GNOME done well?!

[The Beatles]

Can't you just add unstable to your /etc/apt/sources.list?

[Devari]

Different package namings screw up dependencies.

[Devari]

Well, after playing around with it, I must say I like pico/nano. Very simple and easy to use - I like how it actually shows you the possible commands, instead of expecting you to automagically figure everything out.

[Devari]

I'm actually using pico for my config file hand-editing now. It's nice that it actually tells you the commands needed to do simple actions.

Technically, I think I have nano. But, it's pretty much the same thing anyway.

[The Beatles]

Not quite. Pico is more stable for esoteric terminal situations...

http://www.washington.edu/pine/getpine/linux.html

[Devari]

Technically, I CAN'T get "real" pico. Isn't in the repos.

[The Beatles]

I just linked you to the .deb file.....

[edit] By the way, if there's some software you need and it isn't a .deb, you're not going to try to compile it? You quite sure you just said that? What about Windows apps you might use, those are never going to be in a .deb package...

[edit2] The .deb file on that page is for the full pine distribution (which includes pico, pilot, etc.)
Individual binaries are here:
http://www.washington.edu/pine/getpine/unix.html

[Devari]

Heh, I meant from Ubuntu itself. I already have a limited number of "external" debian packages installed, and I've used a spiffy tool called "alien" to convert rpm->deb.

Anyway, I have nano installed and it's fine. Besides, I'd have to uninstall it to install "proper" pico, because nano uses /usr/bin/pico (It wouldn't matter if I deleted that file, since the deb packages would still conflict). I like nano, so I see no real need to change to pico.

In reply to your edit: I tend not to try to compile things, because it invariably ends up failing horribly. It's only my last resort, if .deb and .rpm->alien fail.

I never CAN get the right dev packages installed.

'sides, I don't use Windows apps on Linux. The only one I would use, Flash MX 2004, doesn't QUITE run on WINE properly.


And, from Wikipedia, apparently the only big difference between nano and pico is the relative "freedom" of them. I enjoy it, so I'll take whichever one is easier to get. They ARE pretty much the same thing, anyway.

[Devari]

P.S. Try Enlightment - it is REALLY cool!

[The Beatles]

I tried it on Arch -- briefly, didn't have much time. It does seem innovative. I'll have to see about "useful".

Righto about compiling. I had the same issues with Mandrake. Arch is a breeze though, at a best guess, it must install development files along with normal packages. But I honestly don't know the reason. Arch is a great distro all around.

If Wikipedia says that, it's quite a bit off the mark. As I see it, the 3 differences are:
1. Nano is much more featureful. Coloring, regular expressions, limited mouse support, etc.
2. Pico never leaves extra characters on the screen when you go up/down -- nano does, in xterm and linux console too. But not too often, so it's hard to track down.
3. Nano is GPL; Pico is distributed such that you can modify the source for your own needs, but may not redistribute changes, if I recall rightly.

[Devari]

Actually, that sounds about right with nano.

Enlightment isn't really easy to use (yet), but it looks great and is VERY responsive.

I have both pico and nano now. nano has /usr/bin/nano and /usr/bin/pico - pico has /usr/bin/realpico.

I'd assume Gentoo is slightly easier for source compiling too.

Hey, I never did get around to try Vector or Arch...

[The Beatles]

Hmm, I'm intrigued. When you say very responsive, do you mean moreso than, say, xfwm4? I know xfwm4 isn't an end-all, but it's a good comparison, probably.

BTW, did you see the other topic? I believe wmctrl is a debian package.