Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o>
To: Stewart <stewart@×××××.org>
Cc: Eric Olinger <EvvL@××××××××××.net>, gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] install CD bloat
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 06:30:32
Message-Id: 20030821063030.GA4175@cerberus.oppresses.us
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

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] OT: Re: Nano. WAS: install CD bloat Stroller <root@××××××××××××××××××.uk>