[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Cleaning up the base group

[Ángel Velásquez]

Alessio Bolognino ha scritto:
> On Sat 2008-08-30 17:52, Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
>   
>> lördagen den 30 augusti 2008 skrev Alessio Bolognino:
>>
>>     
>>>> This might end up in a flamwar, but if we have to remove one editor I
>>>> would vote vor vim and keep nano. [... more nonsense ]
>>>>         
>>>                           vvvvvvvvv
>>>                         *************
>>> ======================> *   THIS    * <================================
>>> ======================> *    IS     * <================================
>>> ======================> *  MADNESS! * <================================
>>>                         *************
>>>                           ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> :%s/Pierre Schmitz/Wuss Infidel/g
>>> :wq!
>>>       
>> Please not vim, since if you don't know vim, you very fast get stuck. I just 
>> installed and tried vim, and first it beeped on any key pressed. Then somehow 
>> it stopped, and I could not exit instead. I tried CTRL-C CTRL-C...., and it 
>> said ":quit to exit", but it did not work either. So "killall vim" was the 
>> way to exit. Yes, madness is the right word.
>>
>> nano is more logical. Everything you type inserts, and i has a menu at the 
>> bottom always. So you can figure out he first time.
>>
>> vim is a speciality editor, since you need to know it to use it. emacs is 
>> similar there. Both require you to learn it to do even simple things. And 
>> when installing a system, you need something so that you can edit the files 
>> to get started. For a novice there should be an editor that is 
>> self-explanatory, and it appears that nano can work there.
>>
>> But then I don't care since I anyway do:
>> pacman -Rs vim nano
>>     
>
> Well, I was just trolling; it's very likely that both nano and vi(m)
> will stay in base, so this discussion doesn't make sense, but vi is not
> just "an editor", it's the standard UNIX editor.
>
>   
Ouch, +1 molok for president

Imho, i think both should be in base, why remove one of them why will be 
the "benefit" of push the users to edit in just 1 editor, it's 
senseless, plus, some emacs lovers should hate the option that they 
weren't considered in put emacs on the list, so as Pierre says, *this 
will start a flamewar*, so consideer don't remove anyone.



-- 
Angel Velásquez
angvp @ irc.freenode.net
Arch Linux Trusted User (TU)
http://www.angvp.com