Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:32:05 -0700 From: "Michael O'Henly" <michael@327.ca> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: dochawk@psu.edu Subject: Re: how much ram/cpu/swap to run emacs/xemacs effectively? Message-ID: <01052109320500.02633@h24-69-46-74.gv.shawcable.net> In-Reply-To: <200105211520.f4LFKj510712@fac13.ds.psu.edu> References: <200105211520.f4LFKj510712@fac13.ds.psu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 21 May 2001 08:20, dochawk@psu.edu wrote: > Actually, that stability is the only thing I find that distinguishes it > from microsoft products--it has the rest of the characteristics: > bloated beyond machine resources, tries to do absolutely everything, > and downright hostile to the standards used by everything else . . . "Bloated beyone machine resources"? Well, it _is_ an operating system / religion, so it needs some horsepower. When you get right down to it, there's nothing else happening on your machine that actually deserves those cycles, is there? "Tries to do absolutely everything"? What do you mean "tries"? X/Emacs does do absolutely everything! With the correct incantation... (Escape-Meta-Alt-Control-Shift-R-M-S) ...it'll even do absolutely everything all at once. That's multitasking! That's versatility! That's entertainment! "Downright hostile to the standards used by everything else"? Oh please, be patient. In another generation or two, everything else will either adapt or fade away... M -- Michael O'Henly To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01052109320500.02633>