ermm Kris, <br><br>i think so.. most and i think the look and feel is the same with pico.<br>So pico users just can migrate blindly ( I was a pico users before, also vi/vim ).<br>Anyway most of linux distros use nano instead of pico, and I'm not sure why..
<br><br>I read that nano is pico clone, maybe fork or maybe not I can't sure abt it, but the<br>look and "face" is same<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nano_1.2.5.png">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nano_1.2.5.png
</a><br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/31/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kris Moore</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Ahmad Arafat Abdullah wrote:<br>> Ermm.. Kris<br>><br>> From your point of view ( and also both of u of course), which one is<br>> better? Pico or Nano? seems like Nano is based on pico but have some<br>> enhancements ( that's from what i read )
<br>><br>><br><br>To be honest I've not tried Nano personally, I used pico a lot back in<br>the day and then switched to vi. Is it just a fork of pico with some<br>added functionality?<br><br><br><br>--<br><br>Kris Moore
<br>PC-BSD Software<br><a href="http://www.pcbsd.com">http://www.pcbsd.com</a><br></blockquote></div><br>