added in the past

Ouch... surely no distribution would package this garbage, right?

hulitu2y ago

What is so difficult in porting ? OpenBSD is a (duck) UNIX so it shouldn't be any issue.

pravus2y ago

4 more replies

SomeoneFromCA2y ago

Openbsd has some security related syscalls not present in say Linux and FreeBSD.

ainar-g2y ago

I'll be able to try a bit later, but does it handle UTF-8 correctly? I remember having some versions of nvi split characters through the middle when doing e.g. folding back in the day.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm a dum-dum, it's written in the README:

> No support for Unicode / UTF-8 / wide character display

> Multibyte support is planned, but is unfortunately non-trivial, […]

rahen2y ago

If you want a small, portable vi with Unicode, you can static build the version from Busybox. That's what I do.

anthk2y ago

Nvi2 from packages/ports it's almost the same as core vi but with Unicode support.

cpach2y ago

“Multibyte characters are shown as individual bytes, rather than glyphs”

suprjami2y ago

You mean to tell me vi from the 1970s doesn't support LSP? This is an outrage!

DougMerritt2y ago

Ok, you're joking, but still, are you referring to the 1987 Liskov Substitution Principle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle

andrewjf2y ago

Language Server Protocol - https://langserver.org

1 more reply

anthk2y ago

Most OpenBSD users with Unicode needs will use nvi2 from ports.

ninjin2y ago

Indeed, but it would be nice to have that support in the base install. Sadly I do not have the skill set to work towards it.

anthk2y ago

ed it's in base and it will support anything you throw at it under an XTerm with a Unicode locale in X.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse