Talk:Vi

1991??

Quoth the article:

It is still widely used by users of Unix variants (about half the respondents in a 1991 USENET poll preferred it).

Heh, heh. Surely there must be a more recent and/or accurate set of numbers out there? --Jfruh 00:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ya use what propaganda ya gots, n'est pa?

Seriously, among the Unix crowd I hang around, vi (or its more-recent variants) is still very competitive as an editor.

Atlant 11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I know it is. It's just that if you want to reinforce stereotypes about said crowd, I can think of now better way to do it than to use a 14-year-old Usenet poll as if it were relevant evidence :) --Jfruh 13:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe these (or one of them) could replace the usenet poll reference? Linux Journal 2008 Reader's Choice Awards. It also won in 2005 and 2001 and probably most every other year. It also won the 2008 LinuxQuestions Members' Choice Awards and the 2007 and so on. Though these tend to go to the "vi-family" as not even the BSDs use the actual bona fide vi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.131.216 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Under the cursor vs. position specified by the cursor

From the vim docs:

["x]x                   Delete [count] characters under and after the cursor
                        [into register x] (not |linewise|).

How about "under and after the cursor"?—Trevor Caira 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think the article ("specified by the cursor position") is perfectly clear (at least in this regard) as it stands now. I'd also accept "indicated by the cursor". But trying to identify/describe what the cursor is and how it indicates the indicated character is doomed to fail as various terminals and termulators do this in varying ways: blinking blocks, reversed text, underlined text, "I-beam insertion points", and so on...

Atlant 14:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that phrasing is vague (i.e. before or after the cursor?). Which character is indicated by the term "under the cursor" can be explained somewhere else in the article (maybe in a neighboring phrase or sentence), but it is the standard explaination of which character the command 'x' deletes, and once you understand which character is under your i-beam/block/underline, I believe it is the appropriate explanation of this command for Wikipedia. It may be worth noting that Google has: `Results 1 - 10 of about 4,380 for vi "delete the character under the cursor".'—Trevor Caira

How about: ' "x" to delete the character under the cursor (where the position "under the cursor" may be to the right of an I-beam, over an underscore, or under a block character depending on the terminal) '—Trevor Caira 22:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding a comment six years later ..... The whole approach of the vim documentation is wrong. You start with looking at what the 'x' command by itself does, which is, it deletes the character under the cursor and moves to the next character. You then apply the general vi rule that: a number in front of a command means "repeat that command [number] times". Old_Wombat (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

returning to insert mode

``and "i" to return to insert mode

This phrase makes it sound as if the default mode in vi is insert mode, which it is not. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to rephrase this paragraph to avoid suggesting this—Trevor Caira 00:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

license?

what is the license of vi(m)? Is it GPL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gflores (talk • contribs)

nvi (and presumably the original vi) are BSD-licensed. vim is under a custom licence called the vim licence. 207.245.124.66 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Though Vim does have a seperate license, its license is GPL compatible, as noted on Comparison_of_text_editors. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that vi is currently or has every been licensed under the GPL or any other open source license. Although it was originally written for BSD, AT&T's copyrights on portions of the code (see USL v. BSDi) spurred a rewrite which became the BSD-licensed nvi. Unless someone can find evidence otherwise, it should be removed from Category:Free text editors. Hamitr 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The ed(1) sources that the original vi used have been available under a four-clause BSD license since 2002, when Caldera released pre-System III Unix under those terms[1]. As mentioned in the article, the Heirloom Project has taken the vi codebase[2] and ported it modern Unix-like OSes, released on those same terms -- although not GPL-compatible, it meeets the FSF freedoms, DFSG, etc. Thus, both the original vi and most reimplementations are available as Free Software, so vi can rightly be categorised as free. Ianking 09:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It should remain as is. Hamitr 14:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Instructional material removed

Just a reminder that instructional material, user manuals and guides, etc., belong in Wikibooks rather than here. (Please see WP:NOT.) I userfied the command guide that Hydratab inserted as User:Hydratab/vi-commands so that it can be added to Wikibooks if desired. Cheers, --MCB 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the main usage section for this. Despite the disclaimer, it's still a bit in-depth. We shouldn't have to describe how a feature is invoked. Chris Cunningham 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This wiki page is still going to the dogs, most of the article (at this time of writing) should just be scrapped. -- 68.119.62.140 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Register article about vi

Check http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/11/bill_joys_greatest_gift/, which reproduces part of a previous interview. Some data can be included here. -- ReyBrujo 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In particular, the following quote could be added

People don't know that vi was written for a world that doesn't exist anymore - unless you decide to get a satellite phone and use it to connect to the Net at 2400 baud

—Bill Joy, Linux Magazine, 1999

167.107.191.217 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

lowercase title

Ok twice now I've tried to add the note "The correct title of this article is vi. The initial letter is shown capitalized due to technical restrictions." and it shows up in the preview but when I hit save it isn't there. Anyone know why this is happening? Thanks. Wolfrock 20:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is working. Note that you need javascript to have it working. -- ReyBrujo 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You people are nuts. Yes, the name is normally written vi and it makes us feel like we're on the inside when we point that out. But come on. Do you know the Wikipedia article about chickens has the title Chicken? Do you know why? Because it's a title. Furthermore, if you write the word "chickens" at the beginning of a sentence it is written "Chickens" because words are capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. Just because vi is normally written as a lowercase word doesn't mean it has some kind of force field that repels the elementary rules of usage and grammar. The correct title of the article is Vi. At the beginning of a sentence you should write Vi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.179.158 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing the Trivia Section

I think the Trivia Section material should be preserved; it's very useful. Integration into the main article is fine, but removal would discard valuable information. Where else would you verify that the keyboard upon which vi was written had no cursor keys, and indeed see a layout of the keyboard? Thanks 4.235.36.117 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright

How can such a simple image be copyrighted? I can understand the program itself, but a bunch of tildes and slashes I do not think qualifies. Can I make my own copy (from scratch) and license it as public domain? -Henry W. Schmitt 08:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No need. The image was mistagged; I've corrected its copyright information. Chris Cunningham 08:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure I understand this license at all.

This screenshot is of a program that has been released under a free software license. As a derivative work of that program, this screenshot falls under the same license.

Free software license: BSD license Copyright © belongs to the uploader, all rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, with the name of the uploader, and this list of conditions; Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, with the name of the uploader, and this list of conditions in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution; Neither the name of the uploader nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

The copyright belongs to the uploader, but the license is the same as the software? --Henry W. Schmitt 09:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes? This is pretty universal with free software / free content licences. As for the "series of tildes and slashes", the argument is that as an image file the work is just a binary blob: you can't copyright an apple, but you can certainly copyright a picture of one. Chris Cunningham 09:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Howto/Manual

Even though someone make complain that there is "how to" information here, the material which is presented is intended to show how the orthogonal command+motion is built up. While there were contemporary editors which could combine things, the keystroke-oriented editors tended to be haphazard in design (teco, for instance), and did not spend an appreciable amount of the design to making groups of functions work together. Inevitably, an attempt to convey this purely in words will run into looks-like-a-manual. Tedickey 14:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that it's written in a tabulated, manual-style format. There's no need for that. The whole motions section could be contracted into a section of prose which describes what commands are available and how they were arrived at without having to lay them out for the reader in a manul-style format. I'd argue that moving the history section up above the command list would be a good start. Chris Cunningham 14:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You suggest that the information be convoluted in dense impenetrable prose instead of the current easily browsable format? Why on earth? Mlewan 16:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely suggest dense impenetrable prose. Sigh. Chris Cunningham 20:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As I read the comment, he objects to having tables (presumably bulleted lists also are not good form ;-). Regarding moving the history section - that might serve to better introduce H,J,K,L but would leave the Derivatives and Clones section even more contorted than it has become over the last few edits. Tedickey 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The derivatives section is pretty short already; I don't think there would be any difficulty or loss of clarity in converting it to prose. Chris Cunningham 20:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that a block of text would be as easy to read as a table (something that is very questionable). The question remains why you prefer prose. Mlewan 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia prefers prose. "Easy to read" is highly subjective at any rate; a manual-style layout is opaque to most all non-Unixees. Chris Cunningham 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Because Wikipedia prefers prose"! What kind of argument is that? "Wikipedia" prefers nothing. Wikipedia is a software. Wikipedia readers have preferences - and they most certainly include clarity, not some cabbalistic belief in prose.

"Easy to read" is not subjective in the sense that you can say what you want. For each text and reader situation, you can measure what text structure is optimal. In no case I have heard of, impenetrable prose would be better than a logically structured list or table. For more reading check Readability and legibility, Readability, Usability, Knowledge visualization, Information Design, Graphic Design, Communication studies, Optimalweb, Lunatech Research, and the links from those. Mlewan 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A program description is not necessarily a manual

I'm not going to go into any edit war here, but I strongly disagree with this edit.

There is a vast difference between a user manual and a description of how a program works. What sets vi apart from other programs is the way commands are called - with simple short key strokes. It would not make any sense to write in an article about Word, that the program uses ctrl-c to copy text, as thousands of other programs use the same shortcut. However, when it comes to vi, it is of interest to see how illogical a program that has been used by millions of people over several decades works. Clearly, it is a very efficient approach for people who learn it, even though it probably has caused more grey hairs than all efforts of squaring the circle the last few thousand years.

That is in fact almost the only interesting thing with the program. The fact that there is a text editor called vi is of no particular interest at all. There are plenty of them.

The only information that properly conveyed this information was removed in that edit. Mlewan (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well what you are talking about is then original research. If this program is illogical as you describe, then notable 3rd party sources will have written about it and prose can be written on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Prose is often obfuscation. It is one of Wikipedia's silliest and most madly applied rules to try to make text as convoluted as possible to degrade readability. Prose works in some circumstances. This is not one of them.

What I am talking about is not original research. It is giving facts - indisputable facts about how the program works. Research could be performed or inspired based on facts, if they were there. Now they are gone for no valid reason. Mlewan (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying "facts cannot be OR" is an indication of a lack of understanding of what constitutes OR. Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be factual: however, those facts must be drawn from extant secondary sources, not direct analysis of the subject.

The section contains a large amount of banal instructional content which is of zero value to anyone who isn't looking for a guide to using the program. As such, it has no value to an encyclopedia. Elimination of all the keystroke discussion with the exception of an overview of the basic positioning of the most common functions would be a good start in turning what is current a manual into a useful discussion of what makes vi's design unique. That's the route I'd go, and assuming that nobody else is willing to do the work it's how I'll proceed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Form Of vi

Hi,

I wanted to know the full form of vi..... coz all commands of unix or linux has some or the other meaning n full form so i guess vi also shud hav sm....??? i read tht vi is a visual mode of ex or something but this wasnt really answer of my question!!!!!

~20 Aug 2009 VIKI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.26.243 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Bill Joy http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~kirkenda/joy84.html In the "History" section there's something need to be cited.And above is the url you would find the info. Below is the text: "Mike Horton brought his editor along from Bell Labs called hed for "Horton's editor." He was disappointed when vi won out over it. But vi had momentum with the local users - and Mark, somewhat out of frustration, went out and actually supported vi. That was nice, because I didn't have the patience to do it anymore. Just putting the termcap entries in that people would mail me would take hours a week, and I was tired after three or four years." In the context,it's around 1979.For the interview is taken in the August 1984. Hope it helps.Sorry for that i actually don't have that much time and ability to do the citation. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.188.136.177 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

210.77.x.y

Clearly someone with a dynamically assigned address in the Chinese netblock 210.77/16 wants to link to their blog about vi. Is it possible to create a rangeblock on this specific article? -- Autopilot (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to WP:AGF but it is edit-warring. I've made a request for page protection. Msnicki (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. TEDickey (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Citing Raymond's TAOUP might at first seem a WP:RS, but reading the paragraph noted, Raymond betrays his ignorance of vi (he's a known Emacs user) by commenting that the various implementations of vi provide the same features. Raymond is in the quote relevant to this topic regurgitating the comments from the Jargon File. For this topic, a more suitable reference (discarding the jokes about "six") would be Arnold & Lamb, or Arnold TEDickey (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS, but providing some useful material for further investigation is this wiki TEDickey (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)