Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 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. Other than that, vim is much closer to non-modality than is nvi - you can often stay in insert mode while using cursor and delete keys to your heart's content. Best, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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. Does nano not do that for you? -- Pity the sysadmin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 and next words out of their mouths either make fun of Debian, or make fun of me (*snif*). While I take making fun of Eric as a very serious issue, the underlying argument is I think also an important one in this discussion: when given the choice of compatibility with some UNIXes, or with many other Linux distributions, it would make the most sense to me to be compatible with the latter. Since people have installed Debian GNU/Linux, they're more likely to expect it to be compatible with other Linuxes they've used than with some UNIX they might have used. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi? - which editor should be standard?
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 install your-editor :-) (Disclaimer: I use vim exclusively.) From: Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Joey, vim-tiny is available in debian/unstable. There are still some minor bugs, but the package is fine. The installed-size of it and of vim-common are as I anticipated (776 + 232 on i386); the only additional dependencies are libc6 and libncurses5. Well is this small? By the way, we should also check nano too. Let me review some status of small editors. (Listed by the size) Package: elvis-tiny Priority: optional Installed-Size: 148 Maintainer: Miquel van Smoornburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Version: 1.4-20 Pre-Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.2.ds1-21), libncurses5 (= 5.4-1) Size: 46090 Package: nano-tiny Priority: optional Installed-Size: 220 Source: nano Version: 1.3.9-1 Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.5-1), libslang2 (= 2.0.1-1) Size: 138512 Package: nvi Priority: important Installed-Size: 632 Version: 1.79-22 Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libncurses5 (= 5.4-1) Size: 288166 Package: vim-tiny Priority: optional Installed-Size: 776 Version: 1:6.4-006+1 Depends: vim-common (= 1:6.4-006+1), libc6 (= 2.3.5-1), libncurses5 (= 5.4-5) Size: 377374 Package: vim-common Priority: optional Section: editors Installed-Size: 228 Version: 1:6.4-006+1 Recommends: vim | vim-tiny Size: 80504 -- This means vim-tiny, it took Installed-Size: 1004 and Size: 457878 Package: nano Priority: important Installed-Size: 1380 Version: 1.3.9-1 Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.5-1), libncursesw5 (= 5.4-5) Size: 461694 So aside from vim-tiny, what we have in sid priority important, nvi and nano, are not smallest editors for the job. From technical point, we should chose elvis-tiny and nano-tiny. Both of these editor have commands in /bin which is always with us. (What happens if you have NFS mounted /usr ?) In terms of updating editors which is installed as the default rescue system, we should chose small ones: nano-tiny and elvis-tiny. (elvis-tiny is another vi-clone.). Sarge installer installs nano and nvi. I thought it was sort of overlooked bug of installer. nano and nvi are in /usr/bin. Cheers, Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi? - which editor should be standard?
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 priority), so it all boils down again to the definition of the base system. Cheers, FJP pgp9NZmd3YKPx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 course, but they are really irritating. Unfortunately, I can't enlist them properly, since my fingers don't talk to me: I notice vim's incompatibility from the fact that my fingers have If your fingers aren't talking to you, perhaps you should also list them as MIA. to keep correcting text under vim, but not under nvi. On days when I'm generally annoyed already, if I accidentally use vim instead of nvi, I can get quite lyrical with my cursing. Funny - on days I'm generally annoyed already and I end up on a machine with nvi as the default vi... I can get quite lyrical with my ranting. For me, vim-tiny would be great! -- Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 has made to make use of vi quicker/better/easier. I don't see that the world has to be stuck in 1985 - should we still be shipping a linux kernel version 1? -- Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 file a bug against your fingers then. differences are minute, of course, but they are really irritating. Unfortunately, I can't enlist them properly, since my fingers don't talk to me: I notice vim's incompatibility from the fact that my fingers have If your fingers aren't talking to you, perhaps you should also list them as MIA. Finger habits are hard to change, especially for an editor like vi. Ridicule is unwarranted. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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, told tradition to go take a hike when faced with the choice of better vs. traditional. Why should vi be any different? If we have a better alternative, replace it. [Appologies if this message comes dangerously close to starting an editor war] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 in base. -- Jon Dowland http://alcopop.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 referring to. I think there should be at least one non-modal editor in base. Behold the awesome non-modality of nano. -- Boilerplate programming mean tools lack power. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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. Yes, that being the bloat I was referring to. I think there should be at least one non-modal editor in base. Behold the awesome non-modality of nano. 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). -- Henning MakholmThere is a danger that curious users may occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 little bit harder. nvi: Build-Depends: debhelper, libncurses5-dev vs vim-tiny: Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.2.21), dpkg ( 1.7.0), bzip2, perl (= 5.6), libgpmg1-dev [!hurd-i386] | not+linux-gnu, libperl-dev (= 5.6), tcl8.4-dev [!hurd-i386] | tcl8.3-dev [!hurd-i386], python-dev, libncurses5-dev, ruby, ruby1.8-dev | ruby-dev, libgtk2.0-dev (= 2.2) | libgtk1.2-dev, libgnomeui-dev [!hurd-i386], lesstif2-dev As Joey already remarked moving vim to base has no effect on bootstrapping, because it does change _when_ in the process vim is built. However, the nvi is evidently a lot simpler than vim and less likely both to show from rc-bugs to suffer from being kept out of testing due to rc-bugs in its build-depencies. This might make a difference the base-freeze slightly more difficult. cu andreas -- The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects, howsoever undertaken.(c) Jasper Ffforde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
* 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 system (amazingly, it's smaller than nano, the other editor in the base system). Stefano suggested that vim-tiny could replace nvi and become part of base, and I think it's a good idea. There are obviously users who will prefer nvi to vim (and others who prefer some other vi), but I get the impression there are rather more who prefer vim, it's probably the most commonly used vi in linux these days. One argument I can think of for keeping nvi in base is that it is the closest to bug-compatible with the original vi. However, I don't think that will prevent hardcore vi users from easily using vim-tiny if it's in base. 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 and next words out of their mouths either make fun of Debian, or make fun of me (*snif*). Now we don't necessarily have to pander to these people, 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. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 all kinds of things that vim can't determine, from the font being used and the default background color, to the ambient lighting of the room and the vision capability of the user (not just color blindness, but very fine variances in the color sensitivity of the user, or even how tired the person is, which can affect their ability to focus.) Color really needs to be tuned to the needs of the individual user. The color depends a lot more on the monitor in question, rather than the user. Nearly all of us with full color vision have roughly the same sensitivity to all colors -- but, monitors of different manufacturers and of different age vary a lot. But, it's trivial to fix this issue. On Linux console, PuTTY and a good deal of terminal emulators: echo -ne '\e]P4ff' (ESC ] P color num (0..f) RRGGBB color code) You can put your palette into /etc/issue, bash prompt or anywhere else. On real xterms, you can mess with X resources. On gnome-terminal and konsole, you waddle through the GUI. If you happen to use CRT monitors that are more than a couple years old, improving the color palette is pretty much a must. -- /---\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows! \---/ Segmentation fault (core dumped) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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' konsole: TERM='xterm' PuTTY: TERM='xterm' rxvt: TERM='rxvt' aterm: TERM='rxvt' wterm: TERM='rxvt' I would suggest that the right solution is that every program that sets foreground colors should also, as its default behavior, make sure to set a background color that goes well with the chosen foreground. The if you pick one color, pick them all maxim of web design works for non-web user interfaces, too. Good idea. Just stick \e[40m into the program's color codes and suddenly the scheme becomes XXX-on-black. Use \e[47m and you get XXX-on-white. And, if termcap/terminfo claim the terminal doesn't support \e[4Xm, it's termcap which is wrong -- according to my data, Win3.1..ME telnet.exe was the last terminal emulator in existence which can't handle these. Even with a genuine xterm users can and do set their personal color scheme preferences in X resources. But if you're going to override the foreground color you might as well also override the background one. Of course any good program should offer per-user customization of its color scheme, and offer default as an option for background color, in case the user's preferred background is not among the ones that can be set with ordinary setb/setab strings. Few fancy terminal emulators obey X resources, but you're right. While the way to set the color palette differs, all of the terminals I named in this message provide a way to do so. However, you're wrong if you believe setb/setab are good for anything. Since termcap and terminfo are based on the value of TERM, they assume some random settings which are hardly ever valid. The list I put in the beginning shows that even terminals which use completely different code bases and have little coverage of common standards tend to claim they're xterm. And that's only several terminals included in Debian. If you go outside, things get a lot worse; the most spectacular example happens if you log on into a SunOS machine using any of three terminals shipped with IRIX (as of ~7 years ago). The failure mode includes removingallcolorsandallspaces. It may sound strange, but if you want portability, you can't use termcap, terminfo or *curses -- but on the other hand, using lowest-common- denominator vt100 codes, \e[ foo m and ioctl(TIOCGWINSZ) makes things work perfectly everywhere I tested save for the damned telnet.exe. -- /---\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows! \---/ Segmentation fault (core dumped) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 background. Apparently your tolerance for yellow on white is higher than mine. (Not meant sarcastically, it's quite possible that you do see that combo better than I do.) FWIW I have been using this for years on a white background and it's much more readable: if background == dark hi Commentterm=bold ctermfg=Cyan guifg=#80a0ff hi Constant term=underline ctermfg=Magenta guifg=#ffa0a0 hi Specialterm=bold ctermfg=LightRed guifg=Orange hi Identifier term=underline cterm=bold ctermfg=Cyan guifg=#40 hi Statement term=bold ctermfg=Yellow guifg=#60 gui=bold hi PreProcterm=underline ctermfg=LightBlue guifg=#ff80ff hi Type term=underline ctermfg=LightGreen guifg=#60ff60 gui=bold hi Ignore ctermfg=black guifg=bg else hi Commentterm=bold ctermfg=DarkCyan guifg=Blue hi Constant term=underline ctermfg=DarkBlue guifg=Magenta hi Specialterm=bold ctermfg=DarkRed guifg=SlateBlue hi Identifier term=underline ctermfg=DarkGreen guifg=DarkCyan hi Statementterm=bold ctermfg=DarkMagenta gui=bold guifg=Brown hi Statement term=bold ctermfg=DarkMagenta guifg=Brown hi PreProcterm=underline ctermfg=Brown guifg=Purple hi Type term=underline ctermfg=DarkGreen guifg=SeaGreen gui=bold hi Type term=underline ctermfg=DarkGreen guifg=SeaGreen hi Ignore ctermfg=white guifg=bg endif hi Error term=reverse ctermbg=Red ctermfg=White guibg=Red guifg=White hi Todo term=standout ctermbg=Yellow ctermfg=Black guifg=Blue guibg=Yellow highlight link Typedef Special highlight link StorageClass Special Insert in ~/.vim/syntax.vim and make sure your ~/.vimrc has: if has(syntax) let mysyntaxfile = ~/.vim/syntax.vim let myscriptsfile = ~/.vim/scripts.vim let myfiletypefile = ~/.vim/filetype.vim syntax on endif -- Typed slowly for those who cannot read fast. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 prefer vim will need to install the full vim anyway, while those that prefer nvi will just fell 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 I personally prefer vim, I feel your arguments a) b) and c) are the strongest I've read so far in this thread and therefore I also have to agree on the conclusion: Keep nvi as default. Cheers, Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 distinguish vim from nvi, to the point that my guess is that most of those who prefer vim will need to install the full vim anyway, while those that prefer nvi will just fell 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 I personally prefer vim, I feel your arguments a) b) and c) are the strongest I've read so far in this thread and therefore I also have to agree on the conclusion: Keep nvi as default. 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 -- because vim-tiny invoked as 'vim' can be configured easily to be pretty much like the real vim, only lacking such features as systax hilighting which you can do without easily, if you're working on a small-editor environment. Looking at popcon, vim has about twice the amount of users as nvi, while nvi is the default vi, and vim is merely optional. I think this is an excellent question to phrase with a few options in a devotee-poll, and have people vote on it -- results being purely advisory, the poll just being informative, and any results updated live, rather than only after a delay. I think it'd be good to representative polls on a reasonably regularly basis -- close to the same representativeness, and stil much much more lighter than a GR, so easier to just do when some people feel a more clear idea of what the average DD thinks is needed than what one can gather from a mailinglist thread. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 I personally prefer vim, I feel your arguments a) b) and c) are the strongest I've read so far in this thread and therefore I also have to agree on the conclusion: Keep nvi as default. Your conclusion is of course to be considered as all the others. Still, we already discussed that (b) is not true: vim users will be happier with vim-tiny than with vim even without vim-nottiny/vim-runtime. Since my feeling is that we have more vim users than nvi ones, installing the former instead of the latter per default is a net win. Assuming my feeling is correct of course ... -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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: Build-Depends: debhelper, libncurses5-dev vs vim-tiny: Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.2.21), dpkg ( 1.7.0), bzip2, perl (= 5.6), libgpmg1-dev [!hurd-i386] | not+linux-gnu, libperl-dev (= 5.6), tcl8.4-dev [!hurd-i386] | tcl8.3-dev [!hurd-i386], python-dev, libncurses5-dev, ruby, ruby1.8-dev | ruby-dev, libgtk2.0-dev (= 2.2) | libgtk1.2-dev, libgnomeui-dev [!hurd-i386], lesstif2-dev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 vim-tiny and type text without constantly having to delete their acciental hjkl and strangely uppercased characters. Compared to that, not having syntax highlighting when I run visudo is pretty minor. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 basic debian system again a little bit harder. Urgh. Yes. Until now I was in favour of vim-tiny, but these build-deps are just too scary. Unless we put vim-tiny in another source package, I guess we'd better stick with nvi. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 kilobyte matters for certian d-i boot images. Anything under a half megabyte is pretty much noise for CD building. And vim is already on the main CD anyway due to its popularity. I would not have proposed replacing nvi with vim-tiny if it were not fully technically feasable. (BTW, spot the 7 mb package that entered standard recently with no prior discussion.) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 harder. As far as I know, bootstrapping Debian from scratch is a process of getting the build-essential packages and their build dependencies to build and then building everything else. What packages are in the base system should be irrelevant to that process. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 new vim can change it with just .vimrc. A rare opportunity--everybody wins. :) Not everyone. I personally like the advanced features like syntax highlighting, and that definitely will not be part of base (because vim-runtime is huge). And if I still have to install vim-runtime by hand then I can install the vim binary package as well. Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 turned up any particular reasons not to do it. I've been avoiding commenting on this, waiting to see what the consensus is, if any. I was hoping that there would be a strong pull one way or the other; that hasn't happened. My thoughts: 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 prefer vim will need to install the full vim anyway, while those that prefer nvi will just fell 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. The defaults really need to be changed to match maximum nvi compatibility. The problem, of course, is that when someone then installs vim-full (or whatever it's called), they don't get the benefits of the full vim feature set or standard vim behavior w/o modifying the config. Someone noted that it was possible to get different behaviour depending on whether vim was started with vi or vim - I think that's probably a good idea, but it may not be enough. It's too bad that dpkg-divert doesn't work with config files... Another consideration is that vim-tiny would need to swap priorities on the /usr/bin/vi (et. al.) alternative, so that if nvi is installed, it becomes the standard vi. But that's more of a packaging detail between myself and Stefano. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 highlighting. I understand that won't affect vim-tiny, but it would make vi much more usable on machines with vim-nottiny installed. 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 that way, but a lot of us don't. And yes, of course you can adjust the colors. But if the point of the change is to make vim-when-invoked-as-vi more like nvi, then disabling syntax highlighting would be a good thing. Steve [1] Dark blue on black. Need I say more? -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 xterm, it uses colors that look good with the traditional xterm colors. If it detects the Linux console, it uses colors that look good on the console. Now, if your terminal pretends to be xterm but does not use the color scheme of xterm, how should vim know that? Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 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 that being in the middle of that spectrum is better than being in the nvi corner, given that the size is comparable. Of course is a matter of personal opinions and taste, that's why we are asking here. The defaults really need to be changed to match maximum nvi compatibility. The problem, of course, is that when someone then installs vim-full (or whatever it's called), they don't get the benefits of the full vim feature set or standard vim behavior w/o modifying the config. Someone noted that it was possible to get different behaviour depending on whether vim was started with vi or vim - I think that's probably a good idea, but it may not be enough. It's too bad that dpkg-divert doesn't work with config files... IMO the vi vs vim choice is enough. And since we can have two completely different configuration file I agree that in the /etc/vim/vi we should strive for maximum _vi_ compatibility. If going that direction makes us more compatible with _nvi_ as well ... ok. If not I believe that even nvi should make a step forward to be more vi compatible. Do you have any other suggestion in addition to the two proposed to make vim more vi compatible? Another consideration is that vim-tiny would need to swap priorities on the /usr/bin/vi (et. al.) alternative, so that if nvi is installed, it becomes the standard vi. But that's more of a packaging detail between myself and Stefano. Agreed. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 look good on the console. Now, if your terminal pretends to be xterm but does not use the color scheme of xterm, how should vim know that? I would suggest that the right solution is that every program that sets foreground colors should also, as its default behavior, make sure to set a background color that goes well with the chosen foreground. The if you pick one color, pick them all maxim of web design works for non-web user interfaces, too. Even with a genuine xterm users can and do set their personal color scheme preferences in X resources. But if you're going to override the foreground color you might as well also override the background one. Of course any good program should offer per-user customization of its color scheme, and offer default as an option for background color, in case the user's preferred background is not among the ones that can be set with ordinary setb/setab strings. (Of course², nobody said that this will be easy to do for any particular program). -- Henning MakholmUnmetered water, dear. Run it deep. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 a white default background since prehistoric times, so when vim detects xterm, it uses colors that look good with the traditional xterm colors. No it doesn't. I use a white terminal background, and the default vim syntax colors are unreadable there, too. (Yellow and cyan on white, in shell scripts.) If it detects the Linux console, it uses colors that look good on the console. Nope, because that's where I noticed the blue-on-black problem. For example, evaluated environment variables in shell scripts. Now, if your terminal pretends to be xterm but does not use the color scheme of xterm, how should vim know that? Well, since in fact gnome-terminal and xterm and rxvt and pretty much every other x terminal emulator lets you configure the background and foreground colors, basing color choices on the value of TERM is bogus anyway. The reality is that visibility of color combinations is heavily dependent on all kinds of things that vim can't determine, from the font being used and the default background color, to the ambient lighting of the room and the vision capability of the user (not just color blindness, but very fine variances in the color sensitivity of the user, or even how tired the person is, which can affect their ability to focus.) Color really needs to be tuned to the needs of the individual user. The problem is that there are really enough distinct colors to complicated syntax highlighting that works with a variety of backgrounds and lighting. I use syntax highlighting in emacs under X, because I can set the actual fonts and styles to vary in readable (for me) ways. With only color to work with, it becomes (IMO) pretty useless. All of which is irrelevant if the default is syntax off. Stefano (I think) pointed out that it was, and I just confirmed. Maybe it used to be on? Or maybe I'm just confused - I have to work on a lot of RH machines, too, where vim is installed by default, definitely with syntax on. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 that way, but a lot of us don't. I've found vim's defaults are unreadable except on a white background, since that is what vim assumes you have by default. If you use a black background, try :set background=dark which I've found improves readability quite a bit. -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 system wide vimrc, and nocompatible being turned on there also, which makes vim -C not behave as expected and enables lots of divergant behavior. vim's maintainer may want to consider documenting/otherwise dealing with these if vim-tiny goes into base and becomes the program people get when running vi by default. I have no objection in having a separate system-wide configuration file (/etc/vim/virc) for vim when invoked as vi, as implemented by aj's patch. If the other members of the vim maintaince team (Cc-ed) have neither as well I can apply the patch and come up with a suitable configuration file which is more in the vi spirit. note that this is sth that quite a lot of distro already do : vi is a mostly vi-compatible thing, and vim is the one with the fancy features on. I personnally like this a lot. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpDdDTbjse2g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 that being in the middle of that spectrum is better than being in the nvi corner, given that the size is comparable. 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 yeah, need to install vim. If that number is most of them, then defaulting to vim-tiny over nvi is not a win. Of course, that doesn't make it a loss, either, if the size difference is negligible. Perhaps asking over on debian-boot with the actual numbers might make sense. Do you have any other suggestion in addition to the two proposed to make vim more vi compatible? Nope, now that you've corrected my mistake about syntax highlighting being on by default. Regards, Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 highlighting ,.. Sigh, Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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. (Not meant sarcastically, it's quite possible that you do see that combo better than I do.) Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 by default, then people who like old vi get it, and people who like new vim can change it with just .vimrc. A rare opportunity--everybody wins. :) Not everyone. I personally like the advanced features like syntax highlighting, and that definitely will not be part of base (because vim-runtime is huge). And if I still have to install vim-runtime by hand then I can install the vim binary package as well. OK. At least, you're not any worse off with vim-tiny than nvi. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard 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 yeah, need to install vim. If that number is most of them, then defaulting to vim-tiny over nvi is not a win. Of course, that doesn't make it a loss, either, if the size difference is negligible. Perhaps asking over on debian-boot with the actual numbers might make sense. I'd much rather have to use a system with vim and my .vimrc installed, but lacking a few big features like syntax highlighting, than have to use nvi. For me, it's a clear win: at least I can edit files. I'm probably a fairly typical vim user. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 in being dropped out of edit mode and a letter changing to uppercase for weird reasons. Ever since discovering vim, I have no more problems (well, except for occasionally pressing q instead of :q and ending up in macro mode or something). So now it's one of the first things I install on a new system. IMO vim is a lot more intuitive for users who are not old-hat Linux/Unix. pgpr3jgAWzWtE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 as the standard PHUX editor be a reason to drop it instead? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 that already.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 standard vi, these include autoindent being defaulted to on in the system wide vimrc, and nocompatible being turned on there also, which makes vim -C not behave as expected and enables lots of divergant behavior. vim's maintainer may want to consider documenting/otherwise dealing with these if vim-tiny goes into base and becomes the program people get when running vi by default. 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 turned up any particular reasons not to do it. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 editor than nvi. 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. -- John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 :-) Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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, which makes vim -C not behave as expected and enables lots of divergant behavior. TBH, I think these are showstoppers. Otherwise, as long as the space issue is fixed as you say it is, sounds fine. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 the system wide vimrc, and nocompatible being turned on there also, which makes vim -C not behave as expected and enables lots of divergant behavior. Hmm. It's unexpected--on its face, though the reason is obvious--that setting nocompatible in vimrc breaks -C. I wonder if there's a way for vimrc to say turn on nocompatible unless -C was used. 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? (:set compatible noautoindent in /etc/vim/vimrc.) I havn't seen any significant differences between vi and vim mentioned that aren't trivially fixed. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 offers. I won't lose lots of sleep if I lose this argument. :) One of Vim's selling points is that it can be made 100% vi-compatible [1], so I assume any incompatibilities with vi are considered bugs. I've never used old vi, so I don't know the accuracy of the claim, but everything listed so far are things that :set compatible fixes. (Except maybe the display of cw--I'm not sure if nvi or vim's display is how vi did it.) [1] http://www.vim.org/viusers.php -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 like a showstopper. (:set compatible noautoindent in /etc/vim/vimrc.) Just commenting out the nocompatible and autoindent lines in the default config works too. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 a showstopper? 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. I guess there are two competing goals here: acting like vi by default, for the people in a time capsule, and acting like vim by default, to show off vim's cool features. I wonder if there's a sensible way to do both, eg. argv[0] for vi and vim. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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. Same here. That's why I do not care what the default editor in base is :-) 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 new vim can change it with just .vimrc. A rare opportunity--everybody wins. :) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 arguments about defaults. If it's trivial to change, that's great; but until the defaults are changed it's still a showstopper. I guess there are two competing goals here: acting like vi by default, for the people in a time capsule, *sigh* and acting like vim by default, to show off vim's cool features. I wonder if there's a sensible way to do both, eg. argv[0] for vi and vim. The following patch lets you have a /usr/share/vim/virc (which should be a symlink to /etc, like /usr/share/vim/vimrc) to specify different behaviour when vim's invoked as vi instead of vim. --- vim-6.4.old/vim64/src/main.c2005-02-15 23:09:15.0 +1000 +++ vim-6.4/vim64/src/main.c2005-12-20 16:36:49.0 +1000 @@ -1363,6 +1363,10 @@ * Get system wide defaults, if the file name is defined. */ #ifdef SYS_VIMRC_FILE +# ifdef SYS_VIM_VIRC_FILE +if (STRCMP(initstr, vi) != 0 || + do_source((char_u *)SYS_VIM_VIRC_FILE, FALSE, FALSE) == FAIL) +# endif (void)do_source((char_u *)SYS_VIMRC_FILE, FALSE, FALSE); #endif --- vim-6.4.old/vim64/src/os_unix.h 2003-11-10 19:53:44.0 +1000 +++ vim-6.4/vim64/src/os_unix.h 2005-12-20 16:14:07.0 +1000 @@ -233,6 +233,9 @@ #ifndef SYS_VIMRC_FILE # define SYS_VIMRC_FILE $VIM/vimrc #endif +#ifndef SYS_VIM_VIRC_FILE +# define SYS_VIM_VIRC_FILE $VIM/virc +#endif #ifndef SYS_GVIMRC_FILE # define SYS_GVIMRC_FILE $VIM/gvimrc #endif Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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? Although you've probably considered that already.
No, I didn't consider that since I was so far convinced that vimtutor
was a binary executable. Now that I saw it is a shell script I moved it
to vim-runtime indeed.
Thanks for the tip.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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, which makes vim -C not behave as expected and enables lots of divergant behavior. vim's maintainer may want to consider documenting/otherwise dealing with these if vim-tiny goes into base and becomes the program people get when running vi by default. I have no objection in having a separate system-wide configuration file (/etc/vim/virc) for vim when invoked as vi, as implemented by aj's patch. If the other members of the vim maintaince team (Cc-ed) have neither as well I can apply the patch and come up with a suitable configuration file which is more in the vi spirit. 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. I'd still like to know what Steve Greenland thinks of this, since he maintains nvi. AOL -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:38:57PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: There are obviously users who will prefer nvi to vim (and others who prefer some other vi), but I get the impression there are rather more who prefer vim, it's probably the most commonly used vi in linux these days. Count me as an nvi person. Vim is great - but not as the default in the most basic system, no matter how stripped down. One argument I can think of for keeping nvi in base is that it is the closest to bug-compatible with the original vi. However, I don't think that will prevent hardcore vi users from easily using vim-tiny if it's in base. 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 :( All IMHO, ATB, Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
su, 2005-12-18 kello 13:38 -0500, Joey Hess kirjoitti: One argument I can think of for keeping nvi in base is that it is the closest to bug-compatible with the original vi. However, I don't think that will prevent hardcore vi users from easily using vim-tiny if it's in base. 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 differences are minute, of course, but they are really irritating. Unfortunately, I can't enlist them properly, since my fingers don't talk to me: I notice vim's incompatibility from the fact that my fingers have to keep correcting text under vim, but not under nvi. On days when I'm generally annoyed already, if I accidentally use vim instead of nvi, I can get quite lyrical with my cursing. I'm not bothered at all by switching nvi with vim-tiny in base. As long as I can install nvi if I want to, I'm happy. I'd even be happy without any vi-like editor in base. As long as there is one editor in base that I can without great difficulty in an emergency (nano seems to qualify), I don't need anything more. In fact, given that it's good for base to be small, I'd like to suggest that we don't have more than one editor there. -- The most difficult thing in programming is to be simple and straightforward. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
* Lars Wirzenius wrote: In fact, given that it's good for base to be small, I'd like to suggest that we don't have more than one editor there. We already have two editors in the base system, nvi and nano. Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
On Dec 18, Andrew M.A. Cater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will it work fine over a serial console? Is it fine for ex-Solaris/HP-UX Sure, I often use vim over serial consoles. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
su, 2005-12-18 kello 20:17 +0100, Norbert Tretkowski kirjoitti: * Lars Wirzenius wrote: In fact, given that it's good for base to be small, I'd like to suggest that we don't have more than one editor there. We already have two editors in the base system, nvi and nano. Yes, that being the bloat I was referring to. -- C is the *wrong* language for your application. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 06:54:42PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:38:57PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: There are obviously users who will prefer nvi to vim (and others who prefer some other vi), but I get the impression there are rather more who prefer vim, it's probably the most commonly used vi in linux these days. Count me as an nvi person. Vim is great - but not as the default in the most basic system, no matter how stripped down. Why is nvi better if the size of nvi and vim-tiny are comparable? -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
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 differences are minute, of course, but they are really irritating. Unfortunately, I can't enlist them properly, since my fingers don't talk to me: I notice vim's incompatibility from the fact that my fingers have to keep correcting text under vim, but not under nvi. On days when I'm generally annoyed already, if I accidentally use vim instead of nvi, I can get quite lyrical with my cursing. Yeah, I understand the feeling (coming at it from the exact opposite side). It would be helpful if there were an analysis of the major differences somewhere; the ones I am most aware of incude: - home, end, page up, page down, and delete, all do something reasonable in vim in insert or append mode, but do nothing very useful in nvi in those modes. - in vim the arrow keys always move around even in insert mode. In nvi they do too (surely it diverges from real vi here?), but if you arrow to the end of a line, it flashes the screen and drops you out of insert mode. - vim wordwraps long lines by default as they are inserted (bloody annoying); nvi usefully just logically wraps the single long line for display - backspace in vim deletes the character to the left, instead of just moving the cursor back and temporarily turning off insert mode - backspace in vim can delete text you have not just inserted; in nvi it only backspaces through the just inserted text - delete in vim deletes the character under the cursor and if you delete all the way to the end of the line, pulls the next line up and begins deleting it too, whereas in nvi delete begins backspacing through the remainder of the line if you reach the end of the line, and it never deletes other lines - vim supports multiple levels of undo; in nvi the second undo undoes your undo - some commands like 'cw' display differently in vim, although the end result of the keystrokes is the same for all the standard vi commands I use - nvi flashes the screen/bell when a command fails; vim does not - :help vi-differences in vim describes some other differences that are less noticible I'm not bothered at all by switching nvi with vim-tiny in base. As long as I can install nvi if I want to, I'm happy. I'd even be happy without any vi-like editor in base. As long as there is one editor in base that I can without great difficulty in an emergency (nano seems to qualify), I don't need anything more. In fact, given that it's good for base to be small, I'd like to suggest that we don't have more than one editor there. IIRC the reason we have a vi in base, and at priority important at that is because of the definition in policy that: `important' Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced Unix person who found it missing would say What on earth is going on, where is `foo'?, it must be an `important' package. Which of course includes a vi. (Note that the paragraph goes on to explicitly rule out emacs.) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: Will it work fine over a serial console? Yes, vim works fine over a serial console. You might want to turn off part of the status line if using it at less than 9600 baud. Is it fine for ex-Solaris/HP-UX /AIX admins who may have got used to nvi? I imagine they might have gotten used to non-bash shells too; I don't think the goal of Debian is to exactly replicate those systems, and we should instead strive to pick default unix tools that are the commonly recognised best of breed today. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Oh, another possible advantage to having vim-tiny in base is that it includes the vimtutor command, which is a fairly good way to learn how to use vim (or any vi; it avoids most vim-isms). The tutor is how I finally learned (to love) vi after years of badly using and loathing it as the base editor on other unixes. Having our base vi be self-teaching like that could be nice. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
su, 2005-12-18 kello 14:57 -0500, Joey Hess kirjoitti: Yeah, I understand the feeling (coming at it from the exact opposite side). It would be helpful if there were an analysis of the major differences somewhere; the ones I am most aware of incude: I'm not personally very interested in this. If the size of vim-tiny is not bigger than nvi, I really couldn't care less which one is the default. Either is good enough as a vi clone for base; the incompatibilities are small enough not to matter for that case. I don't want to spend any effort (again, personally) in convincing people to switch their preferred editor, or preferred vi clone. That being said, I'd like to point out the minor error in the list you wrote so far: - vim supports multiple levels of undo; in nvi the second undo undoes your undo In nvi, to undo more than one level, you use the repeat last edit command (bound to period); u undoes an undo (and period after that repeats, so undoes further undos). For some people this is quite logical, and it drives other people nuts. IIRC the reason we have a vi in base, and at priority important at that is because of the definition in policy that: `important' Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced Unix person who found it missing would say What on earth is going on, where is `foo'?, it must be an `important' package. Which of course includes a vi. (Note that the paragraph goes on to explicitly rule out emacs.) In the name of reducing base's size, I would support a policy change here, excempting vi clones, but I suspect I'd be shouted down. Personally, I think standard would be the appropriate priority for for the vi clone. -- Fundamental truth #2: Attitude is usually more important than skills. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Lars Wirzenius wrote: In the name of reducing base's size, I would support a policy change here, excempting vi clones, but I suspect I'd be shouted down. Personally, I think standard would be the appropriate priority for for the vi clone. In which case it wouldn't really reduce base's size, since standard is installed anyway on (most) systems. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 06:54:42PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: Count me as an nvi person. Vim is great - but not as the default in the most basic system, no matter how stripped down. Why is nvi better if the size of nvi and vim-tiny are comparable? Among other things, because it doesn't do the obnoxious auto-indent thing that you have to work around with :set paste. I have no objections to vim as an editor, but it would be nice for vi to be, er, vi. vim isn't really vi; it's something that was originally based on vi and is now something slightly different. (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 offers. I won't lose lots of sleep if I lose this argument. :) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:57:17PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: 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 differences are minute, of course, but they are really irritating. Unfortunately, I can't enlist them properly, since my fingers don't talk to me: I notice vim's incompatibility from the fact that my fingers have to keep correcting text under vim, but not under nvi. On days when I'm generally annoyed already, if I accidentally use vim instead of nvi, I can get quite lyrical with my cursing. Yeah, I understand the feeling (coming at it from the exact opposite side). It would be helpful if there were an analysis of the major differences somewhere; the ones I am most aware of incude: :set compatible will switch Vim's behavior for all of these, except for: - in vim the arrow keys always move around even in insert mode. In nvi they do too (surely it diverges from real vi here?), but if you arrow to the end of a line, it flashes the screen and drops you out of insert mode. In compatible, arrow keys don't work at all in insert mode, like vi (set esckeys to revert). I'm not sure how to get the moving cursor past the end of line drops out of insert mode behavior. - some commands like 'cw' display differently in vim, although the end result of the keystrokes is the same for all the standard vi commands I use (don't know) - nvi flashes the screen/bell when a command fails; vim does not :set visualbell -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Glenn Maynard wrote: :set compatible will switch Vim's behavior for all of these, except for: Nope, I was running vim in compatible mode (the default without a ~/.vimrc) for all of them. In compatible, arrow keys don't work at all in insert mode, like vi (set esckeys to revert). They do here. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 06:54:42PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: 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? As an ex-Solaris/AIX admin I can say that I used vim there too (except when the filesystem containing vim did not come up for some reason :-) And yes, it works fine on a real vt220. Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 04:44:13PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Glenn Maynard wrote: :set compatible will switch Vim's behavior for all of these, except for: Nope, I was running vim in compatible mode (the default without a ~/.vimrc) for all of them. /etc/vim/vimrc sets nocompatible, among other things. Comment that out, or run :set compatible. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Oh, another possible advantage to having vim-tiny in base is that it
includes the vimtutor command, which is a fairly good way to learn how
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).
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:11:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Among other things, because it doesn't do the obnoxious auto-indent thing that you have to work around with :set paste. I have no objections to vim Well, this is a matter of configuration, not really a matter of editor. Debian's vim has autoindent enabled in system-wide vimrc, but it can be disabled. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
