I'd like to say that one of the problems before was not simply the
stripped down vi, but the fact that arch was setting up the example
vimrc as default, which is not the actual vim default, and was never
intended to be used as a distro default. so the settings people got
confused long term knowledg
David Campbell :
> Excerpts from Allan McRae's message of 2011-02-10 17:12:54 -0500:
> > Is the current vi package actually usable for an install by someone more
> > familiar with it?
> Yes, I have used it a few times, and prefer it over nano.
+1
The simple things (switching input modes and saving
On Wed 09 Feb 2011 11:23 -0500, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at FS#20778 and was wondering what we should do with it.
>
> While it is true that the "traditional vi" is buggy and not user
> friendly. It does not seems that BusyBox is a good alternative.
>
> There are options
Excerpts from Allan McRae's message of 2011-02-10 17:12:54 -0500:
> Is the current vi package actually usable for an install by someone more
> familiar with it?
Yes, I have used it a few times, and prefer it over nano.
--
David Campbell
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 22:56 +0100, Marek Otahal wrote:
> On Thursday 10 of February 2011 17:59:26 Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:52:16 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:24 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> > >> we did had vi being a stripped vim package in the pa
On Thursday 10 of February 2011 17:59:26 Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:52:16 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:24 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >> we did had vi being a stripped vim package in the past. We got rid of
> >> it
> >> because upstream vim started to
6 matches
Mail list logo
