<story><title>Nano to remain in GNU</title><url>https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-08/msg00045.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>qwertyuiop924</author><text>This is good news: It&amp;#x27;s also good to actually see RMS actually compromising.&lt;p&gt;Also, nano is actually a useful tool, despite its reputation as the editor for those who don&amp;#x27;t know what they&amp;#x27;re doing. It&amp;#x27;s an excellent editor for quick edits that aren&amp;#x27;t worth pulling up emacs for. Although I would never reccomend it for Real Work, that&amp;#x27;s not really its intent. And it owns its field, having crushed all competition save vi, which is really in its own class.&lt;p&gt;Also, nano is frankly a lot more powerful than a lot of people give it credit for: It&amp;#x27;s just not programmable, which is a necessity in editors these days.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>krylon</author><text>&amp;gt; as the editor for those who don&amp;#x27;t know what they&amp;#x27;re doing&lt;p&gt;To be honest, I &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; think of nano as exactly that. Let&amp;#x27;s say &amp;quot;the editor for newbies&amp;quot;, which sounds slightly less condescending.&lt;p&gt;Being the editor for newbies is not a bad thing. There are, at any given point, many newbies who just want to make that one change to that one configuration file without learning a whole programmer&amp;#x27;s text editor. There are, by now, probably plenty of people of who use GNU&amp;#x2F;Linux just to surf the web and read their email (and run LibreOffice or GIMP), who don&amp;#x27;t ____ing care about text editors except for that one time they need to add an entry to crontab or sudoers or something.&lt;p&gt;If you have never touched vi before, its user interface at first seems like a slap in the face (to put it mildly). Having used vim as my editor of choice for a couple of years at one time, I still remember, vividly, the first time I tried to use it. It was no fun at all. The same goes for emacs (which I love dearly).&lt;p&gt;If you want to do serious programming &amp;#x2F; system administration, learning one of the advanced editors is - at the very least - good advice. But these days, such people are probably in the minority, even on GNU&amp;#x2F;Linux. And having an editor the rest of the population can use without requiring a Ph.D. in emacsology is a Good Thing, IMHO. It&amp;#x27;s not something one should feel sorry or condescending about.</text></comment>
<story><title>Nano to remain in GNU</title><url>https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-08/msg00045.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>qwertyuiop924</author><text>This is good news: It&amp;#x27;s also good to actually see RMS actually compromising.&lt;p&gt;Also, nano is actually a useful tool, despite its reputation as the editor for those who don&amp;#x27;t know what they&amp;#x27;re doing. It&amp;#x27;s an excellent editor for quick edits that aren&amp;#x27;t worth pulling up emacs for. Although I would never reccomend it for Real Work, that&amp;#x27;s not really its intent. And it owns its field, having crushed all competition save vi, which is really in its own class.&lt;p&gt;Also, nano is frankly a lot more powerful than a lot of people give it credit for: It&amp;#x27;s just not programmable, which is a necessity in editors these days.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>2bitencryption</author><text>In a way, maybe it&amp;#x27;s good it&amp;#x27;s not programmable.  This ensures that on any machine or environment you see Nano, you can expect it to behave exactly the same.  If you want something super customizable you can just use vi(m) or emacs.&lt;p&gt;Nano is like Windows Notepad but for the CLI.  It does one thing one thing only, no matter where you are.</text></comment>