4 ms·
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to use joe then? joe comes with preconfigured hotkeys which are more "known" than C-o etc.
by rhabarba 10y ago
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to use joe then? joe comes with preconfigured hotkeys which are more "known" than C-o etc.
- sbuttgereit 10y agoNever heard of it. That same audience is also likely not choosing their editor much of the time. I've found that nano is the default editor often and if it's good enough, why would you mess with it? I know when I search for something that is not a core interest of mine, I go with the first thing that Google shows me that meets my requirements.... I don't overthink that which is mostly unimportant to me.
- mwpmaybe 10y agojoe! My first Unix-y text editor, but it's been vi/vim for 12 or 13 years now. Anyway, distros stopped including joe out of the box in favor of first pico and then nano, which is why it's not more popular.
- digi_owl 10y agoYeah, looking at wikipedia it seems joe was without a maintainer from 1995 to 2001. This likely leading to people adopting pico. But as pico was part of the pine email client, nano was made to be a free standing pico replacement. Also, i guess pico/nano style key combos more "friendly" than the sequences joe uses (ctrl-k then another key to do anything).
- digi_owl 10y agoDamn, i haven't touched it in years. But apparently i had it still installed. And best i can tell nano happened because pico was popular but was part of the pine email client. Also, from what i can gather joe was left unmaintained for a number of years, likely leading to people picking up pico, and then nano, as an alternative.