I use nano all the time when teaching Python, before moving to other more feature rich editors. It is perfect for quickly explaining the importance of plain text files. A big thanks to the developers for making software that is simple, ubiquitous, and lasting!
Nano is no longer a GNU project
31–40 of 240 posts
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#32don'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.
There was a nice xkcd about this [1]. I know HN is not the place for this comix, but anyway your question is a bit opinionated.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#33don'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.
When I used to work with PHP files directly on an ssh'd serve nano was my jam.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#34Looks 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 co…
Interesting. It looks like the Nano devs have misunderstood what can be called a GNU package. If they don't assign copyright to the FSF, but want it to still be a GNU package, they just have to declare that they're taking responsibility for licensing enforcement.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#35don'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 find it very convenient to open large log files bc Nano is very lightweight. Something like that:
$ cat /var/log/logfile | grep -n section_start which gives me required line numbers. and then:
$ nano +lineno /var/log/logfile
and for configs, of course.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#36A 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.
Pico was certainly open source; it was part of PINE, one of the older and more popular Unix mail programs.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#37don'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.
[deleted]
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#38don'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 use nano whenever I have to mess on a server directly (which is rare). Rest of the time I'm in a JetBrains product I happily pay for.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#39From the mailing list, on using Github: > Plus, in order to use their services, you need to assume liability That sounds bad, as in really bad. One important function of Open Source licenses is to get as far away from liability as possible. Do people here know whether that's just a misunderstanding, or a realistic risk of keeping code on Github?
Just read through their terms of service, and I don't see anything to that effect. You are responsible for not violating other people's copyright with stuff you upload to GitHub, and GitHub is not responsible for damage, etc. due to service outages. But that's it.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#40Looks 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.
Ah this looks like the important one: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000...
The current maintainer is/was A) looking to pass on responsibilities B) not get copyright assignment like GNU projects are supposed to
so they just decided fuck it.