On Thursday, November 10, 2011 01:48:03 pm Jonathan Sheehan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Steven S. Critchfield > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > How many people really want the old, ancient vi instead of vim? > > <oblig> ...someone in recovery from EMACS?... </oblig> ;-) > > > Why even still maintain a vi only version? > > Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the historical argument for this- > that with a damaged system, if you could just get (only) your root > partition mounted (with /bin and /sbin, but not /usr or /usr/local), > then you'd have the essential utilities you need to fix things. And > little old vi would qualify as a utility (doesn't SL have it in /bin > ?). > > And that reasoning shows commendable foresight, but really, how often > do you find yourself able to mount /bin and not /usr/bin? This > situation shows up in some old-timers' horror tales, but I'd like to > hear whether any NLUGger has experienced it in recent memory... > > Or maybe someone is maintaining it there for "minimal" installations?
You have to consider the case where vi might be part of a bootable rescue disk, and there simply isn't room for all of the libraries that vim requires. -- Tilghman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
