Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:18:31 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: dochawk@psu.edu Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: how much ram/cpu/swap to run emacs/xemacs effectively? Message-ID: <15113.41543.275053.74528@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <200105212032.f4LKWA584023@fac13.ds.psu.edu> References: <15113.30811.116486.126146@guru.mired.org> <200105212032.f4LKWA584023@fac13.ds.psu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
dochawk@psu.edu types: > mike mumbled, > > > dochawk@psu.edu types: > > > jonathon jubilated, :) > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:34:31AM -0400, dochawk@psu.edu wrote: > > > We'll leave the One True Editor out of this :) Besides, I've wimped > > > out and used its visual descendant . . . > > What? you mean you don't switch between all three almost at random? > > Being able to use the best tool for the job is important. > not any more. I don't remember the last time I used ed instead of vi, > so these days it's primarily vi, with emacs used to write code the first > time, realign code from time to tome, and use mh over a text connection. I still use ed fairly relularly for the one-line fix to config files and the like. Even on today's machines, redrawing the screen two or three times is starting ed. > Then again, I've never quite trusted machines since we stopped entering > bootstrap code . . . What? You don't trust bootstrap code store on the RL02? > > I wonder what happened to qed? > someone tried to demonstrate a fale proposition? :) qed was ed on steroids. Not quote to ed as emacs is to vi, but not far from it. It was even had hooks to support being a login shell. > > > tries to do absolutely everything, > > Tries? Ok, it doesn't run 3d gas flow models very well, but if you've > > got xemacs, you don't need Netscape, GNOME, KDE, XFree86-4 etc. and > > it's smaller than them to boot. > GNOME? KDE? Why would I want those? :) I've got to allocate the mere > 512mb in my laptop carefully . . . If you've got emacs, I don't know why you would want those. > > > and downright hostile to the standards used by everything else . . . > > Nah, it'll run on Windows as well as Unix. > ahh, so it's hostile to standards, and hostile to those hostile to > standards. Is that uber-hostile or meta-hostile? > > hawk, grimacing in advance for the escape-puns that the last line will > generate I think the whole thing is alt-hostile. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. 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?15113.41543.275053.74528>