Date: 01 Aug 2003 10:02:46 -0700 From: LLeweLLyn Reese <llewelly@lifesupport.shutdown.com> To: george donnelly <list@zettai.net> Cc: FreeBSD Q's <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: emacs - gnu, x ...? Message-ID: <x3u1915n0p.fsf@lifesupport.shutdown.com> In-Reply-To: <BB4F1847.3AA64%list@zettai.net> References: <BB4F1847.3AA64%list@zettai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
george donnelly <list@zettai.net> writes:
> [Benjamin Walkenhorst wrote (krylon@gmx.net) on 7/31/03 6:44 PM]
>=20
> > If you want a GUI, try GNU Emacs or XEmacs. I prefer GNU Emacs, but I s=
uggest
> > you try both (if you are looking for a GUI).
> > If you don't want a GUI, and if you are not looking for Emacs' massive
> > extensibility, there are several curses-based "lookalikes" of Emacs, th=
at
> > share Emacs' look and feel, but do not feature its lisp interpreter, an=
d thus
> > much of its extensibility; on the other hand, they tend be more...
> > ressource-friendly than emacs. Among these smaller versions I know of z=
ile
> > (zile is lossy emacs) and =B5emacs (micro emacs), though I have tried n=
either.
>=20
> thanks for the feedback. gui is not important, i guess i'm just looking f=
or
> the neat features that everyone talks about - and with a minimum of resou=
rce
> usage as i would like to install it on a webserver as well so clients can
> use it over ssh.
What kind of bandwidth do your users have? e.g., right now I am using
emacs over ssh to a friends box, where the limiting bandwidth is
128kbits/s (that's the upstream dsl on the remote end.), and I
find it usable. However if your users will be comming in via
modem, IMO, modern emacs is no longer usable over modem (though
older emmacs were).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?x3u1915n0p.fsf>