Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 20:32:28 -0400 From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vim vs. nvi? Message-ID: <19970516203228.50252@crh.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <E0wSXGx-0000Yf-00@rover.village.org>; from Warner Losh on Fri, May 16, 1997 at 06:22:55PM -0600 References: <19970516201430.16279@crh.cl.msu.edu> <19970516170625.60057@crh.cl.msu.edu> <E0wSX33-0000XW-00@rover.village.org> <E0wSXGx-0000Yf-00@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On the subject of Re: vim vs. nvi?, Warner Losh stated:
> My initial reaction would be that we might not want to do that if any
> of the following are true:
> 1) It has a bogus license (worse than nvi's)
I dont see *any* license information, except the startup: Vim is freely
distributable.
Vim works for
1. Generic
2. Amiga
3. MS-DOS
4. Win32 (Windows NT and Windows 95)
5. Archimedes
6. Macintosh
7. Unix
8. OS/2 (with EMX 0.9b)
9. Atari MiNT
For BeBox see doc/os_bebox.txt.
> 2) It is different enough by default from nvi and traditional
> vi's to cause users grief.
The only thing I ran into when switching was vim uses u to undelete, and ^R to
redo, instead of the toggle as nvi operates. (Once you get used to it, it
makes more sense the way vim does it..)
> or 3) It is significantly larger than nvi.
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND
henrich 9459 0.0 1.7 552 1080 p2 S+ 8:30PM 0:00.03 nvi
henrich 9472 0.0 1.6 596 992 p4 S+ 8:30PM 0:00.06 vim
---
I guess the only real way is to have some people in core who are vi users to
try it out and give it a spin and see what they think. I myself am definatly
sold.. If not for the syntax coloring alone..
-Crh
Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu
http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970516203228.50252>