don't want to sound nasty , but is anyone there using nano really ? i know it come by default in some distros but that's about it really.
I am using it constantly. first thing on a rhel server: yum install nano
Nano is no longer a GNU project
11–20 of 240 posts
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#12don't want to sound nasty , but is anyone there using nano really ? i know it come by default in some distros but that's about it really.
I only use it because sometimes vim doesn't work correctly over putty and I can't not verbally swear every time I have to search a vim issue.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#13don't want to sound nasty , but is anyone there using nano really ? i know it come by default in some distros but that's about it really.
Back in the 1990s thru early 2000s, I used to use pico before I became comfortable with vi. For someone coming from a DOS/Windows/OS/2 background originally, it was less of a learning curve. I never used nano much, but I imagine the same reasons might apply for some people today.
(I also used to use emacs a lot, I first used it on OS/2 under EMX, but there were systems on which pico was installed but emacs wasn't. Nowadays, I'm so used to vim, I start emacs and can't remember most of the keystrokes. Oh, and the first ever email client I used was Pine.)
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use it constantly, because I'm quicker making small edits with it than with vim. I would sorely miss it if it's not installed on a server.
I hear this faster for small things but if you use vim I would say I can make changes in a small document twice as fast. They should have a new tag line: Nano the plain text editor for non-Vim maybe EMACS users?
This is only true if you use vim at least once a week forever. Some people don't want to study a manual to change 1 config line. Call me crazy I know.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#15A bit strange, because as far as the history remembers, Nano was explicitly a fork of Pico, because of the license. [1]
Strange how history rewrites itself.
1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_(text_editor)
EDIT : Quotes from Wikipedia
`The GNU Project has a clone of Pico called nano which has been developed because Pico's earlier license was not a free software license, since distribution of a modified version of the code was ambiguously forbidden.[2] By default nano attempts to mimic Pico to replicate the environment users are used to. However it can be configured to offer mouse support, auto indentation, regular expression searches and even syntax highlighting making it more useful. Newer versions of Pico as part of Alpine are released under the Apache License.`
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#16[deleted]
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#17A bit strange, because as far as the history remembers, Nano was explicitly a fork of Pico, because of the license. [1] Strange how history rewrites itself. 1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_(text_editor) EDIT : Quotes from Wikipedia `The GNU Project has a clone of Pico called nano which has been developed because Pico's earlier license was not a free software license, since distribution of a modified version of…
Not much history rewriting or strangeness: pico wasn't open source, nano was open source. nano is still open source.
Nothing has changed with this announcement except who own the copyrights to the open source code.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#18Looks like the devels weren't all that happy about assigning the copyright of their code to the FSF. Part of the e-mail thread discussing the move is here https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000... I did't have the time to dig out the whole conversation history.
I reviewed the discussion but I still can't understand what the controversy is about. According to the following explanatory note from the GNU project, developers don't have to assign copyright to the FSF for it to be an official GNU project:
When the developers of a program make it a GNU package, they can decide either to give the copyright to the FSF so it can enforce the GPL for the package, or else to keep the copyright as well as the responsibility for enforcing the GPL.
Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
---
FYI this is the start of the discussion thread:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000...
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#19don't want to sound nasty , but is anyone there using nano really ? i know it come by default in some distros but that's about it really.
It's nice to have on boot disks, small enough to fit alongside busybox which ships with a lite vi[1] that some don't care for.
I personally love vi and am a bit taken aback sometimes when visudo pulls up nano instead of vi because I haven't installed it or made it my default editor yet.
So I'm not sure this means much to me personally but I'm always sad to see members of the community part ways. Still, I wish them all the luck and thank them for their efforts.
[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_the_vi_Editor/BusyBox...
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#20Looks like the devels weren't all that happy about assigning the copyright of their code to the FSF. Part of the e-mail thread discussing the move is here https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000... I did't have the time to dig out the whole conversation history.
My impression from that thread is the only problem some of the devs had was assigning copyright to the FSF. They insist on sticking to FSF's principles and in fact will continue to have their code hosted on Savannah because Github isn't Free enough.