Anselm Lingnau wrote: > The traditional factual arguments in favour of vi are becoming so flimsy that > today basically the main argument for having vi on the exam at all is “I like > it that way”. (For example, the messed-up-terminal-support argument hits vi > just as hard as any other screen-oriented editor.
Understand I'm not arguing for Vi. In fact, I even stepped back and thought the "should LPI cover the editor at all?" is a valid question. But can you clarify this? I.e., what editors provide a mode that all virtually all core commanding when various, non-letter keystrokes are not supported? A lot of experienced sysadmins are able to showcase this issue first-hand, and now no other editor -- especially one that doesn't separate a 'commanding' from 'entry' mode -- can deal with it. Understand I'm not here to sway any views. But the one reason I don't like to even offer up any 'considerations' in these threads is that 90% of the time, I find myself trying to disspell falsehoods and notions. I.e., if people don't even have the experience of dealing with these situations, and make assumptions about what they are, it's extremely difficult to even detail them. They will just be assumed to be another issue. Case in point ... > Sure, you can always run vi in ex mode What I wasn't referring to: "ex mode" What I was referring to (as just 1 example): "using letters to move the cursor in Vi command mode" It's these types of discussions, where some experiences are either discarded, or assumed to be something else entirely, that keeps a lot of our most experienced, elder sysadmins from wanting to participate. Especially when their input is going to be labeled "flimsy arguments." I.e., disagreement is fine, even expected. But not stopping to understand the points of others, does alienate others. > Nobody today actually wants to use vi – these days virtually anyone > who is into “vi” uses vim instead, but vim, for any number of very good > reasons, is not on the LPI exam and arguably doesn't belong there. But what is provided via busybox? And the lightweight, static ViM "minimal"? That's the thing here, and I hope everyone can appreciate my earlier point, which was not about "opinion" or "choice." Again, I'll try to make this consideration via questions ... 1) Do we even want to have any editor in the Objectives? 2) Is it important for a sysadmin to know how to use the editor(s) included in a "minimal install" or "recovery mode" like busybox (Vi) or ViM minimal (Vi)? If the answers to #1 and #2 are "No," then I think everyone has their answer. The problem is that some may argue #2 that a "minimal install" or "recovery mode" Linux system might be very important to know ... for a sysadmin, although not an user. Like the real world scenario where you have to cover a system that won't boot properly, or has other failures. Which kinda goes to the problem of whether this is about 'choice' of editor or not. Which goes back to #1. I.e., the discussion shouldn't be about Vi v. editors. It should be about whether to include any text editing. E.g., the problem with focusing on Vi, as we've seen, is that some of the facts are lost. So we really shouldn't make it about Vi either. - bjs P.S. This is one reason I don't post often, and help LPI more "behind the scenes." And in this case, it's best if I bow out, like others. My only focus is, as always, to ensure considerations (not my views or opinions), especially ensuring the items are factual and experience-based, and not assumptions or from not dealing with the scenarios. -- Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
