From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Mar 19 14:27:03 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA05920 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:27:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA05915 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05271; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:29:35 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:29:35 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199603192229.PAA05271@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), nate@sneezy.sri.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GAS question In-Reply-To: <199603192216.PAA24885@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199603192051.NAA04951@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199603192216.PAA24885@phaeton.artisoft.com> Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert writes: > > Fair enough. XEmacs has a 2-4MB footprint. But, X has an 8MB > > footprint, and FreeBSD a 4MB footprint, so we have about the same memory > > footprint. > > Windows95 does not have an 8M footprint. VCACHE.VXD does. And you > can "fix" it. There are undocumented settings that allow you to > manipulate its behaviour. > > Windows95 runs in 4M. That's 8M smaller than your "FreeBSD+X" > footprint (which I don't believe anyway: I ran a lab full of 386's > with 4M of memory running FreeBSD as X terminals). > > > I can run XEmacs in 8MB too, but it *really* slows the compiles down due > > to thrashing. :) > > I can run VC++ in 8M without thrashing if I set the right configuration > options. You're arguing for me. So, 4MB for FreeBSD&X + 4MB for XEmacs = 8MB. Fow Win95, we have 4MB for Win95 + 4MB for VC++ = 8MB. The same. > > > No thanks; i'm only interested in the IDE part. I'd like to substitute > > > the editor for "vi" (like I do using the Microsoft tools). > > > > 'vi' is incapable of doing all of the necessary work. Can you replace > > the editor in VC++ with vi? Can you replace it with *any* editor? (My > > biggest beef with most PC tools is that you can't replace the editor > > with your editor of choice.) > > You can edit it in a window, and the tools "know" the file has changed > and reload it. I'm sure this could be done in XEmacs as well. Still, you can't use the functions of the IDE w/out knowing the editor. > The editor is configurable, and can in fact be made to look like vi > with a lot of work (it some with default settings and a "Brief" > template). Yeah right. It's never the same, and it doesn't work as well as the editor I'm used to doing because my fingers are trained to use that mode. > > > This is retail price. This is not what you pay for an MSDN Level 2 > > > SDK/DDK/VC++ subscription. > > > > I think I paid $695/yr for my L2 kit, plus another $495/yr for the > > subscription. > > Now try to recover that in market for BSD programs. Irrelevant. You are arguing that FreeBSD has no decent IDE, and the arguement is that we do have a decent one. And it's free. > > VC++ isn't the compiler the OS team uses. They use a command line > > compiler that is distributed with the L2 kit, not VC. (This according > > to someone who works at M$ in their OS group.) > > You are confusing the replacement LINK386.EXE that shipped on the > DDK CDROM. VC++ is now at 4.0, which includes the VXD-capable linker. No, the *compiler* is separate from VC++. Seriously.