On 2008-09-27, at 18:44, Phil Pennock wrote:
Let's target the hate more accurately, please.
I targeted the hate precisely as needed. VIM is full of hateful crap
like that. If that is only optional hateful crap, it's still hateful
crap that shouldn't be in there. And there's lots more hateful crap
in VIM that IS on by default, and some of it can't be turned off. OS
X used to ship with nvi, and it switched to VIM, which made OS X more
hateful.
So I'm hating Apple and Red Hat and Suse and everyone else who thinks
it's a good idea to ship vim, and particularly Apple for actually
removing nvi to put vim in instead. Plenty of hate to go around. More
precise targeting for a hate bomb with that much overkill is wasted.
If a vi-clone goes out of its way to be as close as possibly by
default
and then an OS vendor ships with config settings to change that, which
should you be blaming for the differences?
I have on occasion spent hours tweaking the settings of vim to make
it as close as possible to vi, and it still wasn't close enough. I
have never run into a copy of vim that was anywhere near close enough
by default, but it can be improved somewhat, so:
1. They don't ship it as close as possible by default.
2. Even if they did, it wouldn't be close enough.
3. Later versions of vim required different tweaks, as they
"improved" it further.
For people who aren't looking for vi, that's not a problem, and it's
not hateful for them.
For people who are, replacing vi with vim is setting off a hate bomb.
Don't complain that it's not targeted precisely enough.
Move /usr/share/vim/vimrc aside on your MacOS box and get your ^M
back.
No point, I replaced vim with nvi, and got rid of everything else
that makes VIM hateful as well.
You like vim, fine, as long as it's called "vim" and I get vi when I
type "vi" you're welcome to it. When I type "vi" and get vim then
that's going too far.
