@occhiolist @dolari Or :x for short. You know, if :wq is too long to type and you want something a little more terse.
@Flux @occhiolist@hachyderm.io
@irvingpop @spottyfox @socketwench - Actually, this would be a good time to ask. What are the resons for using Vi and Vim over Nano?
Originally, I only used Linux at my university and at an ISP I worked at for a short time. I used Vi in my university days but quickly moved over to Pico for ease of use.
I know when I worked at an ISP, they wanted me back on Vi, because Pico had a security flaw in it, which I did.
I've since moved permanently to Linux around ten years ago, and really haven't had anything that NEEDED Vi or Vim (outside of visudo when I was running Arch), so what's the major difference other than ease of use? I'm sure there are reasons to use it but because I don't write scripts or program, Nano is enough for me.
Not being adversarial, just genuinely curious. :)
@dolari @irvingpop I don't know if this is still true, but one advantage of the VI-family of editors is that they were installed pretty much on every Unix-like operating system, where pico/nano were not. This was important after just installing a fresh version of a proprietary Unix OS on Sun, SGI, or other hardware.
Given the death of proprietary Unixes, I don't know if this still a large enough competitive advantage, but the muscle memory from three decades is still there for me.
@chris @irvingpop - This actually was a thing I ran into when I would install Arch on my systems. Nano had to be downloaded, while VI was just there.
