# Vim to use GTK2 by default



## graudeejs (Oct 10, 2010)

I can't believe it, that this has happened.
I have personally e-mailed maintainer of vim and asked why is he keeping gkt1 as default for vim few months ago.

Woooooooooooooooooooooot finally 1 stupidity less 


Happy *viming* everyone 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/editors/vim/Makefile?rev=1.368;content-type=text/plain


----------



## mk (Oct 10, 2010)

In layman terms, why should I be happy about this?


----------



## richardpl (Oct 10, 2010)

gtkX is horrible piece of junk IMHO.
I don't have it installed.


----------



## graudeejs (Oct 10, 2010)

So you don't use gimp & inkscape?
Whatever....

I use whatever is best for work that I need, be it GTK2, JAVA, QT4, QT3 or TK, or whatever

As for VIM, I use with strictly from console, no GUI, Only X support


Let's not make this thread GKT vs ...


----------



## Beastie (Oct 10, 2010)

mk said:
			
		

> In layman terms, why should I be happy about this?


If, like killasmurf86, you already use modern desktop applications based on GTK (2), it would be wasteful to also have to install GTK1/Glib1 as dependencies for a few other applications based on the old library.


----------



## graudeejs (Oct 10, 2010)

Beastie said:
			
		

> If, like killasmurf86, you already use modern desktop applications based on GTK (2), it would be wasteful to also have to install GTK1/Glib1 as dependencies.



Not to mention, that it's old, outdated, slow and deprecated


----------



## Beastie (Oct 10, 2010)

Ninja edit.


----------



## oliverh (Oct 11, 2010)

Beastie said:
			
		

> If, like killasmurf86, you already use modern desktop applications based on GTK (2), it would be wasteful to also have to install GTK1/Glib1 as dependencies for a few other applications based on the old library.



While coping with packages this is true, but FreeBSD unfolds its power with ports. Most people are using FreeBSD or Gentoo because of choice. The choice to choose from options you like. Sure, it's time consuming to some degree (ccache, distcc, etc.) but it's a huge advantage compared to "binary operating systems" like Debian and so on. And last not least package-handling in FreeBSD isn't even comparable to something old like Debian Potato (anno 2000). That said, there is a need for different packages like in Debian, e.g. mplayer with gui and mplayer without a gui. But then, it's a question of man-power -- so the new choice of framework for Vim may be a nice one for people who like GTK2, it's a pain in the backside for others. You know, K.I.S.S. and such things.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Oct 11, 2010)

The longer I use FreeBSD, the less advantage I see in using ports.

Ports are great, as a development tool. Not as a package maintenance tool.

Why *not* install gtk1? It's a few megs in a multi-gb hard drive. Who cares.


----------



## graudeejs (Oct 11, 2010)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> The longer I use FreeBSD, the less advantage I see in using ports.
> 
> Ports are great, as a development tool. Not as a package maintenance tool.
> 
> Why *not* install gtk1? It's a few megs in a multi-gb hard drive. Who cares.



Every cell of me doesn't like it


----------



## oliverh (Oct 11, 2010)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> The longer I use FreeBSD, the less advantage I see in using ports.
> 
> Ports are great, as a development tool. Not as a package maintenance tool.
> 
> Why *not* install gtk1? It's a few megs in a multi-gb hard drive. Who cares.



I do care. There are people, who waste any kind of resources and there are others. It's a fundamental attitude towards life. It's not one system to rule them all, it's the freedom of choice. Btw. if have enough stuff to spend on lots of Gigabytes, I don't need an operating system as resource-hog -- it's that easy.


----------



## expl (Oct 11, 2010)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> The longer I use FreeBSD, the less advantage I see in using ports.
> 
> Ports are great, as a development tool. Not as a package maintenance tool.
> 
> Why *not* install gtk1? It's a few megs in a multi-gb hard drive. Who cares.



Its not an issue of few extra "megs" on your hard-drive. Its an issue of having to run a big chunk of old and no longer maintained code not compatible with GTK2 settings.


----------



## ckester (Oct 12, 2010)

oliverh said:
			
		

> I do care. There are people, who waste any kind of resources and there are others. It's a fundamental attitude towards life. It's not one system to rule them all, it's the freedom of choice. Btw. if have enough stuff to spend on lots of Gigabytes, I don't need an operating system as resource-hog -- it's that easy.



Agreed.

Minimalism is an aesthetic, and an approach I prefer, but it's not mandatory for anyone.

I appreciate the fact that FreeBSD and the ports system makes minimalist computing possible.  I'm glad that not everyone shares Carpetsmoker's complacent attitude that "it's only a few megs on a multi-gigabyte drive."

(Reminds me of the quip attributed to former Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, "A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.")


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Oct 14, 2010)

It's not that I don't think that GTK2 is better, it's just not something worth making a huge fuss over.

There are a zillion toolkits, I used to care about this sort of stuff, selecting apps by toolkit/dependencies, taking trouble to disable unwanted stuff.

What has this gotten me? Exactly nothing.

*Extreme* examples excluded (Such as mutt pulling in firefox/xorg) in "normal" real-world usage on a fairly modern machine it just doesn't make that much of a difference which options are or aren't selected or which toolkit you're using.

I prefer the OpenBSD approach to this sort of stuff, which seems to be more "down to earth" and isn't talking about "fundamental attitudes towards life" (Whatever that may mean).


----------



## UNIXgod (Oct 14, 2010)

Now all we need is the compiz port to not force kde3 on us and we are good =)


----------

