Day Brown wrote: > > A bit of history. First I was told how much better MC > was than dos.
Who said this? I'm sure it wasn't me (I don't use MC). And I certainly don't remember reading it here. What idiot told you that a filemanager is better than an OS. > Then when I cited examples of functionality seen in DC, > DF, DW but not seen in MC *and* you claimed that MC was the only CLI filemanger in Linux. > I was told Linux had many other wonderful CLI file managers. You were told that Linux had several other CLI file managers. You have added the word "wonderful" yourself. > Although, if so, I dont understand why the distros dont > tell the users to use them. Why would a distro tell users what to use? A distro is just a collection of stuff that somebody thought was useful. Perhaps a distro includes some documentation to help newbies get started, and perhaps somewhere in that documentation it suggests that the newbie might find it easier to get around the CLI using MC (the best-known CLI filemanger). As to why MC is the best-known CLI filemanager for Linux, I suppose it's because MC has been around for a long time. Just like vi is the standard editor. Many people say that there are better editors than vi, but all of the distros still include vi (or a clone). Cheers, Steven To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
