On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:53PM -0700, Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2007-05-21 at 21:41 +0200, Abigail wrote: > > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:42:14PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > > > Are you actually getting Joy's vi or is it Bostic's nvi?
My point was, like ircds, there is no mainline vi, and has not been for some time. Most people don't even use descendents from the original source tree, and those who do are fools or miserable, or both. At this point there are only clones and bastardized buggy descendents. > Of course, if the terminal window starts out wide, you might not be able > to go into visual mode at all. Damn it, if I wanted line-mode I'd have > typed 'ed', probably with a here-document. > > > But not so on Linux. I have yet to spot any Linux developer (or distro > > vendor) that actually cares about consistency. Or backwards compatability. > > Re Linux distributions: no argument. > > Re Vim: is this a matter of vendor-supplied vimrc stuff? Debian (Linux) ships with vim set in compatible mode, although I'm not sure whether vim is installed by default at all. I find both of these decisions extremely hateful. vim in compatable mode is not, I believe, 100% compatible, but so close you will probably not ever encounter a failed expectation. vim ships in compatible mode by default. -josh
