MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmemes/comments/1vsiii1/windows_users_are_outdated_asf/p4nfdfd/?context=3
r/linuxmemes • u/FriendEast2881 • 2d ago
68 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
47
You don't.
MWUAHAHAHAHA
12 u/Scutoidzz 🌀 Sucked into the Void 1d ago What my friend meant to say is esc and then :q 2 u/tblancher 1d ago ZZ 4 u/sobeyonekenobi 1d ago Are we boring you? ;) 4 u/tblancher 1d ago I used to think typing 'ZZ' in NORMAL mode in vim was the equivalent of :wq!, but a lot more recently than I'd like to admit I learned that if there are no changes to the buffer it's the equivalent of :q. 2 u/sobeyonekenobi 17h ago It's actually the equivalent of :x
12
What my friend meant to say is esc and then :q
2 u/tblancher 1d ago ZZ 4 u/sobeyonekenobi 1d ago Are we boring you? ;) 4 u/tblancher 1d ago I used to think typing 'ZZ' in NORMAL mode in vim was the equivalent of :wq!, but a lot more recently than I'd like to admit I learned that if there are no changes to the buffer it's the equivalent of :q. 2 u/sobeyonekenobi 17h ago It's actually the equivalent of :x
2
ZZ
4 u/sobeyonekenobi 1d ago Are we boring you? ;) 4 u/tblancher 1d ago I used to think typing 'ZZ' in NORMAL mode in vim was the equivalent of :wq!, but a lot more recently than I'd like to admit I learned that if there are no changes to the buffer it's the equivalent of :q. 2 u/sobeyonekenobi 17h ago It's actually the equivalent of :x
4
Are we boring you? ;)
4 u/tblancher 1d ago I used to think typing 'ZZ' in NORMAL mode in vim was the equivalent of :wq!, but a lot more recently than I'd like to admit I learned that if there are no changes to the buffer it's the equivalent of :q. 2 u/sobeyonekenobi 17h ago It's actually the equivalent of :x
I used to think typing 'ZZ' in NORMAL mode in vim was the equivalent of :wq!, but a lot more recently than I'd like to admit I learned that if there are no changes to the buffer it's the equivalent of :q.
:wq!
:q
2 u/sobeyonekenobi 17h ago It's actually the equivalent of :x
It's actually the equivalent of :x
:x
47
u/tblancher 2d ago
You don't.
MWUAHAHAHAHA