The original poster never made a declaration about which product they felt was superior.
-----Original Message----- From: Dale Kingston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 7:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: pico for redhat linux 8.0 Thats really kewl and all, but Nano is like 10 times better the pico. And it is has all the exact functonality as pico with like tons more features. So if anything Nano is by far the better text editor of the two... ----- Original Message ----- From: "BluSky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:16 AM Subject: Re: pico for redhat linux 8.0 > From: "Ammaross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, 13 October 2002 11:04 > > > Btw, pico is now known as 'nano'. > > > Pico is not nano. Nano is an open source attempt to > clone the look and feel of Pico. > > Pico and Pine are copyright 1989-2002 by the > University of Washington and they are also trademarks. > > Pico is available with Pine in the same download from: > > http://www.washington.edu/pine/getpine/ > > There are Windows and DOS versions as well as Unix > available. > > Information on compiling and installing Pine and Pico: > > http://www.washington.edu/pine/tech-notes/installation.html > > > |\ _,,,---,,_ > /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ > |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) > BluSky is often lurking at Afterlife MUD: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.afterlife.mudservices.com > ------------------> telnet://afterlife.mudservices.com:5000 > ROM FAQ ----------> http://www.hypercube.org/tess/rom/ > ROMList Archive --> http://the-infinite.org/lists/romlist/ > > > -- > ROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.rom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rom > -- ROM mailing list [email protected] http://www.rom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rom
