On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:04, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Magnus Therning <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2011/4/5 János Illés <ijanos@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 13:18, Magnus Therning <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> IMNSHO there are *very* few vim extensions that should ever be >>>> installed centrally. I'd recommend every vim user to embrace >>>> GetLatestVimScripts[1] instead. For the other stuff (read "broken vim >>>> extensions") I created vim-scripts-mgr[2]. :-) >>> >>> I'm interested in the cons of having centrally installed vim plugins. >>> For me it seems these things you mentioned are basically doing a job >>> of a package manager (keeping track of, and updating files) so why not >>> use pacman for this purpose? >> >> Because the vast majority of vim extensions I've come across are >> turned on as soon as they are installed, which means that installing >> them centrally turns them on for *all* users on the system. >> >> /M > > Which (for some of us at least) would be the point. Most extensions > that I use don't actually do anything outside their specific purview, > so having many installed doesn't necessarily affect anything. In the > case of colourschemes, having them installed system-wide means > everyone can use them, which is good, isn't it? Rather than each > person having to copy/install them individually. Indeed, there are arguably some exceptions, but I continue to argue that the majority of vim extensions should be installed on a per-user basis. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx jabber: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus
