|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 156 responses total. |
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.
|
scg
|
|
response 87 of 156:
|
Feb 5 16:37 UTC 1999 |
I use vi. It works well for me. I really don't have a reason to use anything
else. If other people feel a need to use emacs, that's fine with me.
|
janc
|
|
response 88 of 156:
|
Feb 5 18:27 UTC 1999 |
Re: cmcgee
None of those seem to be exactly bbs problems. All of them seem weird.
Overprinting the bottom line of the screen could be either:
- Grex has got your terminal settings messed up, so it thinks it
should be sending you carriage returns, but not line feeds. This
could happen if some program you ran previous crashed in an ugly
way and left your terminal it a bad mode. Easiest solution is to
log off and on again.
- Your terminal settings on your communications program are in a real
odd state. This is less likely, but in some cases it could happen
just by have a strange control sequence set to your terminal.
Easiest fix is probably to exit and restart your comm program.
The word wrap not working could be related. Or not. Some possibilities
are:
- For some reason you aren't running "gate". Picospan itself doesn't
have automatic word wrap. You always have to type returns. If
word wrap normally works for you, it is because there is a separate
program called "gate" that is collecting your text, and will pass
it to Picospan when you are done. If you somehow fell back into
the built-in Picospan text collection, you'd lose word wrap, and
have buffer overflow problems. I can't imagine why you wouldn't
be running gate though. It is configured into your account.
- Maybe you were running gate, but when it tried to word wrap (by
sending a carriage-return/newline) it wasn't working because either
Grex or your terminal program wasn't dealing with carriage returns.
This doesn't completely make sense to me, because you shouldn't see
buffer overflows in that case.
So basically, I don't know what was going on, but I'm reasonably
confident that it won't happen the next time you log in. Seems like
something got into a really bad state, but that usually doesn't carry
from login session to login session.
|
remmers
|
|
response 89 of 156:
|
Feb 5 18:56 UTC 1999 |
(Since others have posted their two cents re vi vs. emacs, I'll add mine
but promise to say nothing further about it in this item.
For short editing jobs, I use vi. For largish programming projects involving
multiple files and frequent recompiles, I much much much prefer emacs, for
reasons that I won't go into here.
When I'm in emacs and want to do something that vi is especially good at, I
just switch emacs into vi emulation mode for a bit (takes one keystroke),
then back to native emacs.
Also, I like emacs' X Window interface - supports mouse and multiple frames
quite nicely.
Oh then too, I use emacs for reading usenet news. It contains a nice threaded
newsreader.)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 90 of 156:
|
Feb 5 20:55 UTC 1999 |
I use emacs because it's what I first learned and I can use it without
seeing the keyboard. I also use it as my mail-reading program and have
used it as my net.news reader, but don't now, since I only can read
net.news through dejanews... It's a pain to learn, I have found, but
it's instinctive to me, now, and I don't like vi, or anything else.
|
dang
|
|
response 91 of 156:
|
Feb 5 21:48 UTC 1999 |
I use vi, because I learned it first. I learned it first because it's
more standard, more common (Yes, it was at the time. We didn't have
emacs), and easier to learn. I use it now because I know it very very
well, emacs doesn't do anything I want that vim doesn't (including nice,
colored, mouse, splitscreen X interface), and emacs is *still* a pain to
learn. However, this isn't a vi/emacs item, is it?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 92 of 156:
|
Feb 6 00:52 UTC 1999 |
Thanks Jan. The first time I tried logging in again, nothing changed, but
the next time bbs worked fine. *shrug* Maxwell posited "daemons" sorting
molecules. I've always found that a workable theory. It explains a lot
of what happens with physics and other techie subjects like computers.
(Now Rane is gonna tell me it isn't daemons, it's really quarks)
;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 156:
|
Feb 6 05:28 UTC 1999 |
Maxwell posited those daemons to explain why they can't exist. Computers
have no such luck.
|
valerie
|
|
response 94 of 156:
|
Feb 7 21:46 UTC 1999 |
This response has been erased.
|
i
|
|
response 95 of 156:
|
Feb 7 22:49 UTC 1999 |
HURRAY!!! Thanks Jan & STeve!!!
|
