Colin Watson wrote: > > Pico? > > I don't know of any good reason to use pico instead of the suggested > nano, unless you're using pine and are only using pico as the built-in > editor. As far as I know nano entirely supersedes pico in all other > respects. And best of all nano is free software while pico/pine fails the DFSG test. Bob
Attachment:
pgp7gjWkgxwEm.pgp
Description: PGP signature