On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:21:45AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 06-Jan-06, 08:28 (CST), paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 07:43:07AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
Then the whole update-alternatives priority system is made pointless.
s/pointless/better/
How?
On 05-Jan-06, 14:20 (CST), paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick.
I was thinking that if you wanted another possible behaviour:
say that optional packages don't overide important ones unless explicitly
set that way, then you could set that policy globally.
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 07:43:07AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 05-Jan-06, 14:20 (CST), paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick.
I was thinking that if you wanted another possible behaviour:
say that optional packages don't overide important ones
On 06-Jan-06, 08:28 (CST), paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 07:43:07AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
Then the whole update-alternatives priority system is made pointless.
s/pointless/better/
How? If you provide the ability to determine alternative selection based
on
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:29:10AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 04-Jan-06, 05:08 (CST), paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to add a policy-alternatives hook to update-alternatives ??
Huh? If the admin manually sets an alternative with with
update-alternatives, it won't be overridden
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:15:01AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I think the single-user system is the last one that alternatives handling
should optimize for, since the *one* person who's going to know to type
nvi instead of vi, and the one person
On 04-Jan-06, 05:08 (CST), paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to add a policy-alternatives hook to update-alternatives ??
Huh? If the admin manually sets an alternative with with
update-alternatives, it won't be overridden by a package install. What
more does she need?
Steve
--
Steve
On 03-Jan-06, 19:30 (CST), Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:58:49AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
Such behaviour is pretty much standard alternative handling: the default
install is the lowest priority, and the optional variants have higher
priorities.
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, come on. vim-tiny entered the archive this week. The fact that we
have some slow buildds and ports like hurd-i386 that are perennially
behind is irrelevant to this discussion unless you can point to a build
failure log.
Maybe we shouldn't switch the
On 03-Jan-06, 00:46 (CST), Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
other than swap vi alternative priorities and swap important-optional
priorities?
Why
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:58:49AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 03-Jan-06, 00:46 (CST), Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
other than swap vi
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I think the single-user system is the last one that alternatives handling
should optimize for, since the *one* person who's going to know to type
nvi instead of vi, and the one person who can fix the alternatives if he
doesn't like them, is the admin...
Sorry for the delay in the reply, house moving ...
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:24:34PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
Sorry, no insinuation intended, although I see, in retrospect, how it
can be read that way; my apologies. I just used Stefano? to draw your
attention and ask for your comments.
On 23-Dec-05, 11:54 (CST), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
The size of base matters a little, but it's not an every byte is
sacred situation.
Cheers, aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)
Anthony:
So, it seems that so far as Stefano (vim maintainer) and I (nvi
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
other than swap vi alternative priorities and swap important-optional
priorities?
On my TODO list I also have to split the vim configuration files in
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 23-Dec-05, 11:54 (CST), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
The size of base matters a little, but it's not an every byte is
sacred situation.
Cheers, aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)
So, it
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:55:06 +1000]:
I still think the vi provided by vim-tiny needs to default to compatible
mode and no-auto-indenting; but afaik it still doesn't.
If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
other than swap vi alternative priorities
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 23-Dec-05, 11:54 (CST), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
The size of base matters a little, but it's not an every byte is
sacred situation.
Cheers, aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)
So,
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:59:46AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:55:06 +1000]:
I still think the vi provided by vim-tiny needs to default to compatible
mode and no-auto-indenting; but afaik it still doesn't.
If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I
Hello,
On Thu, 22.12.2005 at 17:20:42 +0100, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes; therefore it is not bloat to have nvi and nano both in base; they
satisfy different needs (having a vi because we're unix resp. having a
non-modal editor for the rest of us).
I'm not used to nano, but
to, 2005-12-29 kello 11:01 +0100, Toni Mueller kirjoitti:
I'm not used to nano, but the editor in base expected to be used for
working on system config files is imho required to respect tabs and eg.
*not* convert them to spaces unless told to do so, and also provide
means to enter new tabs.
Sorry for the lateness of this; Newtonmas and all...
On 22-Dec-05, 12:33 (CST), Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:41:45PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi seems
about half the total size of a
On Fri, December 23, 2005 04:13, Eric Dorland wrote:
Another good reason for doing this is that for basically every Linux
user I've encountered, vi == vim. When I tell non-Debian users that Debian
ships with something called nvi instead of vim by default, they shake
their heads and disbelief
Hi,
Since I have not seem posting from Miquel...
For this discussion of Which editor should be installed as default on`
the each Debian system?, I think more technical discussion should be
done. This is old topic. We can always install nano, nvi or vim-* later
as you wish by sudo aptitude
On Saturday 24 December 2005 14:15, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Sarge installer installs nano and nvi. I thought it was sort of
overlooked bug of installer. nano and nvi are in /usr/bin.
s/installer/debootstrap/
And debootstrap just installs the base system based on package
characteristics (mainly
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:40:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't like downgrading the vim - vim-runtime dependency since IMO if
a user apt-get-installs vim he expect a fully working vim installation
(including help and syntax highlighting).
Right; but having vim Depends: vim-basic,
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:56:42PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I'm one of the people who prefers nvi over vim. I do so quite strongly,
because I find that nvi obeys my fingers and vim does not. The
Sounds like you should file a bug against your fingers then.
differences are minute, of
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:37:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Yeah; vi not behaving like vi by default seems like a showstopper.
But that is not the case. vi by default not acting like a very old and
(imho) broken version of vi... is not a showstopper.
I love vi - and I love the progress vim
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But still, people have complained in this thread about a size increase
of about 370 Kb (nvi vs vim-tiny + vim-common), moving towards vim +
vim-common would mean an *additional* 340 Kb size increase. Is this
still considered a fair increase by the installer/cd teams?
Eric Dorland wrote:
but this
change is the sort of thing that will help the change perception of
Debian for people who think we're a bunch of crazies.
Wait...is that an arguement for or against? ;-)
Benjamin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:02:28PM +, Paul Hedderly wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:56:42PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I'm one of the people who prefers nvi over vim. I do so quite strongly,
because I find that nvi obeys my fingers and vim does not. The
Sounds like you should
Joey Hess wrote:
[1] It's hard to say for sure since the i386 netinst CD is already too
big for some installation methods and we haven't figured out if
we're going to trim it back down, or drop it.
Ouch. I'd hope that the netinst should still work. As/when/if we can
drop 2.4 kernels then
Anthony Towns wrote:
Yeah; vi not behaving like vi by default seems like a showstopper.
I don't understand why. Debian is a GNU/Linux system, not a UNIX system.
Even such simple things as our echo command do not behave exactly as
POSIX dictates and classic UNIX does; we've generally, I think,
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:59:18AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:40:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't like downgrading the vim - vim-runtime dependency since IMO if
a user apt-get-installs vim he expect a fully working vim installation
(including help
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I much prefer vim-tiny over nvi, others have agreed (at least Frans Pop
and Joey Hess), and not one person so far has actually said they prefer
nvi over vim [...]
I strongly prefer nvi over vim. I dislike vim enough to
install vile when I need a bigger vi than
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:29:24PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2005-12-18 kello 20:17 +0100, Norbert Tretkowski kirjoitti:
We already have two editors in the base system, nvi and nano.
Yes, that being the bloat I was referring to.
I think there should be at least one non-modal editor
to, 2005-12-22 kello 10:20 +, Jon Dowland kirjoitti:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:29:24PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2005-12-18 kello 20:17 +0100, Norbert Tretkowski kirjoitti:
We already have two editors in the base system, nvi and nano.
Yes, that being the bloat I was
Scripsit Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to, 2005-12-22 kello 10:20 +, Jon Dowland kirjoitti:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:29:24PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2005-12-18 kello 20:17 +0100, Norbert Tretkowski kirjoitti:
We already have two editors in the base system, nvi and nano.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:43:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
vim itself is only ~600kB, ignoring its dependency on vim-runtime; is
downgrading that dependency a possibility, so base
Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I'm a addicted vim user, the build-dependencies of vim(-tiny)
is a bit scary for a base package. While we do not have requirements
of base packages of being easily buildable, changing to vim-tiny
will make bootstrapping a basic debian system again a
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:41:45PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi seems
about half the total size of a vim-tiny today.
Okay, so that's not about the same. Stefano? If the above numbers are
If this is some kind of insinuation, ... well,
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
bootstrapping, because it does change _when_ in the process vim is
^
not
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] In the very same post Joey correctly added:
It's now only marginally larger than nvi [...]
167% is a rather big margin, isn't it?
I asked Joey, as one of the installer maintainer, and for him the size
increase is not a problem. If it is a problem
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 07:39:59PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:43:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
vim itself is only ~600kB, ignoring its dependency
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:11:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] In the very same post Joey correctly added:
It's now only marginally larger than nvi [...]
167% is a rather big margin, isn't it?
Depends what it's a percentage of; if it were a percentage
* Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As you can see below and in the BTS, vim's maintainer has managed to
create a vim-tiny package that is vim without some of the extras such as
syntax highlighting. It's now only marginally larger than nvi, which is
the standard vi included in the base
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 20-Dec-05, 09:56 (CST), Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:57:08AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
[1] Dark blue on black. Need I say more?
The reality is that visibility of color combinations is heavily
dependent on
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, if your terminal pretends to be xterm but does not use the color
scheme of xterm, how should vim know that?
You can't.
real console: TERM='linux'
xterm: TERM='xterm'
gnome-terminal: TERM='xterm'
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:53:07PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 20-Dec-05, 12:54 (CST), Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've found vim's defaults are unreadable except on a white background,
since that is what vim assumes you have by default.
Actually, I do use a white
On 20.12. 08:36, Steve Greenland wrote:
I'm still missing the incentive. Joey Hess wrote in his earlier message
that It's now only marginally larger than nvi. It achieves that by
removing many of the features that distinguish vim from nvi, to the
point that my guess is that most of those who
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:31:26PM +0100, Christian Fromme wrote:
On 20.12. 08:36, Steve Greenland wrote:
I'm still missing the incentive. Joey Hess wrote in his earlier message
that It's now only marginally larger than nvi. It achieves that by
removing many of the features that
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:31:26PM +0100, Christian Fromme wrote:
vaguely dissastified by the change. If the result of this is that a)
base is not smaller, and b) vim users still have to install vim-nottiny,
and c) nvi users now have to install nvi, I don't think it's a net win.
As much as
Hi,
While I'm a addicted vim user, the build-dependencies of vim(-tiny) is a bit
scary for a base package. While we do not have requirements of base
packages of being easily buildable, changing to vim-tiny will make bootstrapping
a basic debian system again a little bit harder.
nvi:
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
I don't think it's easily possible to count on people contributing to
this thread to be representative, but I do think (b) is certainly less
than it seems: Even vim-tiny would I think be liked more than nvi --
So do I. As others have said, vim users can run
(Please followup to -project if you're replying on the subject of
holding polls like this -- the discussion on holding polls is not
technical, so does not belong to -devel. For opinions on nvi versus vim,
please reply elsewhere in the current thread, this subthread isn't the
place for it)
For the
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:14:16PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
(Please followup to -project if you're replying on the subject of
Because this is certainly not the first time I was curious on the
opinion of the so called Silent majority (if such beast exists at
all), I decided to simply
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have no sympathy for the notion of a silent majority. If you have an
opinion, speak it. [...]
Hard if you can't hear the question above the NOISE.
wonder how many people will vote for nvi bacause nvi is more like
regular vi than vim. This is important
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:56:35PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
While I'm a addicted vim user, the build-dependencies of vim(-tiny)
is a bit scary for a base package. While we do not have requirements
of base packages of being easily buildable, changing to vim-tiny
will make bootstrapping a
On 21-Dec-05, 16:11 (CST), MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current unstable Installed-Size:
vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
Ranges? Over what? Architectures?
vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
- vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
important as size or accuracy of emulation.
Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a functioning OS/2
build, but it won't run on all of the platforms Debian supports?
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
- vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
important as size or accuracy of emulation.
Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a functioning OS/2
build, but it won't run
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21-Dec-05, 16:11 (CST), MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current unstable Installed-Size:
vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
Ranges? Over what? Architectures?
Yes, architectures.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:28:23AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Who knows? It's not currently built for as many. For hurd-i386,
hppa and s390, nvi is a working editor and vim-tiny isn't. I
can't remember what counts as support right now (URL anyone?)
I'll have to punt on that one, since I know nothing
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I much prefer vim-tiny over nvi, others have agreed (at least Frans Pop
and Joey Hess), and not one person so far has actually said they prefer
nvi over vim--just that they prefer its defaults, which has been
addressed.
Just to be completely
MJ Ray wrote:
Who knows? It's not currently built for as many. For hurd-i386,
hppa and s390, nvi is a working editor and vim-tiny isn't. I
can't remember what counts as support right now (URL anyone?)
Oh, come on. vim-tiny entered the archive this week. The fact that we
have some slow buildds
Steve Greenland wrote:
Okay, so that's not about the same. Stefano? If the above numbers are
correct, then the best case is a (696+200-560)==336K increase. Last I
heard, the CD builders considered that a non-trivial amount of space. Or
am I confusing the boot image with base?
Anything over a
MJ Ray wrote:
The increase is between 101% for ia64 and 58% for i386.
vim-tiny+vim-common is smallish by current standards, but
neither about the same as nvi, nor only marginally larger.
Was there a maths error near the top of this thread?
The very top of this thread contained a forwarded
Riku Voipio wrote:
While I'm a addicted vim user, the build-dependencies of vim(-tiny) is a bit
scary for a base package. While we do not have requirements of base
packages of being easily buildable, changing to vim-tiny will make
bootstrapping
a basic debian system again a little bit
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:35:43PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
- vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
important as size or accuracy of emulation.
Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a functioning
Dropping -project.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Current unstable Installed-Size:
vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
vim itself is only ~600kB, ignoring its dependency on vim-runtime; is
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:19:16AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Well, I get to use other people's systems now and then, and I'm always having
to ask people to install vim. If vim is the default, and configured to act
like vi by default, then people who like old vi get it, and people who like
On 19-Dec-05, 18:06 (CST), Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd still like to know what Steve Greenland thinks of this, since he
maintains nvi. I think that if the maintainers of vim and nvi agree to
swap the one that is in base, that's their perogative to do now since
the thread hasn't
On 20-Dec-05, 01:42 (CST), Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far the only two changes proposed for such a configuration file wrt
to the current one are:
- avoid setting nocompatible
- avoid setting autoindent on per default
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Disable syntax
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:57:08AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
Disable syntax highlighting.
Syntax highlighting is not enabled per default in /etc/vim/vimrc. In
case we decide to switch it on, it wont be in /etc/vim/virc of course.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:57:08AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
[1] Dark blue on black. Need I say more?
That's not vim's fault:
$ echo $TERM
xterm
But this is gnome-terminal, and _not_ xterm. xterm used a white
default background since prehistoric times, so when vim detects
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:36:50AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
If the result of this is that a) base is not smaller, and b) vim users
still have to install vim-nottiny, and c) nvi users now have to
install nvi, I don't think it's a net win.
My feeling is that having vim-tiny installed is in
Scripsit Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But this is gnome-terminal, and _not_ xterm. xterm used a white
default background since prehistoric times, so when vim detects xterm,
it uses colors that look good with the traditional xterm colors. If it
detects the Linux console, it uses colors that
On 20-Dec-05, 09:56 (CST), Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:57:08AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
[1] Dark blue on black. Need I say more?
That's not vim's fault:
$ echo $TERM
xterm
But this is gnome-terminal, and _not_ xterm. xterm used
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:57:08AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
No, I'm not against syntax highlighting, I use it in emacs. The problem
is that the colors[1] are unreadable except on when the terminal
background is black and there are no lights on in the room. I realize a
lot of hackers work
Le Mar 20 Décembre 2005 08:42, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:06:34PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
A few places were identified where vim's defaults are particularly
umcomfortable to people who expect a standard vi, these include
autoindent being defaulted to on in the
On 20-Dec-05, 09:58 (CST), Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My feeling is that having vim-tiny installed is in the middle in the
amount of features spectrum among having nvi and having vim-nottiny.
I feel that Joey's (and mine) point in having vim-tiny instead of nvi in
base is
On 20-Dec-05, 12:26 (CST), Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that there are really enough distinct colors to
complicated syntax highlighting that works with a variety of backgrounds
and lighting.
... are NOT really enough distinct colors to DO complicated syntax
On 20-Dec-05, 12:54 (CST), Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've found vim's defaults are unreadable except on a white background,
since that is what vim assumes you have by default.
Actually, I do use a white background. Apparently your tolerance for
yellow on white is higher than mine.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:11:20PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:19:16AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Well, I get to use other people's systems now and then, and I'm always
having
to ask people to install vim. If vim is the default, and configured to act
like vi
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:36:31PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
If vim-tiny does have a significant feature advantage over nvi, then
yeah, that makes sense. Since I'm not a vim user, I can't guess how
many vim users will start vim-tiny and almost immediately wonder where
the fsck is foo; oh
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 22:22, Glenn Maynard wrote:
For me, it's a clear win: at least I can edit files. I'm
probably a fairly typical vim user.
I have to agree with that.
I have used the standard vi for quite some time but always got into
problems by pressing cursor keys which resulted
Le dimanche 18 décembre 2005 à 18:54 +, Andrew M.A. Cater a écrit :
Will it work fine over a serial console? Is it fine for ex-Solaris/HP-UX
/AIX admins who may have got used to nvi? Unfortunately, the vi/vim
flamewars are not yet concluded :(
Erm, wouldn't the fact nvi is almost as crappy
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The vimtutor content is not available if vim-runtime is not installed,
and it wont be in the base system ('vim-runtime' is the huge 13 Mb
monster package).
In that case perhaps vimtutor should move from vim-common to
vim-runtime? Although you've probably considered
Summarising the thread so far, the issue does not seem to be very
contentious, there are some who like nvi but noone who feels very
strongly that it needs to remain the editor in base.
A few places were identified where vim's defaults are particularly
umcomfortable to people who expect a
Joey Hess wrote:
Stefano suggested that vim-tiny could replace nvi and become part of
base, and I think it's a good idea.
I would personally vote for vim-tiny over nvi. nvi may be bug-for-bug
compatible with vi, but I don't want bugs in my editor. I find vim to be
a more user-friendly vi-like
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:33:35PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
One of the first things I do on any debian install is to install vim,
and set that to be a far higher priority for editor than anything else
imaginable.
Same here. That's why I do not care what the default editor in base is
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:06:34PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
A few places were identified where vim's defaults are particularly
umcomfortable to people who expect a standard vi, these include
autoindent being defaulted to on in the system wide vimrc, and
nocompatible being turned on there also,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:42:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:06:34PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
A few places were identified where vim's defaults are particularly
umcomfortable to people who expect a standard vi, these include
autoindent being defaulted to on in
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:11:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
(Of course, nvi isn't exactly vi either, but it's a lot closer.)
This isn't really new information. I guess I'm just speaking up to
represent those people who do indeed care about tighter compatibility to
the original vi than vim
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 10:58:02PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
TBH, I think these are showstoppers. Otherwise, as long as the space issue
is fixed as you say it is, sounds fine.
I'm confused. A simple configuration change is a showstopper?
Yeah; vi not behaving like vi by default seems
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:37:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 10:58:02PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
TBH, I think these are showstoppers. Otherwise, as long as the space issue
is fixed as you say it is, sounds fine.
I'm confused. A simple configuration change is
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:35:08AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:33:35PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
One of the first things I do on any debian install is to install vim,
and set that to be a far higher priority for editor than anything else
imaginable.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:11:37AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Yeah; vi not behaving like vi by default seems like a showstopper.
Can't make vim act like vi might be a showstopper. The default
configuration makes vim not act like vi isn't a showstopper--it's
trivial to change.
Geez, I hate
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:00:53PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
The vimtutor content is not available if vim-runtime is not installed,
and it wont be in the base system ('vim-runtime' is the huge 13 Mb
monster package).
In that case perhaps vimtutor should move from vim-common to
vim-runtime?
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:06:34PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
A few places were identified where vim's defaults are particularly
umcomfortable to people who expect a standard vi, these include
autoindent being defaulted to on in the system wide vimrc, and
nocompatible being turned on there also,
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
