1 |
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 02:21:16AM -0400, Stewart wrote: |
2 |
> Jon Portnoy wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > I could make a case that emacs is just as standard as vi - should we |
5 |
> > include emacs? |
6 |
> [...] |
7 |
> >Why does any of that involve doing anything that nano cannot do but vim |
8 |
> >can? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> The long and short of it? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> "On all POSIX.2 conforming systems vi is available. This allows users to |
13 |
> move from one POSIX system to another without needing to learn a new |
14 |
> editor." |
15 |
> |
16 |
> The selection of Nano seems to be rather arbitrary. Why not Joe, Pico or |
17 |
> any of the other simple, user-friendly editors? |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
pico is far more standard than joe, but pico is not free software (it |
21 |
has a restrictive license). nano is a GPL'd pico clone with more |
22 |
features. |
23 |
|
24 |
In summary, nano is easy for the new user, has advanced features (which |
25 |
aren't needed for editing make.conf, which is the only place where it's |
26 |
necessary), is similar to pico in terms of useability, is free software, |
27 |
is small, etc. |
28 |
|
29 |
vi, on the other hand, would be used by far fewer people. For just a |
30 |
single file, I don't see why you're this intent on having a vi clone |
31 |
included. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Jon Portnoy |
35 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |