Re: [gentoo-dev] install CD bloat

[Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 02:21:16AM -0400, Stewart wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> 
> > I could make a case that emacs is just as standard as vi - should we
> > include emacs?
> [...]
> >Why does any of that involve doing anything that nano cannot do but vim 
> >can?
> 
> The long and short of it?
> 
> "On all POSIX.2 conforming systems vi is available. This allows users to 
> move from one POSIX system to another without needing to learn a new 
> editor."
> 
> The selection of Nano seems to be rather arbitrary. Why not Joe, Pico or 
> any of the other simple, user-friendly editors?
> 

pico is far more standard than joe, but pico is not free software (it 
has a restrictive license). nano is a GPL'd pico clone with more 
features.

In summary, nano is easy for the new user, has advanced features (which 
aren't needed for editing make.conf, which is the only place where it's 
necessary), is similar to pico in terms of useability, is free software, 
is small, etc.

vi, on the other hand, would be used by far fewer people. For just a 
single file, I don't see why you're this intent on having a vi clone 
included.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list