On 2005-05-07, Ayaz Ahmed Khan <resilient@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> "No_One" typed:
>> On 2005-05-07, +Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK> wrote:
>>> What?! No vi?! Thou shalt bow at the altar of Slack and say three
>>> Hail Bobs everyday for a week! Thou must also pay $99.95 to atone.
>>
>> Vi? Vi???. Oh, you mean that ancient program some diehards pretend
>> is a text editor.
>
> Hmm! Doesn't look ancient to me--
>
> ayaz[4][~]$ vi --version
> GNU Emacs 21.3.2
> Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> GNU Emacs comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> You may redistribute copies of Emacs
> under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
> For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING.
>

You're not using vi, you do know that - right? You just funnin' me...right?

ken

"No_One" typed:
> Ayaz Ahmed Khan wrote:
>> Hmm! Doesn't look ancient to me--
>>
>> ayaz[4][~]$ vi --version
>> GNU Emacs 21.3.2
>> Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> GNU Emacs comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
>> You may redistribute copies of Emacs
>> under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
>> For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING.
>>
>
> You're not using vi, you do know that - right? You just funnin' me...right?

I don't understand what you are saying. I'm allergic to smileys, I
should tell you, though.

--
Ayaz Ahmed Khan http://fast-ce.org/ayaz/

I was going through some code from 2002, frustrated at
the lack of comments, cursing the moron who
put this spaghetti together, only to realize later that
I was the moron who had written it.

-- CowboyRobot wrote on /.

"Steve Youngs" typed:
> * Ayaz Ahmed Khan <resilient@myrealbox.com> writes:
>> "No_One" typed:
>>> Vi? Vi???. Oh, you mean that ancient program some diehards
>>> pretend is a text editor.
>
>> Hmm! Doesn't look ancient to me--
>> ayaz[4][~]$ vi --version
>> GNU Emacs 21.3.2
>
> Beautiful! Of course it'd be better if it said "XEmacs" or
> "SXEmacs". :-)

I'm a 99.9% _real_ console user and content with GNU Emacs. But, I
should admit I hadn't known about either XEmacs or SXEmacs.

--
Ayaz Ahmed Khan http://fast-ce.org/ayaz/

I was going through some code from 2002, frustrated at
the lack of comments, cursing the moron who
put this spaghetti together, only to realize later that
I was the moron who had written it.

-- CowboyRobot wrote on /.

On 2005-05-07, Ayaz Ahmed Khan <resilient@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> "No_One" typed:
>> Ayaz Ahmed Khan wrote:
>>> Hmm! Doesn't look ancient to me--
>>>
>>> ayaz[4][~]$ vi --version
>>> GNU Emacs 21.3.2
>>> Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>> GNU Emacs comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
>>> You may redistribute copies of Emacs
>>> under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
>>> For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING.
>>>
>>
>> You're not using vi, you do know that - right? You just funnin' me...right?
>
> I don't understand what you are saying. I'm allergic to smileys, I
> should tell you, though.

Ok, you have a link from vi to the emacs text editor. Vi is an ancient
editor going back to the early 80's - late 70's, if memory serves. Usually
the link is to something called elvis an updated version of vi.

And just for what it's worth, xemacs in console mode is much better than
emacs....

ken

No_One <no_one@no_where.com> wrote:
>
>Ok, you have a link from vi to the emacs text editor. Vi is an ancient
>editor going back to the early 80's - late 70's, if memory serves. Usually
>the link is to something called elvis an updated version of vi.

Vi appeared in mid-1978, between the original BSD and the Second
BSD.

Of course for years the rumor was that Bill Joy had long since
switched to using Emacs, and I've never heard that refuted...

>And just for what it's worth, xemacs in console mode is much better than
>emacs....

How is XEmacs significantly better than Emacs, in console mode
or otherwise? (I've used XEmacs for over a decade, and only now
and then play with GNU's Emacs a little. And I rarely ever use
either of them on console mode.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

"No_One" typed:
> On 2005-05-07, Ayaz Ahmed Khan <resilient@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> "No_One" typed:
>>> Ayaz Ahmed Khan wrote:
>>>> Hmm! Doesn't look ancient to me--
>>>>
>>>> ayaz[4][~]$ vi --version
>>>> GNU Emacs 21.3.2
>>>> Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>>> GNU Emacs comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
>>>> You may redistribute copies of Emacs
>>>> under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
>>>> For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're not using vi, you do know that - right? You just funnin' me...right?
>>
>> I don't understand what you are saying. I'm allergic to smileys, I
>> should tell you, though.
>
> Ok, you have a link from vi to the emacs text editor. Vi is an ancient
> editor going back to the early 80's - late 70's, if memory serves. Usually
> the link is to something called elvis an updated version of vi.
>
> And just for what it's worth, xemacs in console mode is much better than
> emacs....

What is the use of subtle irony when apparently most people just don't
recognise it. Damn! I was _funnin'_ you, No_One. I don't use
smileys, but, despite that, should I use one right now if it is still
not clear enough?

--
Ayaz Ahmed Khan http://fast-ce.org/ayaz/

I was going through some code from 2002, frustrated at
the lack of comments, cursing the moron who
put this spaghetti together, only to realize later that
I was the moron who had written it.

-- CowboyRobot wrote on /.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Two Ravens dared to utter,
> mc > enter > F3 > up to /.. > enter up to /etc > enter > down to /rc.d >
> enter > down to *rc.modules > F4 > down to #### APM Support ### fourth
> line #/sbin/modprobe apm delete the #at the front of that line and
> reboot.

Sigh..... you people and your GUI tools! This shouldn't require all
that time meandering through a file system. After all, this is why we
have explicit path names. And reading through an entire text file just
to delete a single character, why it's madness I tell you! We have
labor laws that protect us from this kind of stuff.

On Slackware 10.0, the following one line command will handle it all
for you. This _should_ work for 10.1 as well, but I haven't tested
that. There are many different versions of sed out there, and Pat may
have changed versions between releases.

# sed -i -e s+^#/sbin/modprobe apm+/sbin/modprobe apm+ /etc/rc.d/rc.modules

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfMmGvgVcFKpJf4gRAsWqAKC7dacD2GTm7xH/jhA8JEeW6ke9eQCgogdx
Mbfch8IfXaWP5ptZe0WyIX4=
=etGs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ wrote:
<snip>
> # sed -i -e s+^#/sbin/modprobe apm+/sbin/modprobe apm+
> # /etc/rc.d/rc.modules
<snip>

Each to his own, I can find my way round Midnight Commander, and
GNU/Linux is all about choice. I've just offered another choice/option.
(Is not your way more keystrokes than mine?)
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."

On 2005-05-07, Ayaz Ahmed Khan <resilient@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> What is the use of subtle irony when apparently most people just don't
> recognise it. Damn! I was _funnin'_ you, No_One. I don't use
> smileys, but, despite that, should I use one right now if it is still
> not clear enough?

When I was a child I spent a lot of time in a special school for the irony
impaired, apparently it was a waste of time. And I thought I make progress!

ken

On 2005-05-07, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
>
> How is XEmacs significantly better than Emacs, in console mode
> or otherwise? (I've used XEmacs for over a decade, and only now
> and then play with GNU's Emacs a little. And I rarely ever use
> either of them on console mode.)

Installing the .el files is easier with sumo, and the screen colors are a
little easier to manage with xemacs. For example, I spend all day working
with text and prefer bright white text against a black background for my
work. That's not possible with emacs. Xemacs I got it to work. The two
programs have diverged enough that, for me, xemacs seems to work better in
console mode than emacs. The emacs people seem to be more interested in
producing a better version of the x windows emacs than keeping the console
version updated.

In additon, the various .el files seem to be more current than those from
emacs.

ken