Timeline for When is an application too customizable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2011 at 21:10 | comment | added | dsimcha | @David: To me, the reasonable thing to do would be to simply make the defaults reasonable in newer versions. If you need backwards compatibility with the vi worked on PDP-11s, then you can configure that yourself. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 20:20 | comment | added | David Thornley | vi is, very definitely, its own thing. The closest thing it has to a native platform thrived a long time ago. It seems to me that either it doesn't need customization or it isn't worth customizing, depending on your point of view. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 18:10 | comment | added | dsimcha | @David: Ok, but IMHO software that so severely violates such important conventions is basically broken. Also, vi violates the conventions of "modern" Linux software, such as anything written for KDE or Gnome, so it's not just a problem on "non-native" platforms. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 17:52 | comment | added | David Thornley | I'm not sure why you use vi as an example. While it works a lot differently from native MS Windows or Mac OSX conventions, it's internally consistent. I've had no problems working on a raw install anywhere. Learn vi as it is, don't customize it, and it'll be usable everywhere, although it sounds like you wouldn't like it anywhere. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 17:26 | comment | added | Michael K | +1 #3 is one I had not considered. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 17:20 | history | answered | dsimcha | CC BY-SA 2.5 |