| 1 |
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 08:29, Peter Fein wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 30 Apr 2003 07:49:10 +0800 |
| 3 |
> William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> This is just a silly reason already - did you nuke nano or something? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yes, since corrected! |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> From vim --help: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> -X Do not connect to X server |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Users who can't figure out to try --help are probably going to generate line noise by trying to use vi in the first place. ;) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
whoops, I didnt read help, should have realised something like this |
| 17 |
might be present |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > To me, the question is whether to stick with a convention that is not |
| 20 |
> > appropriate in this circumstance, or do a logical workaround that can |
| 21 |
> > satisfactorily overcome this behaviour. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> While we can continue the vim-with-x vs. X battle royale, I: |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> a) think X is better |
| 26 |
> b) really don't care |
| 27 |
> c) withdraw any ill-will toward developers who avoid -dev |
| 28 |
> d) was seriously hoping this would turn in to a vi vs. emacs war |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Perhaps someone should set up a forum poll? ;) |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> > Can someone define why console vim needs X anyway, apart from the highly |
| 33 |
> > critical trick of putting a title on the X window? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Causing grief to those who bork their XF86Config? ;) |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> (All flames meant in the friendliest spirit.) |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives