A delightfully opaque version name, as ever. Does anyone know what it's referencing?
Nano 5.7
41–50 of 157 posts
Re: Nano 5.7
#42I learned Pico in college (part of our email system IIRC.) I don't code in terminal windows (prefer IDEs) and I can get by in vim. Inevitably I reach for nano when I'm editing config files.
Re: Nano 5.7
#43I don't understand the people who dislike nano as an editor for the *nix system. After spending in it for like 30 minutes - it becomes an indispensable tool for quickly touching up text files anywhere you go to! No matter where I SSH to (*nix systems) - I always had nano available.
I've installed nano on every Linux system I've ever worked on, if it wasn't already there of course. For me, it's so much easier to work with than vim, for changing config files etc.
I only wish line numbers were enabled by default, or at least there was a simple and easily discoverable way to enable them.
Re: Nano 5.7
#44I never understood the hate Nano gets from vi users. Nano does many things quicker and easier than vi. For example, search & replace. Would I code in Nano? No. Do I use Nano to edit configuration files and make other small edits? Absolutely.
I can't be bothered by a tool I don't use.
Re: Nano 5.7
#45As a vim and emacs user, I don't give nano any hate. I'm surprised when programmers use it, sure, but that's because if my profession was going to require editing text files for hours a day (which it does), I would be happy to trade a steeper learning curve now for a less unpleasant job experience later. I totally understand why non-programmers don't use it. If your job does not involve you editing text files for hou…
Its more like using the right tool for what you actually want to do. 0. Use cat and output to a file to really quickly make a new file from your clipboard or from the web 1. Nano is great for editing config / text files quickly and the learning curve is really low due to a more modern design. 2. vim can be reliably found everywhere on nearly any unix machine but the learning curve is much higher initial learning curv…
> due to a more modern design
nano is a clone of pico, the text editor for the pine email client, so "modern" is definitely a matter of some interpretation here. :)
Re: Nano 5.7
#46I never understood the hate Nano gets from vi users. Nano does many things quicker and easier than vi. For example, search & replace. Would I code in Nano? No. Do I use Nano to edit configuration files and make other small edits? Absolutely.
The problem is that every time vim is mentioned, there are dozens of comments about how nano is a better alternative, which is completely missing the point. Most vim users are using it all day as their main editor for various purposes, and most nano users are using it as a quick tool for small edits. They're largely incomparable.
Re: Nano 5.7
#471 critical comment about nano, 3 top level comments defending nano from the evil vim users. (at time of reading)
As is the way with these things. No one feels insecure about vim, not sure the same can be said of nano.
Re: Nano 5.7
#48I never understood the hate Nano gets from vi users. Nano does many things quicker and easier than vi. For example, search & replace. Would I code in Nano? No. Do I use Nano to edit configuration files and make other small edits? Absolutely.
I'm intrigued. How do you search and replace in nano and how can it be better than `:%s///gc`? I thought search and replacement was one of the killer features of vim.
Re: Nano 5.7
#49CMD-F "micro" returned nothing, so here is a link to a modern nano replacement: https://micro-editor.github.io
Re: Nano 5.7
#50Don't give hate a chance, guys. Just ask people to use `editor` to edit text files, it will open the default editor on their OS (at least Debian).
Our goal is to ask others to edit some text files, not to ask them to use what tool to edit those files.
Cheers.