vi
is part of the base system, therefore it is not a package that can be removed. *)WITHOUT_VI=yes
to /etc/src.conf, see src.conf(5).Vi is included in the base installation while Vim is a port. I do not advise removing vi even when Vim is installed because vi can be used when Vim cannot be used.When vim has been installed, there is a need to remove vi.
Well, there's still ee(1) in base for such emergencies ;-) But in general, agreed.I do not advise removing vi even when Vim is installed because vi can be used when Vim cannot be used.
Sure, but as a passionate Vim user you want have an editor that fits your editing habits.Well, there's still ee(1) in base for such emergencies ;-) But in general, agreed.
I disagree. vi as part of the base is in /usr/binWhen vim has been installed, there is a need to remove vi.
We should emphasize the FreeBSD package doesn't do that, as it would be against all packaging policies in FreeBSD.vim as a port gets installed in /usr/local/bin. When it installs it may do something like "ln -sf /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/local/bin/vi" to create a symlink, so when someone type in "vi" they get "vim".
Personally, I think this is one of the most annoying behaviors a package can have. if I say vi I want vi not vim/gvim/ngvim or whatever.
I don't have a ports tree locally so didn't do the work of actually checking if the port did something like that.We should emphasize the FreeBSD package doesn't do that, as it would be against all packaging policies in FreeBSD.
I didn't understand it that way, all he said was "there's a need to remove vi", without explicit reason given. So, probably just to save the disk space. Which, well, isn't really a need, the base vi is tiny indeed.But based on the statement in the OP, the OP believes that installing vim does or should create a symlink to vi.
Yes, and I agree with you that this is a damn stupid thing to do. If you want an alias, configure it in your shell's config.A lot/almost all Linux distributions I've seen do this so that may be where the expectation comes from.
Perhaps I read too much into it based on my experience, but if you're typing "vim" then "vi" should never affect you. Agreed that base vi is small and even if dynamically linked, it's not against much.I didn't understand it that way, all he said was "there's a need to remove vi", without explicit reason given. So, probably just to save the disk space. Which, well, isn't really a need, the base vi is tiny indeed.
There is neither a need nor a hurry needed to assimilate with that.Editors such as ee and nano are the norm these days.
JeezAs a matter of fact some of them samba share their files to their Windows PCs in order to edit them in notepad and wordpad.
That is a good solution for things that use the EDITOR variable (less, more other utilities) but doesn't solve the "I typed vi blah.txt and it started vi instead of vim"Put EDITOR=vim into your profile.
I am emacs user, but I also use a little of nvi, and it does bother me if there is vim instead of nvi. They are different.It wouldn't be a big bother for me to install vi or vim
Could you provide reasoning supporting your conclusion? In my, albeit limited and perhaps outdated experience, vi(1) is installed on all/most *NIX systems, so the skill of using it is transferable.And if you conclude that one is enough, I agree it would have to be ee(1).
Well... putting an alias in /etc/profile, /etc/csh.cshrc and so on will do the job system wide.That is a good solution for things that use the EDITOR variable (less, more other utilities) but doesn't solve the "I typed vi blah.txt and it started vi instead of vim"
I think I and others in this thread are making assumings from the OP.
jronald Why do you think there is a need to remove vi after installing vim?
And also VISUAL=vimPut EDITOR=vim into your profile.