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

#30050

On 12/06/2020 09.04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 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?

No, I don't.

> 
> WEIRD or what?
> 
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#30052

On 12/06/2020 12:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 12/06/2020 09.04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> No, I don't.
> 
You and the rest of the known universe, so why the straw man?
>>
>> WEIRD or what?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them, 
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them. 
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s 
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of 
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

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

#30055

In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/06/2020 12:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 12/06/2020 09.04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> You run a gui based text editor on a remote system running in a 
>>> virtual machine?
>> No, I don't.
> You and the rest of the known universe, so why the straw man?

Because he probably runs a NON gui text editor on a remote system
running in a vm. 

This is something I've done in the last month:

    ssh bastion
      ssh vm
	enter docker container
	  edit file (vi)

And for the record, on the vm, memory prioritization should be for the
web application served from there, not the editor.

Honor $EDITOR and stop trying to argue that someone can determine the
correct editor for a different user.

Elijah
------
it's really simple

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

#30056

On 12/06/2020 18:00, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2020 12:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2020 09.04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> You run a gui based text editor on a remote system running in a
>>>> virtual machine?
>>> No, I don't.
>> You and the rest of the known universe, so why the straw man?
> 
> Because he probably runs a NON gui text editor on a remote system
> running in a vm.
> 
As do I.

The point was that using a GUI type editor 'wastes memory'. Richard 
Kettlewell pointed out, and I agreed, that RAM is plentiful and pre 
existent.

He then said 'but not on a server' - which was straw man beacuse who 
would run a GUI editor on a headless server anyway?

Especially if remote.

> This is something I've done in the last month:
> 
>      ssh bastion
>        ssh vm
> 	enter docker container
> 	  edit file (vi)
> 
> And for the record, on the vm, memory prioritization should be for the
> web application served from there, not the editor.
> 
> Honor $EDITOR and stop trying to argue that someone can determine the
> correct editor for a different user.


I wasn't. I merely pointed out that the objection to a GUI based editor 
was irrational and the case used to support it was spurious, emotional 
and faux moral - i.e. politically Left Wing

Bringing politics and morals into software is a strange thing to do.

> 
> Elijah
> ------
> it's really simple
> 


-- 
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

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

#30059

In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I wasn't. I merely pointed out that the objection to a GUI based editor 
> was irrational and the case used to support it was spurious, emotional 
> and faux moral - i.e. politically Left Wing
>
> Bringing politics and morals into software is a strange thing to do.

You are the only person bringing politics and morals into this. I think you
need examine why.

I'll own bringing shame into this when I said people should be ashamed
if they don't honor $EDITOR but that's not politics and morals.

> "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."
> Josef Stalin

When one process dies, that's sad. When thousands die that's a big
problem. -- Linux OOM Killer

Elijah
------
is mocking the appropriateness of the Stalin quote

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

#30063

On 12/06/2020 20:09, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I wasn't. I merely pointed out that the objection to a GUI based editor
>> was irrational and the case used to support it was spurious, emotional
>> and faux moral - i.e. politically Left Wing
>>
>> Bringing politics and morals into software is a strange thing to do.
> 
> You are the only person bringing politics and morals into this. I think you
> need examine why.
> 
Perhaps because I have far more insight into  how the collective 
political mind works, because I stand outside it.
Like a fish swimming in the sea, you simply don't notice the water.


-- 
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They 
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

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

#30065

In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/06/2020 20:09, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> I wasn't. I merely pointed out that the objection to a GUI based editor
>>> was irrational and the case used to support it was spurious, emotional
>>> and faux moral - i.e. politically Left Wing
>>> Bringing politics and morals into software is a strange thing to do.
>> You are the only person bringing politics and morals into this. I think you
>> need examine why.
> Perhaps because I have far more insight into  how the collective 
> political mind works, because I stand outside it.

I believe you have far less insight into how the "collective political
mind works" than you judge yourself.

> Like a fish swimming in the sea, you simply don't notice the water.

I live in a world of air, and notice the air around me all the time. It
carries smells, has temperature gradients, it moves in drafts. I believe
fish can similarly notice the water, and you deceive yourself with
aphorisms and think yourself wise.

Elijah
------
doesn't usually kill file people but does start to ignore them

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

#30068

On 12/06/2020 20.38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/06/2020 18:00, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> 
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2020 12:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 12/06/2020 09.04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> You run a gui based text editor on a remote system running in a
>>>>> virtual machine?
>>>> No, I don't.
>>> You and the rest of the known universe, so why the straw man?
>>
>> Because he probably runs a NON gui text editor on a remote system
>> running in a vm.
>>
> As do I.
> 
> The point was that using a GUI type editor 'wastes memory'. Richard 
> Kettlewell pointed out, and I agreed, that RAM is plentiful and pre 
> existent.
> 
> He then said 'but not on a server' - which was straw man beacuse who 
> would run a GUI editor on a headless server anyway?

I sometimes run GUI tools on headless servers - if the tool has features 
I need.


> 
> Especially if remote.
> 
>> This is something I've done in the last month:
>>
>>      ssh bastion
>>        ssh vm
>>     enter docker container
>>       edit file (vi)
>>
>> And for the record, on the vm, memory prioritization should be for the
>> web application served from there, not the editor.
>>
>> Honor $EDITOR and stop trying to argue that someone can determine the
>> correct editor for a different user.
> 
> 
> I wasn't. I merely pointed out that the objection to a GUI based editor 
> was irrational and the case used to support it was spurious, emotional 
> and faux moral - i.e. politically Left Wing

LOL.

> Bringing politics and morals into software is a strange thing to do.

I never considered politics.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#30023

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> 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 :-)

What do you think is wasted here? You pay just as much for a given
quantity of RAM whether or not you use all of it.

If you have two configurations which meet your basic needs and have a
working set (including files you want to be cached, etc) that doesn’t
exceed RAM size, why would you compare them on memory usage rather than
on features that helped you achieve the task at hand more efficiently?

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

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

#30024

On 11/06/2020 08:17, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> 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 :-)
> 
> What do you think is wasted here? You pay just as much for a given
> quantity of RAM whether or not you use all of it.
> 
> If you have two configurations which meet your basic needs and have a
> working set (including files you want to be cached, etc) that doesn’t
> exceed RAM size, why would you compare them on memory usage rather than
> on features that helped you achieve the task at hand more efficiently?
> 
because you have been indoctrinated to think politically in terms of 
'resources being wasted by other people'?

Which is of course not a technical statement, but a *moral* one.

Like that wonderfully anthropocentric concept of 'humane killing of animals'

Animals are not human.

But I suppose these days even a virus can 'identify as human' and demand 
that it has a right to life, no matter how any people die from it.

It's amazing what utter crap people will believe if you make them feel 
guilty enough.


-- 
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

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

#30034

On 2020-06-11, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> 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 :-)
>
> What do you think is wasted here? You pay just as much for a given
> quantity of RAM whether or not you use all of it.
>
> If you have two configurations which meet your basic needs and have a
> working set (including files you want to be cached, etc) that doesn’t
> exceed RAM size, why would you compare them on memory usage rather than
> on features that helped you achieve the task at hand more efficiently?

You're putting words into my mouth.  I said nothing about prioritizing
memory usage over usability.  (Mind you, as someone who cut his teeth
on a machine with 16K of memory, I'm used to dealing with situations
where conserving resources isn't a matter of choice.)

I'm thinking more of the KISS principle, in a world where people
have confused complexity with sophistication.  And all too often,
systems turn into a mass of bloatware which gets in the way of
what you're trying to do.

-- 
/~\  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]

#30161

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

> 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.

I should have worded that differently. It's not by any means the only
criterion I use when choosing what software to use.

Still, I think that the RAM usage of Atom and VS Code are indicative
of their general inefficiency, not just of their squandering of RAM. :-)

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

#30015

In article <87v9jzl4oj.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> you wrote:
[snip]
> 
> XEmacs is dead, I assume you mean Emacs. At any rate:
> 
[snip]

Yes, XEmacs is dead, but a fork exist which seems
to be somewhat active:

http://www.sxemacs.org/

But I only just heard of it and never used it.

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

#30021

John McCue <jmccue@obsd2.mhome.org> writes:

> In article <87v9jzl4oj.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> you wrote:
> [snip]
>> 
>> XEmacs is dead, I assume you mean Emacs. At any rate:
>> 
> [snip]
>
> Yes, XEmacs is dead, but a fork exist which seems
> to be somewhat active:
>
> http://www.sxemacs.org/
>
> But I only just heard of it and never used it.

Interesting, I even see recent active development.
The screen shots are attractive too.

But it's built from the XEmacs base and I don't see anything
I can't do with Emacs.

Tbe menubar, toolbar, and scroll bars are nicely done, but
I'd turn them off anyway.

It doesn't seem to be in the Fedora repository.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#29988

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.

For viewing text files, use 'less' instead of an editor set to read-only 
mode.

> These would not be in a standard installation,

vi is almost always available by default.  Rare is the unix like system 
that does not have a 'vi' installed.

> and I doubt you could find rpm/deb for all 3 in some of the latest 
> distros.

vi is going to be available by default in all but the most customized 
distributions.  emacs is popular enough that there will be install 
packages available for all but the most niche distros.  nedit is one 
that may, or may not, be available.

> So I would instead offer choice of gedit and kate ...  and 
> what other?

Since 'view' does not imply editing/modificationm, and you imply 
viewing by 'read-only', then don't use an editor, open a viewer, i.e., 
less or similar.

However, instead of hard coding a small set (implied by your post) how 
about offering the end user a choice in what to use if your program 
does not find a suitable item installed?  That way you don't have to 
worry about leaving anyone out.  Those who do not have your selected 
default set installed are then prompted to pick a specific tool to use.

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

#29996

Le 09-06-2020, Rich <rich@example.invalid> a écrit :
>
> Since 'view' does not imply editing/modificationm, and you imply 
> viewing by 'read-only', then don't use an editor, open a viewer, i.e., 
> less or similar.

If the text is structured, it can be great to have some highlighting.
I'm not sure less can be as good as vim or as any modern editor for it.

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

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

#29999

Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
> Le 09-06-2020, Rich <rich@example.invalid> a écrit :
>>
>> Since 'view' does not imply editing/modificationm, and you imply 
>> viewing by 'read-only', then don't use an editor, open a viewer, i.e., 
>> less or similar.
> 
> If the text is structured, it can be great to have some highlighting.
> I'm not sure less can be as good as vim or as any modern editor for it.

The OP's posting said "view text files", therefore assuming the text is 
structured is reading a bit more into the OP's statements than they 
have explicitly indicated to this point.

But in any case it is possible to perform code/structure highlighting 
in less (I should admit that this feature is not likely to be present in 
any random stranger's system).:

https://www-zeuthen.desy.de/~friebel/unix/lesspipe.html

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

#29989

* pedro1492@lycos.com
| So I would instead offer choice of gedit and kate ... and what other?

The one specified in environment variables 'EDITOR' or 'VISUAL'.

R'

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

#29993

In comp.os.linux.misc, Ralf Fassel  <ralfixx@gmx.de> wrote:
> * pedro1492@lycos.com
> | So I would instead offer choice of gedit and kate ... and what other?
> The one specified in environment variables 'EDITOR' or 'VISUAL'.

This. If you offer three editors and do not include $EDITOR among them,
you should be ashamed of yourself.

Elijah
------
would select ed over an editor he's never heard of (cough-kate-cough)

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

#29994

On 6/9/20 12:38 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc, Ralf Fassel  <ralfixx@gmx.de> wrote:
>> * pedro1492@lycos.com
>> | So I would instead offer choice of gedit and kate ... and what other?
>> The one specified in environment variables 'EDITOR' or 'VISUAL'.
> 
> This. If you offer three editors and do not include $EDITOR among them,
> you should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Elijah
> ------
> would select ed over an editor he's never heard of (cough-kate-cough)
> 

	Kate is not as good as the editor I used on the Amiga but it works for 
the needs I have.  It is capable of much more than i use it for which is 
merely my own journal with bookmarks for days of the week.
It can be specifically configured for a number of programming languages.
The editor on the Amiga was written in Forth and saved its bookmark file
to disk and it was shareware.  Finally after visual search remembered 
its name, Textra.  It was extremely versatile.  We had Ed and MicroEmacs 
and a few others for special purposes.  I used them only on direction to
patch programs. But I used Textra to alter Arrex scripts that formatted
text and a few other things to suit the equipment I had to work with.
	KWrite is also good but for work on .conf files sometimes vim
or GVim is promoted.  Now that is not all I have at hand but I use
PCLinuxOS 64 and those are just handy.  I have used Kate on .conf files
at times.  Less could be handy but it ain't by which I mean I cannot
start it from a menu and expect it to put up a search engine to pick
the files I want to view.  Except from Midnight Commander called with
mc in a root terminal.  There you can view a file or edit a file if
you can find the significant file.

	bliss

-- 
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

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

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

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

csiph-web