From owner-freebsd-questions Mon May 21 13:48:17 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fac13.ds.psu.edu (fac13.ds.psu.edu [146.186.61.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139C437B422 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hawk@fac13.ds.psu.edu) Received: from fac13.ds.psu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fac13.ds.psu.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4LKWA584023; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:32:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from hawk@fac13.ds.psu.edu) Message-Id: <200105212032.f4LKWA584023@fac13.ds.psu.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Mike Meyer , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: how much ram/cpu/swap to run emacs/xemacs effectively? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 May 2001 15:19:39 CDT." <15113.30811.116486.126146@guru.mired.org> From: dochawk@psu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:32:09 -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG mike mumbled, > dochawk@psu.edu types: > > jonathon jubilated, :) > > > On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:34:31AM -0400, dochawk@psu.edu wrote: > > 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. not any more. I don't remember the last time I used ed instead of vi, so these days it's primarily vi, with emacs used to write code the first time, realign code from time to tome, and use mh over a text connection. Then again, I've never quite trusted machines since we stopped entering bootstrap code . . . > I wonder what happened to qed? someone tried to demonstrate a fale proposition? :) > > 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. GNOME? KDE? Why would I want those? :) I've got to allocate the mere 512mb in my laptop carefully . . . > > and downright hostile to the standards used by everything else . . . > Nah, it'll run on Windows as well as Unix. ahh, so it's hostile to standards, and hostile to those hostile to standards. Is that uber-hostile or meta-hostile? hawk, grimacing in advance for the escape-puns that the last line will generate -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign dochawk@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message