Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
so maybe we just add nano-tiny as an option to vim-tiny.
because we understand vim is not newbie friendly, but for all the old hands, nano is not friendly to us.
234K is a small price to pay.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:02:47PM +0000, Wookey wrote:
> I hadn't realised how fat nano is (not the only consideration of
> course, but zile is very good on this measure and surprisingly
You are comparing apples with oranges! The nano package comes with a lot
of help files and translations. You need to compare things to nano-tiny:
> Instaled sizes:
> zile: 365K
> busybox: 786K
> vim-tiny: 1547K
> nvi: 1605K
> busybox-static: 2045K
> nano: 2469K
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <firstname.lastname@example.org>