Why in a Linux admin environment, Vim is true, and Nano is for wimps?

Question

linux

I study Linux, bash, networks. More than once on the Internet I came across the fact that vi (vim) is used by cool and experienced specialists, and the use of a simple and convenient nano editor is considered almost zashkvar.

Even in Evi Nemeth's book "The System Administrator's Guide" it was written that experienced administrators "do not like" when someone uses nano

What are these show-offs, or is there something more behind this?

Answer 1

ordinary holivar

Answer 2

Traditions - they are such traditions. It's just that vi is everywhere, even on ESXi hosts (and it's the only text editor there) - that's probably why they write it that way. In fact, no one cares. I generally use mcedit and do not complex :)

Answer 3

vi is generally everywhere, on any coffee maker, that's the whole reason. And nano is usually installed additionally, and if it is not available by default, and there is no way to install it, but you need to work, this is where the plugs begin. Therefore, vi can be loved or not loved, but you need to know at least basic things.
"I always use vi because I don't know how to get out of it."

Answer 4

experienced administrators "do not like" when someone uses nano

Experienced administrators may not like vi on a machine. And what others use it should be purple.

What is it - show-offs, or is there something more behind this?

If there's something behind it, it's usually a habit.

Answer 5

Historically, vi is older, but very functional.
Many things in vi work without problems in different environments - for example, in non-standard or legacy terminals, where there are problems with control characters. vi is quite resistant to very slow connections. At the same time, there is a huge amount of functionality and hotkeys.
If you work with vi for a while, you begin to appreciate his approach to work.
I grew up on the wolves commander and I love the FAR editor as much as the manager himself.
But at the same time, in Linux I prefer to use vi and I consider it even closer to the far editor than nano, although visually it seems the opposite.
I also avoid midnight commander as much as possible, using just the command line, although mc is a panel manager.

Answer 6

Because vi can do a lot more - from running shell commands to macros.
Or for example
vim -d file1 file2

Answer 7

1. Requires only an alphanumeric keyboard block plus the [Esc] key to work. Therefore, it can be used in a remote console even through a crookedly configured or generally unconfigured terminal. While nano requires at least functional arrow and navigation keys, that is, when connecting remotely, you need to make sure that the getty on the other end perceives them normally, and does not spit krakozables into the console. It was very relevant in the pre-Internet era, when servers that controlled production processes were administered over a telephone line via a modem connection.
1a. Also, a keyboard from the ZX Spectrum, Commodore and other 8-bit undercomputers was quite enough to work in vi. Which made it possible to somehow use them as (almost) full-fledged terminals for UNIX machines.
2. Does not require menu display - absolutely everything can be done with commands, which, in case of forgetfulness, can be found in the built-in help. Therefore, only 4 lines are enough to work, which, as fdroid correctly noted above , allows them to be used on any coffee maker if it has some kind of TN display with a resolution of 128x32. (Why you might need a full-fledged text editor on a coffee maker is a separate question ...)
3. To position the cursor in the required place, you have to constantly read the distance in lines and familiarity in the line with your eyes, which requires straining not only the spinal cord with the motor center, but also the cortex, and also develops attention, although it creates some inconvenience in work. Therefore, it is true that the average user of vi/emacs is smarter than the average user of any other editor.
4. Stores all changes for a particular file being edited in a buffer file (which can be created either in the same directory or in the user's home directory depending on the settings in the .vimrc configuration file). Therefore, it consumes very little RAM and allows you to continue the work interrupted by a sudden force majeure.
5. Well, as Vitaly Karasik noted above, can do a lot . True, it depends on what and how it was assembled with, what was thrown out during assembly (although with modern computing power it makes no sense to throw anything out of vi). For example, if the libc that vi was linked against when building does not support unicode, then vi itself will not understand it either.

Answer 8

VIM follows the mouseless ideology just like Linux.

Answer 9

The question in this form, in principle, is not very correct. It is clear that vim can do much more and much cooler than nano, but in a particular situation it is not important how cool the tool you use is, but your personal ability to solve problems.
Someone may be good at spamming all sorts of cool things on vim, but elementary tasks will be solved by thoughtless copy-pastes from Stackoverflow, fraught with getting any (up to destructive) result. And at the same time, an experienced administrator like one of my good friends will quickly and effectively solve all problems in the now little-known, but very popular 20 years ago among those who switched from DOS to UNIX editor joe. There is nothing reprehensible in this.