4 ms·
What's wrong with using nano for that?
by npstr 7y ago
What's wrong with using nano for that?
- MayeulC 7y ago> It's everywhere. It almost litterally is. Even busybox contains a vi clone. While I have encountered more systems without nano nor Emacs than I can remember. Plus, there is no excuse for learning the basic set of commands: i,ESC,x,u, and maybe navigating with the letters (which I'm not proficient at).
- GordonS 7y agoI only have to edit a file on Linux once every couple of months of so - I tired of forgetting how to exit vi (or enter/exit edit mode, save the file... just about anything really), so started installing nano as the first thing I do on any system. Nano is so much more obvious than vi.
- GordonS 7y agoAlso, there's a reason why there are so many "can't quit vi" memes.
- loopbit 7y agoReading the comments about vi... Am I the only one that knows/uses ZZ to save and quit?
- MayeulC 7y agoAs I tend not quit vi that often compared to the time I spend inside, I prefer to use the more explicit version. I have made some mistakes in the past typing `^X-O` in nano instead of `^X-N` because of muscle memory, thereby overwriting a file I didn't want, and I am afraid of repeating this if `ZZ` became part of my muscle memory.
- nemetroid 7y agoMost people can't install arbitrary software on every system they access.
- MayeulC 7y agoThis exactly. I am pretty sure that if you gain [adb] shell access inside of an android recovery partition (as a random example), you have read-only access to the system, with only busybox at your disposal. Thus vi, but no nano.
- saagarjha 7y agovi is enshrined in POSIX; nano isn't.