Ideology - Revision history

Xaizek: /* Vifm or ranger */ Add entry about :commands

2021-03-02T13:34:28Z

Vifm or ranger: Add entry about :commands

Mb720: /* Vifm or ranger */ Condense text, improve grammar, phrasing.

2019-04-07T13:06:04Z

Vifm or ranger: Condense text, improve grammar, phrasing.

128.72.120.175: typos

2015-07-26T10:51:17Z

typos

83.37.147.7: Fix typo

2015-02-16T22:07:37Z

Fix typo

Xaizek: Add Manual category

2014-09-27T16:16:43Z

Add Manual category

Xaizek: /* Vifm or ranger */ Make table look a bit better

2014-08-13T12:24:19Z

Vifm or ranger: Make table look a bit better

Xaizek: /* Why Vifm */ Add list of capabilities

2014-08-10T10:15:37Z

Why Vifm: Add list of capabilities

Xaizek: /* When and how to use Vifm */ Basic points

2014-08-10T10:09:59Z

When and how to use Vifm: Basic points

Xaizek: /* How not to use Vifm */ Add basics

2014-08-10T10:03:48Z

How not to use Vifm: Add basics

Xaizek: Initial version of the page, only vifm and ranger comparison

2014-07-31T18:50:47Z

Initial version of the page, only vifm and ranger comparison

New page

== Why Vifm ==

=== Vifm or ranger ===

For some reason people tend to try to compare Vifm and ranger, which is
incorrect. Comparing two applications that follow different ideas won't lead
to any results. Most significant common things:

* They both are file managers.
* They both claim to have vi-like key bindings.

Although it might seem to be sufficient to start comparing them, it's not. And
the reason why you can't compare them is that these two applications go
different paths to implement both file managing and vi-like behaviour.

Vifm does have ''Vi'' in its name for a reason and while ranger can be called
vi-like application, being such is not its main goal. Contrary to ranger Vifm
tries to be not just "vi-like file manager", but rather "vim among file
managers".

One can't really compare them in detail because they are some much different in
general. Even if one tries, it's easy to see how much they differ (the
comparison is far from being complete as stated above, it's just to demonstrate
the point):

{| class="wikitable"
|+Differences between Vifm and ranger
! style="text-align:left;" | Vim-like characteristic || Vifm || ranger
|-
| Command line || Yes || Similar
|-
| Options || Yes || Partially
|-
| Completion || Yes || No
|-
| Bindings || Yes || Similar
|-
| Bindings configuration || Yes || Similar
|-
| Scripting || Partially || Limited
|-
| Window system || Paritally || No
|-
| Modes || Yes || No
|}

ranger has some features that are absent in vifm and vice versa,
those are not listed if they are not very related to how much
applications are Vim-like.

'''Note''' that this is not a try to say something bad about ranger, not at
all. If something is wrong, it must be corrected; missing information can be
added. The idea of this subsection is two show that Vifm and ranger should
not be directly compared, each of them go different ways in both file managing
and interacting with user.

The bottom line is that Vifm aims to give Vim-addicted users similar
application for managing files and ranger is a nice file manager with vi-like
stuff. These are different applications with different goals that do not
compete with each other.

== How not to use Vifm ==

== When and how use Vifm ==

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 | Window system || Partially || No
 |-
-| Modes || Yes || No
+| Modes || Various || Normal and command-line
 |}

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 27 September 2014
Line 94:		Line 94:
	* If you know a way to do something more efficient in a shell, write a script and invoke it from Vifm or run external shell command if it's convenient, otherwise run shell and do it there.		* If you know a way to do something more efficient in a shell, write a script and invoke it from Vifm or run external shell command if it's convenient, otherwise run shell and do it there.
	* If you know an application that fits better, create a command and/or script to run it in directory of current pane and maybe pass current selection to it.		* If you know an application that fits better, create a command and/or script to run it in directory of current pane and maybe pass current selection to it.
		+
		+	[[Category:Manual]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:15, 10 August 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Why Vifm ==		== Why Vifm ==
		+
		+	=== Interesting capabilities ===
		+
		+	* Works on all widely used operating systems.
		+	* Very easy to start if you grok Vim.
		+	* Can be used remotely over SSH.
		+	* Friendly to terminal multiplexers.
		+	* Low on resources.
		+	* Depends only on a few libraries (curses and regex).

	=== Vifm or ranger ===		=== Vifm or ranger ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:09, 10 August 2014
Line 67:		Line 67:
	* it's not an environment to spend your life in, it's one of many tools, interleave use of Vifm with Vim, shell and other applications.		* it's not an environment to spend your life in, it's one of many tools, interleave use of Vifm with Vim, shell and other applications.

−	== When and how use Vifm ==	+	== When and how to use Vifm ==
		+
		+	Main points:
		+
		+	* Integrate Vifm within your system.
		+	** Run other applications from Vifm (e.g. Vim).
		+	** Launch Vifm from other applications (e.g. Vim, Mutt).
		+	** Use it as file picker from other applications.
		+	* Communicate data from Vifm to other applications and vice versa:
		+	** Pass list of files to other applications.
		+	** Process input of external tools.
		+
		+	Generic examples:
		+
		+	* If you know a way to do something more efficient in a shell, write a script and invoke it from Vifm or run external shell command if it's convenient, otherwise run shell and do it there.
		+	* If you know an application that fits better, create a command and/or script to run it in directory of current pane and maybe pass current selection to it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:03, 10 August 2014
Line 61:		Line 61:

	== How not to use Vifm ==		== How not to use Vifm ==
		+
		+	Do not use Vifm as your main application at the computer:
		+
		+	* it's not a launcher of all kinds of applications, it's a file manager that supports file associations;
		+	* it's not an environment to spend your life in, it's one of many tools, interleave use of Vifm with Vim, shell and other applications.

	== When and how use Vifm ==		== When and how use Vifm ==

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 === Vifm or ranger ===
-For some reason people tend to try to compare Vifm and ranger, which is
+Vifm and [https://ranger.github.io/ ranger] follow different ideas in how to
-incorrect.  Comparing two applications that follow different ideas won't lead
+implement file management, vi-like behaviour, and user interface in general.
-to any results.  Most significant common things:
 * They both are file managers.
 * They both claim to have vi-like key bindings.
-Although it might seem to be sufficient to start comparing them, it's not.  And
+Vifm does have ''Vi'' in its name for a reason and while ranger is a
-the reason why you can't compare them is that these two applications go
+vi-like application, being such is not its main goal.  Contrary to ranger, Vifm
-different paths to implement both file managing and vi-like behaviour.
+tries to be not just a "vi-like file manager", but rather "vim among file
 managers".
-One can't really compare them in detail because they are so much different in
+It's difficult to compare ranger and Vifm, but here's an incomplete attempt:
 {| class="wikitable"
@@ Line 56: / Line 50: @@
 |}
-ranger has some features that are absent in vifm and vice versa,
+Vifm has some features that are absent in ranger and vice versa,
-those are not listed if they are not very related to how much
+those are not listed if they are not very much related regarding how
-applications are Vim-like.
+vi-like an application is.
-The bottom line is that Vifm aims to give Vim-addicted users similar
+The bottom line is that Vifm aims to give Vim-addicted users a similar
 application for managing files and ranger is a nice file manager with vi-like
-stuff.  These are different applications with different goals that do not
+features. These are different applications with different goals that do not
 compete with each other.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 managers".
-One can't really compare them in detail because they are some much different in
+One can't really compare them in detail because they are so much different in
 general.  Even if one tries, it's easy to see how much they differ (the
 comparison is far from being complete as stated above, it's just to demonstrate
@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 '''Note''' that this is not a try to say something bad about ranger, not at
 all.  If something is wrong, it must be corrected; missing information can be
-added.  The idea of this subsection is two show that Vifm and ranger should
+added.  The idea of this subsection is to show that Vifm and ranger should
 not be directly compared, each of them go different ways in both file managing
 and interacting with user.

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 | Scripting || Partially || Limited
 |-
-| Window system || Paritally || No
+| Window system || Partially || No
 |-
 | Modes || Yes || No

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 {| class="wikitable"
 |+Differences between Vifm and ranger
-! style="text-align:left;" | Vim-like characteristic || Vifm || ranger
+! width="200px" | Vim-like characteristic
 |-
 | Command line || Yes || Similar