You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-156    
 
Author Message
25 new of 156 responses total.
omni
response 75 of 156: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Feb 4 19:00 UTC 1999

 Oh no, I think I've started yet another war.
jshafer
response 79 of 156: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Feb 5 00:19 UTC 1999

Welcome to it.  I use vi.  It knows when to stop.
devnull
response 81 of 156: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Feb 5 02:36 UTC 1999

   i prefer pico.

  <void stands in the heretics' corner. ;>
davel
response 83 of 156: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 21:46 UTC 1999

This response has been erased.

i
response 95 of 156: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 22:49 UTC 1999

HURRAY!!!  Thanks Jan & STeve!!!  
steve
response 96 of 156: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 22:58 UTC 1999

   We verified that the new sun-4/690 CPU card was working, and took
64M off it and gave it to Grex, hence our 192M of memory.  The 'new'
6/90 card wasn't booting in its normal (as opposed to diagnostic) mode,
so we took two of the little SBUS daughterboard cards off it, and lo
and behold it came up.  We couldn't boot anything off it, as it seems
to have last been used with IPI disks (IPI being another now dead type
of disk interface like IDE and SCSI), so we're going to have to either
boot from CD rom or clone Grex's boot disk for it.  Neither will be
hard to do, but we're out of time for today.

   All in all, I'm happy.  Grex has needed extra memory for a while
now, and todays addition will help out a lot.  The extra CPU card
that we installed, giving us 4 CPUs that run Grex will be an interesting
thing to watch.  There are some theories that with SunOS (as opposed
to the newer SOlaris) having four CPUs will degrade overall performance
because of contention between the four of them waiting to do things in
the kernel, but I'm not sure about that.  I have heard arguments on
both sides, but Grex doesn't seem to use a computer in any normal way
so our results will be different.  If we need to back out a CPU card
its easy enough to take it out again.

   Next step: more disk for Grex.
scg
response 97 of 156: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 23:07 UTC 1999

We have two new 690 motherboards.  Did you try both of them, or just one?
steve
response 98 of 156: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 23:31 UTC 1999

   Just the newest one.  To test the other one we'll need to do a 
CPU transplant.  I was kinda tempted to do that today, but decided
to be more focused.
janc
response 99 of 156: Mark Unseen   Feb 8 03:27 UTC 1999

Doing a CPU transplant would be easy.  But I think we'd also have to put
some memory on it, which is not so easy.  I think we should concentrate on
the other one for now.

Anyway, for a vastly more detailed discussion of all this, see item:garage,
86
(That's item 86 in the garage conference for those of you not reading this
with Backtalk).  That's probably also a better discussion place for techie
details.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-156    
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss