Hare Krsna.
From: Giridhari Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:37 AM To: dera...@cvs.openbsd.org ; dera...@openbsd.org Subject: Fw: pico and/or nano in the releases and snapshots ATTENTION Last night I saved a rat from certain death at the hands of a cat whose ovaries had been cut out. This is the cutting edge of bhakti in the interests of OpenBSD. You have been notified. Note: The below message has been slightly adjusted to that which was sent to dera...@theos.org. From: Giridhari Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:28 AM To: dera...@theos.com Subject: pico and/or nano in the releases and snapshots Hare Krsna Mr. DeRaadt. I am trying to write a new security implementation for OpenBSD, but find vi to be clumsy and hampering. I was very comfortable with pico, and nano. I am running a new system with multiprocessor kernel, and currently have no support for the ZTE MF626 modem I connect via cellular network with. I have tried installing the package of pico but it failed, so I installed it's dependencies, but pico still would not install because it had partially installed, would not pkg_delete (not even when forced), and I could not find a way to clean this up. I would really appreciate if pico or nano, which are simple and elegant, perhaps not with the frills vi uses apparently seem to appreciate, but simple and natural nonetheless, we part of the distribution. I fly with those. PLEASE INCLUDE PICO OR NANO OR BOTH IN A NEW SNAPSHOT, and from now-on, and please overlook the apparent justifications for vi-only exclusivity, and help please. FOR BHAKTA GIRIDHARI. Krsna is your friend. PLEASE!!! I know its is a non-standard request, but honestly, vi is so clumsy, and I have LOTS of coding to do, including writing support for umodem for the MF626, and I would like to write it as a learning exercise in assembly. The new security mechanism is brute force resilient, and it is for particularly nasty weather. Pull a Torvaldsesque dictatorship because-I-said-so if you have to. Hare Bol.