Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
On 16.03.20 12:29, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 16, Simon McVittie <email@example.com> wrote:
>> `busybox vi` is rather limited, but is reasonable as an editor of last
>> resort; busybox is smaller than either nano or vim-tiny; full systems
> Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default
> install must provide something enough vi-compatible.
I'd disagree. vi is very newbie unfriendly. OTOH I expect people that
know how to navigate vi to be able to `apt install vi` without any problem.