From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: Bug#139792: emacs21: Press PageDown, get infinite loop Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:14:18 +0300 Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5573-Tue16Apr2002151417+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018959670 11346 127.0.0.1 (16 Apr 2002 12:21:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:21:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16xRxN-0002wn-00 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:21:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16xRxT-0006Kn-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:21:15 -0400 Original-Received: from freya.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.14]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16xRwp-0006IT-00 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:20:35 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretsky (diup-217-183.inter.net.il [213.8.217.183]) by freya.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id BIF53455; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:20:26 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: David.Kastrup@t-online.de X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-Reply-To: (David.Kastrup@t-online.de) Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:703 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:703 > From: David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) > Date: 16 Apr 2002 12:21:30 +0200 > > > > X11, Apache or TeX are not part of Unix, they just run under it. > > > > That's debatable. A system without those components would be much > > less useful than with them. I.e. it would be much less of ``a > > system''. > > Debatable? [...] it is > debatable whether "Unix" should not encompass everything that may be > made to run under it? No, it is debatable whether a system without those components deserves to be called a ``system''. > For somone that already cried "foul!" I did?