Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:35:29 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramidi@otenet.gr> To: Roelof Osinga <roelof@nisser.com> Cc: Jason Halbert <jason@jason-n3xt.org>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vi Message-ID: <20010609183529.C1363@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <3B22198F.CB4908A3@nisser.com>; from roelof@nisser.com on Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:41:51PM %2B0200 References: <JEENJJEOICOIFPANEHOOKEAGCBAA.jason@jason-n3xt.org> <3B22198F.CB4908A3@nisser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:41:51PM +0200, Roelof Osinga wrote: > Jason Halbert wrote: > > > > Why is vi the default choice of editor for UNIX and how did it become > > the default? I find it cumbersome. > > It was available, the rest wasn't <g>. The edge over emacs was its size > and simplicity. Not to mention its weird attraction on programmers ;). True. Both of them arguments true. Emacs was there for quite some time too, before JOE, or Pico, or anything else became available. It was huge when compared to the lightness of a VI on some (old now) SunOS 4.3 machines that I learned to use Unix on. Therefore, it was VI that I started playing with. And it was there. Name the UNIX of your choise, and a VI was there. No need to install anything, or compile something huge, that depended on libraries and stuff. It was always there. -giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010609183529.C1363>