Re: Lies, damned lies, and statistics
bbo...@gmail.com
> > > I sometimes had to do in my early education -- lists of state
> > > capitals being the example that comes most easily to mind.
>
> > This kind would also be needed to use anything approaching emacs'
> > level of horrid unusability. No "cheat sheet" smaller than a freaking
> > phone book would suffice for THAT behemoth!
>
> The purpose of the "cheat sheet" is not to document all possible
> features, only those a beginner would need to accomplish basic tasks.
I think you've misunderstood. Those a beginner would need to
accomplish basic tasks take up one phone-book sized volume. The
documentation of all possible commands takes up an entire printed
encyclopedia of dozens of similar-sized volumes. :P
> > (And if you had no printer, no "cheat sheet" at all.)
>
> What, someone took away all the paper and pencils?
I expected that even people willing to flip through the equivalent of
a phone book every time they wanted to cut, copy, paste, save changes,
or what-not would tend to be less than pleased by the prospect of
having to actually *transcribe* a document that size by hand. So I
considered it a non-starter.
Why am I a bit surprised that you didn't? Considering your other
proclivities in the terrible-UI and lots-of-pointless-and-extra-work-
by-users vein...
I guess I thought even you would have limits, like some jogging
fanatic that is still probably not a marathon runner. Only that
doesn't have quite enough negative connotations. Maybe more like how a
moderate number of people are apparently turned on by pain and other
such things, but not by wallowing up to their neck in a vat of human
excrement. Or something.
> > > that might explain why you apparently don't perceive[snip!]
>
> > No. Do not put words in my mouth that I never actually said. That is
> > incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
>
> <deep sigh>
>
> I had hoped that my use of "apparently" would indicate that I was
> stating my perception of your views, which [the perception] might
> be correct or incorrect. I guess that didn't come across.
It doesn't matter. Misattributing anything to me is going to screw
things up in Google, and for anyone that just skims, and therefore
cannot be tolerated. Don't speculate. If you don't know and want to
know, just ask. If the answer is "none of your goddamn beeswax", give
up. That's it.
> I really am kind of curious about whether you perceive the same
> distinction I do between memorizing something and absorbing it
> through repeated use.
The distinction is quite simple. Memorizing something is where you
have to to do it at all. State capitals and emacs commands come to
mind. Sure, repeatedly writing down the names of state capitals will
result in a "repeated use" thing, but it still requires up-front
memorization or reference to a "cheat sheet" or you can't do it at
all.
Versus absorbing something where you CAN actually accomplish your task
without explicitly either looking it up first or already remembering
it. You can absorb it "incidentally", on the fly, without your work
being interrupted to go fishing through some documentation if you
didn't already have it memorized.
> > > > > If I had kept
> > > > > all the ones I had been given, it would be -- an interesting
> > > > > collection, representing who knows how many different systems.
>
> > > > I'm sure a few museum curators would bid for such, yes.
>
> > > [calls me a liar]
>
> > What?!
>
> So [puts words in my mouth]
What?! No. Do not put words in my mouth that I never actually said.
That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
> > > > None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> > > > all true.
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > You heard me. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
> > about me are at all true.
>
> [implies that I'm lying]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
Lars Enderin
> On Sep 30, 7:29 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>> I sometimes had to do in my early education -- lists of state
>>>> capitals being the example that comes most easily to mind.
>>> This kind would also be needed to use anything approaching emacs'
>>> level of horrid unusability. No "cheat sheet" smaller than a freaking
>>> phone book would suffice for THAT behemoth!
Emacs may be unusable to you, but it has been very useful to me for
several decades. Does that make me smarter than you, or what?
>> The purpose of the "cheat sheet" is not to document all possible
>> features, only those a beginner would need to accomplish basic tasks.
>
> I think you've misunderstood. Those a beginner would need to
> accomplish basic tasks take up one phone-book sized volume. The
> documentation of all possible commands takes up an entire printed
> encyclopedia of dozens of similar-sized volumes. :P
I once had an Emacs cheat sheet. It was about two full letter-size
pages, i e four columns. I never had a vi cheat sheet.
>>> (And if you had no printer, no "cheat sheet" at all.)
>> What, someone took away all the paper and pencils?
>
> I expected that even people willing to flip through the equivalent of
> a phone book every time they wanted to cut, copy, paste, save changes,
> or what-not would tend to be less than pleased by the prospect of
> having to actually *transcribe* a document that size by hand. So I
> considered it a non-starter.
The "phone book" needed for basic tasks exists only in your imagination.
You need only a small subset of the commands to accomplish basic tasks
like the ones you would use Notepad for.
>> I had hoped that my use of "apparently" would indicate that I was
>> stating my perception of your views, which [the perception] might
>> be correct or incorrect. I guess that didn't come across.
>
> It doesn't matter. Misattributing anything to me is going to screw
> things up in Google, and for anyone that just skims, and therefore
> cannot be tolerated. Don't speculate. If you don't know and want to
> know, just ask. If the answer is "none of your goddamn beeswax", give
> up. That's it.
You don't rule Usenet. Your requirements are absurd, as are your
(non-)answers to legitimate questions.
blm...@myrealbox.com
<bbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 7:29 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > I sometimes had to do in my early education -- lists of state
> > > > capitals being the example that comes most easily to mind.
> >
> > > This kind would also be needed to use anything approaching emacs'
> > > level of horrid unusability. No "cheat sheet" smaller than a freaking
> > > phone book would suffice for THAT behemoth!
> >
> > The purpose of the "cheat sheet" is not to document all possible
> > features, only those a beginner would need to accomplish basic tasks.
>
> I think you've misunderstood. Those a beginner would need to
> accomplish basic tasks take up one phone-book sized volume. The
> documentation of all possible commands takes up an entire printed
> encyclopedia of dozens of similar-sized volumes. :P
The second claim is presumably exaggeration for effect. The first --
oh, it must be more of the same, because surely no one would take it
seriously?
[ snip ]
> > I really am kind of curious about whether you perceive the same
> > distinction I do between memorizing something and absorbing it
> > through repeated use.
>
> The distinction is quite simple. Memorizing something is where you
> have to to do it at all. State capitals and emacs commands come to
> mind. Sure, repeatedly writing down the names of state capitals will
> result in a "repeated use" thing, but it still requires up-front
> memorization or reference to a "cheat sheet" or you can't do it at
> all.
>
> Versus absorbing something where you CAN actually accomplish your task
> without explicitly either looking it up first or already remembering
> it. You can absorb it "incidentally", on the fly, without your work
> being interrupted to go fishing through some documentation if you
> didn't already have it memorized.
Clearly stated. Good. I don't perceive the distinction in the
same way you do, but at least your position's clear, and I'm
willing to agree to disagree.
[ snip ]
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
The ScuzzBuster
> bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 7:29 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!
Keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong!
> >>>> I sometimes had to do in my early education -- lists of state
> >>>> capitals being the example that comes most easily to mind.
> >>> This kind would also be needed to use anything approaching emacs'
> >>> level of horrid unusability. No "cheat sheet" smaller than a freaking
> >>> phone book would suffice for THAT behemoth!
>
> [insult deleted]
No, you're the stupid one, for wasting so much time with such a pile
of clunky junk at the expense of productivity at your actual tasks.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Opaque systems that intrude on your work and force you to think about
and consciously work with the interface, instead of being transparent
and getting out of your way to let you focus on the actual task at
hand, are to be reviled, not embraced. You may think that mastering a
complex, arcane, and obsolete user interface is a sign of great
intelligence, but it is merely a sign of foolishness and misallocated
priorities. True intelligence and wisdom is seen in he who eschews
such pointlessness and uses simple, easy-to-use tools that get the job
done just as well and with far less effort.
> >> The purpose of the "cheat sheet" is not to document all possible
> >> features, only those a beginner would need to accomplish basic tasks.
>
> > I think you've misunderstood. Those a beginner would need to
> > accomplish basic tasks take up one phone-book sized volume. The
> > documentation of all possible commands takes up an entire printed
> > encyclopedia of dozens of similar-sized volumes. :P
>
> I once had an Emacs cheat sheet. It was about two full letter-size
> pages, i e four columns.
That probably sufficed to cover "save changes" and "exit". How many
more cheat sheets did you have? :P
> >>> (And if you had no printer, no "cheat sheet" at all.)
> >> What, someone took away all the paper and pencils?
>
> > I expected that even people willing to flip through the equivalent of
> > a phone book every time they wanted to cut, copy, paste, save changes,
> > or what-not would tend to be less than pleased by the prospect of
> > having to actually *transcribe* a document that size by hand. So I
> > considered it a non-starter.
>
> [insults deleted]
No, you're the crazy one.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> >> I had hoped that my use of "apparently" would indicate that I was
> >> stating my perception of your views, which [the perception] might
> >> be correct or incorrect. I guess that didn't come across.
>
> > It doesn't matter. Misattributing anything to me is going to screw
> > things up in Google, and for anyone that just skims, and therefore
> > cannot be tolerated. Don't speculate. If you don't know and want to
> > know, just ask. If the answer is "none of your goddamn beeswax", give
> > up. That's it.
>
> [threats and insults deleted]
No, you're the crazy one and the liar.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
I don't respond well to threats.
The right to free speech does have limits, and those limits include
misattribution and misrepresentation:
* Plagiarism
* Trademark infringement
* Libel
* Slander
* Others I could name
I strongly recommend that you read up on tort law before you post a
single additional word to Usenet. Otherwise, you might regret it.
The ScuzzBuster
> > > The purpose of the "cheat sheet" is not to document all possible
> > > features, only those a beginner would need to accomplish basic tasks.
>
> > I think you've misunderstood. Those a beginner would need to
> > accomplish basic tasks take up one phone-book sized volume. The
> > documentation of all possible commands takes up an entire printed
> > encyclopedia of dozens of similar-sized volumes. :P
>
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > > I really am kind of curious about whether you perceive the same
> > > distinction I do between memorizing something and absorbing it
> > > through repeated use.
>
> > The distinction is quite simple. Memorizing something is where you
> > have to to do it at all. State capitals and emacs commands come to
> > mind. Sure, repeatedly writing down the names of state capitals will
> > result in a "repeated use" thing, but it still requires up-front
> > memorization or reference to a "cheat sheet" or you can't do it at
> > all.
>
> > Versus absorbing something where you CAN actually accomplish your task
> > without explicitly either looking it up first or already remembering
> > it. You can absorb it "incidentally", on the fly, without your work
> > being interrupted to go fishing through some documentation if you
> > didn't already have it memorized.
>
> Clearly stated. Good. I don't perceive the distinction in the
> same way you do, but at least your position's clear, and I'm
> willing to agree to disagree.
This is a step forward for you. Only ten more to go, then. :)
blm...@myrealbox.com
The ScuzzBuster <scuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:04 pm, Lars Enderin <hole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sep 30, 7:29 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> Opaque systems that intrude on your work and force you to think about
> and consciously work with the interface, instead of being transparent
> and getting out of your way to let you focus on the actual task at
> hand, are to be reviled, not embraced. You may think that mastering a
> complex, arcane, and obsolete user interface is a sign of great
> intelligence, but it is merely a sign of foolishness and misallocated
> priorities. True intelligence and wisdom is seen in he who eschews
> such pointlessness and uses simple, easy-to-use tools that get the job
> done just as well and with far less effort.
I (and, if I remember right, others) said, much earlier in the
predecessor thread, that some of us long-time users of vi and
emacs do not perceive ourselves as thinking about the interface,
any more than proficient users of tools that conform to CUA
conventions think about pressing control-A to "select all".
Do you not believe us?
As for the time spent .... I've been told that economists have
a term "sunk cost" that might apply here. For some of us, the
time invested in learning vi and/or emacs is a sunk cost, and
an investment that made sense when it was made. Perhaps modern
alternatives are at least as good, and we should retrain, but
that some of us apparently don't want to -- strikes me as human.
<shrug>
blm...@myrealbox.com
The ScuzzBuster <scuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:44 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > Clearly stated. Good. I don't perceive the distinction in the
> > same way you do, but at least your position's clear, and I'm
> > willing to agree to disagree.
>
> This is a step forward for you.
You think so? Huh. There are lot of things about which I'm
willing to agree to disagree. It's a surprise to me that you
would adopt this position, but a pleasant one.
> Only ten more to go, then. :)
?
Lars Enderin
> On Oct 5, 3:04 pm, Lars Enderin <hole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I once had an Emacs cheat sheet. It was about two full letter-size
>> pages, i e four columns.
>
> That probably sufficed to cover "save changes" and "exit". How many
> more cheat sheets did you have? :P
It looked somewhat like this:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~robishaw/comp/emacs.crib.html
The ScuzzBuster
> In article <8d27aae3-3271-4993-9d54-a5d46928d...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> The ScuzzBuster <scuzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 3:04 pm, Lars Enderin <hole...@gmail.com> wrote:
NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!
What I say in response to Lars is no skin off your nose.
> > Opaque systems that intrude on your work and force you to think about
> > and consciously work with the interface, instead of being transparent
> > and getting out of your way to let you focus on the actual task at
> > hand, are to be reviled, not embraced. You may think that mastering a
> > complex, arcane, and obsolete user interface is a sign of great
> > intelligence, but it is merely a sign of foolishness and misallocated
> > priorities. True intelligence and wisdom is seen in he who eschews
> > such pointlessness and uses simple, easy-to-use tools that get the job
> > done just as well and with far less effort.
>
> I (and, if I remember right, others) said, much earlier in the
> predecessor thread, that some of us long-time users of vi and
> emacs do not perceive ourselves as thinking about the interface,
"Perceive" being the operative word.
As one who's used both sorts of interface, I can definitively say that
one of them is like a broad, smoothly-paved highway to getting your
job done and the other is like a winding footpath with tree roots and
rocks sticking up everywhere. The latter meaning you can't see more
than twenty feet ahead and keep tripping, or else having to look down
at your feet to watch where you're going.
(I'll give you two guesses which is which, but you'll only need one.)
In simpler language, there's text editors a typical guy who hasn't
used that particular editor (but has standard computer-use experience
and knowledge) can just sit down at and start to use, and then
there're emacs and vi.
> Do you not believe us?
No.
> As for the time spent .... I've been told that economists have
> a term "sunk cost" that might apply here.
That does not apply when you're recommending this shit to others. And
even in your case, when the software causes you trouble (as trn
apparently does with i18n), there's another term that might apply:
"throwing good money after bad".
The ScuzzBuster
> > > same way you do, but at least your position's clear, and I'm
> > > willing to agree to disagree.
>
> > This is a step forward for you.
>
> You think so?
Yes.
> > Only ten more to go, then. :)
>
> ?
Two steps taken, ten to go, right? ;)
The ScuzzBuster
> >> I once had an Emacs cheat sheet. It was about two full letter-size
> >> pages, i e four columns.
>
> > That probably sufficed to cover "save changes" and "exit". How many
> > more cheat sheets did you have? :P
>
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
The complex and subtle behavior of search would, alone, require a full-
length book to document. :P
blm...@myrealbox.com
The ScuzzBuster <scuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 6:20 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <8d27aae3-3271-4993-9d54-a5d46928d...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > The ScuzzBuster <scuzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 5, 3:04 pm, Lars Enderin <hole...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > > Opaque systems that intrude on your work and force you to think about
> > > and consciously work with the interface, instead of being transparent
> > > and getting out of your way to let you focus on the actual task at
> > > hand, are to be reviled, not embraced. You may think that mastering a
> > > complex, arcane, and obsolete user interface is a sign of great
> > > intelligence, but it is merely a sign of foolishness and misallocated
> > > priorities. True intelligence and wisdom is seen in he who eschews
> > > such pointlessness and uses simple, easy-to-use tools that get the job
> > > done just as well and with far less effort.
> >
> > I (and, if I remember right, others) said, much earlier in the
> > predecessor thread, that some of us long-time users of vi and
> > emacs do not perceive ourselves as thinking about the interface,
>
> "Perceive" being the operative word.
>
> As one who's used both sorts of interface, I can definitively say that
> one of them is like a broad, smoothly-paved highway to getting your
> job done and the other is like a winding footpath with tree roots and
> rocks sticking up everywhere. The latter meaning you can't see more
> than twenty feet ahead and keep tripping, or else having to look down
> at your feet to watch where you're going.
>
> (I'll give you two guesses which is which, but you'll only need one.)
I also have used both interfaces, and I have a different view.
As best I can tell, your expertise with vim and emacs is comparable
to mine with CUA-conforming interfaces -- that is, comparatively
limited. So my qualifications to speak "definitively" would seem
to be as good as yours.
> In simpler language, there's text editors a typical guy who hasn't
> used that particular editor (but has standard computer-use experience
> and knowledge) can just sit down at and start to use, and then
> there're emacs and vi.
What does this have to do with what goes on in the mind of an expert
user of vim or emacs?
> > Do you not believe us?
>
> No.
So, are we deluded, or lying, or what?
blm...@myrealbox.com
I'm still not getting the reference. Twelve-step programs, maybe?
blm...@myrealbox.com
The ScuzzBuster <scuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2:20 pm, Lars Enderin <lars.hole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I once had an Emacs cheat sheet. It was about two full letter-size
> > >> pages, i e four columns.
> >
> > > That probably sufficed to cover "save changes" and "exit". How many
> > > more cheat sheets did you have? :P
> >
> > [implied insult deleted]
Priceless, simply priceless. It's an insult to provide a URL for
a typical "cheat sheet"? Wow.
> None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> all true.
>
> The complex and subtle behavior of search would, alone, require a full-
> length book to document. :P
But "cheat sheets" aren't meant as complete references.
nebul...@gmail.com
> > As one who's used both sorts of interface, I can definitively say that
> > one of them is like a broad, smoothly-paved highway to getting your
> > job done and the other is like a winding footpath with tree roots and
> > rocks sticking up everywhere. The latter meaning you can't see more
> > than twenty feet ahead and keep tripping, or else having to look down
> > at your feet to watch where you're going.
>
> > (I'll give you two guesses which is which, but you'll only need one.)
>
> I also have used both interfaces, and I have a different view.
That's because your view is blinkered.
> As best I can tell, [implied insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > In simpler language, there's text editors a typical guy who hasn't
> > used that particular editor (but has standard computer-use experience
> > and knowledge) can just sit down at and start to use, and then
> > there're emacs and vi.
>
> What does this have to do with [something irrelevant]
Why, nothing, of course; otherwise it would probably be irrelevant
too!
> > > Do you not believe us?
>
> > No.
>
> So, are we deluded, or lying, or what?
I couldn't venture to guess. You'll need an *ahem* professional
evaluation to decide that one.
nebul...@gmail.com
> > > > Only ten more to go, then. :)
>
> > > ?
>
> > Two steps taken, ten to go, right? ;)
>
> I'm still not getting the reference. Twelve-step programs, maybe?
And the light-bulb over her head comes on! :)
nebul...@gmail.com
> The ScuzzBuster <scuzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 2:20 pm, Lars Enderin <lars.hole...@gmail.com> wrote:
NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!
> > > > That probably sufficed to cover "save changes" and "exit". How many
> > > > more cheat sheets did you have? :P
>
> > > [implied insult deleted]
>
> [implied insult deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> > all true.
>
> > The complex and subtle behavior of search would, alone, require a full-
> > length book to document. :P
>
> But
But nothing. The complex and subtle behavior of emacs' search would,
blm...@myrealbox.com
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 4:23 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > As one who's used both sorts of interface, I can definitively say that
> > > one of them is like a broad, smoothly-paved highway to getting your
> > > job done and the other is like a winding footpath with tree roots and
> > > rocks sticking up everywhere. The latter meaning you can't see more
> > > than twenty feet ahead and keep tripping, or else having to look down
> > > at your feet to watch where you're going.
> >
> > > (I'll give you two guesses which is which, but you'll only need one.)
> >
> > I also have used both interfaces, and I have a different view.
>
> That's because your view is blinkered.
And you think yours isn't? I'm inclined to disagree.
> > As best I can tell, [implied insult deleted]
>
> No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> are at all true.
Why is it an insult to say that you don't seem to have a lot of
experience with vim and emacs? I'd think you might even regard
it as a badge of honor!
> > > In simpler language, there's text editors a typical guy who hasn't
> > > used that particular editor (but has standard computer-use experience
> > > and knowledge) can just sit down at and start to use, and then
> > > there're emacs and vi.
> >
> > What does this have to do with [something irrelevant]
I made a claim about the perceptions of long-time users of
vi and emacs. It seems to me that the text you "summarized"
as irrelevant was more germane to this claim than your remarks
above about a "typical guy". Well, whatever. Haven't we covered
this ground already .... Probably.
blm...@myrealbox.com
I'm still a little puzzled by what connection you perceive between
such programs and the current discussion, but -- no matter.
blm...@myrealbox.com
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 4:24 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <b9a549c9-0eab-4f69-82a6-09f935188...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > The ScuzzBuster <scuzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > > The complex and subtle behavior of search would, alone, require a full-
> > > length book to document. :P
> >
> > But
>
> But nothing. The complex and subtle behavior of emacs' search would,
> alone, require a full-length book to document.
Even if this were true -- and I think it's exaggeration for effect --
how is it relevant to the size of a "cheat sheet" for emacs? Cheat
sheets are not meant as complete references, after all.
The ScuzzBuster
> > > > As one who's used both sorts of interface, I can definitively say that
> > > > one of them is like a broad, smoothly-paved highway to getting your
> > > > job done and the other is like a winding footpath with tree roots and
> > > > rocks sticking up everywhere. The latter meaning you can't see more
> > > > than twenty feet ahead and keep tripping, or else having to look down
> > > > at your feet to watch where you're going.
>
> > > > (I'll give you two guesses which is which, but you'll only need one.)
>
> > > I also have used both interfaces, and I have a different view.
>
> > That's because your view is blinkered.
>
> And you think yours isn't?
Of course mine isn't.
> I'm inclined to [call me a liar]
That would be most unwise.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > > As best I can tell, [implied insult deleted]
>
> > No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> > are at all true.
>
> Why is it an insult to say [insult deleted]? I'd think you might even regard
> it as a badge of honor!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
It's the accompanying implication of ignorance that is insulting and
wrong. I have all too much experience with THOSE things. Believe me.
> > > > In simpler language, there's text editors a typical guy who hasn't
> > > > used that particular editor (but has standard computer-use experience
> > > > and knowledge) can just sit down at and start to use, and then
> > > > there're emacs and vi.
>
> > > What does this have to do with [something irrelevant]
>
> I made a claim about [something irrelevant]
Yes, I had noticed that. It has no bearing on the issue of foisting
monstrosities like emacs and crawling horrors like vi upon an
unsuspecting public that is ill-equipped to cope with the trauma of
coming face to face with either one.
The ScuzzBuster
> > > > Two steps taken, ten to go, right? ;)
>
> > > I'm still not getting the reference. Twelve-step programs, maybe?
>
> > And the light-bulb over her head comes on! :)
>
> I'm still a little puzzled by what connection you perceive between
> such programs and the current discussion
Oh, don't worry about that. That's somewhere around step ten I think.
You'll get there.
Eventually.
The ScuzzBuster
> > > > length book to document. :P
>
> > > But
>
> > But nothing. The complex and subtle behavior of emacs' search would,
> > alone, require a full-length book to document.
>
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
The complex and subtle behavior of emacs' search would, alone, require
blm...@myrealbox.com
The ScuzzBuster <scuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 5:55 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > Why is it an insult to say [insult deleted]? I'd think you might even regard
> > it as a badge of honor!
>
> None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> all true.
>
> It's the accompanying implication of ignorance that is insulting and
> wrong. I have all too much experience with THOSE things. Believe me.
Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
there are things you don't know about vim. There's nothing wrong
with that, and you might even know enough about the tool to make
a reasonably informed decision about whether it's suitable for your
use. But to think that you know enough to predict its behavior in
all circumstances -- to me it seems simply silly.
> > > > > In simpler language, there's text editors a typical guy who hasn't
> > > > > used that particular editor (but has standard computer-use experience
> > > > > and knowledge) can just sit down at and start to use, and then
> > > > > there're emacs and vi.
> >
> > > > What does this have to do with [something irrelevant]
> >
> > I made a claim about [something irrelevant]
>
> Yes, I had noticed that. It has no bearing on the issue of foisting
> monstrosities like emacs and crawling horrors like vi upon an
> unsuspecting public that is ill-equipped to cope with the trauma of
> coming face to face with either one.
And that in turn has little bearing on whether these supposed
monstrosities and horrors are useful to people who have invested
the time in learning them. Whether such people would have been
better served investing that time in something else might be an
interesting question, but it's not the one I was addressing.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twelve-step programs, as I understand the term, are aimed at
overcoming addictions and other undesirable behaviors, and
recognizing that one has a problem is step one, is it not?
so it would seem to me that figuring out the connection ....
Oh, whatever.
Or maybe you're making a *very* subtle reference to -- I seem
to remember once coming across a parody version of the pop song
"Addicted to Love" called "Addicted to vi". Googling ....
Yeah, it exists, but it sounds like it was written by an emacs
fan, which from your perspective may be just as bad. <shrug>
blm...@myrealbox.com
The ScuzzBuster <scuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 5:57 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> The complex and subtle behavior of emacs' search would, alone, require
> a full-length book to document.
What does this have to do with the size of a "cheat sheet" for emacs?
which was the original topic of discussion in this subthread.
The ScuzzBuster
> > > Why is it an insult to say [insult deleted]? I'd think you might even regard
> > > it as a badge of honor!
>
> > None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> > all true.
>
> > It's the accompanying implication of ignorance that is insulting and
> > wrong. I have all too much experience with THOSE things. Believe me.
>
> Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> there are things you don't know about vim.
Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
there are things *you* don't know about vim. The last known date of
your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
one thing you still don't know about vim.
> But to think that you know enough to predict its behavior in
> all circumstances -- to me it seems simply silly.
All circumstances? Who ever said anything about "all circumstances"?
(Besides you, just now.)
I certainly know enough to predict with a high degree of confidence
its behavior in the circumstances "a newbie sits down at it and tries
to get some useful work done as if they were actually sitting in front
of a real, proper, normal text editor", and I believe I summarized it
succinctly a few posts ago with the phrase "brains pop like a
microwaved hamster".
The one thing that seriously mystifies me is your vi evangelism.
Wait a minute, I just had an idea. Maybe you're a platinum coil
saleswoman!
> > > > > > In simpler language, there's text editors a typical guy who hasn't
> > > > > > used that particular editor (but has standard computer-use experience
> > > > > > and knowledge) can just sit down at and start to use, and then
> > > > > > there're emacs and vi.
>
> > > > > What does this have to do with [something irrelevant]
>
> > > I made a claim about [something irrelevant]
>
> > Yes, I had noticed that. It has no bearing on the issue of foisting
> > monstrosities like emacs and crawling horrors like vi upon an
> > unsuspecting public that is ill-equipped to cope with the trauma of
> > coming face to face with either one.
>
> And that in turn has little bearing on whether these supposed
> monstrosities and horrors are useful
Well, I suppose they could get starring roles in future Hollywood
films as "things that go bump in the night". (It's quiet! Yeah, too
quiet! Clunk ... KLUNK ... What's that sound? RATTLE MOAN GRIND BUZZ
Oh no ... Oh sweet Jesus no ... click click *BEEP!* click clickety-
click *BEEP!* KLUNK, KLUNK, KLUNK BUZZ RATTLE RAttle rattle whirr
thunk. NOOOO! AAAAAAAAGH! What, WHAT?! It's ... it's too horrible to
describe ... MY DRIVE HEADS ARE KNOCKING! ALL THAT WORK! ALL THOSE
FILES! LAST BACKUP WAS SIX WEEKS AGO! NOOOOOOOO! Did you save one
bullet like you're supposed to? Yeah ... *sobbing sounds for a few
moments, then silence, then* ... BANG!)
Hollywood critics will debate whether this might be considered
"useful".
> Whether such people would have been better served investing that time
> in something else might be an interesting question
Indeed.
The ScuzzBuster
> > > > > > Two steps taken, ten to go, right? ;)
>
> > > > > I'm still not getting the reference. Twelve-step programs, maybe?
>
> > > > And the light-bulb over her head comes on! :)
>
> > > I'm still a little puzzled by what connection you perceive between
> > > such programs and the current discussion
>
> > Oh, don't worry about that. That's somewhere around step ten I think.
> > You'll get there.
>
> > Eventually.
>
> to remember once coming across a parody version of the pop song
> "Addicted to Love" called "Addicted to vi". Googling ....
> Yeah, it exists, but it sounds like it was written by an emacs
> fan, which from your perspective may be just as bad.
Divide and conquer ... divide and conquer. The enemy of my enemy, and
all that.
blm...@myrealbox.com
The ScuzzBuster <scuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:24 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > there are things you don't know about vim.
>
> Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> there are things *you* don't know about vim.
That's probably true of pretty much every tool I use, other than
the simplest ones. It seems to me to be a good bet, though, that
I know more about this tool I use routinely than you do, just
as I would imagine you know more about, say, Eclipse than I do.
> The last known date of
> your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
> probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
> past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
> one thing you still don't know about vim.
Almost certainly. What's your point?
> > But to think that you know enough to predict its behavior in
> > all circumstances -- to me it seems simply silly.
>
> All circumstances? Who ever said anything about "all circumstances"?
> (Besides you, just now.)
Perhaps no one did (other than me, just now). My recollection,
though, is that on at least one and probably several occasions
you predicted behavior for vim that was contradicted by my actual
experience of the program. (I'm dimly remembering a discussion
of the feature that allows one to operate on selected lines with
an external program, a discussion along the lines of you saying
"that could never work!" and my replying that in fact it did ....
I may be misremembering that, though, and I can't think of any
easy way to look it up.)
> I certainly know enough to predict with a high degree of confidence
> its behavior in the circumstances "a newbie sits down at it and tries
> to get some useful work done as if they were actually sitting in front
> of a real, proper, normal text editor", and I believe I summarized it
> succinctly a few posts ago with the phrase "brains pop like a
> microwaved hamster".
No one really disputed this claim, though -- except perhaps to
suggest that perhaps "normal" was in the mind of the user, and
someone whose experience was not confined to recent mainstream
tools might have a different perspective from your Joe Random User.
> The one thing that seriously mystifies me is your vi evangelism.
I don't know why it should mystify you -- you've said elsethread
that I'm "strange".
> Wait a minute, I just had an idea. Maybe you're a platinum coil
> saleswoman!
Huh? A quick Google search suggests that there's a treatment for
brain aneurysms that involves platinum coils, but I don't get how
that would be relevant here. Possibly you mean something else.
[ snip ]
blm...@myrealbox.com
The ScuzzBuster <scuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:28 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > Or maybe you're making a *very* subtle reference to -- I seem
> > to remember once coming across a parody version of the pop song
> > "Addicted to Love" called "Addicted to vi". Googling ....
> > Yeah, it exists, but it sounds like it was written by an emacs
> > fan, which from your perspective may be just as bad.
>
> Divide and conquer ... divide and conquer. The enemy of my enemy, and
> all that.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? But then that would seem
to imply that emacs enthusiasts are your friends, and -- good
heavens, that *would* be a surprise.
corbo...@gmail.com
> > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > there are things you don't know about vim.
>
> > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
>
> That's probably true
Well, there you go, then.
> > The last known date of
> > your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
> > probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
> > past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
> > one thing you still don't know about vim.
>
> Almost certainly.
Well, there you go, then.
> > > But to think that you know enough to predict its behavior in
> > > all circumstances -- to me it seems simply silly.
>
> > All circumstances? Who ever said anything about "all circumstances"?
> > (Besides you, just now.)
>
> Perhaps no one did (other than me, just now).
Well, there you go, then.
> My recollection, though, is that on at least one and probably
> several occasions you [lied]
I most certainly did not!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> (I'm dimly remembering a discussion ... along the lines of you saying
> "that could never work!" and my replying that in fact it did .... I
> may be misremembering that, though
You most certainly are.
> > I certainly know enough to predict with a high degree of confidence
> > its behavior in the circumstances "a newbie sits down at it and tries
> > to get some useful work done as if they were actually sitting in front
> > of a real, proper, normal text editor", and I believe I summarized it
> > succinctly a few posts ago with the phrase "brains pop like a
> > microwaved hamster".
>
> No one really disputed this claim, though
Well, there you go, then.
In light of this last, I think it's fair to say that suggesting in a
newsgroup that people try vi is comparable in its moral and ethical
dimensions to peddling heroin on a street corner (heroin that's been
cut with strychnine and Drano Kitchen Crystals, at that).
(Certainly the heroin is, if anything, less dangerous to the user's
brains than a microwave?)
> someone whose experience was not confined to recent mainstream
> tools might have a different perspective from your Joe Random User.
Only Joe Random User is at issue in a debate over what is or is not
suitable for use by Joe Random User.
> > The one thing that seriously mystifies me is your vi evangelism.
>
> I don't know why it should mystify you -- you've said elsethread
> that I'm "strange".
Strange, yes. But how can anyone use the computer-software equivalent
of a toxic batch of street heroin and *survive*? It's a truly baffling
mystery. :)
> > Wait a minute, I just had an idea. Maybe you're a platinum coil
> > saleswoman!
>
> Huh? A quick Google search suggests that there's a treatment for
> brain aneurysms that involves platinum coils, but I don't get how
> that would be relevant here.
Peddling vi might not earn you money directly, but it could increase
demand for the platinum coils. A twisted and evil version of one of
Mike Masnick's business models from over at Techdirt.
corbo...@gmail.com
> > > Or maybe you're making a *very* subtle reference to -- I seem
> > > to remember once coming across a parody version of the pop song
> > > "Addicted to Love" called "Addicted to vi". Googling ....
> > > Yeah, it exists, but it sounds like it was written by an emacs
> > > fan, which from your perspective may be just as bad.
>
> > Divide and conquer ... divide and conquer. The enemy of my enemy, and
> > all that.
>
> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? But then that would seem
> to imply that emacs enthusiasts are your friends, and -- good
> heavens, that *would* be a surprise.
No, Notepad enthusiasts. :)
blm...@myrealbox.com
<corbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 7:46 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > > there are things you don't know about vim.
> >
> > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
> >
> > That's probably true
>
> Well, there you go, then.
What's your point? As I said:
That's probably true of pretty much every tool I use, other than
the simplest ones. It seems to me to be a good bet, though, that
I know more about this tool I use routinely than you do, just as
I would imagine you know more about, say, Eclipse than I do.
> > > The last known date of
> > > your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
> > > probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
> > > past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
> > > one thing you still don't know about vim.
> >
> > Almost certainly.
>
> Well, there you go, then.
What's your point?
[ snip ]
> > My recollection, though, is that on at least one and probably
> > several occasions you [lied]
Or were mistaken.
> I most certainly did not!
Well, now I'm curious, and maybe I can find an example .... In
Message-ID: <1191357313.8...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
(in comp.lang.java.programmer) you wrote, in response to my
description of applying an external command to a portion of a file:
"AFAICT none of those unix editors even *has* a concept of a
selection in the normal sense, so any scoping would be arcane,
and an external tool would just act on the entire file anyway."
It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
apply an external program to a portion of a file.
[ snip ]
> > (I'm dimly remembering a discussion ... along the lines of you saying
> > "that could never work!" and my replying that in fact it did .... I
> > may be misremembering that, though
>
> You most certainly are.
See above.
> > > I certainly know enough to predict with a high degree of confidence
> > > its behavior in the circumstances "a newbie sits down at it and tries
> > > to get some useful work done as if they were actually sitting in front
> > > of a real, proper, normal text editor", and I believe I summarized it
> > > succinctly a few posts ago with the phrase "brains pop like a
> > > microwaved hamster".
> >
> > No one really disputed this claim, though
>
> Well, there you go, then.
What I and others *did* dispute was other claims you made, and
I continue to do so.
Saint Nick
> > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > > > there are things you don't know about vim.
>
> > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
>
> > > That's probably true
>
> > Well, there you go, then.
Well, there you go, then.
> > > > The last known date of
> > > > your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
> > > > probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
> > > > past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
> > > > one thing you still don't know about vim.
>
> > > Almost certainly.
>
> > Well, there you go, then.
Well, there you go, then.
> > > My recollection, though, is that on at least one and probably
> > > several occasions you [lied]
>
> Or [insult deleted]
Certainly not.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> apply an external program to a portion of a file.
Only by saving a subset of the file to disk. You can do that in
Notepad (copy, new file, paste, save as...).
On the other hand, selecting and saving a subset is tedious as well as
trivially possible.
Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
definitely is.
But you know what I mean, and what I originally meant, too.
What you can do tediously isn't at issue. You implied some sort of
pluggability, where external tools could simply see inside of vim's
buffer and even make changes to it, which is out of the question --
the external tool would catch SIGSEGV if it tried.
Speaking of which, the darn payroll server just bombed again. I think
there's an overflow when 45,000 elves all get dozens of hours of
overtime pay all in the same month. It happens at the end of every
November and every December. Moron designers apparently never heard of
holiday shopping season. And everyone's so hopping busy I'll probably
have to go through 20,000 lines of COBOL looking for the bug myself.
The very thought disgusts me. I think next year I'll make it the
sanitation department's job. They're used to getting their hands
nearly that dirty. Have you any idea how much *crap* you get when you
have 45,000 elves, eight reindeer, and two humans in a campus 3 by 5
miles in size in the middle of the frozen north, and movement of the
ice tends to keep breaking the sewer pipes?
> > > (I'm dimly remembering a discussion ... along the lines of you saying
> > > "that could never work!" and my replying that in fact it did .... I
> > > may be misremembering that, though
>
> > You most certainly are.
You most certainly are.
> > > > I certainly know enough to predict with a high degree of confidence
> > > > its behavior in the circumstances "a newbie sits down at it and tries
> > > > to get some useful work done as if they were actually sitting in front
> > > > of a real, proper, normal text editor", and I believe I summarized it
> > > > succinctly a few posts ago with the phrase "brains pop like a
> > > > microwaved hamster".
>
> > > No one really disputed this claim, though
>
> > Well, there you go, then.
>
> [calls me a liar]
Never have, never will.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 6:37 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > > > > there are things you don't know about vim.
> >
> > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > > > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
> >
> > > > That's probably true
> >
> > > Well, there you go, then.
>
> Well, there you go, then.
What's your point? As I said:
That's probably true of pretty much every tool I use, other than
the simplest ones. It seems to me to be a good bet, though, that
I know more about this tool I use routinely than you do, just as
I would imagine you know more about, say, Eclipse than I do.
> > > > > The last known date of
> > > > > your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
> > > > > probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
> > > > > past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
> > > > > one thing you still don't know about vim.
> >
> > > > Almost certainly.
> >
> > > Well, there you go, then.
What's your point?
[ snip ]
> > It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> > apply an external program to a portion of a file.
>
> Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
Not explicitly -- or even necessarily implicitly. vim has a syntax
(which I believe it inherits from vi) for saying "replace these
lines with the output of calling an external program with them (the
lines) as input". I can think of at least one way to make this
work under Linux that doesn't involve files at all, and I'm pretty
sure it will work, because it's much like a little program I wrote
a while back when I was learning about various Linux system calls:
Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
and one for its standard output. (Call them pipeToExternal and
pipeFromExternal.) Start two additional processes, using fork().
Use one of them to run the external program, with its standard
input connected to pipeToExternal and its standard output connected
to pipeFromExternal. Use the other to copy information from
the appropriate part of vim's internal representation of the
text being edited to pipeToExternal. (It will have access to
this internal representation because creating a new process with
fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
Have the original process copy information from pipeFromExternal
back into vim's internal representation.
Note that I have *no* idea whether this is even close to what
vim actually does, but perhaps a description of a possible
implementation will make the feature seem more plausible to you.
> You can do that in
> Notepad (copy, new file, paste, save as...).
>
> On the other hand, selecting and saving a subset is tedious as well as
> trivially possible.
>
> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> definitely is.
Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case -- and that's
certainly true for vim. I don't know whether emacs supports
running selected lines through an external program, but I'm
inclined to think it probably does.
> But you know what I mean, and what I originally meant, too.
Not at all -- not surprising, since apparently what you mean,
and meant, was something other than how things actually work.
> What you can do tediously isn't at issue. You implied some sort of
> pluggability, where external tools could simply see inside of vim's
> buffer and even make changes to it, which is out of the question --
> the external tool would catch SIGSEGV if it tried.
The external tool doesn't have to have direct access to vim's
internal representation. See above.
[ snip ]
> > > > (I'm dimly remembering a discussion ... along the lines of you saying
> > > > "that could never work!" and my replying that in fact it did .... I
> > > > may be misremembering that, though
> >
> > > You most certainly are.
>
> You most certainly are.
How so? You said "an external tool would just act on the entire file
anyway" -- which is counter to my experience of how vim actually
works. That seems to me to be reasonably close to my description
(saying "that could never work", of something that does).
lars.e...@gmail.com
> In article <eff065fd-9275-428b...@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
>> definitely is.
>
> Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case -- and that's
> certainly true for vim. I don't know whether emacs supports
> running selected lines through an external program, but I'm
> inclined to think it probably does.
>
Indeed. Emacs can do anything vim can do (it also has a vi mode
emulating vi). One possible command is M-x shell-command-on-region. Any
shell command is possible.
blm...@myrealbox.com
lars.e...@gmail.com <lars.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > In article
> <eff065fd-9275-428b...@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> >> definitely is.
> >
> > Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case -- and that's
> > certainly true for vim. I don't know whether emacs supports
> > running selected lines through an external program, but I'm
> > inclined to think it probably does.
> >
> Indeed. Emacs can do anything vim can do
I believe that. :-)
> (it also has a vi mode
> emulating vi). One possible command is M-x shell-command-on-region. Any
> shell command is possible.
Well .... I came across shell-command-on-region in my rather cursory
attempt to determine how/whether emacs had something similar to the
vim feature, but it *seems* that shell-command-on-region writes its
output into a separate buffer, rather than replacing the selected
text, as vim does. Is there an option I didn't notice?
Lars Enderin
> Well .... I came across shell-command-on-region in my rather cursory
> attempt to determine how/whether emacs had something similar to the
> vim feature, but it *seems* that shell-command-on-region writes its
> output into a separate buffer, rather than replacing the selected
> text, as vim does. Is there an option I didn't notice?
>
Specifically, C-u or another numerical argument before the M-x will
replace the region with the output from the command.
Captain Koloth
> > > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
>
> > > > > That's probably true
>
> > > > Well, there you go, then.
>
> > Well, there you go, then.
Well, there you go, then.
> > > > > > The last known date of
> > > > > > your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
> > > > > > probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
> > > > > > past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
> > > > > > one thing you still don't know about vim.
>
> > > > > Almost certainly.
>
> > > > Well, there you go, then.
Well, there you go, then.
> > > It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> > > apply an external program to a portion of a file.
>
> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> Not explicitly
Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
> Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
> and one for its standard output.
Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
PetaQ!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> to pipeFromExternal. Use the other to copy information from
> the appropriate part of vim's internal representation of the
> text being edited to pipeToExternal. (It will have access to
This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
typed into directly.
> this internal representation because creating a new process with
> fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
Forking a vim process strikes me as exceptionally inefficient. Only a
Federation petaQ would suggest such "engineering".
> > Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> > definitely is.
Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
> Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
Vacuously true. There is little point in editing a file you do not
intend to save, at least on systems that do not sport a decent global
(across-apps) clipboard function.
> > But you know what I mean, and what I originally meant, too.
>
> Not at all
Pretending innocence is as revolting as being a Qa'Hom.
> not surprising, since apparently [calls me a liar]
Dishonorable petaQ! Qab jIH naghIl! Or admit in public that none of
the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all
true.
> > What you can do tediously isn't at issue. You implied some sort of
> > pluggability, where external tools could simply see inside of vim's
> > buffer and even make changes to it, which is out of the question --
> > the external tool would catch SIGSEGV if it tried.
>
> [calls me a liar]
PetaQ. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > > > > (I'm dimly remembering a discussion ... along the lines of you saying
> > > > > "that could never work!" and my replying that in fact it did .... I
> > > > > may be misremembering that, though
>
> > > > You most certainly are.
>
> > You most certainly are.
You most certainly are.
Captain Koloth
wrote:
> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > In article <eff065fd-9275-428b-8c95-854333bbf...@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > Saint Nick <snick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> >> definitely is.
Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
> > Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
Vacuously true. No reasonable use case does not involve eventually
saving your changes and exiting.
> Indeed. Emacs can do anything vim can do (it also has a vi mode
> emulating vi).
What veQ. A tu'HomIraH pile of binary veQ, which consumes disk space
like an infestation of tribbles. Emacs, bImoHqu'! naDevvo' yIghoS,
obsolete tu'HomIraH veQ designed by tera'ngan petaQs with too much
free time.
Captain Koloth
> In article <ggp0oo$9l...@news.albasani.net>,
>
> lars.ende...@gmail.com <lars.ende...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > > In article
> > > Saint Nick <snick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> > >> definitely is.
Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
> > > Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
Vacuously true. No reasonable use case doesn't involve eventually
saving changes and quitting.
> > Indeed. Emacs can do anything vim can do
>
> I believe that. :-)
At the speed of treacle, with the reliability of Federation warp
cores, and the resource consumption of a pack of Borg drones, and all
the user-friendliness of the business end of a Romulan disruptor,
perhaps.
Actually, my preferred use for a Romulan disruptor is to blow up
obsolete tera'ngan computers loaded with emacs and other archaic veQ.
Though it is somehow unsatisfying, as compared to an opponent that
fights back, or even a petaQ that cowers on his knees when he realizes
that tlhIngan maH!
> Well .... I came across shell-command-on-region in my rather cursory
> attempt to determine how/whether emacs had something similar to the
> vim feature, but it *seems* that shell-command-on-region writes its
> output into a separate buffer, rather than replacing the selected
> text, as vim does. Is there an option I didn't notice?
Of course. A very obscure and wonkily-accessed option, as petaQ Lars
noted in a subsequent post, which nobody could ever discover without
flipping through half of the QI'yaH manual jay'. But no self-
respecting Klingon warrior would be caught dead trying to read that
veQ! Or trying to use the software it describes jay'. Such veQ!
Lars Enderin
> On Nov 28, 1:27 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> In article <ggp0oo$9l...@news.albasani.net>,
>>
>> lars.ende...@gmail.com <lars.ende...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
>>>> In article
>>> <eff065fd-9275-428b-8c95-854333bbf...@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Saint Nick <snick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
>>>>> definitely is.
>
> Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
This is a new one! You admit that you wrote something you didn't mean,
and did not try to accuse someone else of misquotation! Of course, what
you wrote was correct. Saving from emacs *is* trivial. If you forget,
and try to kill emacs without saving your work, you are prompted to do so.
>>>> Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
>
> Vacuously true. No reasonable use case doesn't involve eventually
> saving changes and quitting.
For example, you may want to see a translation or other transformation
of a segment of text, and use a shell command on that region. You may
not want to save the result once you have seen it.
>>> Indeed. Emacs can do anything vim can do
>> I believe that. :-)
>
> At the speed of treacle, with the reliability of Federation warp
> cores, and the resource consumption of a pack of Borg drones, and all
> the user-friendliness of the business end of a Romulan disruptor,
> perhaps.
Not according to my considerable experience over several decades.
>> Well .... I came across shell-command-on-region in my rather cursory
>> attempt to determine how/whether emacs had something similar to the
>> vim feature, but it *seems* that shell-command-on-region writes its
>> output into a separate buffer, rather than replacing the selected
>> text, as vim does. Is there an option I didn't notice?
>
> Of course. A very obscure and wonkily-accessed option, as petaQ Lars
> noted in a subsequent post, which nobody could ever discover without
> flipping through half of the QI'yaH manual jay'. But no self-
> respecting Klingon warrior would be caught dead trying to read that
> veQ! Or trying to use the software it describes jay'. Such veQ!
I had momentarily forgotten about C-h f, but M-x describe-function gave
me the answer, including a hint to use C-h f. Of course, I could use
completion at every stage. No need to read any manual.
Lars Enderin
> On Nov 28, 9:55 am, "lars.ende...@gmail.com" <lars.ende...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
>>> In article <eff065fd-9275-428b-8c95-854333bbf...@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Saint Nick <snick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
>>>> definitely is.
>
> Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
You admit that you did not write what you meant?
>>> Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
>
> Vacuously true. No reasonable use case does not involve eventually
> saving your changes and exiting.
Beside the point, and wrong.
>> Indeed. Emacs can do anything vim can do (it also has a vi mode
>> emulating vi).
>
> What veQ. A tu'HomIraH pile of binary veQ, which consumes disk space
> like an infestation of tribbles. Emacs, bImoHqu'! naDevvo' yIghoS,
> obsolete tu'HomIraH veQ designed by tera'ngan petaQs with too much
> free time.
Unfounded accusations.
Andreas Waldenburger
<kolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What veQ. A tu'HomIraH pile of binary veQ, which consumes disk space
> like an infestation of tribbles. Emacs, bImoHqu'! naDevvo' yIghoS,
> obsolete tu'HomIraH veQ designed by tera'ngan petaQs with too much
> free time.
Twisted?
So it's come to Klingon? Nobody here is taking this seriously anymore,
right?
/W
--
My real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the
recipient (local part).
Lars Enderin
[unsubstantiated verbiage]
>>>> It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
>>>> apply an external program to a portion of a file.
>>> Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>> Not explicitly
>
> Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
No.
>> Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
>> and one for its standard output.
>
> Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
You are doing the suggesting.
>> to pipeFromExternal. Use the other to copy information from
>> the appropriate part of vim's internal representation of the
>> text being edited to pipeToExternal. (It will have access to
>
> This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
> to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
> typed into directly.
You don't use the tool then. Unix works on the principle that any
program can be part of a pipe, reading from stdin and writing to stdout
and/or stderr. The definition of the program may include its command
line parameters. Any file name should be given as a parameter (option).
>> this internal representation because creating a new process with
>> fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
>
> Forking a vim process strikes me as exceptionally inefficient. Only a
> Federation petaQ would suggest such "engineering".
It's no more inefficient than the mechanisms used by Word, for example.
Tristram Rolph
> On Nov 28, 6:39 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
>> > > > > > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
>>
>> > > > > That's probably true
>>
>> > > > Well, there you go, then.
>>
>> > Well, there you go, then.
>
> Well, there you go, then.
You seem to have got the Twistedbot stuck in a loop again, blmblm.
>> > > It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
>> > > apply an external program to a portion of a file.
>>
>> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>>
>> Not explicitly -- or even necessarily implicitly.
>
> Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
As a matter of fact, on a unix system with the default configuration,
vim does not save a subset of the file to disk. Instead, it does
something very close to what blmblm described. The interesting
details are in src/os_unix.c.
>> Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
>> and one for its standard output.
>
> Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
If you don't want people to call you on your ignorance, then you
shouldn't flaunt it.
>> to pipeFromExternal. Use the other to copy information from
>> the appropriate part of vim's internal representation of the
>> text being edited to pipeToExternal. (It will have access to
>
> This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
> to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
> typed into directly.
Well-designed unix tools take their input from standard input and
their output from standard output by default. That's why they're
called "standard input" and "standard output."
What do you have against standards, Neo?
>> this internal representation because creating a new process with
>> fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
>
> Forking a vim process strikes me as exceptionally inefficient.
In reality, forking a process on a modern operating system is a
fairly fast and efficient process.
>> Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
>
> Vacuously true. There is little point in editing a file you do not
> intend to save, at least on systems that do not sport a decent global
> (across-apps) clipboard function.
Which does not describe the system that anyone participating in
this discussion uses.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Aha. Thanks! I figured emacs could do this, but wasn't quite
curious enough to make more than a cursory attempt to figure
out how.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Captain Koloth <kolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:39 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > > > > > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
> >
> > > > > > That's probably true
> >
> > > > > Well, there you go, then.
> >
> > > Well, there you go, then.
>
> Well, there you go, then.
What's your point? As I said:
That's probably true of pretty much every tool I use, other than
the simplest ones. It seems to me to be a good bet, though, that
I know more about this tool I use routinely than you do, just as
I would imagine you know more about, say, Eclipse than I do.
> > > > > > > The last known date of
> > > > > > > your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
> > > > > > > probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
> > > > > > > past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
> > > > > > > one thing you still don't know about vim.
> >
> > > > > > Almost certainly.
> >
> > > > > Well, there you go, then.
>
> Well, there you go, then.
What's your point?
> > > > It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> > > > apply an external program to a portion of a file.
> >
> > > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
> >
> > Not explicitly
>
> Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
Or even necessarily implicitly. As I said. I suppose the feature
I described *could* be implemented using temporary files, but
certainly on Linux systems it wouldn't have to be -- and even if
it were implemented using temporary files, why does that matter?
I thought your point was that it requires the user to know how
to save a subset of the file to disk. Or was your point about
the efficiency (or lack thereof) of using temporary files?
> > Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
> > and one for its standard output.
>
> Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
Not by my definition of "liar". I'm proposing a mechanism for
implementing the vi(m) feature I described that doesn't require
temporary files.
[ snip ]
> > to pipeFromExternal. Use the other to copy information from
> > the appropriate part of vim's internal representation of the
> > text being edited to pipeToExternal. (It will have access to
>
> This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
> to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
> typed into directly.
So it wouldn't be useful for calling such tools. Most of the tools
one would call with this feature, however, read input from standard
input (and the command line) and send output to standard output.
That might not be common in the Windows world, but it's *very*
typical behavior for many programs in the traditional UNIX toolkit.
> > this internal representation because creating a new process with
> > fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
>
> Forking a vim process strikes me as exceptionally inefficient. Only a
> Federation petaQ would suggest such "engineering".
It's my understanding that "fork" doesn't *actually* duplicate the
address space unless/until it's modified. So I wonder whether it's
as inefficient as you seem to be saying it is.
> > > Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> > > definitely is.
>
> Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
I understood your intended meaning the first time.
> > Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
>
> Vacuously true. There is little point in editing a file you do not
> intend to save, at least on systems that do not sport a decent global
> (across-apps) clipboard function.
Saving changes (i.e., saving the whole file being edited) is trivial
in both editors, and indeed both will prompt if the user tries to
exit without saving. I understood you to be talking about saving
part of a file to a temporary file, which is slightly less trivial,
but also not something that's needed very often, especially in an
environment that supports cut and paste. (And yes, I think most
people using either vim or emacs in 2008 are doing so in such
an environment.)
> > > But you know what I mean, and what I originally meant, too.
> >
> > Not at all
>
> Pretending innocence is as revolting as being a Qa'Hom.
Who's pretending? Not I.
> > not surprising, since apparently [calls me a liar]
>
> Dishonorable petaQ! Qab jIH naghIl! Or admit in public that none of
> the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all
> true.
"Face me if you dare"? Please explain what you have in mind for
that, if it's not what I'm doing here.
> > > What you can do tediously isn't at issue. You implied some sort of
> > > pluggability, where external tools could simply see inside of vim's
> > > buffer and even make changes to it, which is out of the question --
> > > the external tool would catch SIGSEGV if it tried.
> >
> > [calls me a liar]
>
> PetaQ. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> are at all true.
The external tool doesn't have to have direct access to vim's
internal representation. See my previous post.
> > > > > > (I'm dimly remembering a discussion ... along the lines of you saying
> > > > > > "that could never work!" and my replying that in fact it did .... I
> > > > > > may be misremembering that, though
> >
> > > > > You most certainly are.
> >
> > > You most certainly are.
>
> You most certainly are.
I doubt it, since we seem to be repeating here the discussion
I remember.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Andreas Waldenburger <geek...@usenot.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:53:59 -0800 (PST) Captain Koloth
> <kolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What veQ. A tu'HomIraH pile of binary veQ, which consumes disk space
> > like an infestation of tribbles. Emacs, bImoHqu'! naDevvo' yIghoS,
> > obsolete tu'HomIraH veQ designed by tera'ngan petaQs with too much
> > free time.
>
> Twisted?
>
> So it's come to Klingon? Nobody here is taking this seriously anymore,
> right?
Good question -- I've never been quite sure, even about myself.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Tristram Rolph <tris...@trashymail.com> wrote:
> Neo wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 6:39 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> >> > > > > > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
> >>
> >> > > > > That's probably true
> >>
> >> > > > Well, there you go, then.
> >>
> >> > Well, there you go, then.
> >
> > Well, there you go, then.
>
> You seem to have got the Twistedbot stuck in a loop again, blmblm.
Or vice versa, alas.
> >> > > It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> >> > > apply an external program to a portion of a file.
> >>
> >> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
> >>
> >> Not explicitly -- or even necessarily implicitly.
> >
> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> As a matter of fact, on a unix system with the default configuration,
> vim does not save a subset of the file to disk. Instead, it does
> something very close to what blmblm described. The interesting
> details are in src/os_unix.c.
Well! Thanks for confirming my -- not exactly a guess, maybe a
speculation.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Captain Koloth <kolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 1:27 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <ggp0oo$9l...@news.albasani.net>,
> >
> > lars.ende...@gmail.com <lars.ende...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
[ snip ]
> > Well .... I came across shell-command-on-region in my rather cursory
> > attempt to determine how/whether emacs had something similar to the
> > vim feature, but it *seems* that shell-command-on-region writes its
> > output into a separate buffer, rather than replacing the selected
> > text, as vim does. Is there an option I didn't notice?
>
> Of course. A very obscure
No more obscure than any of emacs's commands, and the name is
quite descriptive.
> and wonkily-accessed option,
No more so than other emacs commands, except that the mechanism
for having the output of the command replace its input does seem
like a bit of a kludge.
> as petaQ Lars
> noted in a subsequent post, which nobody could ever discover without
> flipping through half of the QI'yaH manual jay'.
So how did I find it in the few minutes I was willing to spend looking?
> But no self-
> respecting Klingon warrior would be caught dead trying to read that
> veQ! Or trying to use the software it describes jay'. Such veQ!
Just as well -- y'all seem to be easily frustrated and prone to
expressing that frustration in destructive ways.
Prior #3
> >>>>> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> >>>>> definitely is.
>
> > Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
>
> This is a new one! You admit
I admit nothing! I have merely clarified.
Priors are beacons on the road to enlightenment.
> [implied insult deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> >>>> Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
>
> > Vacuously true. No reasonable use case doesn't involve eventually
> > saving changes and quitting.
>
> [calls me a liar]
Fear not the Ori, fear the darkness that would conceal the knowledge
of the universe.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> >>> Indeed. Emacs can do anything vim can do
> >> I believe that. :-)
>
> > At the speed of treacle, with the reliability of Federation warp
> > cores, and the resource consumption of a pack of Borg drones, and all
> > the user-friendliness of the business end of a Romulan disruptor,
> > perhaps.
>
> [calls me a liar]
I am not the liar here. Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see
with both eyes.
And the truth here is: none of the nasty things that you have said or
implied about me are at all true.
> >> Well .... I came across shell-command-on-region in my rather cursory
> >> attempt to determine how/whether emacs had something similar to the
> >> vim feature, but it *seems* that shell-command-on-region writes its
> >> output into a separate buffer, rather than replacing the selected
> >> text, as vim does. Is there an option I didn't notice?
>
> > Of course. A very obscure and wonkily-accessed option, as petaQ Lars
> > noted in a subsequent post, which nobody could ever discover without
> > flipping through half of the QI'yaH manual jay'. But no self-
> > respecting Klingon warrior would be caught dead trying to read that
> > veQ! Or trying to use the software it describes jay'. Such veQ!
>
> [calls me a liar]
Only those who follow the path will rise up in the name of the Ori.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Hallowed are the Ori.
Prior #3
> >>>> Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> >>>> definitely is.
>
> > Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
>
> You admit
I admit nothing. I clarified.
Priors are beacons on the road to enlightenment.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> >>> Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
>
> > Vacuously true. No reasonable use case does not involve eventually
> > saving your changes and exiting.
>
> [vicious insult deleted]
Make yourself one with the path, and the journey will lead you to
eternity.
Continue to insult my intelligence, however, and the journey will lead
you nowhere.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> >> Indeed. Emacs can do anything vim can do (it also has a vi mode
> >> emulating vi).
>
> > What veQ. A tu'HomIraH pile of binary veQ, which consumes disk space
> > like an infestation of tribbles. Emacs, bImoHqu'! naDevvo' yIghoS,
> > obsolete tu'HomIraH veQ designed by tera'ngan petaQs with too much
> > free time.
>
> [calls me a liar]
The only one making false accusations here is you, Lars.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Hallowed are the Ori.
Prior #3
> > What veQ. A tu'HomIraH pile of binary veQ, which consumes disk space
> > like an infestation of tribbles. Emacs, bImoHqu'! naDevvo' yIghoS,
> > obsolete tu'HomIraH veQ designed by tera'ngan petaQs with too much
> > free time.
>
> Twisted?
>
> So it's come to Klingon? Nobody here is taking this seriously anymore,
> right?
You and Lars are the ones here who lack senses of humor.
Hallowed are the Ori and those who follow.
Prior #3
> Captain Koloth wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 6:39 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Those who follow the path of righteousness shall be raised up high.
And those who are prideful and refuse to bow down shall be laid low
and made unto dust.
> >>>> It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> >>>> apply an external program to a portion of a file.
> >>> Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
> >> Not explicitly
>
> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> [calls me a liar]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Life and death, light and darkness, hope and despair. The rift was
created, and on that day, the Ori were born. But the hatred of those
who strayed from the true path festered and bloomed in the dark
corners of the Avernakis to which they have been cast! And consumed by
this hatred, they poisoned all they touched, bringing death, darkness
and despair. And the souls of their victims knew no peace, until the
Ori came and whispered to them: 'Sleep, for the end draws near!' And
on that day all will rejoice, when the Ori come and lay them low.
> >> Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
> >> and one for its standard output.
>
> > Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
>
> [false accusation deleted]
Those who seek the path to enlightenment must not be led astray!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
> > to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
> > typed into directly.
>
> You don't use the tool then.
Blessed are those who walk in unison.
> >> this internal representation because creating a new process with
> >> fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
>
> > Forking a vim process strikes me as exceptionally inefficient. Only a
> > Federation petaQ would suggest such "engineering".
>
> It's no more inefficient than the mechanisms used by Word, for example.
Forking a vim process is far more inefficient than using OLE or DDE.
Hallowed are the Ori.
Prior #3
> >> > > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> >> > > > > > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
>
> >> > > > > That's probably true
>
> >> > > > Well, there you go, then.
>
> >> > Well, there you go, then.
>
> > Well, there you go, then.
>
> You seem to have got the Twistedbot stuck in a loop again, blmblm.
The flames of ignorance burn without pain. Beware their power, for it
will consume you before you know.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> >> > > It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> >> > > apply an external program to a portion of a file.
>
> >> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> [misquotes me and calls me a liar]
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Those who abandon the path are evil.
> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> [calls me a liar]
The book of Origin tell us that enemies of the Ori will show no mercy
in their attempt to lead us astray from the true path.
Nevertheless, none of the nasty things that they have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> [misquotes me]
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes wide.
> > Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
>
> If you don't want people to call you on your [insult deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all who
embrace evil! In the name of the gods, ships shall be built to carry
our warriors out amongst the stars and we will spread Origin to all
the unbelievers. The power of the Ori will be felt far and wide and
the wicked shall be vanquished!
> > This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
> > to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
> > typed into directly.
>
> [claptrap deleted]
>
> What do you have against standards, Neo?
Do not put words in my mouth that I never actually said. That is
incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
I have nothing against standards.
And the people shall deliver the wicked into your divine judgment,
where their sins shall be weighed in the balance of all that is just
and true.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> >> this internal representation because creating a new process with
> >> fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
>
> > Forking a vim process strikes me as exceptionally inefficient.
>
> [implied insult deleted], forking a process on a modern operating system is a
> fairly fast and efficient process.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Forking a process makes a copy of it. This is exceptionally wasteful
of memory if there is another way to accomplish the same goal.
> >> Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
>
> > Vacuously true. There is little point in editing a file you do not
> > intend to save, at least on systems that do not sport a decent global
> > (across-apps) clipboard function.
>
> [calls me a liar]
Then did Tilius say to the people of the low plains: seek not the
wickedness amongst your neighbors, lest it find purchase in your own
house.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Hallowed are the Ori.
Prior #3
> > > > > > > > Judging by some of the discussion back in comp.lang.java.programmer,
> > > > > > > > there are things *you* don't know about vim.
>
> > > > > > > That's probably true
>
> > > > > > Well, there you go, then.
>
> > > > Well, there you go, then.
>
> > Well, there you go, then.
>
> What's your point?
Make yourself one with the path, and the journey will lead you to
eternity.
Hallowed are the Ori.
> > > > > > > > The last known date of
> > > > > > > > your discovering something new about vim was circa August 2008. The
> > > > > > > > probability that the last ever such date lies only three months in the
> > > > > > > > past is deemed insignificant, ergo there (probably) remains at least
> > > > > > > > one thing you still don't know about vim.
>
> > > > > > > Almost certainly.
>
> > > > > > Well, there you go, then.
>
> > Well, there you go, then.
>
> What's your point?
Belief is the first step on the road to enlightenment.
Hallowed are the Ori and those who follow.
> > > > > It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> > > > > apply an external program to a portion of a file.
>
> > > > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> > > Not explicitly
>
> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> [calls me a liar]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Amica strayed from the path of enlightenment. He was forgiven, and was
allowed back on the path.
> > > Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
> > > and one for its standard output.
>
> > Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
>
> No
Blessed are those who walk in unison.
> > This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
> > to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
> > typed into directly.
>
> So it wouldn't be useful for calling such tools.
Precisely.
Make yourself one with the path, and the journey will lead you to
eternity.
> > > this internal representation because creating a new process with
> > > fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
>
> > Forking a vim process strikes me as exceptionally inefficient. Only a
> > Federation petaQ would suggest such "engineering".
>
> It's my understanding that "fork" doesn't *actually* duplicate the
> address space unless/until it's modified.
Copy-on-write? But the address space will be modified as soon as
either copy receives new data. In your scheme, one of them does so
almost immediately.
Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes.
> > > > Well, saving from vim is probably not so trivial. Saving from emacs
> > > > definitely is.
>
> > Definitely is not so trivial, that is.
>
> I understood your intended meaning the first time.
Blessed are those who walk in unison.
> > > Irrelevant if one doesn't need to for this use case
>
> > Vacuously true. There is little point in editing a file you do not
> > intend to save, at least on systems that do not sport a decent global
> > (across-apps) clipboard function.
>
> [appears to be calling my honesty into question]
Enemies of the Ori show no mercy in their attempts to draw believers
away from the path.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> I understood you to be talking about saving
> part of a file to a temporary file, which is slightly less trivial,
Indeed, is not trivial at all.
> but also not something that's needed very often, especially in an
> environment that supports cut and paste.
Also known as "in Windows".
> > > > But you know what I mean, and what I originally meant, too.
>
> > > Not at all
>
> > Pretending innocence is as revolting as being a Qa'Hom.
>
> [calls me a liar]
I am not a liar.
Priors are beacons on the road to enlightenment.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > > [calls me a liar]
>
> > PetaQ. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> > are at all true.
>
> [calls me a liar]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Only those who follow the path will rise up in the name of the Ori.
> > > > > > > (I'm dimly remembering a discussion ... along the lines of you saying
> > > > > > > "that could never work!" and my replying that in fact it did .... I
> > > > > > > may be misremembering that, though
>
> > > > > > You most certainly are.
>
> > > > You most certainly are.
>
> > You most certainly are.
>
> [calls me a liar]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Those who abandon the path are evil.
Hallowed are the Ori.
Prior #3
> In article <jhlZk.24643$Jl5.7...@newsfe19.iad>,
> Tristram Rolph <trist...@trashymail.com> wrote:
> > You seem to have got the Twistedbot stuck in a loop again, blmblm.
The flames of ignorance burn without pain. Beware their power, for it
will consume you before you know.
None of the nasty things that Tristram has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> Or vice versa, alas.
As he lay there, dying in the sun, the sand of desert all around him,
Petaris spoke to the rock, not with his lips, but with his mind, and
the rock wept tears of fresh water and his thirst was quenched.
> > > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> > [calls me a liar]
None of the nasty things that Tristram has said or implied about me
are at all true.
The power and the greatness of the Ori cannot be denied.
> Well! Thanks
Do not thank Tristram for insulting me.
Those who stray must be guided back to the path.
Hallowed are the Ori.
Prior #3
> > > Well .... I came across shell-command-on-region in my rather cursory
> > > attempt to determine how/whether emacs had something similar to the
> > > vim feature, but it *seems* that shell-command-on-region writes its
> > > output into a separate buffer, rather than replacing the selected
> > > text, as vim does. Is there an option I didn't notice?
>
> > Of course. A very obscure
>
> No more obscure than any of emacs's commands
So, as I said, very obscure. As opposed to, say, extremely obscure or
ridiculously obscure or even unbelievably obscure.
> > and wonkily-accessed option,
>
> No more so than other emacs commands, except that the mechanism
> for having the output of the command replace its input does seem
> like a bit of a kludge.
In other words, quite wonkily-accessed. And "a bit of a kludge" by
emacs standards means "almost as wacky as doing something nontrivial
in vi".
> > as petaQ Lars
> > noted in a subsequent post, which nobody could ever discover without
> > flipping through half of the QI'yaH manual jay'.
>
> So how did I find it in the few minutes I was willing to spend looking?
Luck, obviously.
> > But no self-
> > respecting Klingon warrior would be caught dead trying to read that
> > veQ! Or trying to use the software it describes jay'. Such veQ!
>
> Just as well -- y'all seem to be easily frustrated and prone to
> expressing that frustration in destructive ways.
Klingons have their good qualities. Extremely fierce defenders, if you
get them on your good side, for starters.
Andreas Waldenburger
<prior...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 11:33 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > [etc ...]
> > No more obscure than any of emacs's commands
>
> So, as I said, very obscure. As opposed to, say, extremely obscure or
> ridiculously obscure or even unbelievably obscure.
>
Hey, Godguy. You fell out of character. What gives?
Andreas Waldenburger
Excuse me? I find this very funny. In a tragicomedic way, but still.
And you know what a sense of humor entails? Taking oneself not too
seriously. Taking others not seriously is not a sign of humor; that's
arrogance.
There, I said it.
Captain Koloth
> > On Dec 6, 11:33 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > [etc ...]
> > > No more obscure than any of emacs's commands
>
> > So, as I said, very obscure. As opposed to, say, extremely obscure or
> > ridiculously obscure or even unbelievably obscure.
>
PetaQ. I do not need to explain myself to you!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Captain Koloth
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:39:05 -0800 (PST) "Prior #3"
>
> > On Dec 2, 10:49 am, Andreas Waldenburger <geekm...@usenot.de> wrote:
> > > > What veQ. A tu'HomIraH pile of binary veQ, which consumes disk
> > > > space like an infestation of tribbles. Emacs, bImoHqu'! naDevvo'
> > > > yIghoS, obsolete tu'HomIraH veQ designed by tera'ngan petaQs with
> > > > too much free time.
>
> > > Twisted?
>
> > > So it's come to Klingon? Nobody here is taking this seriously
> > > anymore, right?
>
> > You and Lars are the ones here who lack senses of humor.
>
> Excuse me?
You heard me, petaQ! You and Lars are the ones here who lack senses of
humor!
> [insult deleted]
No, you're the arrogant one, petaQ.
Andreas Waldenburger
<kolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 10:16 pm, Andreas Waldenburger <geekm...@usenot.de> wrote:
> > > On Dec 6, 11:33 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > [etc ...]
> > > > No more obscure than any of emacs's commands
> >
> > > So, as I said, very obscure. As opposed to, say, extremely
> > > obscure or ridiculously obscure or even unbelievably obscure.
> >
> > [insults deleted]
>
> PetaQ. I do not need to explain myself to you!
>
That is quite fortunate for you, isn't it? Saves you the trouble of
being consistent.
Andreas Waldenburger
<kolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You heard me, petaQ! You and Lars are the ones here who lack senses of
> humor!
>
You need proof?! I'll give you proof:
A horse enters a bar. Says the bartender: "Hey, why the long face?"
No sense of humor, my butt!
Andreas Waldenburger
<kolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You heard me, petaQ! You and Lars are the ones here who lack senses of
> humor!
>
And another one, for the double whammy:
A guy sat in a boat, lost on the ocean. He was anxious and desperately
wanted to smoke, but he only had two cigarettes and no fire on him. So
he resolved to throw one cigarette over board, thereby making the boat
a cigarette lighter.
Choke on that!
Manuel Emanola
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:07:38 -0800 (PST) Captain Koloth
>
> > You heard me, petaQ! You and Lars are the ones here who lack senses of
> > humor!
>
> And another one, for the double whammy:
>
> A guy sat in a boat, lost on the ocean. He was anxious and desperately
> wanted to smoke, but he only had two cigarettes and no fire on him. So
> he resolved to throw one cigarette over board, thereby making the boat
> a cigarette lighter.
>
> Choke on that!
> /W
>
> --
> My real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the
> recipient (local part).
This is incredible. I have never seen such a bunch of idiot troll for
so long before. This has been going on for over a year. I read first
page of thread and this start in comp.lang.java.programmer in early
2007? And since then troll has had you dance his tune for more than
year and at least six thousand post?
He must be a master of trol to have done such feat. Your complete in
his thral!
He is http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm
Blmblm you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/fanboy.htm
and he push your buttun by insult your fan unix
Lars you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm
and he push yuor buttun by defy you when you try dominat him
Andreas you are I dont know what you are may be
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm? He push
your buttun by say you have no sense of humor
You wast youre time many hour a day for over a year at his command?
You think he so important?
He win you lose. Ever time you insult him or try to show him "error of
his way" he only get more strong. You can only win by stop let him to
control you. Starve troll by not feed troll. Make troll powerful by
feed troll. Which yuo want.
Troll waste much of your life this keeps up
Have nice day
Manuel
Andreas Waldenburger
Hello Manuel :)
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 03:04:49 -0800 (PST) Manuel Emanola
<user60...@spamcorptastic.com> wrote:
> This is incredible. I have never seen such a bunch of idiot troll for
> so long before. This has been going on for over a year. I read first
> page of thread and this start in comp.lang.java.programmer in early
> 2007? And since then troll has had you dance his tune for more than
> year and at least six thousand post?
>
I think the line between who has whom dancing is a bit blurred by now.
We have basically all become trolls by now, don't you think?
> He must be a master of trol to have done such feat. Your complete in
> his thral!
>
> He is http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm
>
That he may be. But he does show signs of
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm/
and
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm
and certainly of
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
I love that site. :)
Anyways, he plays his game convincingly enough for me to play
along. It's fun.
> Blmblm you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/fanboy.htm
> and he push your buttun by insult your fan unix
>
You make that sound so negative.
> Lars you are
> http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm and he
> push yuor buttun by defy you when you try dominat him
>
Not bad, not bad.
> Andreas you are I dont know what you are may be
> http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm? He push
> your buttun by say you have no sense of humor
>
Weeell, maybe. It's pretty close, I guess. I would debate your
reasoning a bit, though. He's managed to "push my buttons" for a long
time now, and I don't think he ever questioned my sense of humor until
very recently.
> You wast youre time many hour a day for over a year at his command?
>
Me personally? Fun. Evil Clown, you know? Can't speak for the others,
but since you raised the question I'd be interested to hear about them.
> You think he so important?
>
No, not at all. Although he has grown dear to my heart, in a way.
> He win you lose.
You think?
> Ever time you insult him or try to show him "error
> of his way" he only get more strong.
That depends. If he is indeed trolling, you're probably right. But why
not let baby have his bottle. Better he/we pollute(s) alt.off-topic than
important forums, wouldn't you say? (I know, nice way to
over-rationalize)
> You can only win by stop let
> him to control you. Starve troll by not feed troll. Make troll
> powerful by feed troll. Which yuo want.
>
Again, I'm not so sure who is trolling whom by now. Think about it: Any
of the remaining participants could stop, yet none does. We're all just
waayyy to interested in what might come up next.
> Troll waste much of your life this keeps up
>
I never tire of stressing that I learned touch typing because of and by
participating in this thread. And it is a form of social interaction(,
if a rather perverted one) and creative outlet. For me, at least.
> Have nice day
> Manuel
Same to you, and thanks for your time. :)
blm...@myrealbox.com
Prior #3 <prior...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:51 am, Lars Enderin <lars.ende...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Captain Koloth wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 6:39 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > [misquotes me and calls me a liar]
>
> Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
Lars "summarized" part of your post, in much the same way you
summarize others' posts. What's the problem?
[ snip ]
> And those who are prideful and refuse to bow down shall be laid low
> and made unto dust.
I'm not sure how that's going to work in your favor.
[ snip ]
blm...@myrealbox.com
Prior #3 <prior...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:28 pm, Tristram Rolph <trist...@trashymail.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > >> > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
> >
> > [misquotes me and calls me a liar]
>
> Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
What .... Oh, Tristram corrected your selective quoting of my post.
Kind of him.
[ snip ]
> > > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
> >
> > [calls me a liar]
[ snip ]
> > [misquotes me]
>
> Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
Hm, I sure don't notice a misquotation, even by your rules. I wonder
what it is ....
[ snip ]
> Forking a process makes a copy of it. This is exceptionally wasteful
> of memory if there is another way to accomplish the same goal.
Quoting from the man page for fork() on the Linux system I'm using now:
"Under Linux, fork is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the only
penalty incurred by fork is the time and memory required to duplicate
the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task structure for the
child."
blm...@myrealbox.com
Prior #3 <prior...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 7:41 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > > > > > > Well, there you go, then.
> >
> > > > > Well, there you go, then.
> >
> > > Well, there you go, then.
> >
> > What's your point?
>
> Make yourself one with the path, and the journey will lead you to
> eternity.
>
> Hallowed are the Ori.
What on earth (or off earth) does this have to do with the subject
under discussion? Nice job, though, of further muddying the waters.
[ snip ]
> > > Well, there you go, then.
> >
> > What's your point?
>
> Belief is the first step on the road to enlightenment.
>
> Hallowed are the Ori and those who follow.
What on earth (or off earth) ....
Well, whatever.
> > > > > > It is certainly possible with vim, and I think even with vi, to
> > > > > > apply an external program to a portion of a file.
> >
> > > > > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
> >
> > > > Not explicitly
> >
> > > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
> >
> > [calls me a liar]
Either that or mistaken. I couldn't begin to guess which it is,
but there is no need to explicitly save part of a file to disk
in order to make use of the vi(m) feature under discussion, and
if Tristram is correct about implementation, no implicit save is
performed either.
[ snip ]
> > > > Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
> > > > and one for its standard output.
> >
> > > Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
> >
> > No
More selective quoting, this time not even full words! (What I said
was "Not by my definition of 'liar'".)
[ snip ]
> > > This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
> > > to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
> > > typed into directly.
> >
> > So it wouldn't be useful for calling such tools.
>
> Precisely.
What's your point? As I said: Most of the tools one would
call with this feature read input from standard input (and the
command line) and send output to standard output. That might not
be common in the Windows world, but it's *very* typical behavior
for many programs in the traditional UNIX toolkit.
[ snip ]
> > > > this internal representation because creating a new process with
> > > > fork() in effect duplicates the original process's address space.)
> >
> > > Forking a vim process strikes me as exceptionally inefficient. Only a
> > > Federation petaQ would suggest such "engineering".
> >
> > It's my understanding that "fork" doesn't *actually* duplicate the
> > address space unless/until it's modified.
>
> Copy-on-write? But the address space will be modified as soon as
> either copy receives new data. In your scheme, one of them does so
> almost immediately.
The man page for fork() on the system I'm using now says that,
yes, the pages in the new (forked) process are copy-on-write.
As best I can tell from a quick Web search, copying occurs on a
page-by-page basis, however, so it's not clear to me how this is
especially wasteful of memory. ?
[ snip ]
blm...@myrealbox.com
Prior #3 <prior...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 7:59 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <jhlZk.24643$Jl5.7...@newsfe19.iad>,
> > Tristram Rolph <trist...@trashymail.com> wrote:
> > > You seem to have got the Twistedbot stuck in a loop again, blmblm.
>
> The flames of ignorance burn without pain. Beware their power, for it
> will consume you before you know.
>
> None of the nasty things that Tristram has said or implied about me
> are at all true.
>
> > Or vice versa, alas.
>
> As he lay there, dying in the sun, the sand of desert all around him,
> Petaris spoke to the rock, not with his lips, but with his mind, and
> the rock wept tears of fresh water and his thirst was quenched.
Well, we've broken out of the loop, but what on (or off) earth ....
blm...@myrealbox.com
One anyway. I also was surprised.
> Hello Manuel :)
>
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 03:04:49 -0800 (PST) Manuel Emanola
> <user60...@spamcorptastic.com> wrote:
>
> > This is incredible. I have never seen such a bunch of idiot troll for
> > so long before. This has been going on for over a year. I read first
> > page of thread and this start in comp.lang.java.programmer in early
> > 2007? And since then troll has had you dance his tune for more than
> > year and at least six thousand post?
> >
> I think the line between who has whom dancing is a bit blurred by now.
> We have basically all become trolls by now, don't you think?
Or something.
> > He must be a master of trol to have done such feat. Your complete in
> > his thral!
> >
> > He is http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm
> >
> That he may be. But he does show signs of
> http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm/
> and
> http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm
> and certainly of
> http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
Yes .... It's a bit impolite to talk about him in the third person
here, but just this once .... :
I remain undecided about the motives of the person I at one point
was calling The Poster Of Many Names (TPOMN for short). Perhaps
he *is* having fun with us -- in a way I rather hope that's it.
> I love that site. :)
>
> Anyways, he plays his game convincingly enough for me to play
> along. It's fun.
>
>
> > Blmblm you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/fanboy.htm
Like Andreas (below), I'll say "well, maybe ...." The part about
"virulent abuse" -- surely not? I think I've been pretty good
about avoiding even mild abuse, by my standards anyway.
> > and he push your buttun by insult your fan unix
> >
> You make that sound so negative.
>
>
> > Lars you are
> > http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm and he
> > push yuor buttun by defy you when you try dominat him
> >
> Not bad, not bad.
Amusing, but also an exaggeration, in my opinion anyway. My take
on the interaction is that Lars is not so much seeking to dominate
as to resist domination. Something like that.
> > Andreas you are I dont know what you are may be
> > http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm? He push
> > your buttun by say you have no sense of humor
> >
> Weeell, maybe. It's pretty close, I guess. I would debate your
> reasoning a bit, though. He's managed to "push my buttons" for a long
> time now, and I don't think he ever questioned my sense of humor until
> very recently.
Not explicitly, but wasn't he at one point saying that your claim to
be having fun with this discussion marked you as a sociopath?
> > You wast youre time many hour a day for over a year at his command?
> >
> Me personally? Fun. Evil Clown, you know? Can't speak for the others,
> but since you raised the question I'd be interested to hear about them.
>
>
> > You think he so important?
> >
> No, not at all. Although he has grown dear to my heart, in a way.
>
>
> > He win you lose.
> You think?
>
>
> > Ever time you insult him or try to show him "error
> > of his way" he only get more strong.
> That depends. If he is indeed trolling, you're probably right. But why
> not let baby have his bottle. Better he/we pollute(s) alt.off-topic than
> important forums, wouldn't you say? (I know, nice way to
> over-rationalize)
>
>
> > You can only win by stop let
> > him to control you. Starve troll by not feed troll. Make troll
> > powerful by feed troll. Which yuo want.
> >
> Again, I'm not so sure who is trolling whom by now. Think about it: Any
> of the remaining participants could stop, yet none does. We're all just
> waayyy to interested in what might come up next.
>
>
> > Troll waste much of your life this keeps up
> >
> I never tire of stressing that I learned touch typing because of and by
> participating in this thread. And it is a form of social interaction(,
> if a rather perverted one) and creative outlet. For me, at least.
That's about it for me as well ....
I've learned any number of moderately interesting things in the
process of participating in this thread, some of them little
technical things I might not have discovered otherwise. (The one
that comes to mind is dynamic linking to shared libraries, but
I think there have been others.)
And -- yeah, it's a hobby of sorts, with some social interaction.
If I had it to do over again, I would probably have bailed out long
ago. But having stuck with the discussion (?) for so long, I'm
rather curious about how/whether it will continue to play out.
Saint Nick
> > PetaQ. I do not need to explain myself to you!
>
Ho! Ho! Ho!
It's going to be anthracite for Andreas again this year, I'm afraid!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true!
Merry Christmas!
Saint Nick
> > You heard me, petaQ! You and Lars are the ones here who lack senses of
> > humor!
>
> You need proof?! I'll give you proof:
>
> A horse enters a bar. Says the bartender: "Hey, why the long face?"
>
> No sense of humor, my butt!
On the contrary. The above proves my point more surely than anything
else you might conceivably have uttered. You do, indeed, have no sense
of humor!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Merry Christmas!
Saint Nick
> > You heard me, petaQ! You and Lars are the ones here who lack senses of
> > humor!
>
> And another one, for the double whammy:
>
> A guy sat in a boat, lost on the ocean. He was anxious and desperately
> wanted to smoke, but he only had two cigarettes and no fire on him. So
> he resolved to throw one cigarette over board, thereby making the boat
> a cigarette lighter.
>
> Choke on that!
I'd say "Ho! Ho! Ho!" here, except that that horrible excuse for a
joke simply is not funny and makes me feel like NOT laughing. But it
does help prove my point about your lack of a sense of humor.
Saint Nick
wrote:
[snip]
Ho! Ho! Ho! And just who the hell are you, young lad? Can't say I like
the look of your email address. But let's have a look at that list of
mine ... I'm now in the "checking it twice" phase of the job ...
Hm, you're on the nice list.
> > And another one, for the double whammy:
>
> > A guy sat in a boat, lost on the ocean. He was anxious and desperately
> > wanted to smoke, but he only had two cigarettes and no fire on him. So
> > he resolved to throw one cigarette over board, thereby making the boat
> > a cigarette lighter.
>
> > Choke on that!
Andreas can choke all he wants on his own not-funny excuse for a
"joke", which proved his lack of a properly-functioning sense of humor
in full public view, of course.
> This is incredible. I have never seen such a bunch of idiot [insult
> deleted] for so long before. This has been going on for over a year.
> I read first page of thread and this start in
> comp.lang.java.programmer in early 2007? And since then [insult
> deleted] has had you dance his tune for more than year and at least
> six thousand post?
Oh-oh-oh! I'm afraid I'm going to have to cross you off the "nice"
list and put you on the "naughty" list for that, Manuel. I had these
lovely candy-canes and a roll of clean new socks for you, but I'm
going to give them to nice little girl from Azerbaijan now and dig up
another sticky black rock from the mines to give to you!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Merry Christmas!
As for the bit about having these twizzle-sticks "dancing to my tune"
for over a year -- I wish! If I had that kind of power over them I'd
have used it to make them shut up about me.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> He must be a master of [insult deleted] to have done such feat.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> Your complete in his thral!
I wish. If he were, I'd have shut him up ages ago. Maybe walked him
off a cliff. Probably just made him believe I was a saint.
> He is [implied insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> Blmblm you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/fanboy.htm
This might be true.
> and he [false accusation deleted]
But not this.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
I have publicly stated various true things about Unix that she
apparently finds unpalatable, but with the purest of motives:
protecting an unsuspecting populace from bogus claims in evangelisms
of Unix by her and others.
> Lars you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm
Lars is a paper tiger.
> and he push yuor buttun by defy you when you try dominat him
Maybe, but that's not my intention. I defy him because he's a prick,
not to provoke him into flaming me. NOT defying him would be
exceptionally dangerous -- once I'd paid him the "danegeld" once, he'd
always be after more of it. (Think schoolyard bully, lunch money. What
happens if you fork it over on demand, just once? He forces you to
cough it up every single day from then on until one of you graduates
or he finally gets his ass suspended for starting a fight and having
only *thought* no teachers were looking that time.)
> Andreas you are I dont know what you are may be http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm?
Quite possibly. Or maybe just Looney Tunes.
> [implied insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> You wast youre time many hour a day for over a year at his command?
That they do, but I genuinely wish they'd stop.
> You think he so important?
I am the centers of their universes -- because they're fucking
psychos, paranoid schizophrenics, and generally delusional wackjobs.
Well, with the possible exception of blmblm, who may be relatively
sane (though completely smitten by Unix, to the exclusion sometimes of
rational thought).
> He win you lose.
That much is certain ... eventually. The truth is on my side, so my
victory is inevitable. I just wish it would be quicker in coming.
> Ever time you insult him or try to show him [implied serious insult
> deleted] he only get more strong.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
I've seen better English from that moron Arne. Please study English
grammar and perfect your fluency in the language before ever again
posting to usenet. Thank you.
> You can only win by stop let him to control you.
Actually, they can't win at all. They've said all kinds of lies about
me, and those lies will all blow up in their faces. Some of them
already have.
> [numerous insults deleted]
No, you're the troll.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Who the hell invited you, anyway? :P
> Have nice day
> Manuel
Have a nice lump of coal in your stocking
Kris Kringle
P.S. Ho! Ho! Ho!
Merry Christmas!
Saint Nick
> Hey, there be readers here!
Unfortunately.
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 03:04:49 -0800 (PST) Manuel Emanola
> <user60063...@spamcorptastic.com> wrote:
> > This is incredible. I have never seen such a bunch of idiot [insult
> > deleted] so long before. This has been going on for over a year. I
> > read first page of thread and this start in
> > comp.lang.java.programmer in early 2007? And since then [insult
> > deleted] has
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> had you dance his tune for more than year and at least six thousand post?
Yeah, right. I wish.
> I think the line between who has whom dancing is a bit blurred by now.
> We have basically all become [insult deleted] by now, don't you think?
You certainly have.
I have not.
None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me are
at all true.
> > He must be [insult deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > Your complete in his thral!
I wish.
> > He is [implied insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> That he may be.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> But he does show signs of http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm/
404, and none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about
me are at all true.
> and [implied insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> and certainly of [implied vicious insult deleted]
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> I love that site. :)
That's because you're a flamer.
> Anyways, he [implied insult deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> It's fun.
To a sadistic psychopath like you, yes, I expect it is.
Actually, the above can be taken as another piece of evidence to
support the hypothesis that you're a sadist.
> > Blmblm you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/fanboy.htm
> > and he [false accusation deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> You make that sound so negative.
That's what all of you flamers do in your attack posts. Why so
surprised?
> > Lars you are
> > http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm and he
> > push yuor buttun by defy you when you try dominat him
>
> Not bad, not bad.
Actually, Lars has been a very, *very* bad boy this year. So bad he
isn't even getting coal in his stocking, but something far, far worse.
And his folks'll have a devil of a time getting anyone to fumigate
their home in the middle of the holidays!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > Andreas you are I dont know what you are may be
> > http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm
>
> Weeell, maybe. It's pretty close, I guess.
Andreas' frank admission of guilt has been noted for the record.
> I would debate your reasoning a bit, though. He's managed to [false
> accusation deleted]
No, I have not.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > You wast youre time many hour a day for over a year at his command?
I wish.
> Me personally? Fun. Evil Clown, you know?
"Evil Clown" on the "flame warriors" site, "sadistic sociopath" in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV...all the same to me. Use
whatever label you prefer.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> Can't speak for the others, but since you raised the question I'd
> be interested to hear about them.
I wouldn't, since their posts are sure to be full of nasty insults
aimed at me.
> > You think he so important?
>
> [implied insult deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> Although he has grown dear to my heart, in a way.
I'm saving this as evidence, just in case I ever need to prove you're
a psycho stalker to the police.
For my own protection, of course.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Merry Christmas!
> > He win you lose.
>
> You think?
It is inevitable.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > Ever time you insult him or try to show him [implied
> > serious insult deleted]
None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me are
at all true.
> That depends. If he is indeed [insult deleted], you're
> probably right.
I most certainly am not.
None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me are
at all true.
> But why not let [vicious insult deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> Better [false accusation deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> I know, nice way to over-rationalize
You wouldn't know "rational" if it bit you on your left testicle.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > You can only win by stop let him to control you.
Actually, you can't win at all.
> > Starve [multiple insults deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> Again, I'm not so sure
Really? Ah! Signs of progress at last! Perhaps next year you will
actually get something nice in your stocking, Andreas.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> Any of the remaining participants could stop, yet none does.
Actually, I can't, not without Andreas and co systematically
destroying my reputation unopposed once I did. As has been proven by
the way people continue to randomly bring my name up and then flame me
in formerly-flame-free threads in comp.lang.java.programmer from time
to time. The latest one has gotten especially ridiculous, with just
about everyone involved (including Arne and some new guy named Arved)
getting accused of being me and/or that Paul guy...and one guy digging
into some old news post headers and discovering the very interesting
fact that there have actually been at least two, and maybe three,
separate people with that name in cljp over the years. Only one of
whom is responsible for any recent flamage. And that one hails from
Phoenix, Arizona, and therefore certainly is not me.
Of course, it's going to be coal, or worse, for Arne, Lew, and several
other idiots this year.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> We're all just waayyy to interested in what might come up next.
It's bound to be another bunch of tiresome, repetitious, boring
insults of my intelligence, mental health, honesty, or some
combination of same. Really, all of us have seen it ten thousand
bloody times already. (5277 posts in the original "Great SWT Program"
thread in cljp, then 3752 posts in this newsgroup, then around 400
posts after that thread had kittens, equals 9549 posts in what's
really just ONE FUCKING THREAD. Add the various other flame threads
over the years and it easily surpasses ten K insults and replies-to-
insults, even after also subtracting the odd non-flaming tangent from
this thread.)
> > [insult deleted] waste much of your life this keeps up
None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me are
at all true.
You are wasting your own lives, Andreas, Lars, and others.
> I never tire of stressing that I learned touch typing because of and by
> participating in this thread.
See? Waste, waste, waste...
> And it is a form of social interaction (if a rather perverted one)
Exhibit A, to be referenced later.
> and creative outlet. For me, at least.
Your idea of "creativity" is to repeat the same tiresome old insult
for the 1908th time and consider that "creative" because 1908 is a
different number from 1907, which was a different number from 1906,
which ...
And the insult *isn't even the truth*. :P
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me have
ever been true.
> > Have nice day
> > Manuel
>
> Same to you, and thanks for your time. :)
Get a room, pervert*.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Merry Christmas!
...fucker...
* See Exhibit A, above.
Saint Nick
> In article <9ca1ac3c-e0e4-48a7-8f70-8b733799e...@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Prior #3 <prior.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 10:51 am, Lars Enderin <lars.ende...@gmail.com> wrote:
NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> > material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> > summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
>
> Lars "summarized" part of your post, in much the same way you
> summarize others' posts. What's the problem?
His "summary", unlike mine, was not accurate (as implied by your own
use of scare quotes, above, when referencing his "summary" but not
when referencing mine.)
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > And those who are prideful and refuse to bow down shall be laid low
> > and made unto dust.
>
> [implied insult deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Merry Christmas!
Saint Nick
> Prior #3 <prior.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 8:28 pm, Tristram Rolph <trist...@trashymail.com> wrote:
[snip]
NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> > material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> > summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
>
> What .... Oh, Tristram [numerous insults deleted, including calling
> me a liar]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> Kind of him.
No. Misquoting and insulting someone is not kind.
> > Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> > material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> > summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
>
> [calls me a liar]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > Forking a process makes a copy of it. This is exceptionally wasteful
> > of memory if there is another way to accomplish the same goal.
>
> Quoting from the man page for fork() on the Linux system I'm using now:
>
> "Under Linux, fork is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the only
> penalty incurred by fork is the time and memory required to duplicate
> the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task structure for the
> child."
Until, of course, one of the children diverges from the other in terms
of those parts of its internal state that are represented on the heap.
Which will of course happen immediately when one of the forks reads
your new data into one of its documents, er "buffers".
And then the bloating begins...
Saint Nick
> > > What's your point?
>
> > Make yourself one with the path, and the journey will lead you to
> > eternity.
>
> > Hallowed are the Ori.
>
> What on earth (or off earth) does this have to do with the subject
> dishonest].
I have not. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > > > Only by saving a subset of the file to disk.
>
> > > [calls me a liar]
>
> Either that or [insult deleted]. I couldn't begin to guess
> which it is
It is neither.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> but [calls me a liar]
No, I am not!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> and if Tristram is correct about implementation
Tristram hasn't been correct about two plus two in this thread so
far. :P
> > > > > Create two pipes, one for the external program's standard input
> > > > > and one for its standard output.
>
> > > > Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
>
> > > No
>
> [calls me a liar]
Oh, for Christ's sake, will you at least MAKE UP YOUR MIND?!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > > > This redirection-based scheme will not work if the other tool expects
> > > > to be passed a filename to read from, rather than expecting to be
> > > > typed into directly.
>
> > > So it wouldn't be useful for calling such tools.
>
> > Precisely.
>
> What's your point?
If you don't know by now, then you're beyond my ability to help and
need to be seen by a qualified professional.
> That might not
> be common in the Windows world, but it's *very* typical behavior
> for many programs in the traditional UNIX toolkit.
Where it causes no end of trouble, as users try to do something, type
something at the command line, and get what appears to be a silent
hang instead of a UI (even so much as a prompt), a help screen of some
kind, or even an error message.
Unix is about as user friendly as a bear trap ... from the point of
view of the bear. :P
> > > It's my understanding that "fork" doesn't *actually* duplicate the
> > > address space unless/until it's modified.
>
> > Copy-on-write? But the address space will be modified as soon as
> > either copy receives new data. In your scheme, one of them does so
> > almost immediately.
>
> The man page for fork() on the system I'm using now says that,
> yes, the pages in the new (forked) process are copy-on-write.
Well, there you go, then.
Saint Nick
> > As he lay there, dying in the sun, the sand of desert all around him,
> > Petaris spoke to the rock, not with his lips, but with his mind, and
> > the rock wept tears of fresh water and his thirst was quenched.
>
> Well, we've broken out of the loop, but what on (or off) earth ....
Have you no culture? ;)
Saint Nick
> In article <20081208143613.7a0da...@usenot.de>,
> Andreas Waldenburger <geekm...@usenot.de> wrote:
[snip]
NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!
> > Hey, there be readers here!
>
> One anyway. I also was surprised.
As was I. Not pleasantly, though.
> > > This is incredible. I have never seen such a bunch of idiot [insult
> > > deleted] for so long before. This has been going on for over a year.
> > > I read first page of thread and this start in
> > > comp.lang.java.programmer in early 2007? And since then [insult
> > > deleted] has
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > > had you dance his tune for more than year
Yeah, right. I wish!
> > I think the line between who has whom dancing is a bit blurred by now.
> > We have basically all become [insult deleted] by now, don't you think?
I have not.
None of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied about me are
at all true.
> > > He must be a [insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > > Your complete in his thral!
I wish.
> > > He is [insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > That he may be.
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > But he does show signs of
> >http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm/
404, and none of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > and [implied insult deleted] and certainly of [implied insult
> > deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> Yes ....
No! None of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> It's a bit impolite to talk about him in the third person here
"A bit" impolite?
Well, I suppose your admission that it's even "a bit" impolite is
progress of a sort.
Next year you might get a nice copy of CharMap in your stocking
instead of coal, at this rate.
Emphasis on "might".
> I remain undecided about the motives of the person I at one point
> was calling The Poster Of Many Names (TPOMN for short). Perhaps
> he *is* [insult deleted] -- in a way I rather hope that's it.
It is not.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > I love that site. :)
A flamer like Andreas would, I suppose.
> > Anyways, he [false accusation deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > It's fun.
See, blmblm? He even admits it himself: he is a sadistic sociopath who
does things equivalent to kicking puppies for laughs.
> > > Blmblm you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/fanboy.htm
>
> Like Andreas (below), I'll say "well, maybe ...." The part about
> "virulent abuse" -- surely not?
Your frequent insinuations that I'm a liar seem to qualify.
It is bothersome that someone popped up here randomly and insulted
*all* of us, without making any distinctions between the light side
(that'd be me) and the dark side (ought to be obvious), or you (who
seems to be somewhere in between).
Needless to say, he's getting quite a large lump of coal this year.
> I think I've been pretty good about avoiding even mild abuse, by my
> standards anyway.
That's rather as if a drug dealer, falsely accused of murder, said
he'd been pretty good about avoiding crime ... by his standards,
anyway. :P
> > > and he [false accusation deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > > Lars you are
> > > http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm and he
> > > push yuor buttun by defy you when you try dominat him
>
> > Not bad, not bad.
>
> Amusing, but also an exaggeration, in my opinion anyway. My take
> on the interaction is that Lars is not so much seeking to dominate
> as to resist domination.
Ridiculous. He could "resist domination" simply by shutting the fuck
up.
And the limit of the extent of my attempts to "dominat" (sic) him have
been to resist his attempts to impose HIS will on ME.
Big dog, by left butt cheek. Lars is a paper tiger, that's what he is.
> > > Andreas you are I dont know what you are may be
> > > http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm?
That, like "fanboy", seems to have been fairly accurate.
> > Weeell, maybe. It's pretty close, I guess. I would debate your
> > reasoning a bit, though. He's managed to "push my buttons" for a long
> > time now
By standing up for myself instead of paying Andreas the "danegeld" he
kept demanding of me?
I remember his many demands that I accept "compromise", that is,
publicly "admit" to one or another of his vicious lies about me as a
condition of his leaving me alone. And I know what happens once you
pay the danegeld: you are never rid of the bully that demanded it.
Once he learns you can be pressured into giving him what he demands,
he will do so regularly, whenever he wants something you might be able
to supply.
I'm far, far too experienced (from my own long-gone schooldays, in
particular) to ever make that mistake, though. Andreas's hopes for
naivete on my part are futile.
> Not explicitly, but wasn't he at one point saying that your claim to
> be having fun with this discussion marked you as a sociopath?
To be precise, my claim was that his tormenting an innocent person
purely for kicks would qualify him as such; *that*, coupled with his
repeated claims (including one just this past week) that he is posting
for kicks, furnishes the evidence to hang him.
Similarly, a kid observed poking a neighbor's trapped housecat with
sharp sticks and laughing at it when it tries to claw him or yowls its
anguish is very probably a sociopath that needs to be locked up for
the safety and benefit of society.
> > > You wast youre time many hour a day for over a year at his command?
At my command? No. Wastes his time? Quite definitely.
> > Me personally? Fun. Evil Clown, you know?
And there, blmblm, is the admission of which I just spoke.
> > > You think he so important?
>
> > [implied insult deleted]
None of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied about me are
at all true.
> > Although he has grown dear to my heart, in a way.
Stay right there Andreas, while I make a quick phone call to the
police, then see a judge about a certain TRO...
Merry Christmas Andreas!
> > > He win you lose.
> > You think?
It is inevitable.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > > Ever time you insult him or try to show him [insult
> > > deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > That depends. If he is indeed [insult deleted], you're probably right.
But I am not.
None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me are
at all true.
> > But why not let [vicious insult deleted]. Better [false accusation
> > deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied about me
are at all true.
> > > You can only win by stop let him to control you.
Actually, I don't control Andreas at all, but Andreas can't win
anyway. The truth will out, so to speak.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > > [several insults deleted]
None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me are
at all true.
> > Again, I'm not so sure
Andreas is right to not be so sure, because none of the nasty things
that Manuel has said or implied about me are at all true.
> > Any of the remaining participants could stop
Except me, since I am in danger if I let the insults continue
unabated.
Berna, you once told me that "if you stopped posting, I think they
would too". I said "what would happen, and what I've *seen* happen, is
that people would increasingly tend to believe them more or less by
default, simply because their words on the subject were the only ones
that they kept hearing day in and day out" and you replied "if people
kept saying negative things about you long after you stopped replying,
maybe."
I think, from the recurrence over the past year or so of flame-threads
in cljp, that my fears expressed above now are solidly based in
evidence even you with your stringent standards must accept, and that
your "I think they would stop" has been disproved by the same
evidence.
(The recurring pattern being: newb posts some on-topic stuff to cljp,
gets flamed typically by Lew and/or Arne as most newbs do, and if he
in any way disputes what Arne and/or Lew said, Arne and/or Lew accuse
him or her of being me and/or Paul and general flamage ensues. This
has happened at least five times, with various innocent victims: Ben
Phillips, Harold Yarmouth, someone calling himself "zerg", someone
calling himself "secret decoder ring", and most recently Wesley
MacIntosh.)
The evidence is overwhelming at this point: at least some of my
enemies absolutely will not let this go; not only do they bear a
grudge, they show what can only reasonably be described as paranoid
tendencies, eventually seeing me behind every shadow and my invisible
hand behind their every misfortune. Particularly if that misfortune
takes the form of someone standing up to their bullying and
browbeating tendencies.
Of course, no sane person could possibly believe, as they apparently
do, that only one person in the world would ever dare stand up to them
and call them on their rudeness; indeed, it's hardly surprising that
at least seven people have done so. And seven people have: me, the
five mentioned above, and Roedy Green. I think others have stood up to
them a bit less vigorously, and have escaped being flamed for it.
(Mind you, one curious thing is that they don't accuse Roedy of being
me and/or Paul. Lew has viciously insulted Roedy and told him to "shut
up" at times when Roedy has dared to call Lew on his rudeness, but
somehow Roedy seems not to become the target of the full paranoid-
delusional-fantasy thing. That he's clearly located in Canada makes
this doubly odd. I expect though that it would take an expert
psychiatrist, if not a whole crack team of them, to figure out the
reasons for any of this...)
Regardless, the upshot is that if I shut up, I will obviously continue
to be badmouthed from time to time in cljp, only without my rebuttals
neutralizing the attack posts anymore. And then I'm doomed.
So we now finally have incontrovertible proof that me shutting up
would be a terrible strategy for me.
> > We're all just waayyy to interested in what might come up next.
Why, when it's sure to be the umpteenth repetition of some unpleasant
and untrue claim about me? I can't think of anything more boring,
myself...
> > > [insult deleted] waste much of your life this keeps up
None of the nasty things that Manuel has said or implied about me are
at all true.
Andreas et. al. are wasting their own lives. I do wish they'd seek
professional help before they've wasted very much more of them.
> > I never tire of stressing that I learned touch typing because of and by
> > participating in this thread.
See? What a waste!
> > And it is a form of social interaction (if a rather perverted one)
Exhibit A: Andreas admits to being a pervert, film at 11.
Hmm. Coal might not be awful enough for that twerp. Perhaps he should
get what Lars will be getting.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > and creative outlet.
That just about has to be a joke. I've never seen a more boring pile
of repetitious nonsense than Andreas' efforts at "creative writing"
here over the past few months.
> I've learned any number of moderately interesting things in the
> process of participating in this thread, some of them little
> technical things I might not have discovered otherwise. (The one
> that comes to mind is [implies that I've been dishonest], but
> I think there have been others.)
That is not "interesting", it is nasty and false.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> And -- yeah, it's a hobby of sorts, with some social interaction.
Get a life!
> If I had it to do over again, I would probably have bailed out long
> ago.
Well, there you go then.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 3:18 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
I'll probably reply to the rest of this later, but one thing for now:
> Berna, you once told me
I've never used a first name in any posts made as blm...@myrealbox.com,
so I don't know where you're getting this one -- unless you've
been trying to ferret out my real identity and publish the results,
something that you seem to resent when others attempt it with you.
As far as I can remember, I've been very careful to respect that
preference, thinking that there were *some* rules ....
I neither confirm nor deny whether your guess is correct. But you've
just crossed a line that I didn't think you'd cross. Hm.
Saint Nick
wrote:
> In article <b1abe8f3-f688-4bbb-adda-25cb9c0f4...@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> Saint Nick <snick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 3:18 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> I'll probably reply to the rest of this later, but one thing for now:
>
> > Berna, you once told me
>
> I've never used a first name in any posts made as blm...@myrealbox.com,
> so I don't know where you're getting this one
Oh ho ho! Kris Kringle knows everyone's name. You might recall a
certain tune about "making a list ... checking it twice"?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Actually, Lars revealed it way back in February anyway*.
Have a merry Christmas!
> [implied insults deleted]
And a miserable New Year.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Tristram Rolph
> On Dec 11, 3:07 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> In article <12399a64-2c63-4ef9-87a1-628e7de24...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Prior #3 <prior.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Dec 2, 8:28 pm, Tristram Rolph <trist...@trashymail.com> wrote:
>> Kind of him.
>
> No. Misquoting and insulting someone is not kind.
Somehow I wasn't expecting presents from you this year anyway.
>> > Forking a process makes a copy of it. This is exceptionally wasteful
>> > of memory if there is another way to accomplish the same goal.
>>
>> Quoting from the man page for fork() on the Linux system I'm using now:
>>
>> "Under Linux, fork is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the only
>> penalty incurred by fork is the time and memory required to duplicate
>> the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task structure for the
>> child."
>
> Until, of course, one of the children diverges from the other in terms
> of those parts of its internal state that are represented on the heap.
>
> Which will of course happen immediately when one of the forks reads
> your new data into one of its documents, er "buffers".
The child process will almost certainly exec() the command that vim is
sending data to immediately.
> And then the bloating begins...
Is your complaint that the original process will have to allocate
memory for the data that forms the output of the command?
Where do you think that data should go?
blm...@myrealbox.com
Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 10:26 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <b1abe8f3-f688-4bbb-adda-25cb9c0f4...@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Saint Nick <snick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 11, 3:18 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > I'll probably reply to the rest of this later, but one thing for now:
> >
> > > Berna, you once told me
> >
> > I've never used a first name in any posts made as blm...@myrealbox.com,
> > so I don't know where you're getting this one
>
> Oh ho ho! Kris Kringle knows everyone's name. You might recall a
> certain tune about "making a list ... checking it twice"?
>
> Ho! Ho! Ho!
>
> Actually, Lars revealed it way back in February anyway*.
Lars made a guess, perhaps based on something someone said in some
other newsgroup. As is my usual practice when someone attempts
to connect the blmblm persona with more of a real-life identity
than what's in my signature, I sent him e-mail asking him not to
do so again. I didn't do that in your case because I had little
confidence that e-mail sent to any of the addresses you use here
would be read. I don't care to discuss this further in a public
forum.
(And why you're just now getting around to mentioning information
you apparently remember from February -- puzzling, but whatever.)
[ snip ]
> * <2f9944bc-2bbd-41f5...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
So you do know how to quote message IDs. Good to know!
blm...@myrealbox.com
Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 3:07 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <9ca1ac3c-e0e4-48a7-8f70-8b733799e...@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Prior #3 <prior.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 10:51 am, Lars Enderin <lars.ende...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!!
>
> Ho! Ho! Ho!
You again? .... Bring back that Klingon, would you? At least his
hostility was openly expressed.
> > > Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> > > material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> > > summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
> >
> > Lars "summarized" part of your post, in much the same way you
> > summarize others' posts. What's the problem?
>
> His "summary", unlike mine, was not accurate (as implied by your own
> use of scare quotes, above, when referencing his "summary" but not
> when referencing mine.)
My mistake. Of course you know what I think of your "summaries".
blm...@myrealbox.com
Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 3:07 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <12399a64-2c63-4ef9-87a1-628e7de24...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Prior #3 <prior.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 8:28 pm, Tristram Rolph <trist...@trashymail.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > > Forking a process makes a copy of it. This is exceptionally wasteful
> > > of memory if there is another way to accomplish the same goal.
> >
> > Quoting from the man page for fork() on the Linux system I'm using now:
> >
> > "Under Linux, fork is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the only
> > penalty incurred by fork is the time and memory required to duplicate
> > the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task structure for the
> > child."
>
> Until, of course, one of the children diverges from the other in terms
> of those parts of its internal state that are represented on the heap.
>
> Which will of course happen immediately when one of the forks reads
> your new data into one of its documents, er "buffers".
"Documents"?
> And then the bloating begins...
How so? As I understand it, copy-on-write applies on a page-by-page
basis, so pages that aren't changed won't be copied.
In my sketch of a possible implementation I proposed having two
additional processes, one to execute the external command and one
to pass it information from vim's internal data structures.
Further details of how I would do this:
The process executing the external command would use execve() to
invoke that command. execve() preserves open file descriptors but
otherwise replaces everything in the address space with code and
data for the external program. I'm not getting how that could
be wasteful of memory.
The process passing information to the external command would
simply copy information from vim's internal data structure to
the pipe connected to the external program's stdin. The only
variables it would need to modify would be ones related to
looping over the data structure, so the number of pages that
would need to be copied-on-write should be very small. I can
also imagine replacing this process with a thread. I'd have to
do more investigation than I care to do right now to speculate
on whether that would be significantly more efficient.
While those processes are running, the original (vim) process
would be reading data from the pipe connected to the external
command's stdout and copying it into vim's internal data structure.
I don't get where the "bloat" is with this scheme, but it's
possible I'm overlooking something.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 3:08 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > but [calls me a liar]
>
> No, I am not!
So you claim that vim *does* need to save part of a file to
disk in order to implement the "apply external command" feature
under discussion? If so, why do you think this? I've proposed a
mechanism that doesn't require it. Do you not think this mechanism
is feasible?
[ snip ]
> > > > > Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
> >
> > > > No
> >
> > [calls me a liar]
>
> Oh, for Christ's sake, will you at least MAKE UP YOUR MIND?!
The apparent contradiction is purely an artifact of your selective
quotation -- the original text from which you "quoted" "No" was
"Not by my definition of 'liar'."
Tempting though it is to come up with some boilerplate of my own
for situations such as this one, I have little desire to emulate
any of your behavior.
[ snip ]
> > That
(reading from standard input and writing to standard output)
> > might not
> > be common in the Windows world, but it's *very* typical behavior
> > for many programs in the traditional UNIX toolkit.
>
> Where it causes no end of trouble, as users try to do something, type
> something at the command line, and get what appears to be a silent
> hang instead of a UI (even so much as a prompt), a help screen of some
> kind, or even an error message.
Most of these programs do assume that users have read instructions
on their use before trying to use them. Users accustomed to current
mainstream software may not like that, but -- <shrug>.
[ snip ]
> > > Copy-on-write? But the address space will be modified as soon as
> > > either copy receives new data. In your scheme, one of them does so
> > > almost immediately.
> >
> > The man page for fork() on the system I'm using now says that,
> > yes, the pages in the new (forked) process are copy-on-write.
>
> Well, there you go, then.
What's your point? As I said:
"As best I can tell from a quick Web search, copying occurs on a
page-by-page basis, however, so it's not clear to me how this is
especially wasteful of memory. ?"
--
blm...@myrealbox.com
Saint Nick <snic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 3:18 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <20081208143613.7a0da...@usenot.de>,
> > Andreas Waldenburger <geekm...@usenot.de> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > > But he does show signs of
> > >http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm/
>
> 404,
The URL works better if you remove the ending "/". (I figured
this out without much trouble. Why didn't you?)
[ snip ]
> Next year you might get a nice copy of CharMap in your stocking
> instead of coal, at this rate.
I'd rather have the coal, thanks -- with as much practice as I'm
getting here in clenching my jaw, maybe I can somehow turn it into
diamonds, something I can't imagine happening with CharMap.
[ snip ]
> > > It's fun.
>
> See, blmblm? He even admits it himself: he is a sadistic sociopath who
> does things equivalent to kicking puppies for laughs.
Perhaps he thinks he's responding in kind to *your* having fun.
He may be mistaken about that, of course. <shrug>
> > > > Blmblm you are http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/fanboy.htm
> >
> > Like Andreas (below), I'll say "well, maybe ...." The part about
> > "virulent abuse" -- surely not?
>
> Your frequent insinuations that I'm a liar seem to qualify.
Only to you, I'd say.
[ snip ]
> [ unwelcome speculation on my real-life identity deleted ]
> you once told me that "if you stopped posting, I think they
> would too". I said "what would happen, and what I've *seen* happen, is
> that people would increasingly tend to believe them more or less by
> default, simply because their words on the subject were the only ones
> that they kept hearing day in and day out" and you replied "if people
> kept saying negative things about you long after you stopped replying,
> maybe."
>
> I think, from the recurrence over the past year or so of flame-threads
> in cljp, that my fears expressed above now are solidly based in
> evidence even you with your stringent standards must accept, and that
> your "I think they would stop" has been disproved by the same
> evidence.
What I perceive is that you established a reputation there as
someone who responds to even mild criticism or correction with
vigorous denials. People who have been reading the group for a
while are, in my thinking, apt to take this reputation into account
in reading anything you post there, and also to be suspicious of
new posters who exhibit similar behavior.
> (The recurring pattern being: newb posts some on-topic stuff to cljp,
> gets flamed typically by Lew and/or Arne as most newbs do, and if he
> in any way disputes what Arne and/or Lew said, Arne and/or Lew accuse
> him or her of being me and/or Paul and general flamage ensues. This
> has happened at least five times, with various innocent victims: Ben
> Phillips, Harold Yarmouth, someone calling himself "zerg", someone
> calling himself "secret decoder ring", and most recently Wesley
> MacIntosh.)
See above.
> The evidence is overwhelming at this point: at least some of my
> enemies absolutely will not let this go; not only do they bear a
> grudge, they show what can only reasonably be described as paranoid
> tendencies, eventually seeing me behind every shadow and my invisible
> hand behind their every misfortune. Particularly if that misfortune
> takes the form of someone standing up to their bullying and
> browbeating tendencies.
Where you perceive standing up to bullying, others perceive --
something else.
> Of course, no sane person could possibly believe, as they apparently
> do, that only one person in the world would ever dare stand up to them
> and call them on their rudeness; indeed, it's hardly surprising that
> at least seven people have done so. And seven people have: me, the
> five mentioned above, and Roedy Green. I think others have stood up to
> them a bit less vigorously, and have escaped being flamed for it.
>
> (Mind you, one curious thing is that they don't accuse Roedy of being
> me and/or Paul. Lew has viciously insulted Roedy and told him to "shut
> up" at times when Roedy has dared to call Lew on his rudeness, but
> somehow Roedy seems not to become the target of the full paranoid-
> delusional-fantasy thing. That he's clearly located in Canada makes
> this doubly odd. I expect though that it would take an expert
> psychiatrist, if not a whole crack team of them, to figure out the
> reasons for any of this...)
>
> Regardless, the upshot is that if I shut up, I will obviously continue
> to be badmouthed from time to time in cljp, only without my rebuttals
> neutralizing the attack posts anymore. And then I'm doomed.
>
> So we now finally have incontrovertible proof that me shutting up
> would be a terrible strategy for me.
Worse than continuing to participate in flame fests? I'm skeptical.
I think if you had behaved differently from the start -- choosing
not to respond to any and all provocation -- things would be
different. But it's too late to do that experiment, and I'm not
sure there's much you could do at this point to overcome people's
negative impressions.
There *is* a kernel of truth in some of your criticisms of others'
behavior -- the "let's all pile on the unpopular guy" mentality is
pretty unpleasant -- but I continue to maintain that you are not
blameless either.
[ snip ]
> > I've learned any number of moderately interesting things in the
> > process of participating in this thread, some of them little
> > technical things I might not have discovered otherwise. (The one
> > that comes to mind is [implies that I've been dishonest], but
> > I think there have been others.)
>
> That is not "interesting", it is nasty and false.
What?! Dynamic linking to shared libraries is .... Oh, really,
this is priceless.
Sigmund Freud
> > No. Misquoting and insulting someone is not kind.
>
> Somehow I wasn't expecting presents from you this year anyway.
Do you generally have low expectations, or have you particular
conflicted feelinks during ze holiday season? Zis bears examination,
methinks.
> >> "Under Linux, fork is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the only
> >> penalty incurred by fork is the time and memory required to duplicate
> >> the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task structure for the
> >> child."
>
> > Until, of course, one of the children diverges from the other in terms
> > of those parts of its internal state that are represented on the heap.
>
> > Which will of course happen immediately when one of the forks reads
> > your new data into one of its documents, er "buffers".
>
> The child process will almost certainly exec() the command that vim is
> sending data to immediately.
And when zis command outputs a result, what zen? Ze buffer in ze child
process is changed, and ze child process's buffer must zerefore be
copied. Zis copying causes ze bloat.
But that ees not eemportant right now. Instead we must examine ze
tendency you have to argue weeth everything zis man says, regardless
of its evident truth, no? Zere must be some very conflicted feelinks
indeed to prompt zis behavior!
> > And then the bloating begins...
>
> Is your complaint that the original process will have to allocate
> memory for the data that forms the output of the command?
But eet weell haf to allocate much more, no? Ze entire buffer, if not
ze entire address space, must be duplicated!
> Where do you think that data should go?
Ze Windows DDE API would provide for it to go into the one parent
process, without ze inefficient fork. Ze Unix API does not appear to
provide such a facility. Eet ees unfortunate.
But now eet ees time to examine your feelinks about where ze data
should go. Perhaps you have sublimated ze sexual desires into a wish
to inject data forcefully into some place? Zis has been the case with
many of ze spammers I have psychoanalyzed. But you are not, to my
knowledge, a spammer, no? So in your case eet ees entirely possible
zat ze explanation will be deeferent...
Sigmund Freud
> > > > Berna, you once told me
>
> > > I've never used a first name in any posts made as blm...@myrealbox.com,
> > > so I don't know where you're getting this one
>
> > Oh ho ho! Kris Kringle knows everyone's name. You might recall a
> > certain tune about "making a list ... checking it twice"?
>
> > Ho! Ho! Ho!
>
> > Actually, Lars revealed it way back in February anyway*.
>
> Lars made a guess, perhaps based on something someone said in some
> other newsgroup. As is my usual practice when someone attempts
> to connect the blmblm persona with more of a real-life identity
> than what's in my signature, I sent him e-mail asking him not to
> do so again.
Ah, deed you? Another sign of ze timidity, no? And your response to
another observing one of zese leaks, a leetle passive-aggressive?
> I didn't do that in your case because I had little
> confidence that e-mail sent to any of the addresses you use here
> would be read. I don't care to discuss this further in a public
> forum.
Zen zis issue will haf to remain buried.
> (And why you're just now getting around to mentioning information
> you apparently remember from February -- puzzling, but whatever.)
Ze time at which information is acquired, eet is important to you? Zis
should be further examined.
> > * <2f9944bc-2bbd-41f5-89c0-7f17fec5e...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
>
> So you do know how to quote message IDs.
Tell me more about your feelings about ze quoting of message IDs...
Sigmund Freud
> > Ho! Ho! Ho!
>
> You again? .... Bring back that Klingon, would you? At least his
> hostility was openly expressed.
Hostility? Do you think it was hostility? Perhaps ze hostility is
closer to your own heart than you care to admit, and you project it
onto others. Zen you become embroiled in a resulting conflict, which
completes ze cycle.
> > > > Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> > > > material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> > > > summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
>
> > > Lars "summarized" part of your post, in much the same way you
> > > summarize others' posts. What's the problem?
>
> > His "summary", unlike mine, was not accurate (as implied by your own
> > use of scare quotes, above, when referencing his "summary" but not
> > when referencing mine.)
>
> [insult deleted]
My my! Ze patient ees eendeed combative! Zis makes things more
deeficult. Most unfortunate. Especially seeing as none of ze nasty
Sigmund Freud
> > > "Under Linux, fork is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the only
> > > penalty incurred by fork is the time and memory required to duplicate
> > > the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task structure for the
> > > child."
>
> > Until, of course, one of the children diverges from the other in terms
> > of those parts of its internal state that are represented on the heap.
>
> > Which will of course happen immediately when one of the forks reads
> > your new data into one of its documents, er "buffers".
>
> "Documents"?
I am vell aware zat ze emacs terminology is "buffers", but thees ees
also nonstandard in the wider context of all document-editing
software, no?
Or perhaps you have particular feelinks about zat particular word? Eet
ees associated with work, perhaps, or even with a particular, bad boss
you once had? Or perhaps you perceive it to have ze association with
GUIs, about which you are conflicted?
> > And then the bloating begins...
>
> How so? As I understand it, copy-on-write applies on a page-by-page
> basis, so pages that aren't changed won't be copied.
Ze eenformation sent back by ze child process ees likely to be smaller
than ze page size, no? So zis implementation at minimum wastes ze
difference.
> In my sketch of a possible implementation I proposed having two
> additional processes, one to execute the external command and one
> to pass it information from vim's internal data structures.
> Further details of how I would do this:
> [snip]
Zis scheme seems elaborate, and probably ees quite fragile. Seempler
ees better, no? Or ees seemple something you dislike? Eet would
explain much, such as your preference for ze arcane UI over ze modern,
seemple-to-use one. Zere is a sense of accomplishment in proportion to
ze complexity of ze work, no? Zis might serve to motivate adding
complexity for its own sake. Unfortunately, zat is not very efficient
at actually getting ze job done!
> While those processes are running, the original (vim) process
> would be reading data from the pipe connected to the external
> command's stdout and copying it into vim's internal data structure.
Zis would copy more of ze pages, no?
> I don't get where the "bloat" is with this scheme, but it's
> possible I'm overlooking something.
Ze bloat is from ze copied pages, over and above the size of ze new
data, no? And if you used emacs instead, ze bloat would be inherent in
using emacs, no?
Ze denial of bloat where it ees evident is ze classic case of
transference. Ze patient, perhaps, ees unhappy with her own weight,
though it is actually within ze normal range, and projects this
feeling onto an external proxy. When zis proxy is perceived to have
been accused of bloat, ze patient then takes zis personally!
Sigmund Freud
> > > but [calls me a liar]
>
> > No, I am not!
>
> So you claim that vim *does* need to save part of a file to
> disk in order to implement the "apply external command" feature
> under discussion?
Why zis fascination with what others claim vim needs? Perhaps ze
mother was also interested in what people had to say about saving
files to disk? Zis bears closer examination.
> > > > > > Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
>
> > > > > No
>
> > > [calls me a liar]
>
> > Oh, for Christ's sake, will you at least MAKE UP YOUR MIND?!
>
> [calls me a liar]
She chose ... poorly.
None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> Tempting though it is to come up with some boilerplate of my own
> for situations such as this one, [implied insult deleted]
None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Ze patient has strong feelinks about zis vim disk file usage, it
seems!
> > > That might not be common in the Windows world, but it's *very*
> > > typical behavior for many programs in the traditional UNIX toolkit.
>
> > Where it causes no end of trouble, as users try to do something, type
> > something at the command line, and get what appears to be a silent
> > hang instead of a UI (even so much as a prompt), a help screen of some
> > kind, or even an error message.
>
> Most of these programs do assume that users have read instructions
> on their use before trying to use them.
Most users expect ze eenstructions to be in ze software eetself, no?
> Users accustomed to current mainstream software may not like that,
> but -- <shrug>.
Tell me more about your feelinks about ze current mainstream software.
> > > > Copy-on-write? But the address space will be modified as soon as
> > > > either copy receives new data. In your scheme, one of them does so
> > > > almost immediately.
>
> > > The man page for fork() on the system I'm using now says that,
> > > yes, the pages in the new (forked) process are copy-on-write.
>
> > Well, there you go, then.
>
> What's your point?
Why, zat ze copy-on-write only delays ze inevitable, of course. There
ees leetle point in ze forked process if ze processes do not then
diverge, no?
Sigmund Freud
> > > >http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm/
>
> > 404,
>
> The URL works better if you remove the ending "/". (I figured
None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Eet ees obvious, of course, how to fix ze URL, but eet ees also true
zat ze URL, as posted by Andreas, produces ze 404 error, no? And
ignoring ze sloppiness of Andreas would not do him ze favor, no?
Better that he become aware of it and learn from ze mistake, no?
> > Next year you might get a nice copy of CharMap in your stocking
> > instead of coal, at this rate.
>
> I'd rather have the coal, thanks
Ze masochistic tendencies arise again. Zis ees eenterestink. Ze
treatment, however, is progressing slowly. Perhaps a more aggressive
therapy ees warranted?
> with as much practice as I'm getting here in [implied insult
> deleted], maybe I can somehow turn it into diamonds, something
> I can't imagine happening with CharMap.
None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Besides, ze coal in ze Christmas stockinks comes with ze EULA
prohibiting ze transformative use or ze resale. While I think zis
violates ze fair use provision in ze law, ze courts apparently
disagree, to judge by ze Blizzard v. BnetD precedent.
> > > > It's fun.
>
> > See, blmblm? He even admits it himself: he is a sadistic sociopath who
> > does things equivalent to kicking puppies for laughs.
>
> Perhaps he thinks he's responding in kind to *your* having fun.
> He may be mistaken about that, of course. <shrug>
Ze sociopath ees usually socially adept enough to know zat ze victim
is not having fun. Ze sociopath simply does not care.
I make a point of avoiding taking on sociopathic patients. Zere is
more danger and leetle reward in it, for ze condition is usually
intractable, and ze patient usually does not desire ze cure anyway.
> > > > > Blmblm you arehttp://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/fanboy.htm
>
> > > Like Andreas (below), I'll say "well, maybe ...." The part about
> > > "virulent abuse" -- surely not?
>
> > Your frequent insinuations that I'm a liar seem to qualify.
>
> [implied insult deleted]
None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Ah! Ze patient starts claiming that ze psychiatrist ees crazy. Zat is
sure sign of progress, no?
> > I think, from the recurrence over the past year or so of flame-threads
> > in cljp, that my fears expressed above now are solidly based in
> > evidence even you with your stringent standards must accept, and that
> > your "I think they would stop" has been disproved by the same
> > evidence.
>
> What I perceive is that you established a reputation there as
> someone who responds to even mild [insults] with vigorous denials.
You have feelinks about ze denials?
> People who have been reading the group for a
> while are, in my thinking, apt to take this reputation into account
> in reading anything you post there, and also to be suspicious of
> new posters who exhibit similar behavior.
Zat is most unfortunate. Ze irrational behavior of ze few may spoil
things for ze many.
> > (The recurring pattern being: newb posts some on-topic stuff to cljp,
> > gets flamed typically by Lew and/or Arne as most newbs do, and if he
> > in any way disputes what Arne and/or Lew said, Arne and/or Lew accuse
> > him or her of being me and/or Paul and general flamage ensues. This
> > has happened at least five times, with various innocent victims: Ben
> > Phillips, Harold Yarmouth, someone calling himself "zerg", someone
> > calling himself "secret decoder ring", and most recently Wesley
> > MacIntosh.)
>
> See above.
Ze madness is not in ze psychiatrist, however, but in ze patients!
> > The evidence is overwhelming at this point: at least some of my
> > enemies absolutely will not let this go; not only do they bear a
> > grudge, they show what can only reasonably be described as paranoid
> > tendencies, eventually seeing me behind every shadow and my invisible
> > hand behind their every misfortune. Particularly if that misfortune
> > takes the form of someone standing up to their bullying and
> > browbeating tendencies.
>
> [insults deleted]
No. None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are
at all true.
Zis psychiatrist ees not mad. Not! Zis is transference, no?
Projection. Er, somethink like that.
> > Regardless, the upshot is that if I shut up, I will obviously continue
> > to be badmouthed from time to time in cljp, only without my rebuttals
> > neutralizing the attack posts anymore. And then I'm doomed.
>
> > So we now finally have incontrovertible proof that me shutting up
> > would be a terrible strategy for me.
>
> Worse than continuing to participate in flame fests? I'm skeptical.
When one ees forced to participate, by being named in ze flame fests,
anyway, why not? And if ze participation is civil and takes ze moral
high ground, ze enemy vill soon be in ze full retreat.
Unless ze enemy is eensane, of course.
> I think if you had behaved differently from the start -- choosing
> not to respond to any and all provocation -- things would be
> different.
Yes; most likely things would be much worse.
> But it's too late to do that experiment, and I'm not
> sure there's much you could do at this point to overcome people's
> negative impressions.
Oh, but zere is! Repeat zat none of it ees true, and perhaps make ze
odd useful post.
> There *is* a kernel of truth in some of your criticisms of others'
> behavior
Yes, yes, of course zere is.
> the "let's all pile on the unpopular guy" mentality is
> pretty unpleasant
Zis mentality is ze product of a warped relationship with ze patient's
mother, in most cases, is eet not?
> but I continue to maintain that [insult deleted]
No. None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are
at all true.
> > > I've learned any number of moderately interesting things in the
> > > process of participating in this thread, some of them little
> > > technical things I might not have discovered otherwise. (The one
> > > that comes to mind is [implies that I've been dishonest], but
> > > I think there have been others.)
>
> > That is not "interesting", it is nasty and false.
>
> What?!
Ze implication zat I have been dishonest, eet ees nasty and false.
You have feelinks about ze dynamic linkink, no? Hence ze interest in
ze Java newsgroups after ze encounter with ze cross-posted thread.
Perhaps this arises from ze subconscious impulse to reconnect with ze
mother, or perhaps other family members or people from ze past, hmm?
Ze patient's own desire for reestablishing ze personal link at runtime
ees projected onto ze software!
blm...@myrealbox.com
Sigmund Freud <sigmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 8:25 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > Ho! Ho! Ho!
> >
> > You again? .... Bring back that Klingon, would you? At least his
> > hostility was openly expressed.
>
> Hostility? Do you think it was hostility?
That's how it sounded to me, yes. Doesn't it sound that way to you?
> Perhaps ze hostility is
> closer to your own heart than you care to admit, and you project it
> onto others. Zen you become embroiled in a resulting conflict, which
> completes ze cycle.
Ah yes, the interesting phenomenon of projecting one's own failings
onto others .... All too familiar in this thread, though if you're
an ally of that Twisted fellow I wouldn't think you'd want to draw
attention to it (the phenomenon).
blm...@myrealbox.com
Sigmund Freud <sigmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 6:05 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > "Under Linux, fork is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the only
> > > > penalty incurred by fork is the time and memory required to duplicate
> > > > the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task structure for the
> > > > child."
> >
> > > Until, of course, one of the children diverges from the other in terms
> > > of those parts of its internal state that are represented on the heap.
> >
> > > Which will of course happen immediately when one of the forks reads
> > > your new data into one of its documents, er "buffers".
> >
> > "Documents"?
>
> I am vell aware zat ze emacs terminology is "buffers", but thees ees
> also nonstandard in the wider context of all document-editing
> software, no?
Aren't we talking about vim here? How is emacs terminology relevant?
[ snip ]
> > > And then the bloating begins...
> >
> > How so? As I understand it, copy-on-write applies on a page-by-page
> > basis, so pages that aren't changed won't be copied.
>
> Ze eenformation sent back by ze child process ees likely to be smaller
> than ze page size, no? So zis implementation at minimum wastes ze
> difference.
It strikes me as simply silly to worry, in 2008, about wasting
*part of a page*.
> > In my sketch of a possible implementation I proposed having two
> > additional processes, one to execute the external command and one
> > to pass it information from vim's internal data structures.
> > Further details of how I would do this:
> > [snip]
>
> Zis scheme seems elaborate, and probably ees quite fragile.
Why do you think it's fragile?
[ snip ]
> > While those processes are running, the original (vim) process
> > would be reading data from the pipe connected to the external
> > command's stdout and copying it into vim's internal data structure.
>
> Zis would copy more of ze pages, no?
At least one, yes. (I hadn't really thought about that.)
> > I don't get where the "bloat" is with this scheme, but it's
> > possible I'm overlooking something.
>
> Ze bloat is from ze copied pages, over and above the size of ze new
> data, no?
Again -- I think it's simply silly to worry about wasting *part of
a page*, in 2008. (Perhaps I should add "or 2009" given that it's
December after all.)
[ snip ]
blm...@myrealbox.com
Sigmund Freud <sigmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 6:07 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > but [calls me a liar]
> >
> > > No, I am not!
> >
> > So you claim that vim *does* need to save part of a file to
> > disk in order to implement the "apply external command" feature
> > under discussion?
>
> Why zis fascination with what others claim vim needs? Perhaps ze
> mother was also interested in what people had to say about saving
> files to disk? Zis bears closer examination.
Please leave my relatives out of this discussion.
As for this alleged fascination -- I'm mildly curious about why
someone who claims technical expertise seems to believe something
that as best I know isn't true. Perhaps whoever that was will
eventually come back and explain why he believes it.
> > > > > > > Are you attempting to suggest in public that I might be a liar?
> >
> > > > > > No
> >
> > > > [calls me a liar]
> >
> > > Oh, for Christ's sake, will you at least MAKE UP YOUR MIND?!
> >
> > [calls me a liar]
>
> She chose ... poorly.
>
> None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> all true.
>
> > Tempting though it is to come up with some boilerplate of my own
> > for situations such as this one, [implied insult deleted]
>
> None of ze nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> all true.
>
> Ze patient has strong feelinks about zis vim disk file usage, it
> seems!
The "patient" is becoming less and less patient with being quoted
out of context -- as someone did with that "No" above.
> > > > That might not be common in the Windows world, but it's *very*
> > > > typical behavior for many programs in the traditional UNIX toolkit.
> >
> > > Where it causes no end of trouble, as users try to do something, type
> > > something at the command line, and get what appears to be a silent
> > > hang instead of a UI (even so much as a prompt), a help screen of some
> > > kind, or even an error message.
> >
> > Most of these programs do assume that users have read instructions
> > on their use before trying to use them.
>
> Most users expect ze eenstructions to be in ze software eetself, no?
>
> > Users accustomed to current mainstream software may not like that,
> > but -- <shrug>.
>
> Tell me more about your feelinks about ze current mainstream software.
If you've read the whole thread, you already know them. If not --
I don't care to do this again, thanks, though some of today's later
posts may give some clues.
[ snip ]