Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:38:39AM +1000, CaT wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:31:04AM +1000, Angus Lees wrote:
> > > bah. on my laptop (which doesn't have X), i just run emacs. then i can
> > > split the screen, switch buffers, run shells, run remote shells, etc,
> > > etc. cutting and pasting between buffers (no matter how large the
> > > selection is) is trivial.
> >
> > Yeah. But screen isn't 20gig in size. ;)
>
> Neither is emacs, now that most of the functionality has been
> farmed off into loadable modules. Looks more like a LISP
> machine OS every day.
Oh it's got loadable modules now eh! With the kernel now
getting more and more things in it like khttpd etc it might
be easier to go the other way and embed the kernel in `the
one true editor'.
It wouldn't make much percentage difference to the size of
emacs ;-)
Mike
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lake
University of Technology, Sydney
Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 02 9514 1724 Fx: 02
9514 1628
URL: http://www.science.uts.edu.au/~michael-lake/
Linux enthusiast, active caver and interested in anything
technical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
