Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 20.08.2012 13:07, schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Gordon Messmer yinyang@eburg.com wrote:
On 08/16/2012 04:55 PM, SilverTip257 wrote:
vi is generally a symlink to vim these days.
Actually, it's a shell alias. And then, only if "vim" is installed, which it isn't in some configurations. IIRC, desktop systems have him by default, but server installations do not.
It is neither a symlink nor a shell alias - execpt maybe for platforms that for some reason don't include vi.
you are aware that you are posting to the CENTOS-list?
Of course
the topic is about "vi default in CENTOS 6.x" so what
You seem to missunderstand that there is a program called "vi" and another program called "vim".
Jörg
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Joerg Schilling Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
you are aware that you are posting to the CENTOS-list?
Of course
the topic is about "vi default in CENTOS 6.x" so what
You seem to missunderstand that there is a program called "vi" and another program called "vim".
Not on a standard CentOS system.
[whooper@chef ~]$ /bin/vi --version VIM - Vi IMproved 7.2 (2008 Aug 9, compiled Apr 5 2012 10:17:55)
On a machine that has the vim-enhanced package installed (care of the files dropped in /etc/profile.d/vim.*:
$ which vi alias vi='vim' /usr/bin/vim
-- William Hooper
William Hooper whooperhsd@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Joerg Schilling Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
you are aware that you are posting to the CENTOS-list?
Of course
the topic is about "vi default in CENTOS 6.x" so what
You seem to missunderstand that there is a program called "vi" and another program called "vim".
Not on a standard CentOS system.
[whooper@chef ~]$ /bin/vi --version VIM - Vi IMproved 7.2 (2008 Aug 9, compiled Apr 5 2012 10:17:55)
This just verifies that you don't have a vi.
Jörg
Joerg Schilling wrote:
William Hooper whooperhsd@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Joerg Schilling Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
you are aware that you are posting to the CENTOS-list?
Of course
the topic is about "vi default in CENTOS 6.x" so what
You seem to missunderstand that there is a program called "vi" and another program called "vim".
Not on a standard CentOS system.
[whooper@chef ~]$ /bin/vi --version VIM - Vi IMproved 7.2 (2008 Aug 9, compiled Apr 5 2012 10:17:55)
This just verifies that you don't have a vi.
This just verifies that you're playing word games. If you want vi that's not vim, may I ask which *version* of vi you would consider to be vi - one from, say, Sun OS 3? Or from the Irix that ran on our Indigo in the early/mid-nineties? or one from Tru-64 in the late nineties? or were you insisting on one that ran on a system from the early-to-mid-eighties?
mark
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
This just verifies that you're playing word games. If you want vi that's not vim, may I ask which *version* of vi you would consider to be vi - one from, say, Sun OS 3? Or from the Irix that ran on our Indigo in the early/mid-nineties? or one from Tru-64 in the late nineties? or were you insisting on one that ran on a system from the early-to-mid-eighties?
SunOS 3 Vi source not available to the public. Irix Vi source not available to the public. Tru-64 Vi source not available to the public. ....
You currently may have the vi source from aprox. 1979 under a 4 clause BSD license or the current Solaris vi under the CDDL. The latter was POSIX compliant approved.
Jörg
Joerg Schilling wrote:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
This just verifies that you're playing word games. If you want vi that's not vim, may I ask which *version* of vi you would consider to be vi - one from, say, Sun OS 3? Or from the Irix that ran on our Indigo in the early/mid-nineties? or one from Tru-64 in the late nineties? or were you insisting on one that ran on a system from the early-to-mid-eighties?
SunOS 3 Vi source not available to the public. Irix Vi source not available to the public. Tru-64 Vi source not available to the public. ....
You currently may have the vi source from aprox. 1979 under a 4 clause BSD license or the current Solaris vi under the CDDL. The latter was POSIX compliant approved.
And so you assert that if you don't have a version of vi that is strictly compatible with the 1979 source, and has no improvements or bugfixes, it's not vi?
mark
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
You currently may have the vi source from aprox. 1979 under a 4 clause BSD license or the current Solaris vi under the CDDL. The latter was POSIX compliant approved.
And so you assert that if you don't have a version of vi that is strictly compatible with the 1979 source, and has no improvements or bugfixes, it's not vi?
Nobody forces you to use the 1979 version that is not 8 bit clean anyway.
Recent vi versions of course have improvements and bug-fixes.
BTW: I don't use vi as I am using my "ved" that is faster than vi.
People who use the vi however complained that vim is not fully vi compatible and that they prefer to have a real vi under the name "vi". People who prefer vim could still call vim.
Jörg
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Joerg Schilling Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
People who use the vi however complained that vim is not fully vi compatible and that they prefer to have a real vi under the name "vi". People who prefer vim could still call vim.
My complaint that started this thread turns out to be not so much about vim not being vi compatible when executed with the vi name as that non-root users get a default alias of vi='vim', with surprising results. Even though they are both part of the vim package, they act differently.
-
Joerg.Schilling＠fokus.fraunhofer.de -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
William Hooper