Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:19:39 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: dochawk@psu.edu Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how much ram/cpu/swap to run emacs/xemacs effectively? Message-ID: <15113.30811.116486.126146@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <92655922@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
dochawk@psu.edu types: > jonathon jubilated, :) > > On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:34:31AM -0400, dochawk@psu.edu wrote: > > | Jonathon jib ed > > | > All holy wars aside, what do i need to run xemacs effectively? > > | But, but . . . :) > > Feel free to insert your editor of choice. :) > We'll leave the One True Editor out of this :) Besides, I've wimped > out and used its visual descendant . . . What? you mean you don't switch between all three almost at random? Being able to use the best tool for the job is important. I wonder what happened to qed? > Actually, that stability is the only thing I find that distinguishes it > from microsoft products--it has the rest of the characteristics: > bloated beyond machine resources, While true, it's irrelevant. Emacs is *small* compared to the things one finds running on modern Unix workstations: Netscape, GNOME, KDE, XFree86-4, etc. > tries to do absolutely everything, Tries? Ok, it doesn't run 3d gas flow models very well, but if you've got xemacs, you don't need Netscape, GNOME, KDE, XFree86-4 etc. and it's smaller than them to boot. > and downright hostile to the standards used by everything else . . . Nah, it'll run on Windows as well as Unix. (read mike) -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15113.30811.116486.126146>