Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ultimate Vim Distribution

vim.spf13.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#81

Post by rat87 »

rat87 wrote: post #80
jlgreco wrote: post #3

I have said it before here when people have discussed packaging up Vim stuff, and I stick by it: I really don't see this taking off. Switching to using this does not appeal to me, an existing Vim user, and I think I am not an exception. If this does something new that I like I'll gladly throw that part into my setup, but there really isn't any reason at all that I can see for wanting to use this. I don't think this i…

I download oh-my-zsh(or the fork Prezto), pick a theme, tweak 1-3 settings, load my custom PATH, and I'm in excellent shape. I have a shell that works great with little work.

Similarly with vim, I don't know most of the whizbang vim command combinations and don't use it much outside of short console edits, but gvim with its syntax highlighting + splits(created and selected with a mouse) + lots of plugins (mostly installed with pathogen):minibuffexplorer + ctags + tagbar is a fairly useful combination without much custom configuration.

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#82

Post by alexkus »

jlgreco wrote: post #51
erydo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the SSL bit, from a security standpoint is piping to the shell really any different than saying "run this installer application"? Either way you're allowing the source to run arbitrary commands on your computer.

The problem is that it blurs the line between what is safe, and what is not safe. It is basically the difference between telling your users to do: wget example.com/some_script.sh ; chmod +x some_script.sh ; ./some_script.sh and: wget example.com/some_script.sh chmod +x some_script.sh ./some_script.sh A good engineer will tell you that those two things are exactly the same. The reality however is that they really are…

  wget example.com/some_script.sh
  chmod +x some_script.sh
  ./some_script.sh
is missing one very important step...

  wget example.com/some_script.sh
  chmod +x some_script.sh
  $EDITOR some_script.sh
Only if it all looks sane/safe/sensible would I consider doing:-

  ./some_script.sh

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#83

Post by alexkus »

olalonde wrote: post #13
exogen wrote: post #11

I realize this is a different project, but since it looks similar: installing Janus was the worst decision I ever made while looking to improve my Vim experience. It actually made Vim worse , sometimes by just slowing things down, other times because of the lack of quality control in the bundled plugins. One plugin actually caused data loss many times – it completely froze the editor when a certain syntax pattern was…

I think you are an exception. I can't get anything done with vanilla Vim (no smart indentation for instance) and install Janus anytime I need to use Vim on a new shell.

I've used vi/vim for ~20 years (I have memories of using it in '92 when I had an Amiga B2000) and I've never installed a single extension/package/what-not.

The corporate development environment I'm in means it's a huge amount of work to get anything installed on a wide range of platforms (6 different OSes not including Windows) and on a large number of machines. For various security reasons, my home directory is not shared amongst all of the machines, which could have made it easier.

However, the main reason is that I often go to customers to solve problems and I have to use what they have installed. I can't go asking someone to install vim and a bunch of extensions on their production servers just to make me feel comfy; I have to rely on the lowest common denominator set of basic tools that are usually installed; vi (even ed), sed, awk, sh (can't even rely on bash being installed).

Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against people using vim with a whole bunch of extensions, it's just not for me.

But not being proficient in the basics can be a bad thing, especially when it's usually a tricky/pressured situation where you're left without your favourite dev environment.

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#84

Post by wladimir »

jason_slack wrote: post #69

I dont like how the current line is always 0 and not the actual line number. How do I fix that? I have never seen this elsewhere. I must admit that this distro will help my workflow.

That option is called "relativenumber". You can go back to normal numbering with "set number". I find it very useful myself, though, to quickly move to a line with relative commands such as 10j, or select ranges, delete a number of lines, etc... The only case in which I really need absolute line numbers is when jumping to a line for an error message (luckily G key will always use absolute line numbers).

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#85

Post by symmetricsaurus »

I think it is good for showing some different plugins and configuration options available in Vim. I think I will use the the included .vimrc file and plugins to look at to get ideas for my own .vimrc. The default in the distribution makes my Vim look like a christmas tree, which I don't really like.

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#86

Post by georgebashi »

crazydiamond wrote: post #75
JonnieCache wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it isn't clear, prezto is a fork of oh-my-zsh which has basically been rewritten bit by bit to make everything much cleaner and saner. I highly recommend it. The history-substring-search and syntax-highlighting modules are brilliant. You will be the envy of all your friends and neighbours.

I've been using oh-my-zsh and the startup is really slow. I hear prezto solves this. How do i upgrade from oh-my to prezto? No one seems to answer that ?

I've just made the switch after finding out about prezto from this thread. The reason the upgrade process isn't documented is that, unfortunately, there isn't one. You just have to remove oh-my-zsh and install prezto, then move over any modifications you've made manually.

That said, it wasn't much work, and I've been using it for the past couple hours and I really like it!

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#87

Post by Flenser »

batgaijin wrote: post #74
jlgreco wrote: post #3

I have said it before here when people have discussed packaging up Vim stuff, and I stick by it: I really don't see this taking off. Switching to using this does not appeal to me, an existing Vim user, and I think I am not an exception. If this does something new that I like I'll gladly throw that part into my setup, but there really isn't any reason at all that I can see for wanting to use this. I don't think this i…

Sort of related: I only use Emacs today because of the Emacs starter kit. Maybe it's particular to Emacs, but I've found that the defaults are often terrible, and half of all tutorials I see for _anything_ are about changing the default case.

Which one?

This one: https://github.com/technomancy/emacs-starter-kit

or this one: https://github.com/eschulte/emacs24-starter-kit

I've been using and configuring emacs for a few weeks now. Is it worth starting again with one of these or will it move too much cheese?

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#88

Post by jason_slack »

wladimir wrote: post #84
jason_slack wrote: post #69

I dont like how the current line is always 0 and not the actual line number. How do I fix that? I have never seen this elsewhere. I must admit that this distro will help my workflow.

That option is called "relativenumber". You can go back to normal numbering with "set number". I find it very useful myself, though, to quickly move to a line with relative commands such as 10j, or select ranges, delete a number of lines, etc... The only case in which I really need absolute line numbers is when jumping to a line for an error message (luckily G key will always use absolute line numbers).

Do you know what to change in .vimrc to stop using relative number by default? I looked around and nothing with "relative" and I do see a 'set nu'

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#89

Post by dredmorbius »

ZephyrP wrote: post #62
dredmorbius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. For me to trust an installer, implicitly, it's best for it to be part of my software distribution's package management system. This means that the package is signed and checksummed, it's included in the distro's bugtracking system, and is being downloaded from a known set of mirrors. Your next best option is to provide a download, checksums, and signatures, with a well-signed PGP/GPG key. At this point I can at…

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2006/Mar/130 Just some food for thought concerning package ecosystems.

If you follow that thread down two replies, you find some of the strengths of a repo.

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2006/Mar/132

Please supply the package name, version and the output of "apt-cache policy ". That should list where the trojaned package came from (presuming no changes to sources.list, etc., etc.).

Packaging systems leave audit trails. Even if you get hosed, you can often figure out where and how, and take steps to both correct the upstream issue and identify and mitigate any locally affected systems (generally through a wipe/reinstall if you've got to this stage).

Re: The Ultimate Vim Distribution

#90

Post by SnowLprd »

johncoltrane wrote: post #52
mcrittenden wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious as to why you (or anyone) would prefer pathogen to vundle? Vundle just seems like pathogen except with less manual work.

1. I switch to another tool if and when I have problems with my current tool. Because Pathogen has served me well for the last two years there's no reason to switch to Vundle or some other plugin manager. 2. Vundle is too heavily Git/Github-centered for my taste.

While I also wish Vundle weren't as wedded to GitHub, I still find it to be the better of the two tools. Plus, Vundle can also use the Vim Scripts repo as a source, so it's not strictly tied to Git/GitHub.
Post reply on HN