Re: emacs and osx

Re: emacs and osx

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

>>>>> "BH" == Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

BH> In principle, one
BH> should be able to download the latest from gnu and compile autonomously 
BH> under osx,

And I did it yesterday. I had to launch configure in the mac subdirectory
as ../configure and make from the source top level directory.

BH> I wonder 
BH> what refrains the individual projects

Ask the project authors, anyway Emacs is a first of all GNU program and then
a port to other O.S.

-- 
 /\            ___
/___/\__|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____________________
  //--\ | | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico  
\/		    e coltivatore diretto di software

emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

Hello,

there are a few ports of emacs to osx, and it is unclear whether the 
efforts are merging into the main gnu source code. In principle, one
should be able to download the latest from gnu and compile autonomously 
under osx, with no need to download old out-of-sync binaries. I wonder 
what refrains the individual projects to work in a joint effort, to 
finally deliver this port, as osx is now in its fourth major release.

Bob

Re: emacs and osx

[Sébastien Kirche]

Le 13 Apr 2005, Bob Hunter a formulé :

> In principle, one  should be able to download the  latest from gnu and
> compile  autonomously  under  osx,   with  no  need  to  download  old
> out-of-sync binaries.

Practically, it is true.

You can checkout the cvs (i  dunno if there is some source snapshot from
cvs  at Gnu)  and  compile in  your own  system  and you  will obtain  a
functional Emacs in either X or Aqua flavors.

The  others ports  or projects  that you  mention  provide complementary
features  like  transparent  windows   or  better  support  for  eastern
languages like Japanese with correct display or input methods.

-- 
Sébastien Kirche

Re: emacs and osx

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 13.04.2005 um 15:30 schrieb Gian Uberto Lauri:

> And I did it yesterday. I had to launch configure in the mac 
> subdirectory
> as ../configure and make from the source top level directory.

That's no needed, because this in the make-package script:

(cd ${builddir}; ${srcdir}/configure ${config_options} 
--prefix=${prefix})

which is executed for me as:

(cd .../emacs/mac/make-package.build.<temp number>; 
.../emacs/mac/../configure --without-x <--self-contained> 
--prefix=/usr/local)


Can someone of the YACED or AquaMacs builders comment whether it's 
necessary to add '--prefix=...' to make-package to really make it 
self-contained? Or is that switch changing the prefix automatigally?

--
Greetings

   Pete

Re: emacs and osx

[Jochem Huhmann]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> there are a few ports of emacs to osx, and it is unclear whether the
> efforts are merging into the main gnu source code.

These "ports" are AFAIK nothing else than compiled CVS-Emacsen, spiced
up with some additional keybindings and such. 

OK, there is somewhere a Cocoa version of an ancient Emacs, based on
earlier work to port Emacs to NeXTStep. I don't know if it's that easy
to merge this into the main (current) code... 

> In principle, one should be able to download the latest from gnu and
> compile autonomously under osx, with no need to download old
> out-of-sync binaries. 

Exactly. Get the latest Emacs from the CVS, configure, make, install,
enjoy. It just works. This posting is written with a Emacs running on
Mac OS X, along with Carbon-GUI, anti-aliased fonts and everything,
compiled straight from the sources.

> I wonder what refrains the individual projects to work in a joint
> effort, to finally deliver this port, as osx is now in its fourth
> major release.

I guess as soon as there is a formal release of a new major Emacs
version, you will have a more or less "official" package. It's just that
there is (right now) nothing to "deliver", because there is not a
release yet.

BTW: All this chaos is not limited to Emacs. Look for almost any Open
Source app and you will find at least two or three different "ports" to
OS X floating around the net. There is Fink, darwinports and then
individual (binary) packages done by well-meaning people. Ever installed
a LaTeX system on OS X? I've been going through this just yesterday and
I can tell you, this is a hell of a mess. The average Linux- or
BSD-Distribution is lightyears ahead in terms of package management and
discipline among the porters. Apple made a terrible mistake by not
including a decent package management system along with a server
infrastructure right from the beginning, IMHO.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

Re: emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

>>In principle, one should be able to download the latest from gnu and
>>compile autonomously under osx, with no need to download old
>>out-of-sync binaries. 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Get the latest Emacs from the CVS, configure, make, install,
> enjoy. It just works. This posting is written with a Emacs running on
> Mac OS X, along with Carbon-GUI, anti-aliased fonts and everything,
> compiled straight from the sources.
> 

This is good news! I never compiled the cvs version of emacs, and I was 
indeed waiting for the next release, but I will give it a try here and now.


> Ever installed a LaTeX system on OS X? I've been going through this
 > just yesterday and I can tell you, this is a hell of a mess.

I installed teTeX 3.0 under 10.2.8, and it compiled smoothly. Just use 
"./configure --prefix=/usr/local/TeX" then make and make install, then 
drop Quark and InDesign in the Trash folder.

> The average Linux- or
> BSD-Distribution is lightyears ahead in terms of package management and
> discipline among the porters. Apple made a terrible mistake by not
> including a decent package management system along with a server
> infrastructure right from the beginning, IMHO.

I agree. There is a great package manager for the system updates, but no 
package for other "downloadables". There is fink, but the packages are 
way too old, and some of them are useless (read mozilla for X11, or 
emacs itself that only runs on the terminal and takes 100M+ of space).

Anyway, emacs-cvs, you have my name on you...

Thanks Jochem!

Re: emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

... I bumped into this file:

http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs-backup/emacs-sources.tar.gz

Date: 13-Apr-2005 03:29
Size: 76.5M (compressed)

This "editor" needs to go on diet...

Re: emacs and osx

[David Kastrup]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> ... I bumped into this file:
>
> http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs-backup/emacs-sources.tar.gz
>
> Date: 13-Apr-2005 03:29
> Size: 76.5M (compressed)
>
> This "editor" needs to go on diet...

This is the CVS backup.  It contains _all_ versions of Emacs and all
intermediate development stages for the last 6 or 7 years or so.  I am
surprised that the size is so small.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>... I bumped into this file:
>>
>>http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs-backup/emacs-sources.tar.gz
>>
>>Date: 13-Apr-2005 03:29
>>Size: 76.5M (compressed)
>>
>>This "editor" needs to go on diet...
> 
> 
> This is the CVS backup.  It contains _all_ versions of Emacs and all
> intermediate development stages for the last 6 or 7 years or so.  I am
> surprised that the size is so small.
> 

... good grief.

Any directions for (the tar version of) version 22? I do not want to 
register for the CVS, I just need the latest tar.

bob (who had just finished downloading the big one)

Re: emacs and osx

[Lute Kamstra]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> ... I bumped into this file:
>
> http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs-backup/emacs-sources.tar.gz
>
> Date: 13-Apr-2005 03:29
> Size: 76.5M (compressed)

That's a backup of the CVS repository.  It contains the current state
of all files plus their entire history.

I just made a distribution tar.gz from current CVS and it's only 35M.
It unzips to a mere 125M.

> This "editor" needs to go on diet...

We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "World Trade Center broadside DES"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: emacs and osx

[David Kastrup]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 
>>>... I bumped into this file:
>>>
>>>http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs-backup/emacs-sources.tar.gz
>>>
>>>Date: 13-Apr-2005 03:29
>>>Size: 76.5M (compressed)
>>>
>>>This "editor" needs to go on diet...
>> This is the CVS backup.  It contains _all_ versions of Emacs and all
>> intermediate development stages for the last 6 or 7 years or so.  I am
>> surprised that the size is so small.
>
> ... good grief.
>
> Any directions for (the tar version of) version 22? I do not want to
> register for the CVS, I just need the latest tar.

You could read the instructions on
<URL:http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=emacs>.  There is no
registration required for an anonymous CVS checkout.

Anyway, I just tried an experimental tar+zip on my CVS tree (which is
not completely clean) and this resulted in 68MB.  So you might not
have the CVS backup of the Emacs repository, after all.  Try using it.

Anyway, Emacs is an extensible text processing platform and desktop
environment, so you should not compare its size to vi and edlin.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs and osx

[Lute Kamstra]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

[...]

> Any directions for (the tar version of) version 22? I do not want to
> register for the CVS, I just need the latest tar.

You can do an anonymous CVS checkout (no need to register).
Instructions can be found at:

  http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=emacs

Just type:

  export CVS_RSH="ssh"

  cvs -z3 -d:ext:anoncvs@savannah.gnu.org:/cvsroot/emacs co emacs


Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "USCODE BRLO Commecen"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: emacs and osx

[Lute Kamstra]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

> Anyway, I just tried an experimental tar+zip on my CVS tree (which
> is not completely clean) and this resulted in 68MB.

Try running "./make-dist --snapshot".

> So you might not have the CVS backup of the Emacs repository, after
> all.

http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs-backup/emacs-sources.tar.gz *is* a backup
of the repository.

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "CipherTAC-2000 MD2 gamma"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: emacs and osx

[David Kastrup]

Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra.news@xs4all.nl> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> Anyway, I just tried an experimental tar+zip on my CVS tree (which
>> is not completely clean) and this resulted in 68MB.
>
> Try running "./make-dist --snapshot".
>
>> So you might not have the CVS backup of the Emacs repository, after
>> all.
>
> http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs-backup/emacs-sources.tar.gz *is* a backup
> of the repository.

I stand corrected and reiterate my surprise that it is as small as
that.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

Lute Kamstra wrote:
> Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>... I bumped into this file:
>>
>>http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs-backup/emacs-sources.tar.gz
>>
>>Date: 13-Apr-2005 03:29
>>Size: 76.5M (compressed)
> 
> 
> That's a backup of the CVS repository.  It contains the current state
> of all files plus their entire history.
> 
> I just made a distribution tar.gz from current CVS and it's only 35M.
> It unzips to a mere 125M.
> 

I could download it with cvs without registering. It is much smaller...

>>This "editor" needs to go on diet...
> 
> 
> We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.
> 
> Lute.
>

It never crossed my mind, and chances are that it never will. I always 
wondered the real utility of those extra files. It may be the case that 
emacs is a lisp interpreter and those are just demos? I would rather 
choose to have those "extras" than being forced to like them... I would 
be much happier if emacs would have a better menu (File, Edit, etc.) 
along the lines of ... any other application.

Bob

Re: emacs and osx

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 16:57 GMT, Lute Kamstra wrote:
> 
> We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.

   I haven't played tetris in emacs for years. Since upgrading (I
   don't remember which version), the font has the wrong aspect ratio;
   it's twice as high, or half as wide, as it should be.

-- 
	Chris F.A. Johnson                      http://cfaj.freeshell.org
	=================================================================
                Everything in moderation -- including moderation

Re: emacs and osx

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 13.04.2005 um 18:27 schrieb David Kastrup:

> I am surprised that the size is so small.

Syntactic compression? I feel Emacs could do that!

--
Greetings

   Pete

The mathematician who pursues his studies without clear views of this 
matter, must often have the uncomfortable feeling that his paper and 
pencil surpass him in intelligence. (Ernst Mach)

Re: emacs and osx

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:19:58 -0400
> 
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 16:57 GMT, Lute Kamstra wrote:
> > 
> > We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.
> 
>    I haven't played tetris in emacs for years. Since upgrading (I
>    don't remember which version), the font has the wrong aspect ratio;
>    it's twice as high, or half as wide, as it should be.

If this still happens for you in the current version, may I suggest
that you report it as a bug (with the required information about your
system and Emacs build options)?

Re: emacs and osx

[David Kastrup]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> Lute Kamstra wrote:

[...]

>>>This "editor" needs to go on diet...
>> We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.
>> Lute.
>>
>
> It never crossed my mind, and chances are that it never will. I always
> wondered the real utility of those extra files. It may be the case
> that emacs is a lisp interpreter and those are just demos?

Well, that describes the whole of Emacs pretty well.

> I would rather choose to have those "extras" than being forced to
> like them...

Nobody forces you to like them.

> I would be much happier if emacs would have a better menu (File,
> Edit, etc.) along the lines of ... any other application.

One has nothing to do with the other.  And Emacs pretty much existed
before "any other application" and will likely exist longer than the
majority of all of them.  So it does not make too much sense to bend
over backwards to be more similar to short-lived applications and
fashions.  It is ok to improve Emacs, but it does not make sense to
warp it beyond recognition.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Lute Kamstra wrote:
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>>>>This "editor" needs to go on diet...
>>>
>>>We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.
>>>Lute.
>>>
>>
>>It never crossed my mind, and chances are that it never will. I always
>>wondered the real utility of those extra files. It may be the case
>>that emacs is a lisp interpreter and those are just demos?
> 
> 
> Well, that describes the whole of Emacs pretty well.
> 
> 
>>I would rather choose to have those "extras" than being forced to
>>like them...
> 
> 
> Nobody forces you to like them.
> 

To have tetris in the main distribution is kind of forcing. I would 
rather choose to have it, rather than just have it.


>>I would be much happier if emacs would have a better menu (File,
>>Edit, etc.) along the lines of ... any other application.
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.  And Emacs pretty much existed
> before "any other application" and will likely exist longer than the
> majority of all of them.  So it does not make too much sense to bend
> over backwards to be more similar to short-lived applications and
> fashions.  It is ok to improve Emacs, but it does not make sense to
> warp it beyond recognition.
> 

Oh, no, that was not my intention. Indeed, I meant a "better menu", i.e. 
one that is more intuitive, and I perceive that other applications, 
especially under osx, are *much* more intuitive. Perhaps the port of 
emacs to osx will have the added value of improved user experience? I 
very much hope so. I very, very, very, ... , very much hope so.

Bob

Re: emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

... OK! Compiling time...

I see a lot of the following. How bad is this?

## Component Manager: attempting to find symbols in a component alias of 
type (sdec/MM74/FhG )

Re: emacs and osx

[David Kastrup]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 
>>>Lute Kamstra wrote:
>> [...]
>> 
>>>>>This "editor" needs to go on diet...
>>>>
>>>>We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.
>> 
>>>I would rather choose to have those "extras" than being forced to
>>>like them...
>> Nobody forces you to like them.
>
> To have tetris in the main distribution is kind of forcing. I would
> rather choose to have it, rather than just have it.

It is not even 20k source code.  And if it is loaded (which is not
done unless needed), it takes maybe 4kbyte of your main memory.  Put
that into the proper relation with some "desktop applet" like, say,
drivemount_applet2 that takes 30kB of code on the disk, and Megabytes
of memory when it is run.

Emacs is much less wasteful than other desktop environments.

>>>I would be much happier if emacs would have a better menu (File,
>>>Edit, etc.) along the lines of ... any other application.
>> One has nothing to do with the other.  And Emacs pretty much existed
>> before "any other application" and will likely exist longer than the
>> majority of all of them.  So it does not make too much sense to bend
>> over backwards to be more similar to short-lived applications and
>> fashions.  It is ok to improve Emacs, but it does not make sense to
>> warp it beyond recognition.
>
> Oh, no, that was not my intention. Indeed, I meant a "better menu",
> i.e. one that is more intuitive, and I perceive that other
> applications, especially under osx, are *much* more
> intuitive. Perhaps the port of emacs to osx will have the added
> value of improved user experience? I very much hope so. I very,
> very, very, ... , very much hope so.

I don't.  There is no sense in improving Emacs just on one platform.
If people have sensible ideas that can be put into practice, they
should also have the decency to do the work of having them integrated
into the mainline.

There is nothing to be gained by dozens of incompatible defaults in
circulation.

Those belong into the Emacs distribution.  Maybe not as a system
default, but at least as a customization theme.  In that manner, you
can get your "improved" "MacOsX" behavior on a Windows or Solaris
Emacs by a single customization of their Emacs, and Windows users can
make your MacOSX Emacs behave like they are accustomed to with a
single customization, too.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

Yes, emacs-tetris is small, but emacs is still a huge text editor. What 
about the other such (extra) objects who build up to 120MB? One should 
be able to choose whether to have games, as well as option x, y, or z, 
rather than being forced to have them. This is my point. I understand 
you do not share it, and I respect your view, but please allow me to be 
less integralist and more open to change.


David Kastrup wrote:

>>Oh, no, that was not my intention. Indeed, I meant a "better menu",
>>i.e. one that is more intuitive, and I perceive that other
>>applications, especially under osx, are *much* more
>>intuitive. Perhaps the port of emacs to osx will have the added
>>value of improved user experience? I very much hope so. I very,
>>very, very, ... , very much hope so.
> 
> 
> I don't.  There is no sense in improving Emacs just on one platform.


  I did not mean osx only. ;-)


> If people have sensible ideas that can be put into practice, they
> should also have the decency to do the work of having them integrated
> into the mainline.


Yes, I a gree with you.


> There is nothing to be gained by dozens of incompatible defaults in
> circulation.

Yes, I a gree with you.

> Those belong into the Emacs distribution.  Maybe not as a system
> default, but at least as a customization theme.  In that manner, you
> can get your "improved" "MacOsX" behavior on a Windows or Solaris
> Emacs by a single customization of their Emacs, and Windows users can
> make your MacOSX Emacs behave like they are accustomed to with a
> single customization, too.

Yes, I agree with you.


I only meant, and hoped for, a more intuitive menu.

Bob

Re: emacs and osx

[Ismael Valladolid Torres]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 100 bytes --]

Lute Kamstra escribe:
> We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.

Can you!?

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 152 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Help-gnu-emacs mailing list
Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs

Re: emacs and osx

[Lute Kamstra]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> Yes, emacs-tetris is small, but emacs is still a huge text
> editor. What about the other such (extra) objects who build up to
> 120MB? One should be able to choose whether to have games, as well as
> option x, y, or z, rather than being forced to have them. 

You're not forced to use them, it only uses disk space. (Things get
loaded when you actually use them.)  That seems like a small price to
pay.  The benefits are huge, IMO.  You can do almost anything with
Emacs.  All your editing needs are covered.

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "LLNL RSA ISEC"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: emacs and osx

[Lute Kamstra]

Ismael Valladolid Torres <ivalladt@punkass.com> writes:

> Lute Kamstra escribe:
>> We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.
>
> Can you!?

But of course!  M-x tetris RET

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "ANC plutonium Telex"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: emacs and osx

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> Yes, emacs-tetris is small, but emacs is still a huge text
> editor. What about the other such (extra) objects who build
> up to 120MB?

emacs is extensible, which means its capabilities can be for
the most part dynamically (w/o recompiling) augmented at your
command, by "loading emacs lisp libraries".  when you see
120MB you see a lot of libraries ("integrated" over time :-)
that are available but not loaded.

> One should be able to choose whether to have games, as
> well as option x, y, or z, rather than being forced to have
> them. This is my point. I understand you do not share it, and I
> respect your view, but please allow me to be less integralist
> and more open to change.

one is indeed able to choose (but to know what the choices
are and then to choose wisely -- that's more difficult :-).

w/ emacs, "to have" does not negate "to be able to choose".

if you yourself are open to change, you might take joy in
deepening your concept of "to have", to better understand
what everyone is trying to tell you.  or not.  the choice is
yours to exercise, after all.

thi

Re: emacs and osx, Tetris

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 13.04.2005 um 20:44 schrieb Ismael Valladolid Torres:

> Can you!?
>

I can -- badly. And someone complains that there is write protected 
file ...

In GNU Emacs 22.0.50.1 (powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0, X toolkit, Xaw3d 
scroll bars)
  of 2005-04-02 on localhost

--
Greetings

   Pete

   Basic, n.:
	A programming language.  Related to certain social diseases in
that those who have it will not admit it in polite company.

Re: emacs and osx

[David Kastrup]

Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:

> Yes, emacs-tetris is small, but emacs is still a huge text
> editor. What about the other such (extra) objects who build up to
> 120MB? One should be able to choose whether to have games, as well as
> option x, y, or z, rather than being forced to have them.

You are able to choose.  Just delete the files you don't want.

> I only meant, and hoped for, a more intuitive menu.

Intuitivity is in the mind of the beholder.  Waving keywords around is
not going to replace the work of coming up with a coherent design and
implementing it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs and osx

[David Kastrup]

Ismael Valladolid Torres <ivalladt@punkass.com> writes:

> Lute Kamstra escribe:
>> We feel that it's important that you can play Tetris with Emacs.
>
> Can you!?

M-x tetris RET

Pretty faithful rendition, if you ask me.  Feels quite the same.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs and osx

[Ismael Valladolid Torres]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 768 bytes --]

Lute Kamstra escribe:
> Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > Yes, emacs-tetris is small, but emacs is still a huge text
> > editor. What about the other such (extra) objects who build up to
> > 120MB? One should be able to choose whether to have games, as well as
> > option x, y, or z, rather than being forced to have them. 
> 
> You're not forced to use them, it only uses disk space. (Things get
> loaded when you actually use them.)  That seems like a small price to
> pay.  The benefits are huge, IMO.  You can do almost anything with
> Emacs.  All your editing needs are covered.

I'm not guessing right now which editing needs are covered by having
Tetris here, but for sure I will be able to develop such guess in few
hours! xD

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 152 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Help-gnu-emacs mailing list
Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs

Re: emacs and osx

[David Kastrup]

Ismael Valladolid Torres <ivalladt@punkass.com> writes:

> Lute Kamstra escribe:
>> Bob Hunter <catdogbeloved@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Yes, emacs-tetris is small, but emacs is still a huge text
>> > editor. What about the other such (extra) objects who build up to
>> > 120MB? One should be able to choose whether to have games, as
>> > well as option x, y, or z, rather than being forced to have them.
>> 
>> You're not forced to use them, it only uses disk space. (Things get
>> loaded when you actually use them.)  That seems like a small price
>> to pay.  The benefits are huge, IMO.  You can do almost anything
>> with Emacs.  All your editing needs are covered.
>
> I'm not guessing right now which editing needs are covered by having
> Tetris here,

Speed typing.

> but for sure I will be able to develop such guess in few hours! xD

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs and osx

[Joe Corneli]

   > I'm not guessing right now which editing needs are covered by having
   > Tetris here,

   Speed typing.

Still more: it is a dojo for the champion tetris AI you are going to
write. [Spooky music: do do do, do do do, do do do.]

Re: emacs and osx

[Bob Hunter]

Voila! Emacs 22.0.50 compiled on 10.3.8, and it works. Given the amount 
of extras, emacs is a small world of its own. The menu is sufficiently 
intuitive. This little world also includes a psychotherapist, right 
there where anyone would expect to find it, i.e. the help menu...

Bob

Re: emacs and osx

[Miles Bader]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> Anyway, I just tried an experimental tar+zip on my CVS tree (which is
> not completely clean) and this resulted in 68MB.  So you might not
> have the CVS backup of the Emacs repository, after all.  Try using it.

A "clean" tar+gzip file of the source tree is about 23MB (this doesn't
include _any_ build-products like compiled elisp files or info files).

-Miles
-- 
We live, as we dream -- alone....

Re: emacs and osx

[Miles Bader]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> Anyway, I just tried an experimental tar+zip on my CVS tree (which is
> not completely clean) and this resulted in 68MB.  So you might not
> have the CVS backup of the Emacs repository, after all.  Try using it.

A "clean" tar+gzip file of the source tree is about 23MB (this doesn't
include _any_ build-products like compiled elisp files or info files).

-Miles
-- 
We live, as we dream -- alone....

Re: emacs and osx

[Rogério Brito]

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> Exactly. Get the latest Emacs from the CVS, configure, make, install,
>  enjoy. It just works. This posting is written with a Emacs running 
> on Mac OS X, along with Carbon-GUI, anti-aliased fonts and 
> everything, compiled straight from the sources.

Humm, that's a pain in the arse, especially with slower machines lower
on RAM. :-( BTW, would it at least run in many versions of MacOS X (say,
10.1, 10.2 etc) if compiled with a current toolchain?

> BTW: All this chaos is not limited to Emacs. Look for almost any Open
>  Source app and you will find at least two or three different "ports"
>  to OS X floating around the net.

Indeed. Point well made.

> There is Fink, darwinports and then individual (binary) packages done
>  by well-meaning people.

Honestly, I don't know why fink didn't try to merge its efforts with
Debian (or copy them, for that matter).

You get that hybrid system where one can install some binary
packages, but, OTOH, the user has to compile many other packages from
source (and you'd at least expect the maintainers of the packages to
compile their own packages at least once before putting them available
at their site -- this could save the users the problems of installing
developer toolkits, expensive compilation of larger programs (like
Emacs) etc).

And that's not to mention that you don't have (at least the last time I
checked) things like Debian's menu infra-structure for installed
packages appearing in your window manager of choice, changelogs in the
packages' documentations (to see what changed and if things would affect
your workflow etc).

> Ever installed a LaTeX system on OS X? I've been going through this 
> just yesterday and I can tell you, this is a hell of a mess.

Indeed. There are many versions (Gerben Wierda's, Fink's etc) and (at
least Fink's) is not what I'd call "mature".


-- 
Learn to quote e-mails decently at:
http://pub.tsn.dk/how-to-quote.php
http://learn.to/quote
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/toppost.htm

Re: emacs and osx

[Chris Menzel]

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> Ever installed a LaTeX system on OS X? 

Yes, Gerben Wierda's TeX installation via his excellent i-Installer
app.  It is robust and utterly painless.  http://www.rna.nl/tex.html

Chris Menzel

Re: emacs and osx

[Jochem Huhmann]

Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> writes:

> Jochem Huhmann wrote:
>> Exactly. Get the latest Emacs from the CVS, configure, make, install,
>>  enjoy. It just works. This posting is written with a Emacs running on
>> Mac OS X, along with Carbon-GUI, anti-aliased fonts and everything,
>> compiled straight from the sources.
>
> Humm, that's a pain in the arse, especially with slower machines lower
> on RAM. :-( 

May well be. I'm having no problems on a 1.25 GHz Mac mini with 512MB of
RAM, though. Could be faster, granted, but surely fast enough to work
with. And while Emacs may be a memory hog, *everything* on OS X is. The
average freeware menubar clock eats as much memory as Emacs.

> BTW, would it at least run in many versions of MacOS X (say, 10.1,
> 10.2 etc) if compiled with a current toolchain?

Sorry, I don't know. I would think that it should work, though. I do not
see anything in Emacs that requires the latest OS from Apple.

>> There is Fink, darwinports and then individual (binary) packages done
>>  by well-meaning people.
>
> Honestly, I don't know why fink didn't try to merge its efforts with
> Debian (or copy them, for that matter).

Who? Apple? There have been rumours that darwinports would become part
of the OS. Let's wait for Tiger. I wouldn't held my breath, though.
Debian is another story. Can you imagine the typical Debian developer
working with the typical Apple employee? I could rather imagine OS X
becoming a Debian sub-project than the other way round ;-)

> Indeed. There are many versions (Gerben Wierda's, Fink's etc) and (at
> least Fink's) is not what I'd call "mature".

I've had no problems with teTeX from the darwinports project. Installed
without a glitch, works fine. Well done.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

Re: emacs and osx

[Stefan Monnier]

> with. And while Emacs may be a memory hog, *everything* on OS X is. The
> average freeware menubar clock eats as much memory as Emacs.

Be careful to measure the RSS rather than the VSIZE when measuring the
memory use.  VSIZE can be completely meaningless since most of that memory
may be shared via many other processes, or may be allocated but unused, ...

Yes, OS X eats memory like a pig and (worse) is pretty bad at swapping (I
often get it to freeze for a whole 1min or more just because I launched too
many processes at the same time: GNU/Linux handles it much more gracefully),
but Emacs is not particularly frugal either.


        Stefan