on James Gosling versus Richard Stallman

[Johanne Fairchild]

I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum. IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in

I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here. I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it. I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute. Thank you.

[D]

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum. IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in
http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc
I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here. I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it. I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute. Thank you.

Please do. Sounds like a very interesting claim!

[Johanne Fairchild]

Post by D

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum. IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in
http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc
I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here. I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it. I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute. Thank you.

Please do. Sounds like a very interesting claim!

He tells the whole story beginning at

http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc

Watch at least the whole interval 2:44:56--3:04:26.

[OrangeFish]

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum. IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in
http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc
I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here. I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it. I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute. Thank you.

Some commentary here:
https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2017-February/010194.html

OF

[D]

Post by OrangeFish

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum. IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in
http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc
I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here. I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it. I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute. Thank you.

https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2017-February/010194.html
OF

Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself, but
every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

[John Levine]

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself, but
every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

It's not exactly new, but there's a commercial version of Emacs called
Epsilon that I have been using since the 1980s (that's not a typo.) It
is small and fast because it is written in C. Its extension language
eel looks a lot like C. It costs money and is totally worth it. I
originally used it on MS-DOS, now on FreeBSD, Linux, and MacOS.

You can find free evaluation versions (fully functional, time limited) here https://www.lugaru.com/

R's,
John

[D]

Post by John Levine

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself, but
every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

It's not exactly new, but there's a commercial version of Emacs called
Epsilon that I have been using since the 1980s (that's not a typo.) It
is small and fast because it is written in C. Its extension language
eel looks a lot like C. It costs money and is totally worth it. I
originally used it on MS-DOS, now on FreeBSD, Linux, and MacOS.
You can find free evaluation versions (fully functional, time limited) here https://www.lugaru.com/
R's,
John

Thank you very much John, will definitely have a look!

[Dave Garrett]

Post by John Levine
It's not exactly new, but there's a commercial version of Emacs called
Epsilon that I have been using since the 1980s (that's not a typo.) It
is small and fast because it is written in C. Its extension language
eel looks a lot like C. It costs money and is totally worth it. I
originally used it on MS-DOS, now on FreeBSD, Linux, and MacOS.
You can find free evaluation versions (fully functional, time limited) here https://www.lugaru.com/

I hadn't thought about Epsilon in years until the other day when I
mentioned it to someone in another forum. AFter that discussion, I went
poking around the net and discovered that it was still around via the
link you posted. I was somewhat surprised (but gratified) that it was
still being actively supported.

Anyway, Epsilon was my introduction to emacs, and I used it on a daily
basis in 1990-91 in conjunction with LaTeX to typeset mathematics books.
IIRC a few of the default Epsilon keybindings were slightly different
than those in most flavors of emacs running on Unix platforms, but when
I switched from MS-DOS/Epsilon to SunOS/emacs a year or so later,
virtually all of the common emacs editor commands were already firmly
embedded in my muscle memory.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:04:21 +0200

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself,
but every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

There's a thing called neovim that some speak highly of - I've yet
to try it myself.

[greymaus]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:04:21 +0200

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself,
but every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

There's a thing called neovim that some speak highly of - I've yet
to try it myself.

There was an emacs for slackware that was very good,forget what it was
called. Every now and again I have the urge to install slackware, but
debian, afaik it is more up yo date, and then, again I remember, there
was something previous to Stallman, (microemacs)

[D]

Post by greymaus

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:04:21 +0200

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself,
but every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

There's a thing called neovim that some speak highly of - I've yet
to try it myself.

There was an emacs for slackware that was very good,forget what it was
called. Every now and again I have the urge to install slackware, but
debian, afaik it is more up yo date, and then, again I remember, there
was something previous to Stallman, (microemacs)

Slckware is one of my options to evaluate if my current distribution,
opensuse, should ever go with containers and r/o root. My list of options
to flee to would be alpine linux, slackware or freebsd.

I'm also fascinated by nixos, but I doubt I have the energy to learn an
entire language with too many decades invested in regular linux, but the
concept is nice and perhaps it might become a new standard for younglings?

[Bud Frede]

Post by greymaus

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:04:21 +0200

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself,
but every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

There's a thing called neovim that some speak highly of - I've yet
to try it myself.

There was an emacs for slackware that was very good,forget what it was
called. Every now and again I have the urge to install slackware, but
debian, afaik it is more up yo date, and then, again I remember, there
was something previous to Stallman, (microemacs)

There have been a bunch of them. I've used jove in the past, and years
ago I worked with a bunch of people who liked Chet's Editor.

https://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/

I've mainly used vi and vim, but I also use emacs for gnus.

Joe in "jmacs" mode is evidently pretty good, but I've never done more
than start it and then C-x C-c :-)

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Bud Frede

Post by greymaus
There was an emacs for slackware that was very good,forget what it was
called. Every now and again I have the urge to install slackware, but
debian, afaik it is more up yo date, and then, again I remember, there
was something previous to Stallman, (microemacs)

AFAIK, Slackware has long supplied GNU Emacs. When I first moved to
Linux, I laded on Caldera that supplied XEmacs. Downloaded GNU Emacs
20.7, compiled it. Then switched to Slackware but have been using that
same executable now for over 20 years. (Newer versions that come w/
Slackware updates have too many unwanted "features" and newer
kernels/libs haven't broken the old executable.)

Post by Bud Frede
There have been a bunch of them. I've used jove in the past, and years
ago I worked with a bunch of people who liked Chet's Editor.

I spent about 7 years using MS-DOS between CP/M and Linux. I used
Jove all the time with DOS, allowing me to pretend -- most of the time
-- that it was Emacs which I had come to like on assorted remote Unix
accounts. I still use Jove on rare occasions.

Post by Bud Frede
https://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Mike Spencer
AFAIK, Slackware has long supplied GNU Emacs.

Has Slackware caught up with Wayland yet? I just installed the Wayland-
compatible Emacs build on my Debian Unstable system, and that has been
working quite well.

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Mike Spencer
AFAIK, Slackware has long supplied GNU Emacs.

Has Slackware caught up with Wayland yet?

No. But I'm a trailing-edge-of-technology kind of guy so I'm good
with that. (I use twm window manager, have a hand pump at the
kitchen sink and my working electric toaster is 111 years old.)

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
I just installed the Wayland- compatible Emacs build on my Debian
Unstable system, and that has been working quite well.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Mike Spencer
AFAIK, Slackware has long supplied GNU Emacs.

Has Slackware caught up with Wayland yet?

No. But I'm a trailing-edge-of-technology kind of guy so I'm good with
that.

You do realize Slackware now includes PulseAudio, right?

(I use twm window manager, have a hand pump at the kitchen sink
and my working electric toaster is 111 years old.)

Electric? Don’t you have a stove?

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Mike Spencer
AFAIK, Slackware has long supplied GNU Emacs.

Has Slackware caught up with Wayland yet?

No.

Apparently I erred. There *is* some Wayland stuff in Slack 15. But
AFAICT, when I type startx, it's X I get, not Wayland and Xwayland.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

But I'm a trailing-edge-of-technology kind of guy so I'm good with
that.

You do realize Slackware now includes PulseAudio, right?

I did notice that somehow audio "just works" without having to open a
mixer window, select a device or driver. Haven't paid attention to
details. AFAIR, the last time I really paid attention to audio was
when I got a new DVD drive and connected the analog cable to the mobo
and it didn't work. Eventually learned that the mfgr included the
external plug on the drive but didn't connect it to anything
internally.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

(I use twm window manager, have a hand pump at the kitchen sink
and my working electric toaster is 111 years old.)

Electric? Don't you have a stove?

Yes, a wood-burning kitchen range. In winter and cool weather,
(today, f'rgzample) a slice of bread on a recycled hibachi grill on
the stove top or directly on the stove cover (if the fire's a bit low)
makes toast. But from mid-May to mid-September, we only have a fire
in the stove when when we want to use the oven (for which we have no
alternative tech) for birthday cakes, lasagne etc. In summer,
stovetop cooking we do on a cast iron, 120 y.o (just guessing here)
two-burner propane hotplate. And toast by electricity.

Century-old joke, incomprehensible if yer so young you've never used
a pre-popup toaster:

Housewife to neighbor having coffee at kitchen table:

George is good for nothing in the kitchen. He can't even make
toast.

George, from next room:

I make toast the same way you do, dear! Put it in the toaster
and burn it, take it to the sink and scrape it.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Mike Spencer
There *is* some Wayland stuff in Slack 15. But
AFAICT, when I type startx, it's X I get, not Wayland and Xwayland.

Yeah, I had a look, and it appears “startx” continues to start a regular
X11 session; it has no knowledge of anything Wayland.

Seems you have to use a command which is GUI-environment-specific to
launch the Wayland version of that GUI environment. For example,
this doc page <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/KDE#No_display_manager> gives
the command for KDE Plasma as

dbus-launch --exit-with-session startplasma-wayland

Most people I guess just choose the session type from their GUI login
screen, and let the standard setup magic handle the rest.

[Gabriel Rolland]

Mike Spencer <***@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:

--snip--

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

(I use twm window manager, have a hand pump at the kitchen sink
and my working electric toaster is 111 years old.)

Electric? Don't you have a stove?

Yes, a wood-burning kitchen range. In winter and cool weather,
(today, f'rgzample) a slice of bread on a recycled hibachi grill on
the stove top or directly on the stove cover (if the fire's a bit low)
makes toast. But from mid-May to mid-September, we only have a fire
in the stove when when we want to use the oven (for which we have no
alternative tech) for birthday cakes, lasagne etc. In summer,
stovetop cooking we do on a cast iron, 120 y.o (just guessing here)
two-burner propane hotplate. And toast by electricity.
Century-old joke, incomprehensible if yer so young you've never used
George is good for nothing in the kitchen. He can't even make
toast.
I make toast the same way you do, dear! Put it in the toaster
and burn it, take it to the sink and scrape it.

I'm genuinely curious. How do you use these kind of toasters? You just
wait until your toasts are done and get them out with pliers or kitchen
gloves? Or do they look like waffle makers, so you can open the device
to get your toast out? I assume there is no timer integrated. Or you
just do it 'George style'?

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Gabriel Rolland

Post by Mike Spencer
Century-old joke, incomprehensible if yer so young you've never used
George is good for nothing in the kitchen. He can't even make
toast.
I make toast the same way you do, dear! Put it in the toaster
and burn it, take it to the sink and scrape it.

I'm genuinely curious. How do you use these kind of toasters? You just
wait until your toasts are done and get them out with pliers or kitchen
gloves? Or do they look like waffle makers, so you can open the device
to get your toast out? I assume there is no timer integrated. Or you
just do it 'George style'?

There are (at least) two types. In one type, there is a door- or
hatch-like piece, hinged at the bottom, one on each side of the
toaster. You open the hatch (with a little wood- or
Bakelite-insulated knob), lay the bread on the hatch and close it
upward. That holds the bread near the heating elements. This one is
less ornamental than some:

https://sloanlongway.org/landers-frary-clark-toaster-1906/

As with both types, you must remain alert for the odor of toasting
bread or the first hint of smoke. That hint of smoke typically occurs
well before the toast is actually charred as tiny crumbs burn and
smoke harmlessly. This may depend to an extent on the kind of bread
you use with moderny poof-bread tending perhaps to be crumb-deficient
and more likely to burn. We buy quite substantial, unsliced bread
from a local bakery and slice it with a butcher knife.

In any case, assuming that you've detected that the toast is ready to
turn, you open the hatch(es) whereupon the slice slides down in to the
open hatch cover (that is, in the fully open position, a tray) but
with the untoasted side up. Reclosing the hatch brings the untoasted
side near the heater, whereupon you remain alert for the indicators
and open the toaster at just the right time.

We have one of this type, squirreled away as a backup in case our duty
toaster fails irreparably.

The one we use routinely looks like this:

Loading Image...

The bread is inserted into a sort of rack. When you judge that it's done
one one side, you grab the little insulated Bakelite knob and swing the
rack from one side to the other. Clever linkage makes this work
pretty well.

There is a cutaway or relief in the swing-type rack to let you grab the
slice w/o gloves or tools. With the door type, the slice lies
conveniently on the open door/tray for picking up.

With either type, any distraction may result in toast unacceptably
charred on one side. If the pillar of smoke rising from the toaster
recovers you from your distraction soon enough, and your bread is of a
suitable type, the charring is minimal and can be removed by scraping
with a table knife. This is done at the sink as it sprays charcoal
dust/bits in all directions.

Toasting on the wood range stovetop is subject to the same penalty for
distraction and uses the same remediation at the sink.

[Peter Flass]

Post by Gabriel Rolland
--snip--

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

(I use twm window manager, have a hand pump at the kitchen sink
and my working electric toaster is 111 years old.)

Electric? Don't you have a stove?

Yes, a wood-burning kitchen range. In winter and cool weather,
(today, f'rgzample) a slice of bread on a recycled hibachi grill on
the stove top or directly on the stove cover (if the fire's a bit low)
makes toast. But from mid-May to mid-September, we only have a fire
in the stove when when we want to use the oven (for which we have no
alternative tech) for birthday cakes, lasagne etc. In summer,
stovetop cooking we do on a cast iron, 120 y.o (just guessing here)
two-burner propane hotplate. And toast by electricity.
Century-old joke, incomprehensible if yer so young you've never used
George is good for nothing in the kitchen. He can't even make
toast.
I make toast the same way you do, dear! Put it in the toaster
and burn it, take it to the sink and scrape it.

I'm genuinely curious. How do you use these kind of toasters? You just
wait until your toasts are done and get them out with pliers or kitchen
gloves? Or do they look like waffle makers, so you can open the device
to get your toast out? I assume there is no timer integrated. Or you
just do it 'George style'?

We used to have one. I don’t know if it’s the same. Heating element in the
middle, doors on side hinged at the bottom and open down. I can’t recall,
but we must have had to flip the bread halfway thru.

https://images.app.goo.gl/pWSwnyDpR3Xggi476

[Kurt Weiske]

To: Peter Flass
-=> Peter Flass wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-

PF> We used to have one. I donrCOt know if itrCOs the same. Heating
PF> element in the middle, doors on side hinged at the bottom and open
PF> down. I canrCOt recall, but we must have had to flip the bread halfway
PF> thru.

I worked at the company that made the "flying toasters" screen saver. We
had a "toaster museum" in the office, replete with the style you
described, old turn-of-the-century toasters that looked like a fire
hazard even when unplugged, to modern dualit toasters. No toaster ovens,
which superceded upright toasters, IMO.

Nothing like trying to make a grilled cheese sandwich in an upright
toaster. :)

kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
| http://realitycheckbbs.org
| 1:218/***@fidonet




... A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFF-WORLD COLONIES!
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Win32 NewsLink 1.114
* realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Kurt Weiske
I worked at the company that made the "flying toasters" screen saver.

Berkeley Systems? Of the famous “After Dark” screen saver collection?

Great fun for its time. Nowadays, of course, you have the amazing Open
Source collection maintained by Jamie Zawinski. Some of those are truly
mesmerizing.

[Liam Proven]

Post by Kurt Weiske
I worked at the company that made the "flying toasters" screen saver.

Berkeley Systems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Systems

Cool stuff. About 35 years ago, I was a big fan of After Dark. :-)

[Bud Frede]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Kurt Weiske
I worked at the company that made the "flying toasters" screen saver.

Berkeley Systems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Systems
Cool stuff. About 35 years ago, I was a big fan of After Dark. :-)

Same here. :-)

However, I didn't feel like paying for screensaver software, so I
admired it from afar. I did have a friend who had a copy of After Dark, so I
got to explore the software a bit on her Mac.

I was a cheap SOB, so I stuck mostly with public domain or other free
software on computers I put together from whatever used parts I could
scrounge.

I do remember seeing ads for After Dark in the magazines and was
attracted to it. I've always had a soft spot for products that display
some humor or don't take themselves too seriously. Flying toasters
definitely tickled my fancy.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Bud Frede

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Kurt Weiske
I worked at the company that made the "flying toasters" screen saver.

Berkeley Systems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Systems
Cool stuff. About 35 years ago, I was a big fan of After Dark. :-)

Same here. :-)
However, I didn't feel like paying for screensaver software, so I
admired it from afar. I did have a friend who had a copy of After Dark,
so I got to explore the software a bit on her Mac.

I had a port that I ran on my Amiga. The toasters had nice fluffy
wings and would occasionally do a backflip.

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 05 May 2024 12:02:24 +0200, Gabriel Rolland
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Gabriel Rolland
I'm genuinely curious. How do you use these kind of toasters? You just
wait until your toasts are done and get them out with pliers or kitchen
gloves? Or do they look like waffle makers, so you can open the device
to get your toast out? I assume there is no timer integrated. Or you
just do it 'George style'?

My grandmother had a toaster that sat on a stove burner. I don't know
whether she took it with her when they moved to a house with running
water. I have her stovetop oven, which still works quite well.

(They had electricity, but there was no place to put a bathroom, and
the pump was on a glassed-in porch, so there wasn't a lot of
motivation to wreck a room.)

[John Levine]

Post by Mike Spencer
I make toast the same way you do, dear! Put it in the toaster
and burn it, take it to the sink and scrape it.

My father told me that his father, who was born in 1876, said he was
21 years old before he knew you could make toast without scraping it
off over the sink.

In that era a toaster was a triangular thing you put on the stove. Here's one
intended for camp stoves:

https://www.amazon.com/Folding-Toaster-Stainless-Camping-Breakfast/dp/B0156JJ1I6

and a spiffy modern version:

http://www.deltatoast.com/

[D]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:04:21 +0200

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself,
but every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

There's a thing called neovim that some speak highly of - I've yet
to try it myself.

I've used vim for more than 2 decades and consider myself a power user,
but when it comes to vim vs neovim I'm not a power-power user, so for me
the difference is minimal. I now use neovim because it removed lots of old
code and support from the original vim and I wanted to "push" the vim
project to keep up, and now I'm stuck on neovim, but for my extremely
simple use cases (mostly day to day writing and system administration
with a little bit of scripting thrown in) no difference at all.

[Bud Frede]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:04:21 +0200

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself,
but every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

There's a thing called neovim that some speak highly of - I've yet
to try it myself.

I've been using it for a while now. I first tried it after a book on vim
recommended it, and it's been a couple of years now IIRC, and I haven't
switched my "vi" alias back to regular vim.

I'm not sure I'd be a good advocate for neovim. I just use it and it
does the things I expect out of vim. :-)

[Peter Flass]

Post by Bud Frede

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:04:21 +0200

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself,
but every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

There's a thing called neovim that some speak highly of - I've yet
to try it myself.

I've been using it for a while now. I first tried it after a book on vim
recommended it, and it's been a couple of years now IIRC, and I haven't
switched my "vi" alias back to regular vim.
I'm not sure I'd be a good advocate for neovim. I just use it and it
does the things I expect out of vim. :-)

That’s the best possible recommendation for any app.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.

The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,
and grow from there. Make sure to install the documentation package (this
is separated out on Debian derivatives because the GNU “Free”
Documentation License isn’t really considered free), and remember that the
entire help system is accessible from CTRL/H (or F1, if you prefer).

[Scott Lurndal]

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,

The nice thing with vim is that you can start using it right out of the box.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,

The nice thing with vim is that you can start using it right out of the box.

That’s very nice. Just like a proper editor.

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let???s face it: ???Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping??? just isn???t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,

The nice thing with vim is that you can start using it right out of the box.

Haha, touché! ;)

[D.J.]

Post by Scott Lurndal

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swappingâ€? just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,

The nice thing with vim is that you can start using it right out of the box.

I start using EditPad Lite 8 right out of the box.

[D]

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,
and grow from there. Make sure to install the documentation package (this
is separated out on Debian derivatives because the GNU “Free”
Documentation License isn’t really considered free), and remember that the
entire help system is accessible from CTRL/H (or F1, if you prefer).

Same with vim. Since I like the unix philosophy I like ideally to have one
tool that does one thing well. I'd rather combine several commands, than
have one big program that does all.

In terms of vim I don't use any extensions but use it more or less out of
the box since I was more of an operations guy than a developer.

[John]

Post by D

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,
and grow from there. Make sure to install the documentation package (this
is separated out on Debian derivatives because the GNU “Free”
Documentation License isn’t really considered free), and remember that the
entire help system is accessible from CTRL/H (or F1, if you prefer).

Same with vim. Since I like the unix philosophy I like ideally to have
one tool that does one thing well. I'd rather combine several
commands, than have one big program that does all.
In terms of vim I don't use any extensions but use it more or less out
of the box since I was more of an operations guy than a developer.

I think people get too hung up on "the unix philosophy" sometimes. I've
been using Unix and Unix-adjacent systems for over twenty years: Linux,
various BSDs, Solaris, Plan 9. At various times I've used emacs, vi,
acme, and sam as my primary editors. The main thing I think of anymore
when somebody starts talking about "the unix philosophy" is that nobody
dares to put a `find` program in Plan 9 because it's too GNU-ish, so we
all typed `du -a | grep <filename>` and scolded any newbie who dared
post on the mailing list asking for find.

Anyway, is there such a huge difference between "foo < xyz | bar | baz"
and "(baz (bar (foo xyz)))"? In both cases you're invoking little bits
of code, feeding the output of one to another, and it can be just as
interactive in emacs as in a shell. Does it make such a difference if
you type :s/foo/bar/g or M-x replace-regexp RET foo RET bar, aside from
a couple more keystrokes in the latter? (but not many, thanks to
tab-complete)

After years away, I've been exploring emacs again and there's a lot to
love in there. In some ways it doesn't feel super Unixy, sure, and
there's good reason for that: it grew up on a lot of non-Unix systems
first. But Unix isn't the ultimate evolution of the operating system,
and Emacs is basically the most coherent vision for a self-contained
environment which is as flexible/extensible as Unix. It's a spiritual
successor in some ways to the Lisp machines, where everything is just
*there* for inspection and evaluation and modification.

I think anybody who's interested in computing, and especially in
computer folklore, owes it to themselves to try using Emacs. It's cool
to come away from that attempt disliking it, but it's such a weird and
wild and interesting *thing*. Don't forget to run M-x list-packages and
see all the stuff people have built on top of this weirdly archaic
single-threaded lisp system.


john

p.s. try acme too, it's totally different but also a lot of fun.

[Mike Spencer]

Post by John
I think anybody who's interested in computing, and especially in
computer folklore, owes it to themselves to try using Emacs. It's cool
to come away from that attempt disliking it, but it's such a weird and
wild and interesting *thing*. Don't forget to run M-x list-packages and
see all the stuff people have built on top of this weirdly archaic
single-threaded lisp system.

1989: On a visit to a friend at Project Athena, the plunked me in
front of (what was them) a powerful Unix work station with some
manuals for a (obviously pre-HTML) multimedia authoring system.
Default editor was Emacs. I was a CP/M power user and hated Emacs.
Walked across to Kendall Sq. and bought the hardcopy Emacs manual, read
it all. Came grudgingly to terms with Emacs.

Fast forward over 30 years. Included some period logging into Unix
systems using my Osborne I as a dial-up terminal. 1999 conversion to
Caldera Linux which defaulted to XEmacs and KDE. Quickly downloaded
GNU Emacs, soon switched to Slackware with twm and have never looked
back.

I now use Emacs for email, news, shell and file management,
occasionally for writing a bit of C, Perl or shell scripts. I would
be crippled without it.

Every time I upgrade my Slackware system, I install the most recent
Emacs and try it. After hours of unsuccessfully trying to fix or
eliminate features that I hate -- abandonment of RMAIL,
unreadable standout colors, mouse stuff -- I revert to 20.7.2 that I
compiled in 1999.

Yes, I do know a bit of Lisp, once wrote a simple-minded embodiment of
Ashby's "homeostat" in XLisp, but have only tweaked Emacs lisp a
couple of very elementary time. Brain too old, perhaps, to really
beat up Emacs Lisp.

[D]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by John
I think anybody who's interested in computing, and especially in
computer folklore, owes it to themselves to try using Emacs. It's cool
to come away from that attempt disliking it, but it's such a weird and
wild and interesting *thing*. Don't forget to run M-x list-packages and
see all the stuff people have built on top of this weirdly archaic
single-threaded lisp system.

1989: On a visit to a friend at Project Athena, the plunked me in
front of (what was them) a powerful Unix work station with some
manuals for a (obviously pre-HTML) multimedia authoring system.
Default editor was Emacs. I was a CP/M power user and hated Emacs.
Walked across to Kendall Sq. and bought the hardcopy Emacs manual, read
it all. Came grudgingly to terms with Emacs.
Fast forward over 30 years. Included some period logging into Unix
systems using my Osborne I as a dial-up terminal. 1999 conversion to
Caldera Linux which defaulted to XEmacs and KDE. Quickly downloaded
GNU Emacs, soon switched to Slackware with twm and have never looked
back.
I now use Emacs for email, news, shell and file management,
occasionally for writing a bit of C, Perl or shell scripts. I would
be crippled without it.
Every time I upgrade my Slackware system, I install the most recent
Emacs and try it. After hours of unsuccessfully trying to fix or
eliminate features that I hate -- abandonment of RMAIL,
unreadable standout colors, mouse stuff -- I revert to 20.7.2 that I
compiled in 1999.
Yes, I do know a bit of Lisp, once wrote a simple-minded embodiment of
Ashby's "homeostat" in XLisp, but have only tweaked Emacs lisp a
couple of very elementary time. Brain too old, perhaps, to really
beat up Emacs Lisp.

This sounds like me with my email. ;) I use alpine, and I've tweaked it
with scriptable command short cuts, I've written a news to maildir
converter to give its news reading capability a boost, I have integrated
it with scripts to give me rss feeds into my email, and if I so wish, it
can fetch news articles for me and send them to me as email.

Friends and family are spooked by this behaviour, but I can't help it. ;)

On a more philosophical note, I love the fact that the software is written
in such a way as to make all of the above possible for someone with very
general computer skills. I don't have to be a professional programmer to
achieve it. =)

[Bozo User]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by John
I think anybody who's interested in computing, and especially in
computer folklore, owes it to themselves to try using Emacs. It's cool
to come away from that attempt disliking it, but it's such a weird and
wild and interesting *thing*. Don't forget to run M-x list-packages and
see all the stuff people have built on top of this weirdly archaic
single-threaded lisp system.

1989: On a visit to a friend at Project Athena, the plunked me in
front of (what was them) a powerful Unix work station with some
manuals for a (obviously pre-HTML) multimedia authoring system.
Default editor was Emacs. I was a CP/M power user and hated Emacs.
Walked across to Kendall Sq. and bought the hardcopy Emacs manual, read
it all. Came grudgingly to terms with Emacs.
Fast forward over 30 years. Included some period logging into Unix
systems using my Osborne I as a dial-up terminal. 1999 conversion to
Caldera Linux which defaulted to XEmacs and KDE. Quickly downloaded
GNU Emacs, soon switched to Slackware with twm and have never looked
back.
I now use Emacs for email, news, shell and file management,
occasionally for writing a bit of C, Perl or shell scripts. I would
be crippled without it.
Every time I upgrade my Slackware system, I install the most recent
Emacs and try it. After hours of unsuccessfully trying to fix or
eliminate features that I hate -- abandonment of RMAIL,
unreadable standout colors, mouse stuff -- I revert to 20.7.2 that I
compiled in 1999.
Yes, I do know a bit of Lisp, once wrote a simple-minded embodiment of
Ashby's "homeostat" in XLisp, but have only tweaked Emacs lisp a
couple of very elementary time. Brain too old, perhaps, to really
beat up Emacs Lisp.

Just run M-x customize-themes and choose a simple but usable theme.
Some dark ones are very nice. Also, I think you have the classic
green emacs theme in ELPA.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by John

Post by D
Same with vim. Since I like the unix philosophy I like ideally to have
one tool that does one thing well. I'd rather combine several
commands, than have one big program that does all.
In terms of vim I don't use any extensions but use it more or less out
of the box since I was more of an operations guy than a developer.

I think people get too hung up on "the unix philosophy" sometimes. I've
been using Unix and Unix-adjacent systems for over twenty years: Linux,
various BSDs, Solaris, Plan 9. At various times I've used emacs, vi,
acme, and sam as my primary editors. The main thing I think of anymore
when somebody starts talking about "the unix philosophy" is that nobody
dares to put a `find` program in Plan 9 because it's too GNU-ish, so we
all typed `du -a | grep <filename>` and scolded any newbie who dared
post on the mailing list asking for find.

Gnu-ish? find(1) predates GNU.

Post by John
I think anybody who's interested in computing, and especially in
computer folklore, owes it to themselves to try using Emacs.

Been there, done that, went back to vim.

[John]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by John
I think people get too hung up on "the unix philosophy" sometimes. I've
been using Unix and Unix-adjacent systems for over twenty years: Linux,
various BSDs, Solaris, Plan 9. At various times I've used emacs, vi,
acme, and sam as my primary editors. The main thing I think of anymore
when somebody starts talking about "the unix philosophy" is that nobody
dares to put a `find` program in Plan 9 because it's too GNU-ish, so we
all typed `du -a | grep <filename>` and scolded any newbie who dared
post on the mailing list asking for find.

Gnu-ish? find(1) predates GNU.

Ah but by the time the holy wars were raging on 9fans to protect The
Sacred Plan 9 Philosophy, GNU tools were dominant and since GNU utils
tend to have more flags than any other version they make a good standard
to rally against.

john

[D]

Post by John

Post by D

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,
and grow from there. Make sure to install the documentation package (this
is separated out on Debian derivatives because the GNU “Free”
Documentation License isn’t really considered free), and remember that the
entire help system is accessible from CTRL/H (or F1, if you prefer).

Same with vim. Since I like the unix philosophy I like ideally to have
one tool that does one thing well. I'd rather combine several
commands, than have one big program that does all.
In terms of vim I don't use any extensions but use it more or less out
of the box since I was more of an operations guy than a developer.

I think people get too hung up on "the unix philosophy" sometimes. I've
been using Unix and Unix-adjacent systems for over twenty years: Linux,
various BSDs, Solaris, Plan 9. At various times I've used emacs, vi,
acme, and sam as my primary editors. The main thing I think of anymore
when somebody starts talking about "the unix philosophy" is that nobody
dares to put a `find` program in Plan 9 because it's too GNU-ish, so we
all typed `du -a | grep <filename>` and scolded any newbie who dared
post on the mailing list asking for find.
Anyway, is there such a huge difference between "foo < xyz | bar | baz"
and "(baz (bar (foo xyz)))"? In both cases you're invoking little bits
of code, feeding the output of one to another, and it can be just as
interactive in emacs as in a shell. Does it make such a difference if
you type :s/foo/bar/g or M-x replace-regexp RET foo RET bar, aside from
a couple more keystrokes in the latter? (but not many, thanks to
tab-complete)
After years away, I've been exploring emacs again and there's a lot to
love in there. In some ways it doesn't feel super Unixy, sure, and
there's good reason for that: it grew up on a lot of non-Unix systems
first. But Unix isn't the ultimate evolution of the operating system,
and Emacs is basically the most coherent vision for a self-contained
environment which is as flexible/extensible as Unix. It's a spiritual
successor in some ways to the Lisp machines, where everything is just
*there* for inspection and evaluation and modification.
I think anybody who's interested in computing, and especially in
computer folklore, owes it to themselves to try using Emacs. It's cool
to come away from that attempt disliking it, but it's such a weird and
wild and interesting *thing*. Don't forget to run M-x list-packages and
see all the stuff people have built on top of this weirdly archaic
single-threaded lisp system.
john
p.s. try acme too, it's totally different but also a lot of fun.

Horses for courses.

[Bozo User]

Post by John

Post by D

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,
and grow from there. Make sure to install the documentation package (this
is separated out on Debian derivatives because the GNU “Free”
Documentation License isn’t really considered free), and remember that the
entire help system is accessible from CTRL/H (or F1, if you prefer).

Same with vim. Since I like the unix philosophy I like ideally to have
one tool that does one thing well. I'd rather combine several
commands, than have one big program that does all.
In terms of vim I don't use any extensions but use it more or less out
of the box since I was more of an operations guy than a developer.

I think people get too hung up on "the unix philosophy" sometimes. I've
been using Unix and Unix-adjacent systems for over twenty years: Linux,
various BSDs, Solaris, Plan 9. At various times I've used emacs, vi,
acme, and sam as my primary editors. The main thing I think of anymore
when somebody starts talking about "the unix philosophy" is that nobody
dares to put a `find` program in Plan 9 because it's too GNU-ish, so we
all typed `du -a | grep <filename>` and scolded any newbie who dared
post on the mailing list asking for find.
Anyway, is there such a huge difference between "foo < xyz | bar | baz"
and "(baz (bar (foo xyz)))"? In both cases you're invoking little bits
of code, feeding the output of one to another, and it can be just as
interactive in emacs as in a shell. Does it make such a difference if
you type :s/foo/bar/g or M-x replace-regexp RET foo RET bar, aside from
a couple more keystrokes in the latter? (but not many, thanks to
tab-complete)
After years away, I've been exploring emacs again and there's a lot to
love in there. In some ways it doesn't feel super Unixy, sure, and
there's good reason for that: it grew up on a lot of non-Unix systems
first. But Unix isn't the ultimate evolution of the operating system,
and Emacs is basically the most coherent vision for a self-contained
environment which is as flexible/extensible as Unix. It's a spiritual
successor in some ways to the Lisp machines, where everything is just
*there* for inspection and evaluation and modification.
I think anybody who's interested in computing, and especially in
computer folklore, owes it to themselves to try using Emacs. It's cool
to come away from that attempt disliking it, but it's such a weird and
wild and interesting *thing*. Don't forget to run M-x list-packages and
see all the stuff people have built on top of this weirdly archaic
single-threaded lisp system.
john
p.s. try acme too, it's totally different but also a lot of fun.

EMacs and GNU borrow a lot from ITS and Emacs (and the bundled Lisp)

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by John
I think people get too hung up on "the unix philosophy" sometimes.

“Those days are dead and gone and the eulogy was delivered by Perl.”
-- Rob Pike

<https://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/10/18/1153211/rob-pike-responds>

[Bob Vloon]

Post by John

Post by D

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,
and grow from there. Make sure to install the documentation package (this
is separated out on Debian derivatives because the GNU “Free”
Documentation License isn’t really considered free), and remember that the
entire help system is accessible from CTRL/H (or F1, if you prefer).

Same with vim. Since I like the unix philosophy I like ideally to have
one tool that does one thing well. I'd rather combine several
commands, than have one big program that does all.
In terms of vim I don't use any extensions but use it more or less out
of the box since I was more of an operations guy than a developer.

I think people get too hung up on "the unix philosophy" sometimes. I've
been using Unix and Unix-adjacent systems for over twenty years: Linux,
various BSDs, Solaris, Plan 9. At various times I've used emacs, vi,
acme, and sam as my primary editors. The main thing I think of anymore
when somebody starts talking about "the unix philosophy" is that nobody
dares to put a `find` program in Plan 9 because it's too GNU-ish, so we
all typed `du -a | grep <filename>` and scolded any newbie who dared
post on the mailing list asking for find.
Anyway, is there such a huge difference between "foo < xyz | bar | baz"
and "(baz (bar (foo xyz)))"? In both cases you're invoking little bits
of code, feeding the output of one to another, and it can be just as
interactive in emacs as in a shell. Does it make such a difference if
you type :s/foo/bar/g or M-x replace-regexp RET foo RET bar, aside from
a couple more keystrokes in the latter? (but not many, thanks to
tab-complete)
After years away, I've been exploring emacs again and there's a lot to
love in there. In some ways it doesn't feel super Unixy, sure, and
there's good reason for that: it grew up on a lot of non-Unix systems
first. But Unix isn't the ultimate evolution of the operating system,
and Emacs is basically the most coherent vision for a self-contained
environment which is as flexible/extensible as Unix. It's a spiritual
successor in some ways to the Lisp machines, where everything is just
*there* for inspection and evaluation and modification.
I think anybody who's interested in computing, and especially in
computer folklore, owes it to themselves to try using Emacs. It's cool
to come away from that attempt disliking it, but it's such a weird and
wild and interesting *thing*. Don't forget to run M-x list-packages and
see all the stuff people have built on top of this weirdly archaic
single-threaded lisp system.

I think I can agree on that. Also in the light of the current "AI thing",
which, FAFAIK, is closely related to the "compulsive programmers" who
enjoy the concepts of EMACS very much.
I for myself recognise the urge to now and then try emacs, but every
time I come to the conclusion that I'm simply too much of a imperative
guy who enjoys using Vim when it comes to day-to-day editing tasks.

Post by John
john
p.s. try acme too, it's totally different but also a lot of fun.

Haha, that's on my list also, and even on my system via "plan9port",
but it simply cannot match the default functionality of Vim. One needs
to adopt a very different approach to editing, and I'm inclined to think
that it really is outdated. Concepts however do / did land in other
software, and that's good.

Cheers,

Bob

[greymaus]

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--8323328-574512632-1712329460=:10296
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs ...

Let’s face it: “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping” just isn’t that
big a deal any more.
The nice thing with Emacs is, you can start using it right out of the box,
and grow from there. Make sure to install the documentation package (this
is separated out on Debian derivatives because the GNU “Free”
Documentation License isn’t really considered free), and remember that the
entire help system is accessible from CTRL/H (or F1, if you prefer).

Same with vim. Since I like the unix philosophy I like ideally to have one
tool that does one thing well. I'd rather combine several commands, than
have one big program that does all.
In terms of vim I don't use any extensions but use it more or less out of
the box since I was more of an operations guy than a developer.
--8323328-574512632-1712329460=:10296--

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by D
Since I like the unix philosophy I like ideally to have one
tool that does one thing well.

That was never true of the Unix system as a whole. All those small pieces
that “do one thing and do it well” could not have existed without the help
of much bigger pieces underneath, offering a wider range of omnibus
functionality. Like the kernel itself, or the shell, or the X server.

For example, you can do simple things in a few lines of Bash code, only
because Bash packs so much functionality that you can call on in those few
lines.

Think of Emacs as not so much an editor, as an editing engine, and you get
the idea. That underlying engine lets you do powerful things in just a few
lines of Elisp code.

The often-reviled systemd also embodies this same idea: it builds in a lot
of functionality that has been reinvented so many times, precisely so a
service definition can be done concisely and robustly in just a few lines
of directives, every one of which means something. Compare this with the
lines and lines of boilerplate that regularly gets copied and pasted from
one sysvinit script to another.

“What does this bit do?”
“Never mind. Put it all in, just in case.”

[Dan Cross]

Post by D

Post by OrangeFish

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum. IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in
http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc
I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here. I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it. I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute. Thank you.

https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2017-February/010194.html

Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected.

That's not exactly what happened. Stallman basically
took Gosling's code and slapped his own copyright notices
on it; he did eventually excise all of it, but it was
definitely poor form to start.

Post by D
Slightly related, what's the gold standard for a
minimalist Emacs?

Some folks speak highly of `mg`, which is very small.

- Dan C.

[D]

Post by Dan Cross

Post by D

Post by OrangeFish

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum. IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in
http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc
I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here. I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it. I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute. Thank you.

https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2017-February/010194.html

Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected.

That's not exactly what happened. Stallman basically
took Gosling's code and slapped his own copyright notices
on it; he did eventually excise all of it, but it was
definitely poor form to start.

Post by D
Slightly related, what's the gold standard for a
minimalist Emacs?

Some folks speak highly of `mg`, which is very small.
- Dan C.

Thank you Dan, mg added to the list to check out as well.

[Dennis Boone]

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself, but
every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

Thoughts:

1. Current GNU emacs is only 2-3 times the size of vim.

2. Emacs is more than just an editor, it's really intended to be an
IDE, a complete working environment and a platform for building all
sorts of tools, including file management, email, calendar, task lists
and notes, and many other things.

3. Vim is more than just an editor, much like the above.

De

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Dennis Boone
2. Emacs is more than just an editor, it's really intended to be an
IDE, a complete working environment and a platform for building all
sorts of tools, including file management, email, calendar, task lists
and notes, and many other things.

I wouldn’t call Emacs an “IDE”. An “IDE” is something that mandates its
own build toolchain, like Microsoft Visual Studio or Apple XCode do. Emacs
can work with any build toolchain.

Maybe call it an “orchestration platform”.

Post by Dennis Boone
3. Vim is more than just an editor, much like the above.

Vim is still a text editor, though. Emacs is an editor.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Dennis Boone

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself, but
every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

1. Current GNU emacs is only 2-3 times the size of vim.
2. Emacs is more than just an editor, it's really intended to be an
IDE, a complete working environment and a platform for building all
sorts of tools, including file management, email, calendar, task lists
and notes, and many other things.

As the old saying goes, it's a nice place to live, but I wouldn't
want to visit there.

Post by Dennis Boone
3. Vim is more than just an editor, much like the above.

My fingers speak vim, to the point where if I'm using a different
editor I'll often see a string of Js appear on the screen when
I'm trying to move down.

I did try emacs a couple of times, but its mindset is just
too foreign for me.

[D]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Dennis Boone

Post by D
Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself, but
every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something sane/smaller,
and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I should check out?

1. Current GNU emacs is only 2-3 times the size of vim.
2. Emacs is more than just an editor, it's really intended to be an
IDE, a complete working environment and a platform for building all
sorts of tools, including file management, email, calendar, task lists
and notes, and many other things.

As the old saying goes, it's a nice place to live, but I wouldn't
want to visit there.

Agreed.

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Dennis Boone
3. Vim is more than just an editor, much like the above.

My fingers speak vim, to the point where if I'm using a different
editor I'll often see a string of Js appear on the screen when
I'm trying to move down.

You're not the only one with that problem. ;)

Post by Charlie Gibbs
I did try emacs a couple of times, but its mindset is just
too foreign for me.

We'll see. Every couple of years I'll have a look and so far nothing has
convinced me to leave the high road of vim. ;)

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

... its mindset is just too foreign for me.

Every editor other than the vi/vim family has the concept that the current
insertion point lies _between_ characters (or before the first character,
or after the last one), not _on_ them. This includes Emacs, and every GUI
editor designed for normal people.

This is why the vi/vim family needs _two_ different insert commands: do
you want to insert before the “current” character, or after it? In all
those other editors, there is no “current” character.

[D]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... its mindset is just too foreign for me.

Every editor other than the vi/vim family has the concept that the current
insertion point lies _between_ characters (or before the first character,
or after the last one), not _on_ them. This includes Emacs, and every GUI
editor designed for normal people.
This is why the vi/vim family needs _two_ different insert commands: do
you want to insert before the “current” character, or after it? In all
those other editors, there is no “current” character.

I find it funny that you argue against someones subjective opinion. It
means nothing for that person regardless of argument. Same goes for me. =)

[Scott Lurndal]

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--8323328-1611439905-1712420973=:10296
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... its mindset is just too foreign for me.

Every editor other than the vi/vim family has the concept that the current
insertion point lies _between_ characters (or before the first character,
or after the last one), not _on_ them. This includes Emacs, and every GUI
editor designed for normal people.
This is why the vi/vim family needs _two_ different insert commands: do
you want to insert before the “current” character, or after it? In all
those other editors, there is no “current” character.

I find it funny that you argue against someones subjective opinion.

I find his constant arguing rather tiresome, myself.

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--8323328-1611439905-1712420973=:10296
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... its mindset is just too foreign for me.

Every editor other than the vi/vim family has the concept that the current
insertion point lies _between_ characters (or before the first character,
or after the last one), not _on_ them. This includes Emacs, and every GUI
editor designed for normal people.
This is why the vi/vim family needs _two_ different insert commands: do
you want to insert before the ???current??? character, or after it? In all
those other editors, there is no ???current??? character.

I find it funny that you argue against someones subjective opinion.

I find his constant arguing rather tiresome, myself.

Touché!

[Dan Espen]

Post by Scott Lurndal

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--8323328-1611439905-1712420973=:10296
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... its mindset is just too foreign for me.

Every editor other than the vi/vim family has the concept that the current
insertion point lies _between_ characters (or before the first character,
or after the last one), not _on_ them. This includes Emacs, and every GUI
editor designed for normal people.
This is why the vi/vim family needs _two_ different insert commands: do
you want to insert before the “current†character, or after it? In all
those other editors, there is no “current†character.

I find it funny that you argue against someones subjective opinion.

I find his constant arguing rather tiresome, myself.

I believe Lawrence is just citing a fact, not arguing about anything.

I'm not arguing here either:

The fact that vi doesn't start out just typing what you want bothered me
too, that was one of the reasons I looked at Emacs.

I stuck with Emacs all these years because I can customize every
aspect of it's behavior.

Some people like vi, some Emacs. That's fine with me.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by D

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Every editor other than the vi/vim family has the concept that the
current insertion point lies _between_ characters (or before the first
character, or after the last one), not _on_ them. This includes Emacs,
and every GUI editor designed for normal people.
This is why the vi/vim family needs _two_ different insert commands: do
you want to insert before the “current” character, or after it? In all
those other editors, there is no “current” character.

I find it funny that you argue against someones subjective opinion.

Facts >> subjective opinion.

[D]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by D

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Every editor other than the vi/vim family has the concept that the
current insertion point lies _between_ characters (or before the first
character, or after the last one), not _on_ them. This includes Emacs,
and every GUI editor designed for normal people.
This is why the vi/vim family needs _two_ different insert commands: do
you want to insert before the “current” character, or after it? In all
those other editors, there is no “current” character.

I find it funny that you argue against someones subjective opinion.

Facts >> subjective opinion.

Exactly my point! Thank you.

[R Daneel Olivaw]

Post by D

Post by OrangeFish

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum.  IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in
   http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc
I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here.  I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it.  I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute.  Thank you.

https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2017-February/010194.html
OF

Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly related,
what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a vim-man myself,
but every couple of years I get an itch to check it out, recoil and the
enormous size of standard emacs, try and look for something
sane/smaller, and then go back to vim. Any new contenders out there I
should check out?

There is apparently something called "vi like emacs" out there, and yes
- the program name is "vile".
I've only seen it described in my O'Reilly "vi Editor Pocket Reference"
and the first edition was January 1999 and not April 1st some year.

[Dan Espen]

Post by R Daneel Olivaw

Post by D

Post by OrangeFish

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I've watched (some time ago) the two parts of James Gosling Oral History
for the Computer History Museum.  IIRC, he accuses Richard Stallman of
plagiarism at some point in
   http://youtu.be/TJ6XHroNewc
I'm going to watch it all over to find out exactly what he said and I'll
post it here.  I wonder if someone, however, remembers at what point in
the video he does say it.  I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute.  Thank you.

https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2017-February/010194.html
OF

Oh, seems quite trivial. Not at all what I expected. Slightly
related, what's the gold standard for a minimalist Emacs? I'm a
vim-man myself, but every couple of years I get an itch to check it
out, recoil and the enormous size of standard emacs, try and look
for something sane/smaller, and then go back to vim. Any new
contenders out there I should check out?

There is apparently something called "vi like emacs" out there, and
yes - the program name is "vile".
I've only seen it described in my O'Reilly "vi Editor Pocket
Reference" and the first edition was January 1999 and not April 1st
some year.

Not quite right, the program name is not vile, it's emacs.
vile is one of the packages that gave emacs vi emulation.
I don't use vi emulation but I think vile is one of the older packages,
I think viper is current.

[Liam Proven]

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute.

I encountered a couple of epic histories of Emacs recently.

One on the Multics implementation:

https://www.multicians.org/mepap.html

And one on its origins in TECO:

https://onlisp.co.uk/On-the-Origin-of-Emacs-in-1976.html

Just in case they shed any light...

[Bud Frede]

Post by Liam Proven

Post by Johanne Fairchild
I also wonder if anyone has any verifiable
facts to share regarding the dispute.

I encountered a couple of epic histories of Emacs recently.
https://www.multicians.org/mepap.html
https://onlisp.co.uk/On-the-Origin-of-Emacs-in-1976.html
Just in case they shed any light...

I hadn't seen those before. Thank you for sharing the links!