Brook Humphrey wrote: > On Sunday 19 October 2003 01:29 am, David Walser wrote: >> Brook Humphrey wrote: >> >> Ouch. What's taking so much space? >> > >> > stupid emacs and xemacs and all the assorted packages. No real users use >> > these >> >> Well you can't not have emacs, but I agree we could ditch xemacs. The only >> reason for ever having it was syntax highlighting in the nice GUI, and >> regular emacs has had syntax highlight support even in the console since >> 21.1, so there's no reason to even use a GUI now. >> >> > out there it is more of a developer odity (as not all developers use this >> > thing either). Not only that but truly useful packages such as midnight >> > commander (when I select console tools) and gvim are not even installed. >> > I'm >> >> LOL, those are the oddities. I guarantee those have significantly fewer >> users. >> >> > not sure if they are even on the cd's as I havn't even managed to get >> > them downloaded yet and am still using my custom cd's from cooker after >> > it was frozen for the cd's. These two are only about 5 or 6 megs together >> > at the most compared to probably close to 100 megs for emacs including >> > all it's assorted packages. >> > >> > I am not a vim versus emacs person really but I do have a few 150 meg >> > text files I open and read at times and vim is the only thing under linux >> > that even manages to open the file relatively well. Everything else gets >> > dicy at about 80megs. Emacs wont even begin to touch the thing. The only >> > other program i have found to open it with is a little windows text >> > editor that is not free. I think it was texedit. >> >> Did you try the MS-DOS Editor? > > > you are very sadly mistaken here. The majority or regular windows converts > could care less about about emacs. Much less would they be able to figure out
Sorry Brook, you're way off. I was a Windows convert many years ago, and emacs was the only text editor that I 1) cared about and 2) could figure out. Without emacs I would have missed the MS-DOS Editor way too much. > how to use the thing properly. AS for mc every sysadmin I show it to uses > it. It is way more useful in the real world than emacs. Especially for system > recovery. It is kind of like an all in one tool for when things go bad. I > even use it allot under normal conditions to install rpm's. Especially when > the system is hosed and there is not other way to install them. Emacs will > not do that for me. That's your fault, not its. And we're comparing a text editor to a file manager anyway?
