Update links and add GNU Bash as a hard dependency

[rjc]

A several links have been updated, a couple added, plus a tiny vim -> vichange:

• http -> https for several websites - saves a redirect.
• use the original URL for less, similarly to the file under "Optional" dependencies.
• mention bash as a hard dependency - it's not available on every system, i.e. on OpenBSD it needs to be installed like any other package.
• added a link to exiftool.
• it doesn't seem like there's anything vim-specific in the keybinding so change it to vi - this is simply to avoid any confusion for people who are familiar with vi but don't use vim.

[toonn]

Don't like the "vi" change, no one knows vi but not vim so that's not a good enough motivation and it is in fact inspired by vim, no one in the team is old enough to have known vi before vim.

Is bash a hard dependency? Most of ranger should be compatible with sh.

[rjc]

Hi @toonn,

Thanks for a prompt reply.

The reason for vim -> vi change is twofold:

• for consistency - you explicitly mention vi on your main web page, and
• in order to disambiguate, i.e. I haven't used vim in years - using vi daily (nvi to be precise) - and, if the keybindings are indeed vi ones, i.e. not vim-specific, then it would be good to know that; I'd rather not having to read vim documentation if there's nothing vim-specific about the keybinding :^)

scope.sh uses an explicit shebang in the form of #!/usr/bin/env bash.

Regards,

rjc

[toonn]

You're right about vi, I agree with the change for consistency. Reading the vi manual will teach you basically nothing about ranger though.
I suspect you're one of the few people who still use vi/nvi, on many systems vi is actually vim in compatibility mode but that's beside the point. : )

scope.sh is optional, therefore bash is optional.

[rjc]

@toonn, thanks for clarifying - this isn't immediately obvious while reading a bit lower on the same page:

Optional, for enhanced file previews (with "scope.sh"):

If that is indeed the case - bash being optional - then I'd mention it under Optional section next to the other dependencies. I can create another pull request if need be.

In terms of vi, many people still use it, i.e. on the *BSDs where nvi or nvi2 is the default vi.

Also, on those systems, bash isn't available unless installed as a 3rd-party application - hence my request to explicitly mention it as a dependency, under an appropriate section.

Regards,

rjc

[toonn]

Since it's only required for scope.sh, I'd at least mention that. Someone who doesn't want more than plaintext previews doesn't need to install bash and that should be clear. That might actually be a good idea for most/all the dependencies, mention why you might want to install them.

Maybe you're defining usage different from me. I'd expect anyone who spends significant time in vi to migrate to vim eventually. For one offs vi is fine but vim isn't name "VI Improved" for nothing.

[rjc]

Here, I have to disagree with you regarding vi -> vim migration being the only natural choice. At least in the last twenty years or so, most people would have started with vim, where it would have been installed as the system vi. Even if they had typed vi, they would have used vim as the former was simply a symbolic link to the latter. They never had any reason to change and never questioned it - for all intents and purposes, vim was vi to them. I know because I was one of those people :^)

Then, after a very long time you start questioning things like: "Highlighting is a bit flaky at times. Do I really need it?", "Do I need that file browser in vim?", etc. It's a bit like moving away from using a bloated DE (i.e. GNOME, KDE, etc.) to a lighter one (i.e. Enlightenment, XFCE, etc.) or going without one altogether and only using a WM (i.e. dwm, Awesome, etc.); or changing your default shell to something other than bash. Nowadays, all I'm after is speed and no frills. Am I in the minority? Sure I am, but I am not alone - just take a look at suckless folks.

I spend most of my day in vi and I don't miss a thing from vim. An added bonus is the fact that, unlike the latter, the former is defined by POSIX and thus standardised. I'm as comfortable using vi on Solaris, as I am on my systems.

Anyway, I went off on a tangent :^). I fully agree with your last comment regarding scope.sh and dependencies in general, though.

[toonn]

If speed is what you care about you should worry more about what our puny brains can do and less about what extras some software implements that you don't "need."
Syntax highlighting undeniably speeds up making sense of code, if you care about speed it's one of the essentials. I also disagree with your statement about POSIX, windows is POSIX now too doesn't mean I can get anything done actually using it. Vim is possibly more standardized because it's the same codebase being compiled for all of its target systems.
Like many things netrw is a completely optional plugin for vim, don't want it, then don't load it. Or better yet, replace it with ranger : )

About the reasons for dependencies, do you feel like working on adding that? Probably best to do it in another PR and maybe there's a place for it in ranger's docs too. So if you remove the bash bullet from your original patch this one'd be good to go imo.

[toonn]

@rjc, this PR seems to have fallen through the cracks. Are you interested in picking this back up? (I apologize for the side-tracking discussion, seems pointless in hindsight.)

[rjc]

No worries, @toonn :^) I'll have another go in the next couple of days.