41–50 of 240 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, maybe I'm just weird, but I like it when the down-arrow key makes the cursor go down a line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
edit:
> because Pico's earlier license was not a free software license, since distribution of a modified version of the code was ambiguously forbidden.
First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Benno also did not want to assign copyright to the FSF for his contributions.
Instead, it seems, Benno decided to fork the project. But he did so with hostility: he updated the official GNU Nano website, rather than creating a website for the fork.
It's early, so there's still discussion going on, but again, to be clear: GNU Nano has absolutely not left GNU.
From 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?
As with most hosts, the issue of liability rests on the owner. I couldn't upload 50gb of pirated movies to github and cry "github save me, I used you and now I need you to protect me."
Your software license dictates your liability to users of your code.
GitHub is saying we're just a host, and we defer to the software liscensors on how their code should be used
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.
> but is anyone there using nano really? Yes, because vim is a pain in the ... and emacs is too big sometimes.
"Zile Is Lossy Emacs"
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
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'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
But if a or the driving force of a project takes things elsewhere, the users will eventually follow. If the disagreement was over GNU's insistence to require assigning copyright to the FSF, then I can fully understand the reluctance. It's the same reason many contributors cannot officially submit patches to side projects of Google employees, Ubuntu projects, etc.
That's why some OS projects require signing Developer Certificates of Origin etc.