On a sunny day (9 Dec 2006 23:02:50 GMT) it happened jasen wrote in :
Emacs is useless for me. I use 'joe', it starts up in milliseconds. It is a full screen editor, and perfect fro programing. Emacs is bloat. Emacs is bloat Emacs is BLOAT repeat And I do not like or underdstand the key sequences.
Like joe's (vi) key sequences make sense ;-)
The damage I have done in vi to a document when I forget I have toggled into command mode, and start typing text furiously defies discussion on a polite forum!
-Chuck
emacs has been used along with the linux kernel (and a very small "init") to provide a complete system, including a shell, file utilities, network utilities, games, programming system, and editing.
On a sunny day (10 Dec 2006 14:09:49 GMT) it happened "David Brown" wrote in :
A bit like MS windows, but that ran on MSDOS. B L O A T
No, it would be hard to say that emacs is like Windows... emacs never crashes.
-Chuck
no argument there... it has been said that emacs makes xwindows look like a small package... ,
joe has emacs and wordstar bindings too.
I use jed (another small programmable editor), It's seemingly bottomless undo feature has come in handy on occasion. I've yet to program it (in S-lang) , but have used the regex find-n-replace to convert hex dumps, or javascript, to c
Bye. Jasen
Actually it would be quite easy to say that EMACS is like windows. In their early days, both had security holes as wide as a barn door.
Ian
In their later days, one still does.
-Chuck
While you have your favorite editor, others do also. In the 'nix world vi is an acceptable editor for small tasks. In DOS land my favorite is Multi-Edit, extensible, reconfigurable with several pre-written libraries included. Just another in a handful of DOS macro editors for programmers. The macro capable editor for Borland's DOS Turbo Pascal and DOS Turbo C was very good as well. Wordstar for DOS was a clone of an existing 'nix text editor. EAMCS also has tools for preparing 'nix man files, and TEX typesetter files for math, chemistry, physics, engineering, and others.
-- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
Glad to find a maintainer. I just tried to install geda-install-20060907 on my Suse 9.2 system from a fresh CD i just burned. From the log window the base packages (gtk/gdk, glib, pkgconfig) and gnucap seem to be the only things that successfully installed. There was a lot of errors in the log window. Does it leave a log file behind if it is invoked without the --log option? As install does take some time i would rather look for an existing log rather than re-run ./installer.
-- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
In sci.electronics.cad joseph2k wrote: : Does it leave a log file behind if it is invoked without the --log : option?
Yes, if you run the installer with the --log flag set, then it drops a file called Install.log into your local directory. That means that you should run the installer from a writable directory, like your home directory, like this:
cd ~ /media/cdrom/installer --log
Don't run it as root. Also if you don't want it to install the prerequisite system files, then just look at the Install.log file, gather a list of dependencies, and install them yourself by hand before re-running the installer.
Stuart
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.