Hi, I would say, leave vi(1) alone, since it's expected by UNIX admins and probably required for UNIX compliance. I know a lot of ppl may be coming from the Linux camp and as such this causes a lot of confusion. I think including vim is not a bad idea, but replacing vi with vim certianly doesn't jive well for ppl who are use to good old vi.
Octave --- Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > > ... > > I guess part of the issue is knowing what the long-term intent > > regarding the existing vi(1) is. > > My thinking was to assume vi(1) is current vi(1) indefinitely. > This analogy comes to mind: vim is to vi(1) as ncftp is to ftp(1) > > Eric > > > If vi(1) is current vi(1) > > indefinitely, then vim can go in a big metacluster and I'll just > > suffer in some tighter install situations; if vi(1) is meant to be > > vim-as-vi, then my request becomes more of a requirement > _______________________________________________ > tools-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Octave J. Orgeron Solaris Systems Engineer http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/sysadmin/ http://unixconsole.blogspot.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
