Vince Hoang wrote:
The solution is the same in both: fix the PATH. For tcsh, the OP will want
to add something like the following to your .tcshrc file:
set PATH = ($PATH /usr/local/bin)
Using a symlink will work too, but using a custom PATH will continue to work
for other local package
On 10/20/07, Eric Hattemer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have yet to find this hypothetical system that has vi, but doesn't
have emacs, noxemacs, nano, pico, nedit, gedit, kwrite, jed, or joe; the
ability to install one of these easier to use editors, or a file
transfer utility that would allow
Eric Hattemer wrote:
Vince Hoang wrote:
The solution is the same in both: fix the PATH. For tcsh, the OP will want
to add something like the following to your .tcshrc file:
set PATH = ($PATH /usr/local/bin)
Using a symlink will work too, but using a custom PATH will continue to work
for
Hi Karen, I agree with your statement. everyone should learn vi.
The reason why I wanted to install nano is that I just wanted to try
something new.. =)
Karen Lofstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/20/07, Eric Hattemer wrote:
I have yet to find this hypothetical system that has vi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 808.356.2913 wrote:
this might not sound nice but
use 'vi' not 'nano'
you will never feel any editor woes again
Sean
http://www.kokuatraffic.com
You're right, it doesn't sound nice. It sounds elitist and stupid.
-Eric Hattemer
You dispute recomending people use vi which is a superior editor?
Almost all systems have vi installed and in the default path..
not the case for nano.
What is more elitist is not encouraging people to use the proper tools!
Sean
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 9:29 pm, Eric Hattemer wrote:
[EMAIL
On Wednesday,2007-10-17 21:44:36 Sean Fairchild wrote:
You dispute recomending people use vi which is a superior editor?
Almost all systems have vi installed and in the default path..
not the case for nano.
What is more elitist is not encouraging people to use the proper
tools!
Different
Angela Kahealani wrote:
the REAL holy war is vi vs emacs.
I've always heard about this one. Is there a story behind it other than
a pointless argument over superlatives?
The real question of this thread is did either Peter's or Antonio's
suggestions work? They included the inquisitor
On Wednesday,2007-10-17 22:37:32 R. Scott Belford wrote:
I've always heard about this one. Is there a story behind it other
than a pointless argument over superlatives?
my point exactly... these things are not resolvable,
because different people / circumstances yield different optimizations.
ah sorry I think I miss something =)
Angela Kahealani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday,2007-10-17 22:37:32
R. Scott Belford wrote:
I've always heard about this one. Is there a story behind it other
than a pointless argument over superlatives?
my point exactly... these things
On 10/16/07, Peter Besenbruch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
goku ball z wrote:
setenv EDITOR/usr/local/bin/./nano ( which didn't work )
then I tried this also
setenv EDITOR/usr/local/bin/nano (which also didn't work)
Setting the EDITOR only helps when you use a program that calls an editor
goku ball z wrote:
Hi all,
I have this problem. I am running suse linux 10.0 Enterprise.
I was able to install nano-2.0.6 and as root I am able to use it.
This is where my problem starts.
When I exit root and try to use nano, I get this error message.
nano: Command not found.
but when I
goku ball z wrote:
Hi all,
I have this problem. I am running suse linux 10.0 Enterprise. I was
able to install nano-2.0.6 and as root I am able to use it.
This is where my problem starts. When I exit root and try to use nano,
I get this error message.
nano: Command not found.
but when I
goku ball z wrote:
Hi all,
I have this problem. I am running suse linux 10.0 Enterprise. I was able
to install nano-2.0.6 and as root I am able to use it.
This is where my problem starts. When I exit root and try to use nano, I
get this error message.
nano: Command not found.
but when I
14 matches
Mail list logo
