Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:33:21 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@druber.com>, "Stephen J. Roznowski" <sjr@home.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: 3.0 installation problems Message-ID: <199810261633.JAA21074@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199810261552.KAA18400@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <3.0.5.32.19981024160121.009bc430@mail.kersur.net> <199810242040.NAA07711@dingo.cdrom.com> <199810261552.KAA18400@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If the machine is "stripped down", then you sure don't want Emacs on it. > > Try one of the lighter clones, and save yourself the worry. > > Nonsense. If you want Emacs, you want Emacs, not some poor imitation. Actuall, uemacs is a pretty good 'clone' of emacs, and doesn't take 16MB of memory to run well. :) I remember when EMACS stood for 'Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping', but it now stands for 'Eighteen Megabytes And Constantly Swapping', and will soon stand for 'Eighty Megabytes And Constantly Swapping.' ( For the humor impaired, this is sarcasm. I happen to use XEmacs as my primary editor on my workstation, but I also don't even bother trying to install it on my low-end box which is a slow 486 with very little memory, where I've installed uemacs.) > This has nothing to do with whether the machine is ``stripped down'' > or not. Sure it does. Emacs doesn't a relatively *LONG* time to come up, while I can edit a file and be done with it using uemacs in about the same time I finally get emacs to get the file open and displayed on my screen. :( Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810261633.JAA21074>