Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org> [2002-07-31 19:31:20 -0700]: > I realise there's a multitude of versions of both emacs and vi, but > another thing that's always kind of bugged me about vi is you can > never be quite sure what version you're going to be running, and Yes. It is really strange that things like vi are symlinked using the "alternatives" system in Debian. A sad thing really. I use emacs when I am doing major things. But I use vi for a quick point and shoot editor. The fingers have a hard time adjusting to different editors and so it is extremely annoying when vi is symlinked to vim or other similar, probably better, but certainly very different editors. I have been known to drop back to 'ed' at particularly frustrating times. When I type in vi I want vi and not vim! Since them I have learned to select vi with this. update-alternatives --config vi Then select nvi which is real vi that really should be the mandatory version to be called vi. Nothing against vim. But if a user wants vim they probably would type in vim. > whether or not it's going to be self-documenting or documented at all > (something that was more of a bane when I was working in the tech > industry). Meanwhile, you can pretty much assume that if a system has > emacs, it's gonna be gnumacs at this point. Unless it is xemacs, aka lucent emacs. emacs is also in the alternatives system so it could be anything. Sigh. Bob
Attachment:
pgpiOQcdphJhD.pgp
Description: PGP signature