nvi2 VS Windows Terminal

nvi2 [0]: I got to like the simplicity of nvi when installing Void Linux on my laptop, but it had some annoying bugs that made me switch to nvi2. In general, it feels like `good' software; powerful enough by virtue of being a 1:1 vi clone with a few crucial improvements (multibyte, multi-undo, etc.), but simple enough to hack on if I miss some feature. Though no autocomplete means it's not suitable for more verbose languages, like Java.

QuickJS [1]: qjscalc is my go-to scientific calculator, and qjs my go-to JavaScript implementation for simple programs. The C interface is very nice to use, too. All in all, it feels very much like a "complete" engine, even if not quite as fast as one with JIT.

w3m [2]: Somewhat lacking as a web browser, but a very good pager. Would take it over less any day. Also has the best table display of any text-mode browser, supports inline images, and is rather extensible.

Wine [3]: It's gotten so good that I no longer have to dual boot Windows. Still not perfect, but definitely on my list of "good software".

[0]: https://github.com/lichray/nvi2

[1]: https://bellard.org/quickjs/

[2]: https://github.com/tats/w3m

[3]: https://www.winehq.org/

Don't confuse OpenVi/OpenBSD-vi, nvi1, and nvi2. These are all different programs that share the same heritage.

OpenVi is derived from OpenBSD vi, which derives from nvi version 1.79, released in 1996. There has been 25+ years of independent development as part of the OpenBSD base system and has diverged greatly in that time, with the development going in a different direction.

Nvi1, currently on version 1.8x, is maintained at https://repo.or.cz/nvi.git - I believe the latest version of this editor does have multibyte support, but this is not the OpenVi/OpenBSD version of the editor.

Nvi2 shares heritage as well but also, quite far removed from the original code, is actively maintained at https://github.com/lichray/nvi2 and also includes multibyte support.

(IIRC) the multibyte support in both Nvi1 and Nvi2 derives from nvi-m17n, developed as part of the KAME project by the late itojun - http://www.itojun.org/itojun.html ... the last update to nvi-m17n was about 3 years ago, and is available at https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/editors/nvi-m17n/files

Currently, optimizing for size using link-time garbage collection with GCC 11.2 on an x86_64 glibc Linux system gives a good idea of the changes over time and the different direction these editors have taken. OpenVi is also simplified in structure and does not have the three levels of abstraction of Nvi 1.8x - there is no library interface layer.

For OpenVi, the compiled binary is 280K, and for Nvi1 (nvi-1.81.6-45-g864873d3) the compiled binary is 528K (36K for vi, 528K for libvi).

OpenVi has a single configuration standard with no dependencies beyond curses.

Nvi1 has many options beyond trace/debug ("widechar" "gtk" "motif" "threads" "perl" "tcl" "db3/4" "internal-re") - so at least 255 different build variations are possible.

(I've not yet built Nvi2 myself on Linux so I can provide an actually fair comparison yet, but I will, and I'll summarize the data in an FAQ section of the README)

Nvi1 (https://repo.or.cz/nvi.git) looks like:

> convince management of the value

This presupposes that such convincing is even possible. Many, many companies have leadership that are simply terrible at identifying value. If you've never been part of a majority of developers advocating for, if not outright begging for, some huge ROI initiative to get the green light, you are very fortunate.

There are great counterexamples, like Valve, which is known for giving developers an extreme degree of autonomy, and they benefit greatly from that approach. For each Valve, though, there are dozens of companies that manage to succeed despite themselves.

Take Microsoft, for example. One tiny, yet representative, example: the way the Windows Terminal team handled a suggestion from Casey Muratori to take their software from abysmally slow to lightning fast:

https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10362

A quote from one of the Terminal developers, dismissing the suggestion:

> I believe what you’re doing is describing something that might be considered an entire doctoral research project in performant terminal emulation as “extremely simple” somewhat combatively…

Just how difficult was such an endeavor in actuality? Well, given that Casey implemented his own terminal emulator from scratch and incorporated the functionality he was proposing in a mere weekend... not a whole lot. Relatively minor effort for a huge return on investment. It took Casey explaining the concepts, then providing a working proof of concept, and finally a bunch of backlash online towards the Terminal team to get them to do the right thing for themselves and their users.

At this point ConHost.exe is open source [0] so it is maybe not a stretch to expect Microsoft to open source CMD.EXE at some point.

Though with PowerShell being cross-platform and already open source, I personally don't think there's enough to gain in some sort of better open source CMD.EXE fork. I'd be interested in being proved wrong on that, but I'm also happy enough with PowerShell these days I'm not in a hurry to return to CMD.EXE.

[0] https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/tree/main/src/host

"Users of Linux and macOS may well be familiar with the sudo command, used regularly in the terminal, and it looks like Windows may finally be getting its own version."

More Linux tools are coming to Windows, especially Windows Server because the tools are good and they make it easier to administer a Windows Server.

They are looking at adding a default TUI text editor (https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/discussions/16440) and now they are adding sudo.

I would not be surprised if systemd or something like it gets ported or reinvented for Windows simply because it makes managing services so nice.

GitHub

>We are allowed to view and consume it, to be influenced by it, and under many circumstances even outright copy it.

People keep saying this but it's actually much more complicated, and in many cases you can't view copyrighted content.

An example, MicroSoft employees are not permitted to view or learn from an open source (GPL-2) terminal emulator:

https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10462#issuecomm...

Another example is proprietary software that may have it's source available, either intentionally or not. If you view this and then work on something related to it, like WINE for example, you are definitely at risk of being successfully sued.

If you worked at MicroSoft and worked on Windows, you would not be able to participate in WINE development at all without violating copyright.

If you viewed leaked Windows source code you also would not be able to participate in WINE development.

An interesting question that I have, is whether training on proprietary, non-trade-secret sources would be allowed. Something like unreal engine, where you can view the source but it's still proprietary.

Windows Terminal is pretty good and a new terminal emulator written in the last few years. No smooth scrolling, here's the GitHub issue requesting it: https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/1400

Assume its related to this:

https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10362

It's nothing serious just microsoft engineers writing slow as shit code and reacting poorly to someone trying to help.

"There are plenty of offline scenarios where this would be incredibly useful. For disconnected environments, etc. There are some environments that will never connect to winget."

Source: https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/discussions/16440#disc...