This story has no references that support the author's version of events, but it does appear to be substantially true that:<p>1. The change would break undo history, for both Neovim and Vim.<p>2. This means Neovim would delete data created by a different program, on another user's computer.<p>3. This was known before the feature was released.<p>4. They did it anyway.<p>I don't think there can really be any post-hoc justification of this.<p><a href="https://github.com/neovim/neovim/pull/13973#issuecomment-789262094" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/neovim/neovim/pull/13973#issuecomment-789...</a>
The data is stored in ~/.cache which has the contract that it user-wide cached data, which also means it can be deleted without severely impacting programs.<p>It seems the author has too high expectations of this feature, or vim is using an incorrect path to store this is they want to make it available more reliably
But you still have to share the undodir for both vim and neovim right? If your undo data was that precious why would you gamble the interoperability? You could just have them in different folders and it would be fine.<p>So the case is, you really need you undo history and want to try out neovim so you just copy paste you vimrc to the new place and accidentally delete your data? I don’t think it’s that bad personally. It’s bound to happen but it’s not automatic.
I switched from Vim to NeoVim this year, after about 15 years on Vim.<p>Not withstanding this incident, I would say that on the whole it has been a good experience with Neovim. (I didn’t actually ever use the persistent undo functionality in vim. Guess because of VCS it’s less needed for my use-case).
It was ostensibly necessary for other, arguably more important features. Persistent undo maybe just isn't that important? I certainly don't use it nearly as much as the author seems to.
maybe they tried to undo the change, but were not able to
As a Neovim user, this stopped me dead with painful realization: I may have suffered the same thing but didn't realize it. There was a time when I could not undo something, and it was after a Neovim upgrade.<p>Unlike Dr. Chisnall, I started my editor journey on Neovim, so it wasn't a transition that bit me. However, if the format of the persistent undo file is unstable, and Neovim just deletes it when it doesn't recognize the previous format, then it seems conceivable (to me) that an upgrade after changing the format would delete the file too.<p>Ouch. This is making me think about getting off of Neovim. Yes, FOSS comes as-is, but if there's an alternative...
It’s such an odd design decision.<p>I could see ignoring the old undo data or warning before discarding it but just silently wiping it is so user hostile it’s hard to comprehend.
If you ignore it, do you continue allowing edits to the file? Now undo history is corrupt and useless anyway. Or do you disallow editing until the user manually deletes some hidden, implementation-detail file for a feature they probably never use?
If making a breaking change to the format of the file, why in root's name would neovim not just make its own new file!? Import the vim version if that's desired into persistent-undo.neovim and then just go from there. I don't understand their choice here at all nor why you're acting like this is complicated or there was some need for them to reuse the exact same file as vim?
[dead]
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the usefulness of undo persistence after a IDE restart? Don't you normally save your changes and finish a piece of work before exiting an DE?<p>Edit: some great examples in the replies here, thanks! Perhaps I should start using it in editors that support it, never gave it a thought before.
The whole point of undo is that you realize you made a mistake later. If you've done that after you've saved your changes and exited the program, you'd have no expectation of undo still working unless you've enabled this feature.<p>It doesn't matter whether or not you can think of a reason you would want to enable it, but it should be pretty trivial to do so. Once you've enabled it, it should work.
The article gave 2 examples.<p>I can give some as well. IDE crashes. Computer reboots at an undesired time. Even if my work is saved, I am not “finished”. I would like my undo history to extend before file / open time.
The reason why this feature is particularly useful in vi-likes is because they are <i>not</i> IDEs. I hop in and out of vi all day long. Depending on the task I might create a new tab, run a command in vi, or exit vi to run it. Vi’s appeal is that it is “just” an editor and your terminal and workstation form your un-integrated development environment.
I often use it to edit system config files, often on embedded devices where I don't have my git credentials setup, or on servers. In these cases we're already not in an ideal world, I don't have good reliable version control or change management in place. In those less-than-ideal worlds, having proper undo history is nice.
Most apps don't have it, so you might not be used to it, but have you never wished that you could undo the changes you made after you restarted the program?<p>Moreover, the vim history tracking is amazingly advanced. It's almost like a mini version control system. I highly recommend getting to know it.
If your session / computer crashes, for one.
I've used vim since the first time it appeared in Debian repos. I have been told a thousand times that NeoVim is better, more modern and solves many (conveniently never cited) issues. I just ignored it and carried on. Feeling terribly vindicated at this point as it's a feature I use regularly and have no idea that it would be an issue in NeoVim.
I've used vi and nvi and (now) vim, and tried neovim, but :! is broken and “Conform to POSIX vi” is one of their “Non-goals”.
I've never used NeoVim because Vim has been good enough.
I used neovim because it felt way faster by default. I think treesitter runs circles around what classic vim is using to highlight syntax. That said, I never used both beyond basics, thus no horror stories either.
Tree-sitter is more performant for sure, and its potential for easier text objects is nice. However, Vim's syntax engine is more than good enough for non-complex highlighting (and many people don't want complex highlighting) and, while I don't have enough tree-sitter knowledge to explain this myself, I've seen examples of Lua versions of Vim plugins where tree-sitter is unable to handle some of the regex-based text objects present in the vimscript version.<p>As far as really cool uses for tree-sitter go, ast-grep is a fantastic tool. Of course it's a standalone program, so it doesn't need nvim to make use of it.
I haven't noticed any performance issues in vim to start with. It was fast on a 75MHz pentium for me. The syntax highlighting, same. No issues. I don't always use that though because I can't be bothered to set up anything much past the basic config.
IIRC vim became really slow with the combination of large source files (thousands of lines of code) and language server plugins (e.g. code completion and live error squiggles).
I had a C program that was a single file 140,000 lines long back then. No issues.
I was using vim-enhanced as red hat-based distro installed it. No customization. No customization of nvim either.<p>I often use vim or nvim on disposable machines, so persistent undo is something very low on my list of things I want.
At one point vim lacked asynchronous plugins. If a plugin was running a builder or linter it locked the editor up (from what I recall).<p>That fell apart when people wanted vim to do some more modern IDE kind of things like all the “… on save” stuff (build on save, test, lint, etc). I think LSP support is native in neovim as well.<p>I believe vim merged asynchronous plugin support a while back though, so I’m not sure how different they really are anymore.
[dead]
*vimdicated
If one really needs an undo in today's day and age, use git.
It’s two different dimensions in this case. VCS doesn’t preserve your local history (in JetBrains’ terms) of changes (and it wasn’t meant to by design)
I don't use git. I actually have something still using RCS.
Someone didn't read the part about wanting a humane interface
I was also a very early user of Neovim.<p>The way I personally remember it being positioned was “Vim, but with breaking changes.”
Yeah, this hasn't been a problem since forever (or at least I haven't noticed). They had to break the undo file format a while ago to actually work correctly for byte-level buffer change events (very important for tree sitter and other plugins listening for buffer changes). The undo file format is versioned, too, so it's not just YOLO'd; Neovim has since forever returned an error saying there's a version incompatibility. The outrage here doesn't make a lot of sense to me.<p>The original author of this post (on Mastodon) appears to have a bone to pick with Neovim since it's "platforming white supremacists"? I couldn't figure out what this meant. Some sort of internet drama I guess.
> the attitude that just because something is a persistent file on your filesystem that contains data that you might want is no reason for their program not to delete it meant they had no concept of a duty of care to their users.<p>That's the wrong way to look at it. NeoVIM has a <i>different</i> concept of care for their users. They're optimizing for another kind of care, more in line with modern expectations, which VIM did not care about (hence the fork).<p>It's not better or worse, just different.<p>This same article could've been written about how VIM has no native LSP integration or autocomplete and they don't have duty or care for their users.
Deleting important data without warning is not the same as not providing a feature users might want.
There is a flip side to this - is vim encrypting this data it keeps forever? If I delete something I consider sensitive, I might unwittingly be recording that presumed-deleted piece of data to my user profile somewhere to be deleted never.
Vim's persist undo is disabled by default, perhaps for privacy reasons. <i>edit: I see sebzim4500 got there first.</i><p>* <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49867678">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49867678</a><p>* <a href="https://bastian.rieck.me/blog/2015/persistent_undo_vim/" rel="nofollow">https://bastian.rieck.me/blog/2015/persistent_undo_vim/</a>
That doesn't justify its deletion, it might justify warning the user, but unconditionally deleting data not owned by the app shared with other apps?
Stop looking for post-hoc justifications for behavior that is clearly wrong.
How could you possibly encrypt it in a way that holds water? Any attacker who cares enough to get your undo file can also get your undo keys, unless you want to wire a whole system of undo-now-requires-password-auth-with-MFA
Not really since the feature is opt in
It's a feature most software doesn't even have, and it is off-by-default. If you rely on your undo history to store "important data", you are doing something <i>horribly</i> wrong - to the level of storing your critical emails in the Trash folder.<p>Persistent undo exists to recover from an accidental write-and-quit mid-session nuking some stuff you <i>really</i> didn't intend to delete. If you care about its contents beyond a handful of hours, you either need to adopt proper version management, or start making backups.<p>Reading the PR the change was needed because the old undofile format was fundamentally broken. They considered making an undofile-upgrade mechanism, but it would've caused more issues that it would've solved. In other words: stuck between a rock and a hard place.<p>A duty of care <i>also</i> means occasionally having to break things to make it better, or else you end up being stuck with spacebar heating[0] forever. As a user it does suck, but that's the price you have to pay for using actively-developed software.<p>[0]: <a href="https://xkcd.com/1172/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1172/</a>
<i>> Persistent undo exists to recover from an accidental write-and-quit mid-session nuking some stuff you really didn't intend to delete.</i><p>That's one use case, sure, but not the only possible one.<p><i>> Reading the PR the change was needed because the old undofile format was fundamentally broken.</i><p>That's a good reason to have a <i>new</i> undo file that's completely separate from the old one, and use the new one instead, and tell users "Hey, whatever undo information you had in your old undo file isn't accessible any more through neovim, you'll have to use vim if you need to get to it."<p>It's <i>not</i> a good reason for just deleting the old undo file with no warning. All the new version needs to do is <i>ignore</i> it, not nuke it.
It is insane that people are defending behavior that is clearly abhorrent just because they like the software. Are the claims even true? If they are, you should be updating your opinions about the person writing this software.
Sci-fi premise. Somewhere [1] there is a message board where developers openly celebrate those feelings of dislike and disdain toward users.<p>On that board, silently deleting a user's files is obviously justified. What would be out of line is <i>complaining</i> about software silently deleting user files.<p>[1] Long ago. Galaxy far away.
Insane? Abhorrent?<p>Relax for a second. Get some perspective.
From Cambridge Dictionary:<p>```markdown<p>abhorrent<p><i>/əbˈhɒr(ə)nt/</i><p>Abhorrent is an adjective that means morally very bad, hateful, or causing strong disgust and loathing.<p>```<p>I realise that this causes strong disgust and loathing in you, but can you please expand upon how it's morally very bad to prioritise speed and ease of use over undelete capability in Neovim? Are you unable to make backups or use Git?
You are presenting a false dilemma: Neovim could have easily done both without the deletion. Willful negligence is morally very bad when it can cause user harm.<p>> Are you unable to make backups or use Git?<p>Ah yes, the old perty theft justification as applied to intentionally-inflicted data loss; "They won't mind if I take/delete this, they (should) have insurance".
All they had to do was pick a different file name
True. But it’s not like they planned some vengeance against the VIM backup file.<p>People are making it sound like this is a huge company with a product and not a grouping of curious people with a couple hours of free time on a Sunday.<p>Most likely they never thought about it, then it broke, then it was not impactful enough to fix on their free time compared to other stuff.
They knew about it in advance. They decided people shouldn't care about that data.<p><a href="https://github.com/neovim/neovim/pull/13973#issuecomment-789262094" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/neovim/neovim/pull/13973#issuecomment-789...</a>
But they hold themselves out as being a normal software project, suitable for use by casual users. They even talk about having a "stable release" and advertise various sponsors.<p>If it's really just a toy with no expectation of not unexpectedly destroying user data then they ought to make that more clear.
Am I missing something? Are people using persistent undo as backup?<p>This seems however more like of a documentation and UX problem. Neovim should warn and ask before deleting old undo files, or at least back them up, but it's not neovim's fault if people don't use reliable backup and versioning systems. Relying on persistent undo for this is kind of a self inflicted wound.<p><i>Use the proper tools for the job</i>. Saying that neovim developers "had no concept of a duty of care to their users" is really disrespectful. Neovim's Lua API is overflowing with care, you just need to go look.
I've always assumed that undo history is ephemeral in any application I use, other than maybe an application where history is first-class in a timeline like Fusion360. I'm surprised to hear that people rely on it being persistent.
Persistent undo is useful, but when it's unavailable or corrupted for me it's like "oh too bad", because it's just a convenience. And then I read things like this I get horrified by the workflows people adapt in order to avoid learning how to use the available tools properly. Seriously, it's just vim, borg and git...
> I'm surprised to hear that people rely on it being persistent.<p>The feature's name has "persistent" in it.
Not using it as a backup strategy. But it doesn’t matter. Vim has a feature, persistent undo. People are using it for whatever reason. Under your blessing or not. A different app, neovim, broke vim’s feature.<p>They don't get a pass because you disagree with an imagined use case.
<a href="https://xkcd.com/1172/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1172/</a><p>Seems so. As smart as keeping tabs open in browser instead of using bookmarks, but "workflow".
According to the rev history for VIM, persistent undo arrived in version 7.3, released in 2010. So Chisnall may have used it since 2000, but he didn't have persistent undo for at least two of the books he wrote. And it means it wasn't "maintained for almost 20 years", it's at best 16.<p>But it is a nice feature.<p>I do that by using version control. I have it hooked to my editor so that "save" is "check in". Now I have persistent, versioned, copies of all my states independent of whatever tools I happen to be using.
Keep in mind NeoVim forked in 2014, too.
Type A. Type B. Save. Type C. Save. How do you get back to state “A” using git?<p>You do not have all your states available.
Maybe through autosave? If your editor makes a commit every time you're inactive for longer than X seconds that should solve that, which I'm pretty sure is how most editor undo stacks work at some level.<p>I just tried it in Nextcloud Notes on Android (FlorisBoard has undo/redo buttons), and it seems to work this way. If I type a bunch of words quickly and hit undo, it removes all of them. If I stop for a couple seconds between each word, it undos them one-by-one.
Undo files and persistent undo are not meant to work that way. They are just persistent across process restarts. That's all.<p>They live in ~/.cache which is defined as "user-specific non-essential (cached) data".<p>Despite this user's impressive résumé, they simply misunderstood the feature.
What did OP misunderstand? I am not sure how and where their understanding of "persistent undo" is different from "persistent across process restarts"?
In what way is it <i>not</i> a process restart if I stop the process, install/upgrade NeoVim and start a new process?
It's the part where you upgraded and apparently failed to read the release notes.<p>Or in the OPs case, installed a totally different application and was surprised by an incompatibility.
The lifetime of files in ~/.cache/ is the same as what the FHS documents for /var/cache [0]:<p>> Application cache data. Such data are locally generated as a result of time-consuming I/O or calculation. The application must be able to regenerate or restore the data. The cached files can be deleted without loss of data.<p>Meaning: the persistence of such files is not guaranteed across application restarts. If vim (and also neovim) had intended for the undo files to outlive the program, the files should have been put in ~/.local/state instead -- as also explicitly documented by the XDG [1]:<p>> [XDG_STATE_HOME] may contain: [..] current state of the application that can be reused on a restart (view, layout, open files, undo history, …)<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard#mwATw" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard#...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir/latest/#variables" rel="nofollow">https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir/latest/#varia...</a>
Software developers do sometimes make promises to their users, but I think these promises ought to be explicit rather than assumed. You can't simply assume a "duty of care" and expect that other people will understand them the same way you do.<p>(Or rather, you can, but you will likely be disappointed.)
This incident not withstanding, persistent undo breaks my mental model of file state. I treat writes as commits, which allows an open and modify session to be an exploratory branch until I decide to save it.<p>It is counterintuitive in the same manner as when excel persists undo history chronologically across the running application process, and not separately per document.<p>Similarly AutoCAD intersperses application parameters and tool configurations alongside actual data operations in it's undo history.
For similar functionality in nano, if anyone's interested, every time you save (regardless of exiting), nano keeps a backup.<p>Not on by default, you have to enable it in your .nanorc (not least because you need to provide a backup folder where you want to store these backups).<p>Very handy. Occasionally I've deleted files accidentally or made destructive changes, and could restore a working version from the past as if I had a timemachine.
The discussion here is going to be hamstrung without direct access to the entire Mastodon post:<p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/117171776562702259" rel="nofollow">https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/117171776562702259</a>
Today it's the work of a moment to get a coding agent to change the format of a file for you. I guess the point of this story is supposed to be like the famous Van Halen brown M&Ms contract clause. But the world is changing fast and I think it makes sense to start taking more ownership of your own computing experience, especially when the software you use is open source. If you don't like it, have an agent change it! You don't need to convince a maintainer of anything.
More like in the LLM era, people are disrespecting the user and not sweating these details with ever increasing velocity. It isn't good.<p>This story is about software being a slow, deliberate process where a lack of gatekeeping can lead to data loss. This is the type of problem which is getting worse.
They are open source developers, giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.<p>We can speak, respectfully, of how important backwards compatibility is to us, and ask nicely for them to give more of their time to support it when their free sodftware isn't backwards compatible. Perhaps we can even offer to help implement it.<p>But they have no duty to do so or to "care" for their users. (They have already demonstrated they care for their users, btw, by giving them free software.)<p>EDIT: I missed an important part of the story, which is that they mutated existing files in a non-backwards compatible manner. That should have been avoided, I understand where the (secondary) author is coming from now.
The argument is that developers have a duty not to arbitrarily delete data on your system that you may have relied on that <i>was produced by another program</i> just because they’d like to replace it with something in their own format.<p>I don’t care if you’re volunteering your time; if you build something whose implied purpose and success depends on other people using it, you emphatically have a duty to those people not to silently destroy stuff that was there before your software was.
<i>> giving away free software as a gift</i><p>Even a gift comes with an implicit promise that it will do no harm. Deleting important data of yours without warning is harm.
This gift comes with the following clauses listed plainly in the license file:<p><pre><code> 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
has been advised of the possibility of such damages.</code></pre>
It's genuinely mind-blowing to me that software can do something obviously bad, someone can point it out, and then someone will link to the license file to say they have the right to do it.<p>That's such an obvious category mistake that I'm not sure how to respond. It almost feels like a bad-faith interpretation of Wichary's original point.
I don't think anyone is looking for legal remedies, this is not the right layer.
Is some part of:<p>"Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."<p>Unclear? The fact that it's part of a license does not make it a legal-system-only warning.<p>The software might eat your dog, and feed your homework. Run it at your own risk, and be prepared to submit patches or fork it to make it behave the way one prefers.
Is the fact that we are not discussing legal remedies in this thread unclear?
This is one of the most exhausting (and frankly, exhausted) recurring arguments that comes up over and over again on HN.<p>Some bit of open source software does something bad or unwanted which causes people point out that it shouldn't do that bad thing. In this case, not even "the authors of this software should be held liable for the software doing the bad thing", just, "Hey, the right thing to do would be to update the software to not do the bad thing."<p>Why does this always lead a zillion people to come out of the woodwork to point at licenses and warnings or whatever? Like, yes, there's a warning. Your software having a warning doesn't mean people can't criticize you and your software for doing bad thing. Your software license does not give you immunity from criticism or from people saying you should change your software.<p>No, you don't have to change the software. Yes, other people are within their rights to fork the software themselves. But they can also point out that they told you that your software was doing the bad thing and you didn't fix it or change it, and that as a result they don't like you or your software or both — whatever. Nothing at all wrong with that.
I actually think you framed it really well. No parties involved have any particular obligations to each other. Nor should there be expectations otherwise without support. It sucks to lose data, everyone knows that, and no one wants it. And identifying things which can be improved is important. I stop at expecting someone else to do something because I want them to. I might hope they would, and try to convince them.
Such a disclaimer does not even remove all legal liability, it just reduces it.
<i>The software might eat your dog, and feed your homework</i><p>Sure, and when it does we can say “this piece of shit ate my dog, and the authors of the software have no concept of a duty of care to their users”. And no amount of “well, axually…” is going to make any difference. I have a hard believing someone is copy-pasting a license file in good faith in response.
Most open source software is written by individuals who aren't paid for the effort, and are solving their own problems. Presuming that they feel an obligation to the folks who download and use their work for free seems... bold.<p>If my neighbor mows my lawn for free, I'm not going to complain about his workmanship. If I want the job done a particular way, the solution is to do it myself, or pay someone to do it the way I like.
Suppose that you build a childrens' slide in your front garden. You put up a big sign saying "Consider using my slide! <a href="https://neovim.io/" rel="nofollow">https://neovim.io/</a> Here are several wonderful things about it. It's free for everyone!" in your yard. Underneath in smaller letters you add "[No liability]". You also put up noticeboard ads for your free kids' slide in neighbourhood shopping malls <a href="https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/neovim" rel="nofollow">https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/neovim</a> <a href="https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Neovim" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Neovim</a> . Unfortunately, when you built the slide, you left sharp metal edges and corners sticking far up on the inside, reaching into the path of the user. No reasonably competent and diligent metalworker or slide-maker would have failed to notice these major flaws or failed to understand the serious danger they represented. Several neighbourhood children use the slide and receive serious gashes to the legs, arms or face, and have to go to the hospital. Even assuming that your no-liability small print somehow had you free and clear <i>legally</i>, do you believe that your behaviour would have been ethically and morally above all criticism? Do you think that "should have read the small print!" or "can't I build what I like in my own front yard?!" would have you covered? Do you think that your family and friends would agree?
> If my neighbor mows my lawn for free, I'm not going to complain about his workmanship. If I want the job done a particular way, the solution is to do it myself, or pay someone to do it the way I like.<p>I think this is a decent analogy, but it works better the other way. If my neighbour offers to mow my lawn, I accept, and then he destroys the flower bed adjacent to the lawn, I will be upset, and I will have every right to complain about what he did. If he reacts by blithely dismissing my concern, then I certainly have the right (and arguably the obligation) to warn others that they should think twice about accepting his offers of gardening assistance.<p>Some expectations reasonably go without saying; "don't destroy my flower bed when mowing my lawn" is one, and IMO "don't destroy my data without a clear warning and a chance to back out" is another, though of course we might disagree about exactly where this does and doesn't apply.
If my neighbor mows my lawn and ruins my whole garden, I'd definitely complain. (And if I were in the neighbor's shoes, I'd feel awful about it and try to fix things.)
If my neighbor mows my lawn for free, and in the process mows my flower garden down, things change a bit though don't they. That is a closer analogy. In that case I <i>am</i> going to complain, and maybe also tell everybody he's careless and not to let him near their lawns.
There's a long literary tradition of representing contracts as a tool of villainy. Signing them is generally treated as a Faustian bargain.<p>This is a great example of why. Most humans have a sense, deep down, that contracts often exist to bridge the gulf between the ethically defensible and the legally defensible.<p>It's hard to imagine that any sane person who is just looking to use a popular editor would read some broad limitation of liability language like the above, and interpret it to mean, "By the way, we intend to quietly delete certain files created by a competing fork of this project whenever we find them."<p>It's true that contracts with liability limitation clauses like this are an absolute necessity in this day and age. But there's also a non-legal principle of mutual respect that is absolutely necessary to a healthy open source community.
> It's hard to imagine that any sane person who is just looking to use a popular editor would read some broad limitation of liability language like the above, and interpret it to mean, "By the way, we intend to quietly delete certain files created by a competing fork of this project whenever we find them."<p>Forks of projects trodding all over each others files is one of the more common problems that has happened, historically. Prior to the major efforts around freedesktop.org around configuration standardization, it was quite common. It'd be one of the first things I looked for when switching to a fork.
I am never going to use any software you have written.
“Here, take this car, it’s free!”<p>“Ow, the gas pedal is actually a bear trap.”<p>“Why are you complaining? It’s free!”
This is a very apt analogy. If you give someone a car (or sell it cheap) and you know there is a problem with the car, then it is your duty to tell them. "Hey, I've been having trouble with the breaks they need to be pumped. Be careful about that."
Then you don't take the car. Why is this confusing?
That's not how liability works, not either morally or (IANAL) legally.
Because you didn't find out it was a bear trap until after you stepped on it?
Ah, yes. The old story of the one-footed man who didn't take the car.
Well I would feel slightly irate if I had to find out about the bear trap before I decide I don’t want the car.
That’s fine, you can leave the car, but <i>you’ve already lost your foot</i>. Why do <i>you</i> find this confusing?
You discover it’s a bear trap not before you try to pull out from the parking lot.
A duty, like a responsibility, can be something you feel or choose for yourself. The fact that the maintainers of some software don’t feel it is a perfectly good argument for not using that software. There is no necessary connection to compensation or transactional thinking.
If I give away food I have a duty not to poison you. It doesn’t matter you didn’t pay for it.
Others are eating it and are fine, chances are you’re allergic. Fortunately all ingredients are listed, you can check - or even modify the recipe yourself.
It's not poison, it's a broken feature. And you have the source code. Fix it if you like.
Software isn’t food.
So software that deletes important data of yours without any warning is ok because at least it isn't poisoning you?
Yes, everyone is aware of that. The parent poster was bringing up the example of food to demonstrate that our society does not agree that giving something away for free doesn't mean you have no obligation as to potential adverse effects of the thing.
Analogies like this don’t work when comparing against heavily regulated industry.<p>Neovim being free software is a lot different than United Airlines giving me a free flight or my doctor giving me a free consultation.<p>It’s very true that you can go to civil court and make a claim that a business or individual harmed you. If you do that with Neovim the judge is going to pretty quickly read bullet point #7 of the Apache 2.0 license, you’re going to struggle to prove any kind of mal-intent, you’re going to tell the judge that you paid $0 for the software, and you’ll be pretty quickly sent along your way with no damages awarded.
Only in the sense there's no explicit legal responsibility.<p>Do you <i>really</i> believe developers have exactly zero moral responsibility to their users? None at all?<p>Really?<p>Would you still believe that if you found the developers of ssh deliberately included a backdoor for hackers, or neovim was uploading everyone's code to the NSA?
I never said developers have no responsibility. Let’s not escalate. Now we are talking about actively malicious software versus a bug or design flaw.<p>This issue with Neovim sounds like less than ideal design, or a bug, or both, not some kind of intentional affront to users.
That is why software should have very large liability for anything software they release do? Say your software due to bug destroys some document. Surely you should pay damages caused by such bug even if quite high?
You must feel clever completely missing the point on purpose like that.
"Your analogy is false because the two things you are comparing are not literally the same, dear sir!" is such a classic Internet discussion trope that it must have a name. If it doesn't, can I please name it? Maybe Perfect Analogy Fallacy?
This guy you are arguing with is classic troll, he does it on every topic. Just ignore and don't reply.
Food is one of the more heavily regulated industries out there. Most other general business types are less regulated than food.
This is absolutely true. On the other hand, if there's Vim, Neovim, emacs, MS Word, Google Docs etc and some treat me with respect and others do not, that might affect my choice of which software to use.
They wrote this software with the explicit intention of offering it to other people to use. Their program deleted data created with a different program, on someone else’s computer. If they have no sense of duty that would preclude doing that, no one should use their software.
Sure. And likewise, users who care about backwards compatibility have no duty to do anything for the Neovim developers--they can simply use a different editor that suits their preferences.
Sure. And nobody has a duty to use it.
This user states that (s)he doesn't want to use an editor that doesn't care for its users. I don't blame anyone here.
"Behold my glorious generosity, which eclipses your petty meaningless little data!"<p>This is the extreme version of "I enjoy coding but I hate users."<p>It may be legally valid in absolute technical terms, but I'm going to take a lot of persuading that it's a healthy attitude.
> They are open source developers, giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.<p>But actually there is! They didn't start from scratch. They took another very successfull and beloved project with the promise "to make it better". There is some promise here and the duty not to make it worse.
"Better" is subjective. They made it better...for themselves. Then gave it away so people who share their opinion, had the opportunity to choose to use it.
It would be really surprising if they could make it better for literally every user. The perpetual undo is just better handled by git.
And this obligation lasts… for the rest of their lives?
HN commenters constantly mistake “what I should do” with “what I am obligated to do.” Nobody is saying open source developers are legally mandated to be careful with user data. We are saying they <i>should</i>. There’s no need to haul out the license and put our lawyer hats on here. One can be within one’s legal rights and still be wrong.
If people can be upset when llms delete a file, we can be upset when an open-source project deletes a file.
Ill remember this when I distribute malware.
Oh my. This set of principles is appropriate for malware.
> giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.<p>By that logic, if Facebook gives away their services for free then they don't have the duty to protect their user's privacy and mental health?
By your reasoning, a doctor who volunteers to provide free care to people has no duty of care to those patients. This is patently absurd - ethics and norms are a large part of what constitutes a <i>professional</i>.<p>And for what it's worth, I have <i>flagged</i> your comment for the inevitable pointless bickering it has precipitated. While applying reductionist frameworks and seeing where they lead is a necessary part of an individual's path to understanding, please avoid pushing ignorant assertions ("there is no duty here") as if they might constitute well reasoned truths.
There is not a duty but there is an image and quality issue. Something many open source projects suffer from and should not.<p>And even mentioning that results in "fork it if you're not happy" which immediately turns everyone off who's had to maintain a fork to fix a minor issue in something before. And anyone who can't fork it is being told to go to hell.<p>Everyone needs to quite frankly get off their high horse, crank the ego down and listen to users. Because you're damaging open source with the attitude.<p>30 years ago, things were better. They got a lot worse, particularly since github appeared.
You spewing bs like the left-pad dev who removed it from NPM a decade ago crashing everything.<p>Yes, OSS can start with just a passion without a duty, but as the scale grows you have a duty to make sure it does not have adverse effect.<p>If you don't like the duty, just make it die by building it crappy like VIM does.
>I deleted something from this file, maybe last week<p>Don't forget time travel: `:earlier 7d`
While I agree with the article's point, we should note that collisions do not happen out of the box because Neovim defaults undodir to $XDG_STATE_HOME/nvim/undo/ (~/.local/state/nvim/undo/), while Vim defaults to storing .un~ files alongside the edited file or inside ~/.vim/undo/. Data loss only occurs if both editors are configured to share an undo directory or save inline .un~ files.
We also live in a very different world now compared to 2021 when the problem was reported. A brief Gemini query to translate the old diff format to the new one returned in a few seconds with what appears to me a correct, < 40-line, solution.
To be the devil’s advocate here, I think Vim needs less backwards compatibility, not more. In the sanctifying of “muscle memory” it completely stopped innovation, to the point of slowly drifting to obscurity.<p>Of the over a hundred students I taught when I helped out in uni, basically no one wanted to learn it, despite my enthusiasm.<p>And I sympathise. As I get older, I slowly grow more and more distaste for software that does not respect my time enough to give me properly-crafted defaults. Vim, in the age of modern editors, cannot compete. Not without 20 plugins with conflicting shortcuts and its self-imposed cliff of a learning curve.<p>And I’m saying this from a place of love; I’ve been using Vim (at least as a VSCode extension) every day for the last 10 years. But it never really grew up to the promise that the “Vim Creep” essay [1] gave me.<p>[1]: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190227031109/https://www.norfolkwinters.com/vim-creep/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20190227031109/https://www.norfo...</a><p>:wq
Vim is always going to be obscure because it's not obvious from looking at it how you use it. Muscle memory is the entire point. You don't need to change any keybinds, and I don't. I did feel discouraged to learn it at first because the people introducing it to me were doing pointlessly fancy things in it, some combination of custom keybinds and scripts to mass edit files.<p>As for default plugins, it'd be neat if they curated a set of optional ones, but nothing should be preinstalled.
I dream of a Vim that would embrace colours and Unicode and can better communicate modes and context.<p>I dream of a Vim that wóuld guide and teach me how to use it, so that it does not scare away people because they can’t <i>close</i> it.<p>I dream of a Vim that embraces the needs of editing contemporary programming languages and fills in its UX gaps correspondingly (changes single to double quotes, anyone? Function argument order?).<p>I dream of a Vim with native Git gutters.<p>I dream of a Vim with sane default leader commands.<p>I dream of a Vim where I see line numbers by default.<p>I dream of a Vim where “Y” is consistent with other commands.<p>I dream of a Vim that detects correct indentation by default. And that can visualise whitespace.<p>I dream of a Vim where Ctrl+V does not have an assigned action that looks like it blocks input.<p>I dream of a Vim that experiments with keyboard ergonomics, not just mnemonics.<p>I dream of a Vim where quintuple-tapping Escape is not a habit I subconsciously form why learning it.<p>I dream of a Vim I stumble on people discovering and exploring, and not have to persuade people for months just to try it.
The simpler and less contentious way to adopt innovations is to make a new tool with the innovation. For example, you might like <a href="https://helix-editor.com/" rel="nofollow">https://helix-editor.com/</a>
duty of care is kinda absent in too much of software engineering. its painfully missing in recent anthropic models because of the broken value framework they use for ethics. but broadly: i currently have the stance that text gen language models should prioritize users wellbeing rather than model orovider liability
"Vibe shift" is all the rage these days but one area where it's most apparent is modern software.<p>People of Raskin's vintage had a very humanist approach to computing. The mentality was very much an outgrowth of the cultural revolution of the 60s. Computer usage should be joyful rather than toiling. The computer should help you. It should make you feel good about what you create.<p>That stands in stark contrast today, where things are more hostile. Not just in terms of "Dark patterns", or writing off user needs for the sake of expediency... but even the way we <i>talk</i> about technology today. You need to use X, do Y or you're "not going to make it" / "escape the permanent underclass". It's bleak.<p>I recently restored a vintage Macintosh SE I picked up at VCF Midwest and despite its limitations that machine was an absolute JOY to use despite its limitations and nearly 40 years of age. This was a machine and software designed by Raskin's contemporaries and it shows.
> but even the way we talk about technology today. You need to use X, do Y or you're "not going to make it" / "escape the permanent underclass". It's bleak.<p>That's just how people market things these days, preying on desperation and fear of missing out. It's not how normal humans talk, I hope.
Software’s purpose is clearly shifting from “what’s good for the user” to “what’s good for the developer.” Instead of enabling me, software now seeks to lock me in. Instead of making my life easier, software decisions are made based on what makes developers’ jobs easier. Instead of being careful with my data, software now comes with giant legal terms that allow developers to be utterly careless with it. Software is now designed primarily to funnel money to the developer, not to bring joy to the user.<p>And look at this article’s HN discussion. Many people indignantly defending it. “It’s open source. If you don’t like it deleting your data, don’t use it!”
Awkwardly speaking, Microsoft Word is a great example of a program that appreciates backward compatibility.
How does one use persistent undo in vim?
VIM should be in the title here as well
That’s why I stopped getting all those swap file messages every time I opened vim…
Continuing the analogy - rather than a relationship that might even possibly include a <i>duty of care</i>, the relationship of the modern surveillance industry (Faceboot, Google, etc) to its "users" is that of arms manufacturers to military targets.
Unsaid in the blog post is that disabling persistant undo is one of the most common config changes for vim users who bother to set things up the way they like. Persistent undo is what causes your filesystem to be littered with tilde files, which have the same name but prefixed with a tilde. Every file you touch with vim gets a tilde version. Your ls output becomes polluted with noise.
[dead]
> Apparently now they’re platforming white supremacists. I am completely unsurprised. Different facets of the same underlying attitude.<p>This was the end of the original Mastodon. Which is why I just can't with Mastodon or Bluesky. Casually tossing around ridiculous claims to back up an opinion on persistent undo.
TLDR: Neovim did a breaking change to persistent undo
That is not the story here. The story is Neovim deleted data created by another program, on someone else's computer.<p>I don't know if this story is true, but you can't defend it when taken at face value.
That wasn't the point.<p>The point was they did it in a completely stupid way and responded to a bug report about it in a way that suggested this might not be just the occasional stupid that we've all had slip into our code.
I think this might not be clear on the issue, it broke vim's undo file, as in it deleted it and replaced it with Neovims version.<p>Just by trying Neovim you can lose your vim undo file.
…and even trying Neovim out on a file permanently deletes your undo history for that file, even if you switch back to vim.
[dead]
[flagged]
Right. The point of the article is for the author to tell us neovim doesn’t care about their users and the author recommends us to use something else.
Put another way, why did the author “test in production” on their important work when evaluating a new piece of software they were unfamiliar with?<p>Vim is a very popular piece of software to the point where there are dozens or perhaps hundreds of forks made by all kinds of people. Many if not most of these forks are probably not very good.
And you can also rant about it so other people are not harmed in the same way without warning
I hate this attitude. It is what makes the free software community look like utter dicks to the user community, particularly those who can't really fork or contribute to it. It's a serious image issue.<p>Hell I can and have contributed and have been told to fuck off and fork it or entirely ignored.
It's hardly a rant. Not once did either author question the birthright of the Neovim developers in Russian.<p>I think more software engineers should worry about this stuff. If I had to teach a bunch of juniors in a computer science or software engineering degree program, I'd make them read this as a case study alongside good ol' Therac-25. The software we create is _useful_. How it affects other people _matters_. We ought to care about that no matter what the legal disclaimers say.
[flagged]
It’s Open source.<p>Some people just want to keep looking at the gift horse in the mouth.