4 ms·

If you can still change the options, please change Vi to Vim, as I'm sure most of the people voting for it actually mean Vim.

• chalst 13y ago
  Well, vi is the editor I use 2nd most (after Emacs), but I use nvi nearly as often as I use vim, and I avoid the vim extensions (except the useful :help). I imagine changing vi to vim would be a bit like changing Emacs to GNU Emacs.
  • LeonidasXIV 13y ago
    THere are people who don't use GNU Emacs?
    • ralph 13y ago
      I assume he's thinking of things like http://www.xemacs.org/ http://www.xemacs.org/
      • chalst 13y ago
        That and some other things. There were also several forks of GNU Emacs and Xemacs to support Mac OS Carbon/Cocoa, of which Aquamacs is still in widespread use. There's also Steve Youngs' SXEmacs (a XEmacs fork), which is probably the most well-developed of several efforts to extend Emacs to be a window manager.
  • johncoltrane 13y ago
    Are you really using Vi or the vi command "aliased" to Vim on most distributions?
    • chalst 13y ago
      vi defaults to vim on some of my machines, to nvi on others. I like to have access to both. vim pros: syntax highlighting is often nice (though when I really care about highlighting, I usually use Emacs), vim's :help is very nice, vim is usually installed nvi pros: the small TCB I prefer when I'm root (`find /usr/share/vim -name \*.vim | wc -l` just gave me 1103 results, including hundreds of scripts that might be run without me explicitly asking for them), no splash screen, avoids the autoindenting that is often irritating, bound to vi on FreeBSD I can't say nvi vs. vim efficiency has been an issue for me, but it has been for some people ... http://www.galexander.org/vim_sucks.html http://www.galexander.org/vim_sucks.html