Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) Newsgroups: comp.emacs,comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: do you want a emacs cookbook? Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:46:31 +0100 Organization: Informatimago Lines: 99 Message-ID: <87zktg84mg.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> References: <39851024-8c57-4132-a340-9112ba636914@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <3f0acf1a-595b-42f0-a184-12ca5a23c396@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <87lj5821wu.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <965137d4-fe95-4f46-8648-33d5931e299e@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com> <87bp61ua8k.fsf@puma.rapttech.com.au> <3154bfd2-2c0c-4dd7-81e9-35b429c8ca4c@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <87zktkhr1g.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <87zktgglhq.fsf.mdw@metalzone.distorted.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 2nrWF5CKmBVTrS+F5vkgagzXyWIDvv5TIv1bvcCDIl3DkVjuVM Cancel-Lock: sha1:YTdhYTkyOWQzN2JjODJlYWYwN2I0MzFmYjcxMWM0Njc4ZDNmZmUzMA== sha1:+z8hcJhBKoDI0QY5mCKFxS0uO5o= Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAQMAAABtzGvEAAAABlBMVEUAAAD///+l2Z/dAAAA oElEQVR4nK3OsRHCMAwF0O8YQufUNIQRGIAja9CxSA55AxZgFO4coMgYrEDDQZWPIlNAjwq9 033pbOBPtbXuB6PKNBn5gZkhGa86Z4x2wE67O+06WxGD/HCOGR0deY3f9Ijwwt7rNGNf6Oac l/GuZTF1wFGKiYYHKSFAkjIo1b6sCYS1sVmFhhhahKQssRjRT90ITWUk6vvK3RsPGs+M1RuR mV+hO/VvFAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Accept-Language: fr, es, en X-Disabled: X-No-Archive: no User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) m...@distorted.org.uk (Mark Wooding) writes: > Elena writes: > >> On Nov 8, 1:40�pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) >> > It just happens that nobody makes the hardware to run the emacs OS >> > anymore. �It was the LispMachines. �So it has to run as a virtual >> > machine (ever since it was conceived, admitedly and regretably). >> >> Come on, Pascal, this is a bit of a stretch. Emacs is an Emacs Lisp >> interpreter, no more than that. I see your point though. > > It a slight stretch because Emacs predated the Lisp machines: it ran > first on ITS, and next (I think) on Multics. But the Lisp machine > versions, EINE and ZWEI were highly influential. AN emacs predated the Lisp machines. But GNU emacs was started after the experience RMS had with Lisp machines. >> If I were to use an application on a virtual machine heavily, I would >> look for ways to shape the hosted environment like the hosting one. > > I think that's a serious mistake. Firstly, tools inevitably come with a > preconceived notion about how they're meant to be used: trying to use > them otherwise is often difficult, requiring more skill and knowledge > than you'd need if you conformed to the tools' worldview; and more > likely than not prevents you from using the tools to their fullest > potential. Secondly, it blurs the boundaries between things which are > best kept separate: a virtual machine is distinct from its host, and if > you don't keep that in mind, you will get a nasty surprise when you come > across one of the essential differences. Indeed. >> I run Windows at work, Linux at home, and I strive to get a consistent >> environment. Luckily, Gnome shares the same idea about CUA. > > I always thought that adopting conventions from Windows was a mistake in > Gnome. In particular, they missed an opportunity to popularize Emacs > keybindings and conventions. (Why should we have a clipboard when we > could have a kill ring?) And as an alternative, you can run X on all these systems, and use emacs X11 on all of them, with exactly the same user interface, down to the key bindings. Or, you could run a MS-Windows in a VM and with vnc have the MS-Windows experience on either Linux or MacOSX. Unfortunately, for the MacOSX experience, you will have to buy a Macintosh, but otherwise, you can do similarly. >> No, Pascal. Real world is different. I don't like the MS-Windows >> system, but I make a living out of it, thus I'm using it. > > You get to choose how you make a living. Besides, if you dislike it so > much, why are you trying to make Emacs mould itself to the Windows way > of working rather than the other way around? ;-) > >> Why? Novices are more likely to flock to the reference distribution, >> thus it would be better if helpful directions were given there. > > Why is it good that novices flock to anything? Popularity and quality > aren't well correlated. Windows is awful: much of the awfulness is > actually because it's trying to meet the requirements of an enormous > number of unskilled users. This must be repeated. "Much of the awfulness is actually because it's trying to meet the requirements of an enormous number of unskilled users." >> If Lispers teamed up to make Lisp Machines a worthwhile platform, >> manufacturers would resurrect Lisp machines, no doubt. This is never >> going to happen, however, since Lispers seem more worried about their >> keybindings than about - God forbid! - Lisp becoming mainstream. > > I think becoming mainstream would be one of the worst things that could > possibly happen to Lisp! All the people who currently can only write > Java because they're copying `design patterns' out of a book, trying to > use Lisp? Ugh. > >> > Why don't you try Emacs.app or Aquamacs.app? >> >> Because they are not GNU Emacs. > > Neither is cua-mode. > > -- [mdw] -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.