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? The latter is in > > many ways less hateful than the former (or at least the version shipped by > > Sun), e.g. because of infinite undo and not crashing when you make the > > terminal window too large.
You beat me to it, but only because I was biting my tongue. 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? "vim -C" will auto-set the 'compatible' option, which should be the default in the absense of a vimrc file. "vim -C -u NONE" should skip past just about any initialisation that has been inflicted upon you. Alias/function 'vi' to use that and I'm sure you'll still grumble but at least you'll be productive whilst grumbling about what you had to do in order to be productive. ;^) -Phil
