On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 07:15:10PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> As to why nvi is "Standard" and vim/elvis/etc. are "Optional", it's
> because nvi is closest to a standard, classic, BSD Bill Joy vi, warts
> and all. Also, I think it's the smallest full-fledged vi. Certainly
Yes, and those are go
On 05-Oct-99, 04:00 (CDT), Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree... Why does it [vim] have a lower priority in alternatives
> than nvi?
I don't know. That's not what I remember from the discussion amongst the
various vi and editor maintainers when we set the relative priorities,
but
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >vi: vim
> >I am not arguring this should be the recommended editor, just the
> recommended
> >version of vi. I do not think that any package should be the recommended
> I agree... Why does it have a lower priority in alternatives than nvi?
Just so that the 'Standard' in
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:00:38AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 02, Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >MUA: mutt
> >This is not the default, the only two mail clients with standard priority
> are
> >mailx and elm++, do we recommend people run them?
> I think mutt should have
On Oct 02, Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MUA: mutt
>This is not the default, the only two mail clients with standard priority are
>mailx and elm++, do we recommend people run them?
I think mutt should have standard priority, nowadays is used by *many*
people and for new users is MUC
5 matches
Mail list logo
