|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 156 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 62 of 156:
| 
Jan 26 01:22 UTC 1999 |
Don't tell me it'll be gone tomorrow..
|
danr
|
|
response 63 of 156:
|
Jan 26 01:22 UTC 1999 |
Sounds like too much fun for me.
|
davel
|
|
response 64 of 156:
|
Jan 26 13:56 UTC 1999 |
s/fairwell/farewell/ (I presume)?
Not that there's any special reason for me to be there, but there's a parents'
meeting at school tonight. (And another one Thursday. Busy week.)
|
senna
|
|
response 65 of 156:
|
Jan 26 16:44 UTC 1999 |
What? No Jesse THE BODY Ventura?
|
valerie
|
|
response 66 of 156:
|
Jan 27 06:00 UTC 1999 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 67 of 156:
|
Feb 2 20:25 UTC 1999 |
I'd like to announce that I am now beginning to enter the last batch of items
for this edition of the Grex auction. I plan on entering about 2 per day
for the next couple of weeks. Brand new items start at number 129, so please
come by and check them out, and check out the December items that haven't sold
yet, too. They are numbered between 77 and 128.
|
fairy
|
|
response 68 of 156:
|
Feb 2 23:11 UTC 1999 |
um ...im announcing that spring will be here early cause of the silly
groundhog
|
valerie
|
|
response 69 of 156:
|
Feb 4 01:49 UTC 1999 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 70 of 156:
|
Feb 4 02:07 UTC 1999 |
Emacs rules. Your mileage may vary.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 71 of 156:
|
Feb 4 02:32 UTC 1999 |
indeed..
|
valerie
|
|
response 72 of 156:
|
Feb 4 02:42 UTC 1999 |
This response has been erased.
|
devnull
|
|
response 73 of 156:
|
Feb 4 02:54 UTC 1999 |
Chances are emacs 20 works better on grex than it was working for more
than a year on the gnu project's main mail server...
(There was a bug that I knew how to fix in our emacs 20.2 installation,
and never got around to it until after 20.3 came out. emacs was having
trouble figuring out how to deal with certain directory names; I forget
the details.)
|
other
|
|
response 74 of 156:
|
Feb 4 07:14 UTC 1999 |
after all this time, i'm still wondering what emacs is, and why there's an
option for emacs mouse in versaterm...
|
omni
|
|
response 75 of 156:
|
Feb 4 08:23 UTC 1999 |
VI is the only editor God ever wrote. All others were authored by Satan.
Use vi, or burn in hell.
Not that I'm religious about vi or anything. ;)
|
remmers
|
|
response 76 of 156:
|
Feb 4 13:25 UTC 1999 |
Just gave the new emacs a test run, and it appears to work fine.
|
janc
|
|
response 77 of 156:
|
Feb 4 17:26 UTC 1999 |
Emacs is an editor so powerful and complex that if your computer has
Emacs on it, you no longer need the rest of the computer.
|
omni
|
|
response 78 of 156:
|
Feb 4 19:00 UTC 1999 |
Oh no, I think I've started yet another war.
|
jshafer
|
|
response 79 of 156:
|
Feb 4 20:23 UTC 1999 |
resp:77 - Jan, that one's going in my fortunes database...
(Assuming you have no objections?)
|
janc
|
|
response 80 of 156:
|
Feb 5 00:19 UTC 1999 |
Welcome to it. I use vi. It knows when to stop.
|
devnull
|
|
response 81 of 156:
|
Feb 5 00:33 UTC 1999 |
One of the nice things about vi is that you can spend a weekend learning
everything there is to know about vi.
emacs, on the other hand, is so complex that I don't think any one human
being knows all of its commands.
The fact that vi is easier to completely understand does not imply that
it is superior to emacs, however.
|
void
|
|
response 82 of 156:
|
Feb 5 02:36 UTC 1999 |
i prefer pico.
<void stands in the heretics' corner. ;>
|
davel
|
|
response 83 of 156:
|
Feb 5 02:45 UTC 1999 |
I'm sure there are applications for which emacs is suitable. I once thought
I had one, but I couldn't figure out how to use emacs for it. Even with a
manual. I was lucky to escape from emacs without completely destroying my
file.
If I recall, you *can't* learn emacs. It's too configurable. Sit down at
someone else's emacs, configured for that person, and anything and everything
may not work the same.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 84 of 156:
|
Feb 5 03:47 UTC 1999 |
TWice today I've had a great deal of trouble with bbs. The first time, it was
running the whole screenful of information as one line at the bottom of my
screen, typing over each line as it started the next. It took about 4 tries to
get it to give me a regular screen. Just now, the word wrap isn't working, and
I have to manually put in a carriage return t or else the buffer fills up with
text.
And I'm working on the third attempt to get into the conferences, at least one
attempt is suspended with control z in the background, while I tried twice more
to get it to let me see the responses.
And this screen full of typing looks like it is pretty badly mangeld as far
as formatting goes.
I reset my terminal type and screen size three times this afternoon, trying
to get PicoSpan to give me the right stuff.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 85 of 156:
|
Feb 5 06:44 UTC 1999 |
Over the years my position on emacs has softened. Out of necessity I will
use it as the front end for gdb and for simple code-editing tasks between
compiles. When I really want to edit, though, I can't imagine choosing
emacs over vi..
|
jep
|
|
response 86 of 156:
|
Feb 5 14:50 UTC 1999 |
I've spent more than 10 years using vi without having any sort of
feeling I know everything about it. It is not as powerful and
configurable as emacs; it cannot play 'Towers of Hanoi', doesn't supply
all of the functions of a Usenet News reader, and will not psychoanalyze
you with the help of an 'Eliza' routine. It also doesn't ask you twice
(making you type out the word 'yes' for one of the responses) if you
want to exit without saving changes, a function I find more appropriate
for Windows 3.1 than anything that should happen on a Unix machine.
It's just an editor. But that's what I want when I just want to edit.
|
