Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #29984 > unrolled thread

most common text editors in popular distros?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  most common text editors in popular distros? pedro1492@lycos.com - 2020-06-09 04:40 -0700
    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-09 12:51 +0100
      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-06-10 11:22 -0400
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-10 16:37 +0100
      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? pH <wb6dwp@gmail.com> - 2020-06-11 19:37 -0700
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-12 11:01 +0000
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-13 14:23 +0200
          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-06-13 15:32 +0000
    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-09 14:36 +0200
      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-06-09 15:26 +0200
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-09 20:57 +0200
          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-09 22:23 +0000
            Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2020-06-09 18:52 -0400
            Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-10 13:00 -0400
              Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-06-10 18:38 +0000
                Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-10 19:20 +0000
                  Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-06-11 09:52 -0600
                    Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-06-11 09:59 -0600
                      Re: Why? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 10:00 -0400
                        Re: Why? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-06-21 10:10 -0600
                          Re: Why? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-22 06:06 -0400
                    Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-11 22:11 +0200
                  Re: Why? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 09:59 -0400
                Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-06-11 09:45 -0600
                  Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-11 22:16 +0200
                    Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-11 21:08 +0000
                      Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-12 13:49 +0200
                        Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-12 20:49 +0000
                          Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-13 14:19 +0200
                            Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-13 13:13 +0000
                              Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-16 13:02 +0200
                                Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-16 20:42 +0000
                                  Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-16 23:13 +0200
                                    Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-16 21:41 +0000
                                      Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-17 12:05 +0200
                                        Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-17 11:03 +0000
                                          Re: Why? (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-17 14:06 +0200
                        Re: Why? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 10:18 -0400
                      Re: Why? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 10:10 -0400
                        Re: Why? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-21 20:18 +0200
                Re: Why? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 09:49 -0400
              Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-10 19:54 +0000
          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-09 20:44 -0400
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? "Andrei Z." <no-email@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-26 11:32 +0300
          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? "Andrei Z." <no-email@invalid.invalid> - 2020-07-16 15:06 +0300
      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? John McCue <jmccue@hairball.Belkin> - 2020-06-09 22:55 +0000
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-10 09:13 +0100
          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-10 13:11 -0400
            Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-10 20:53 +0100
              Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-10 20:54 +0000
                Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-10 22:36 +0100
                  Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-10 22:49 +0000
                    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Harold Stevens <wookie@limbo.localdomain> - 2020-06-10 18:07 -0500
                      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-11 01:59 +0100
                    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-11 01:57 +0100
                      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-06-11 08:30 +0200
                        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Harold Stevens <wookie@limbo.localdomain> - 2020-06-11 03:37 -0500
                      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? John McCue <jmccue@obsd2.mhome.org> - 2020-06-11 12:25 +0000
                        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-11 22:19 +0200
                          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-12 08:04 +0100
                            Re: most common text editors in popular distros? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-12 13:50 +0200
                              Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-12 15:28 +0100
                                Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-12 17:00 +0000
                                  Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-12 19:38 +0100
                                    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-12 19:09 +0000
                                      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-12 23:14 +0100
                                        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-13 00:31 +0000
                                    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-13 14:11 +0200
                Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-11 08:17 +0100
                  Re: most common text editors in popular distros? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-11 09:25 +0100
                  Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-11 17:57 +0000
              Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 10:24 -0400
          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? John McCue <jmccue@obsd2.mhome.org> - 2020-06-10 20:55 +0000
            Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-10 21:39 -0400
    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-06-09 13:42 +0000
      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-09 22:31 +0000
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-06-09 22:56 +0000
    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2020-06-09 17:36 +0200
      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-09 19:38 +0000
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-09 13:46 -0700
          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-09 23:51 +0000
            Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-10 13:19 -0400
              Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-10 20:54 +0000
    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-09 09:51 -0700
    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-09 11:55 -0500
    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com - 2020-06-12 18:54 +0000
      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-12 20:58 +0000
        Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 17:44 -0400
          Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-12 22:31 +0000
            Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 20:50 -0400
              Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-13 11:51 +0000
                Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-13 09:22 -0400
                  Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-13 13:35 +0000
                  Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-20 07:45 -0400
                    Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 07:57 -0400
                      Re: most common text editors in popular distros? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 10:52 -0400
        That's why they call it "normal" mode. (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-06-13 13:48 +0000
          Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-06-13 17:05 +0000
            Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-13 18:52 +0000
              Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-06-16 06:03 -0400
                Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-16 11:31 +0000
                  Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-06-16 14:12 +0000
                    Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-16 18:10 +0100
                    Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-16 17:12 +0000
                      Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 10:57 -0400
                    Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-16 20:48 +0000
                  Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-07-03 10:46 -0400
                    Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-07-03 20:30 +0000
                Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-17 12:12 +0200
                  Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-17 11:26 +0000
                    Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-17 14:16 +0200
                      Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-17 20:51 +0000
                  Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-07-03 11:01 -0400
                    Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2020-07-04 00:30 +0300
          Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. (Was: most common text editors in popular distros?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-13 18:46 +0000
            Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-06-15 10:58 -0400
              Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-15 17:43 +0000
                Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-15 21:21 +0000
              Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-15 19:04 +0000
                Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-06-15 21:05 +0000
                  Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-15 22:03 +0000
                    Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-18 12:55 +0200
                Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-06-16 06:11 -0400
                  Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2020-06-16 11:35 +0000
                    Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-06-16 13:11 +0100
                  Re: That's why they call it "normal" mode. Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-06-21 10:56 -0400

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#30156 — Re: Why?

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

> In article <Kk8EG.162337$gN7.113617@fx03.iad>,
> Bud Frede  <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> ...
>>I do exploit some of the features vim has that vi doesn't when I'm
>>editing files locally. However, when I'm connected to a remote system I
>>could use vi just as well as vim since I'm not doing anything vi can't
>>do just as well as vim.
>
> Why should the facts of upon which media a file is stored affect which
> editor features you choose to use?

Because on a typical day I touch several dozen remote systems belonging
to different organizations. I therefore leave my accounts on each system
as default as possible. (I also have to use some shared accounts, so
again it's best to keep them with the defaults.)

I've never felt like installing a bunch of vim plugins on these remote
systems. Besides that, my editing needs on them are less complex than
those on my own personal machines.

Part of this is because I use things like puppet to manage these remote
systems, so much editing of configs is done in a local clone of a git
repository on my workstation - where I have vim (actually neovim right
now) tricked out to my taste.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30012

Le 10-06-2020, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> a écrit :
> I do exploit some of the features vim has that vi doesn't when I'm
> editing files locally. However, when I'm connected to a remote system I
> could use vi just as well as vim since I'm not doing anything vi can't
> do just as well as vim.

I don't really knows the differences because I'm always in nocompatible
mode. But a few years ago, I had to stuck in vi limitation and it was
awful bot being able to do what I used to.

But I'd say the split of the screen is really a nice feature to have on
remote. Because if you'd like to open two files at a time you don't need
to connect yourself twice. I'm note sur it's available in vi mode.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30002

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:

> On 09/06/2020 15.26, Aragorn wrote:
>> On 09.06.2020 at 14:36, Carlos E.R. scribbled:
>>
>>> On 09/06/2020 13.40, pedro1492@lycos.com wrote:
>>>> An old package has choice of 3 editors to view text files:
>>>> vi, xemacs, nedit
>>>> Perhaps because vi and nedit have option to load a file read-only.
>>>> These would not be in a standard installation, and I doubt you
>>>> could find rpm/deb for all 3 in some of the latest distros.
>>>> So I would instead offer choice of gedit and kate ... and what
>>>> other?
>>>
>>> I don't know about "nedit", but you certainly should be able to find
>>> both vi and (x)emacs in any distro.
>>
>> And nano. ;)
>
> And many more, but he asked about those three ;-)
>
> I see no reason why a modern distro would not include emacs or vi, the
> two most known editors in the *nix world. Although they can be in a
> variant form: vim instead of vi, emacs instead of xemacs... I don't
> know the differences, though.

The xemacs project is mostly dead.   In my opinion, GNU Emacs caught up
and then surpassed Xemacs many years ago.  I used Xmnacs for many years
but had to switch back as Xemacs became unusable and could not keep up
with Emacs improvements.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30213

Aragorn wrote:
> On 09.06.2020 at 14:36, Carlos E.R. scribbled:
> 
>> On 09/06/2020 13.40, pedro1492@lycos.com wrote:
>>> An old package has choice of 3 editors to view text files:
>>> vi, xemacs, nedit
>>> Perhaps because vi and nedit have option to load a file read-only.
>>> These would not be in a standard installation, and I doubt you
>>> could find rpm/deb for all 3 in some of the latest distros.
>>> So I would instead offer choice of gedit and kate ... and what
>>> other?
>>
>> I don't know about "nedit", but you certainly should be able to find
>> both vi and (x)emacs in any distro.
> 
> And nano. ;)
> 
> 
> 

"Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor" :)

https://www.mail-archive.com/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/msg02292.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30440

Andrei Z. wrote:
> Aragorn wrote:
>> On 09.06.2020 at 14:36, Carlos E.R. scribbled:
>>
>>> On 09/06/2020 13.40, pedro1492@lycos.com wrote:
>>>> An old package has choice of 3 editors to view text files:
>>>> vi, xemacs, nedit
>>>> Perhaps because vi and nedit have option to load a file read-only.
>>>> These would not be in a standard installation, and I doubt you
>>>> could find rpm/deb for all 3 in some of the latest distros.
>>>> So I would instead offer choice of gedit and kate ... and what
>>>> other?
>>>
>>> I don't know about "nedit", but you certainly should be able to find
>>> both vi and (x)emacs in any distro.
>>
>> And nano. ;)
>>
>>
>>
> 
> "Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor" :)
> 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/msg02292.html 
> 

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2020-07-08) - devel - Fedora 
Mailing-Lists
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/VZKPFTOB6ITQOV2M4LNS4LLAYDC56PM4/

F33 System-Wide Change: Make nano the default editor
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2426
APPROVED (+8, 0, -0)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29998

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/06/2020 13.40, pedro1492@lycos.com wrote:
>> An old package has choice of 3 editors to view text files:
>> vi, xemacs, nedit
[snip]
> 
> I don't know about "nedit", but you certainly should be able to find 
> both vi and (x)emacs in any distro.

nedit is a rather powerful editor, it is also especially
good for people from a Windows environment.

But xmeacs and nedit (and maybe vim) seem rather heavy
for viewing files.  But that depends upon what you want
to do while you are viewing data.

As someone suggested, less is good enough for most
cases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30003

John McCue <jmccue@hairball.Belkin> writes:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2020 13.40, pedro1492@lycos.com wrote:
>>> An old package has choice of 3 editors to view text files:
>>> vi, xemacs, nedit
> [snip]
>> 
>> I don't know about "nedit", but you certainly should be able to find 
>> both vi and (x)emacs in any distro.
>
> nedit is a rather powerful editor, it is also especially
> good for people from a Windows environment.
>
> But xmeacs and nedit (and maybe vim) seem rather heavy
> for viewing files.  But that depends upon what you want
> to do while you are viewing data.

XEmacs is dead, I assume you mean Emacs. At any rate:

* On my system it’s currently using less memory than the desktop
  environment’s file manager, which doesn’t even have any windows open
  right now.
* The usage model for Emacs is all your files in a single editor
  process; the cost is ammortized over all those files.

If you want heavy, try VS Code, multiple processes and hundreds of
megabytes of RSS.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30007

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

> John McCue <jmccue@hairball.Belkin> writes:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 09/06/2020 13.40, pedro1492@lycos.com wrote:
>>>> An old package has choice of 3 editors to view text files:
>>>> vi, xemacs, nedit
>> [snip]
>>> 
>>> I don't know about "nedit", but you certainly should be able to find 
>>> both vi and (x)emacs in any distro.
>>
>> nedit is a rather powerful editor, it is also especially
>> good for people from a Windows environment.
>>
>> But xmeacs and nedit (and maybe vim) seem rather heavy
>> for viewing files.  But that depends upon what you want
>> to do while you are viewing data.
>
> XEmacs is dead, I assume you mean Emacs. At any rate:
>
> * On my system it’s currently using less memory than the desktop
>   environment’s file manager, which doesn’t even have any windows open
>   right now.
> * The usage model for Emacs is all your files in a single editor
>   process; the cost is ammortized over all those files.
>
> If you want heavy, try VS Code, multiple processes and hundreds of
> megabytes of RSS.

Atom is similarly bloated.

I recently did some testing and at one point I loaded an 18MB text file
into various editors.

vim used a total of 24.7MB of RAM. Emacs used 52.4MB of RAM. Atom used
420MB, and VS Code used 402.5MB.

I didn't try loading multiple files at once. That would change the
results somewhat, but it's not enough to convince me to give up vim and
emacs for Atom or VS Code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30011

Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> John McCue <jmccue@hairball.Belkin> writes:
>>> But xmeacs and nedit (and maybe vim) seem rather heavy
>>> for viewing files.  But that depends upon what you want
>>> to do while you are viewing data.
>>
>> XEmacs is dead, I assume you mean Emacs. At any rate:
>>
>> * On my system it’s currently using less memory than the desktop
>>   environment’s file manager, which doesn’t even have any windows open
>>   right now.
>> * The usage model for Emacs is all your files in a single editor
>>   process; the cost is ammortized over all those files.
>>
>> If you want heavy, try VS Code, multiple processes and hundreds of
>> megabytes of RSS.
>
> Atom is similarly bloated.
>
> I recently did some testing and at one point I loaded an 18MB text file
> into various editors.
>
> vim used a total of 24.7MB of RAM. Emacs used 52.4MB of RAM. Atom used
> 420MB, and VS Code used 402.5MB.
>
> I didn't try loading multiple files at once. That would change the
> results somewhat, but it's not enough to convince me to give up vim and
> emacs for Atom or VS Code.

It seems like an odd criterion unless you’re seriously short of
memory. Commodity computers have multiple gigabytes of RAM these days,
even the largest of the above is a drop in the ocean.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30014

On 2020-06-10, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>> I recently did some testing and at one point I loaded an 18MB text file
>> into various editors.
>>
>> vim used a total of 24.7MB of RAM. Emacs used 52.4MB of RAM. Atom used
>> 420MB, and VS Code used 402.5MB.
>>
>> I didn't try loading multiple files at once. That would change the
>> results somewhat, but it's not enough to convince me to give up vim and
>> emacs for Atom or VS Code.
>
> It seems like an odd criterion unless you’re seriously short of
> memory. Commodity computers have multiple gigabytes of RAM these days,
> even the largest of the above is a drop in the ocean.

And as everyone knows, abundance justifies waste.  1/2 :-)

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  Apple is a cult.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  Linux is anarchy.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  Pick your poison.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30016

On 10/06/2020 21:54, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2020-06-10, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>
>>> I recently did some testing and at one point I loaded an 18MB text file
>>> into various editors.
>>>
>>> vim used a total of 24.7MB of RAM. Emacs used 52.4MB of RAM. Atom used
>>> 420MB, and VS Code used 402.5MB.
>>>
>>> I didn't try loading multiple files at once. That would change the
>>> results somewhat, but it's not enough to convince me to give up vim and
>>> emacs for Atom or VS Code.
>>
>> It seems like an odd criterion unless you’re seriously short of
>> memory. Commodity computers have multiple gigabytes of RAM these days,
>> even the largest of the above is a drop in the ocean.
> 
> And as everyone knows, abundance justifies waste.  1/2 :-)
> 

Oh dear.

That remark is about CONSUMPTION. RAM is not CONSUMED.

Typical straw man


-- 
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah 
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30017

In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/06/2020 21:54, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> And as everyone knows, abundance justifies waste.  1/2 :-)
> Oh dear.
> 
> That remark is about CONSUMPTION. RAM is not CONSUMED.

That's a very narrow view of consumption. While the program is running,
the RAM is allocated and not available for other use. (Include swap as
RAM for this purpose.)

> Typical straw man

Typical disregard for someone else's resources.

Elijah
------
back to the original topic: just use $EDITOR and be done with it

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30018

In <eli$2006101844@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded:
> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher:

[Snip...]

>> Typical straw man
>
> Typical disregard for someone else's resources.

Yes, and typical noise from TNP. Eminently plonkable; YMMV ...

-- 
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30020

On 11/06/2020 00:07, Harold Stevens wrote:
> In <eli$2006101844@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher:
> 
> [Snip...]
> 
>>> Typical straw man
>>
>> Typical disregard for someone else's resources.
> 
> Yes, and typical noise from TNP. Eminently plonkable; YMMV ...
> 
Definitely cover your ears in case it shatters your comfortable faux 
liberal worldview.

Wouldn't want to face any nasty truths would you?

-- 
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the 
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30019

On 10/06/2020 23:49, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/06/2020 21:54, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> And as everyone knows, abundance justifies waste.  1/2 :-)
>> Oh dear.
>>
>> That remark is about CONSUMPTION. RAM is not CONSUMED.
> 
> That's a very narrow view of consumption. While the program is running,
> the RAM is allocated and not available for other use. (Include swap as
> RAM for this purpose.)
> 
So feckin what?

That's what its for.


>> Typical straw man
> 
> Typical disregard for someone else's resources.
Christ you are a virtue signalling Left brained marxist.

> 
> Elijah
> ------
> back to the original topic: just use $EDITOR and be done with it
> 


-- 
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the 
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30022

On 11.06.2020 at 01:57, The Natural Philosopher scribbled:

> On 10/06/2020 23:49, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher
> > <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:  
> >
> >> On 10/06/2020 21:54, Charlie Gibbs wrote:  
> >>
> >>> And as everyone knows, abundance justifies waste.  1/2 :-)  
> >>
> >> Oh dear.
> >>
> >> That remark is about CONSUMPTION. RAM is not CONSUMED.  
> > 
> > That's a very narrow view of consumption. While the program is
> > running, the RAM is allocated and not available for other use.
> > (Include swap as RAM for this purpose.)
> >   
> So feckin what?
> 
> That's what its for.
> 
> >> Typical straw man  
> > 
> > Typical disregard for someone else's resources.  
>
> Christ you are a virtue signalling Left brained marxist.

Typical unwarranted detour into politics (and with all of the usual
right-wing bigotry too).  A straw man AND a red herring.  

  "Dis is getting betta by da minute."
  (Arnold Schwarzenegger, "Predator")

-- 
With respect,
= Aragorn =

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30025

In <20200611083058.786aa4ac@nx-74205> Aragorn:
> On 11.06.2020 at 01:57, The Natural Philosopher scribbled:

[Snip...]

>> Christ you are a virtue signalling Left brained marxist.

> Typical unwarranted detour into politics

+1

Yet another eminently plonkable noisy feature of TNP.

-- 
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30026

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/06/2020 23:49, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2020 21:54, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> And as everyone knows, abundance justifies waste.  1/2 :-)
>>> Oh dear.
>>>
>>> That remark is about CONSUMPTION. RAM is not CONSUMED.
>> 
>> That's a very narrow view of consumption. While the program is running,
>> the RAM is allocated and not available for other use. (Include swap as
>> RAM for this purpose.)
>> 
> So feckin what?
> 
> That's what its for.

Yes, true, but here is the thing, on a UN*X system some
people (me included) have multiple processes running in
background.  That means RAM is needed to ensure a speedy
system.  So, if you can get by with an Editor (or other
utility) that uses less resources, the extra RAM can be
used for those other processes, lessening swap usage.

> 
>>> Typical straw man
>> 
>> Typical disregard for someone else's resources.
> Christ you are a virtue signalling Left brained marxist.
> 
>> 
>> Elijah
>> ------
>> back to the original topic: just use $EDITOR and be done with it
>> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30038

On 11/06/2020 14.25, John McCue wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/06/2020 23:49, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2020 21:54, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> And as everyone knows, abundance justifies waste.  1/2 :-)
>>>> Oh dear.
>>>>
>>>> That remark is about CONSUMPTION. RAM is not CONSUMED.
>>>
>>> That's a very narrow view of consumption. While the program is running,
>>> the RAM is allocated and not available for other use. (Include swap as
>>> RAM for this purpose.)
>>>
>> So feckin what?
>>
>> That's what its for.
> 
> Yes, true, but here is the thing, on a UN*X system some
> people (me included) have multiple processes running in
> background.  That means RAM is needed to ensure a speedy
> system.  So, if you can get by with an Editor (or other
> utility) that uses less resources, the extra RAM can be
> used for those other processes, lessening swap usage.

Certainly. We can be looking at a remote system running in a virtual 
machine, which has the RAM allocated to it that it normally uses. Using 
half a gig more is a detriment to the server.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30046

On 11/06/2020 21:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 11/06/2020 14.25, John McCue wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2020 23:49, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/06/2020 21:54, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>> And as everyone knows, abundance justifies waste.  1/2 :-)
>>>>> Oh dear.
>>>>>
>>>>> That remark is about CONSUMPTION. RAM is not CONSUMED.
>>>>
>>>> That's a very narrow view of consumption. While the program is running,
>>>> the RAM is allocated and not available for other use. (Include swap as
>>>> RAM for this purpose.)
>>>>
>>> So feckin what?
>>>
>>> That's what its for.
>>
>> Yes, true, but here is the thing, on a UN*X system some
>> people (me included) have multiple processes running in
>> background.  That means RAM is needed to ensure a speedy
>> system.  So, if you can get by with an Editor (or other
>> utility) that uses less resources, the extra RAM can be
>> used for those other processes, lessening swap usage.
> 
> Certainly. We can be looking at a remote system running in a virtual 
> machine, which has the RAM allocated to it that it normally uses. Using 
> half a gig more is a detriment to the server.
> 
> 
You run a gui based text editor on a remote system running in a virtual 
machine?

WEIRD or what?

> 


-- 
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will 
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such 
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic 
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally 
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for 
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the 
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web