Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Rotundo's commentslogin

Looks like a useful project. Wish there was a picture to see how it looks though.

Creating more software does not solve anything if that software is mostly a functional duplicate of other software. Or, in other words, all companies re-invent the wheel many times over. It doesn't matter if you 10x the development of software that brings nothing new besides being written in a shiny new framework.

We should, IMHO, start getting rid of most software. Go back to basics: what do you need, make that better, make it complete. Finish a piece of software for once.


No, absolutely not.

Unless it's to do official government business like taxes, I won't use any website requiring official digital ID.

If that means I can't use most of the internet, so be it.


Yeah, 1993 here. Same.

Not only one thing after another, but often the same things all over again after a decade or so.


No, not the same.

You had more periods of stability and low inflation/ZIRP to build wealth and skills.

93-00, 02-08, 2012-2019

Millenials only had the one, and you were pretty SOL if you graduated anywhere between 08 and 2011. Oh and the later period of this (2017-2024) saw astronomical price increases on real estate.

There's a reason we're called the 2nd lost generation.


For command line you won't go wrong with abcde ("A Better CD Encoder") or cdparanoia if you don't need all the bells and whistles. For GUI take a look at asunder.


Removing the bitterness makes it an orange. We already have those.

I like grapefruit as it is. Let's not do this.


Software will be even more a commodity than it already is. A hundred apps that do the same thing, what's the point? Rebuilding everything in a new framework every three years, why? The money is gone, or will be very soon.

We've been automating people out of a job for decades. And now we've outfoxed ourselves.


Same feeling. It used to be something, and mean something.

Even in graphics, there are only two leading engines, with other minor follow-ups.

Everything is rehash of another rehash, and infinite recursion.

What is the point in all this if it means we can't get value from it?

Who is extracting value? Who is defining value? I am really curious and want to know this value that people keep saying.

Idk about west, but in many part of the living world, value is having access to clean water, reliable food, electricity, and health.

Apart from that, what is valuable?


I have everything set up as direct debit. I see, maybe, two invoices a year, if that.

To be honest, I don't "do" my finances. I look at my bank statements (on my phone) once every couple of months or so. It never goes wrong.


Consider storage requirements. Strings (ASCII? UTF-8?) are not as efficient as integers or UUIDs. You're not storing UUIDs as strings, are you? They are binary, only converted to the string expansion for display and/or export.


Sometimes something is a standard, not because it is the best, but because it is the thing that everybody expects and can trust to be there.

If you'd like to use another editor you can easily install it.


Honestly I cannot imagine who expects the original vi and trusts vi to be there. Every Unix/Linux user I have met expects Vim and trusts Vim to be there. If there are users expecting original vi, they must be a very small minority.


A standards-conformant implementation of vi is absolutely required to be present and conformant to standards if the platform is certified by POSIX.2 (or whatever name the standard uses these days).

The latest standard for vi (and the rest of the utilities) can be found here:

https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/

The standard for vi is specifically:

https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/v...

Yes, Microsoft, this means you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem

Microsoft's native UTF-16 really, really needs an editor that easily saves US7ASCII and UTF-8 correctly, both with LF and CR/LF. The native Windows tools are quite poor in getting this right.


> A standards-conformant implementation of vi is absolutely required to be present

No arguments there. This is all correct. The question is: Is Vim not standards-conformant?

If Vim isn't standards-conformant, I agree some people will expect the original vi to be present.

But if Vim is standards-conformant, do people still want vi to be present? Why?


> But if Vim is standards-conformant, do people still want vi to be present? Why?

It's much smaller and standards-compliant. IIRC, Debian started bundling nano instead of vim because nano is smaller (and easier to quit).


This has been addressed in a few realms, primarily shells.

One bash behavior oddity is that, when it is called as /bin/sh, this will work:

  $ cat pbasher
  #!/bin/sh
  alias p=printf
  p hello\ world!\\n

  $ ./pbasher
  hello world!
However, changing the shebang to #!/bin/bash results in this:

  $ ./pbasher
  ./pbasher: line 3: p: command not found
This is because an alias in a script is a POSIX.2 standard, but this historical bash did not allow this.

Forcing POSIX mode enables the alias:

  $ cat pbasher
  #!/bin/bash
  set -o posix
  alias p=printf
  p hello\ world!\\n

  $ ./pbasher
  hello world!
In the same way, platforms that care about POSIX.2 compatibility will adjust the behaviors to obtain certification, as bash has done. I saw HP-UX modify ksh88 into sh-posix, and vim also has a VIM_POSIX environment variable that enables a compliant standard mode.

There is discussion here:

https://vimhelp.org/vi_diff.txt.html

...the general GNU environment variable to trigger compliance used to be called POSIX_ME_HARDER.


And we all know ed is the standard Unix text editor. If you want vim you should be able to install it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: