X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Emar]

Hi List,
Here's my problem: I installed Emacs with X11 support through Fink on
Mac OS X 10.3. I've done it before and it worked great, but now I can't
seem to get Emacs out of terminal mode. I can only launch it from
Apple's Terminal.app and X11 terminals (after setting the PATH
variables to include /sw/bin/) and then it stays in the terminal,
whereas I would like to get my scrolling and toolbars and stuff back.
Details:
1) I have:
fink 0.7.1.rsync
emacs21-xaw3d 21.3.50-20041117
xaw3d 1.5-8
xaw3d-shlibs 1.5-8
Mac OS X 10.3
Apple X11 (based on Xfree4.3.0)

2) I also have ghostview installed through fink and that works perfect
in X11, so it can't really be a general fink vs X11 problem, or?

3) Emacs works fine too, but it acts as it had been given the -nw
option (--no-window-system), or as if I had installed emacs-nox (while
neither is the case)

4) Before I used to use an applescript to launch my X11 emacs, now that
script doesn't work anymore and the event log looks like this:
tell application "X11"
activate
end tell
tell current application
do shell script "export DISPLAY=:0;source /sw/bin/init.sh;emacs
~/Documents;"
"emacs: standard input is not a tty"

Question: Is there some setting in X11 or in Emacs that cause this
behavior (i.e. not recognizing the windowmanager or something?)
Thanks,
 Emar

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-13, Emar <e.maier@phil.kun.nl> wrote:
> Here's my problem: I installed Emacs with X11 support through Fink on
> Mac OS X 10.3. 

You installed a precompiled binary package (with dselect or apt-get) or
you built it from sources ('fink install ...')?


> I've done it before and it worked great, but now I can't
> seem to get Emacs out of terminal mode. I can only launch it from
> Apple's Terminal.app and X11 terminals (after setting the PATH
> variables to include /sw/bin/) 

If you define PATH in ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist to include /sw/bin,
you won't have to go through an intermediate shell in this way.


> and then it stays in the terminal

When you launch it from the xterm, where is /sw/bin on PATH? To put it
another way, what does 'which emacs' say?

When you launch from Terminal, what's the value of DISPLAY?


> Apple X11 (based on Xfree4.3.0)

Did you install the X11 developer package as well?


> 4) Before I used to use an applescript to launch my X11 emacs

If you fix up ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist you won't have to do this
silliness any more...

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Emar]

D P Schreber wrote:
> On 2004-12-13, Emar <e.maier@phil.kun.nl> wrote:
> > Here's my problem: I installed Emacs with X11 support through Fink
on
> > Mac OS X 10.3.
>
> You installed a precompiled binary package (with dselect or apt-get)
or
> you built it from sources ('fink install ...')?
source, with "fink install"
>
> > I've done it before and it worked great, but now I can't
> > seem to get Emacs out of terminal mode. I can only launch it from
> > Apple's Terminal.app and X11 terminals (after setting the PATH
> > variables to include /sw/bin/)
>
> If you define PATH in ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist to include /sw/bin,
> you won't have to go through an intermediate shell in this way.

Yeah, I recently found out about that and did just that.
>
>
> > and then it stays in the terminal
>
> When you launch it from the xterm, where is /sw/bin on PATH? To put
it
> another way, what does 'which emacs' say?

"which emacs" gives "/sw/bin/emacs", as it should
>
> When you launch from Terminal, what's the value of DISPLAY?

"echo $DISPLAY" gives ":0.0"
>
>
> > Apple X11 (based on Xfree4.3.0)
>
> Did you install the X11 developer package as well?

yeah, downloaded and installed (some components of) XCode 1.5 (I'll
re-install it to see if I missed something)

Concerning your other point: I tried two carbon builds but they didnt
work well somehow, at least one had problems with emacsclient/server,
and then I use xdvi (with emacs/latex) under X11 so I couldnt get rid
of X11 anyway

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-13, Emar <e.maier@phil.kun.nl> wrote:
>> Did you install the X11 developer package as well?
>
> yeah, downloaded and installed (some components of) XCode 1.5 (I'll
> re-install it to see if I missed something)

Everything else looks good to me, so this seems like the place to focus.
I'm pretty sure the X11 dev tools are not in the default set of what
gets installed with XCode: you have to select it explicitly.  If it
wasn't installed, then your build from sources wouldn't include X11
support, since the configure step wouldn't have found the include files
etc.  I would have expected to fink to complain in this case, but I've
forgotten some of the details of how fink works (I gave up on it some
months ago).


> and then I use xdvi (with emacs/latex) under X11 so I couldnt get rid
> of X11 anyway

Got it.  I just wanted to be sure you were aware of the carbon option.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Emar]

Thanks! You were right, I had indeed skipped installation of X11SDK
somehow, and then forgot about it cause i thought that then fink stuff
would not run at all. Now everything works :)

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-13, Emar <e.maier@phil.kun.nl> wrote:
> Here's my problem: I installed Emacs with X11 support through Fink on
> Mac OS X 10.3. I've done it before and it worked great, but now I can't
> seem to get Emacs out of terminal mode.

Another issue worth raising: you are aware that emacs 21.3.50 has
excellent native-windowing support for osx, right?  If local windowing
support is what you're after (as opposed to remote access with windowing
support), this is a much better way to go then X11.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   Another issue worth raising: you are aware that emacs 21.3.50 has
   excellent native-windowing support for osx, right?  If local windowing
   support is what you're after (as opposed to remote access with windowing
   support), this is a much better way to go then X11.

That's certainly a matter of opinion.  Aqua is not free software and
besides, it isn't half as featureful as X :).

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-13, Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Aqua is not free software

Look at the subject: the OP has already bought Aqua.  You must be one of
those darwin purists I keep hearing about :)




> besides, it isn't half as featureful as X :).

That's certainly true in darwin..

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   On 2004-12-13, Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:
   > Aqua is not free software

   Look at the subject: the OP has already bought Aqua.  You must be one of
   those darwin purists I keep hearing about :)

It isn't about what you buy, its about what you use.

If there is an option, recommend the free option.  If there is no free
option, there is nothing to recommend.  This is GNU policy, and on
help*gnu*emacs it applies equally to free software purists and other
contributors.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.5747.1102985852.27204.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
 Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:

>    On 2004-12-13, Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:
>    > Aqua is not free software
> 
>    Look at the subject: the OP has already bought Aqua.  You must be one of
>    those darwin purists I keep hearing about :)
> 
> It isn't about what you buy, its about what you use.
> 
> If there is an option, recommend the free option.  If there is no free
> option, there is nothing to recommend.  This is GNU policy, and on
> help*gnu*emacs it applies equally to free software purists and other
> contributors.

But the software that's bundled with the computer has pretty much always 
been considered acceptable.  The GPL even refers to this in its 
exception for components that are included with the OS or compiler.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   In article <mailman.5747.1102985852.27204.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
    Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:

   >    On 2004-12-13, Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:
   >    > Aqua is not free software
   > 
   >    Look at the subject: the OP has already bought Aqua.  You must be one of
   >    those darwin purists I keep hearing about :)
   > 
   > It isn't about what you buy, its about what you use.
   > 
   > If there is an option, recommend the free option.  If there is no free
   > option, there is nothing to recommend.  This is GNU policy, and on
   > help*gnu*emacs it applies equally to free software purists and other
   > contributors.

   But the software that's bundled with the computer has pretty much always 
   been considered acceptable.  The GPL even refers to this in its 
   exception for components that are included with the OS or compiler.

I'm not saying it is unacceptable to use Emacs under Aqua, I'm saying
that it isn't "better".  The OP was asking for help with X11, and it
seems inappropriate to suggest a nonfree replacement.

 "don't imply that the proprietary program enhances your program, or
  that its existence is in any way a good thing."

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-14, Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:
> I'm not saying it is unacceptable to use Emacs under Aqua, I'm saying
> that it isn't "better".  The OP was asking for help with X11

The OP asked for help in getting a windowed emacs working in osx, with
scrollbars etc.  If that was all he was after, the carbon emacs is
something he needed to know about, if he didn't already.  So I mentioned
it.  Btw I also gave him the pointer to fix his X11 problem.  

As it turns it, the OP mentioned later that he has other X11 needs, and
that was the end of that as far as I was concerned.  This is where you
come in.

Personally I'm a pragmatist about such things.  Sorry but I just don't
like fundamentalism.  I have both an X11 build and a carbon build on my
system and I use whichever one makes more sense at any given time.
Sometimes I run emacs in a terminal.  Sometimes I use vim.  Like most
people who read this newsgroup, I'm clever enough to adapt to my
environment and to circumstances.



> seems inappropriate to suggest a nonfree replacement.

This is just utterly absurd. He's already made the decision to run osx.
That was done before this discussion even started.  Get over it.  Maybe
you think there's some great moral issue in play if you run ./configure
with --with-carbon instead of --with-x11.  But if you do, well, frankly
that makes you a loon imo.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   On 2004-12-14, Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:
   > I'm not saying it is unacceptable to use Emacs under Aqua, I'm saying
   > that it isn't "better".  The OP was asking for help with X11

   The OP asked for help in getting a windowed emacs working in osx, with
   scrollbars etc.  If that was all he was after, the carbon emacs is
   something he needed to know about, if he didn't already.  So I mentioned
   it.  Btw I also gave him the pointer to fix his X11 problem.  

   As it turns it, the OP mentioned later that he has other X11 needs, and
   that was the end of that as far as I was concerned.  This is where you
   come in.

   Personally I'm a pragmatist about such things.  Sorry but I just don't
   like fundamentalism.  I have both an X11 build and a carbon build on my
   system and I use whichever one makes more sense at any given time.
   Sometimes I run emacs in a terminal.  Sometimes I use vim.  Like most
   people who read this newsgroup, I'm clever enough to adapt to my
   environment and to circumstances.



   > seems inappropriate to suggest a nonfree replacement.

   This is just utterly absurd. He's already made the decision to run osx.
   That was done before this discussion even started.  Get over it.  Maybe
   you think there's some great moral issue in play if you run ./configure
   with --with-carbon instead of --with-x11.  But if you do, well, frankly
   that makes you a loon imo.


Why would I want to use some parochial, proprietary, monolithic,
*nonfree* windowing system when I could use an advanced, portable,
highly configurable free one (i.e., X11 and ratpoison ;))?  I run OS
X, but my user experience is essentially indistinguishable from my
experience on GNU/Linux.  Same window manager, same shell, same
configurations.  If I run into something that can't be done with free
software on my box, I typically don't do it.  There are a few
exceptions, which I've justified to myself in various ways.  For
example, I used a synthesizer that, when running on OS X, relies on
one specific nonfree part of the OS X system in a nontrivial way.  I
wanted to write an emacs interface for this program.  (If I understand
correctly, other people were working on porting other software to OS X
that would eliminate the dependence on these nonfree components; they
might be done by this time, I don't know.)  My setup might rely on
some other low-level nonfree parts of the operating system that I
don't know about: I haven't investigated, but it doesn't seem
unlikely.  That isn't terribly important to me.  What's important to
me is that my work and UI are free and portable.  Anything else would
be a waste of my time and effort, and not at all pragmatic.  It
doesn't take me long to "convert" a virgin OS X or GNU/Linux setup
into one that feels just like the one I'm using now.  That's how I
adapt to my environment: I make it adapt to me.  I'm certainly not
going to sit there banging away with some feature-poor keyboard
layout, dragging windows around with a pointing device, injuring
myself and working at a snail's pace, not for long, not unless I'm
forced to.

If you don't dig it, I'm not going to get upset.  You work however you
want to work, I'm not trying to stop you or insult you or convert you
or tell you what works for you when I haven't really got a clue or
anything of the sort.  The point I was making is that on GNU lists, it
is forbidden to recommend nonfree software.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[David Kastrup]

Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> writes:

> If you don't dig it, I'm not going to get upset.  You work however
> you want to work, I'm not trying to stop you or insult you or
> convert you or tell you what works for you when I haven't really got
> a clue or anything of the sort.  The point I was making is that on
> GNU lists, it is forbidden to recommend nonfree software.

Forbidden?  I'd rather say "inappropriate".  However, Carbon Emacs is
just as free as X11 Emacs, and it would be stupid not to be able to
talk about it on this group.  This does not constitute a
recommendation for nonfree software in any way that I can see.  Sure,
Carbon itself is nonfree, but we are not promoting it merely by
talking about Carbon Emacs, are we?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> writes:

   > If you don't dig it, I'm not going to get upset.  You work however
   > you want to work, I'm not trying to stop you or insult you or
   > convert you or tell you what works for you when I haven't really got
   > a clue or anything of the sort.  The point I was making is that on
   > GNU lists, it is forbidden to recommend nonfree software.

   Forbidden?  I'd rather say "inappropriate".

Stallman does say "please", so I guess I should have said
"undesireable" and maybe even "disrespectful."  "Inappropriate" works.
And don't forget "punishable by Stallman's ire."

1993

 Please don`t use GNU newsgroups to recommend proprietary software,
 regardless of what it is for.  In particular, don`t send messages to
 this list/group praising proprietary speech programs.  It`s bad enough
 that some people do use them; please avoid encouraging more to do so.

[...]

2003

 A few months ago, I found out that Knoppix included some non-free
 software, and the developer said he didn't want to change that.

 If he has changed his policies in the meantime, please tell me; that
 would be good news.  But otherwise, please do not recommend the use of
 Knoppix on GNU mailing lists.  Please recommend only entirely free
 software.

 (I am not on the help-gnu-emacs list; someone forwarded me a couple of
 messages on this thread.)


   However, Carbon Emacs is just as free as X11 Emacs, and it would be
   stupid not to be able to talk about it on this group.  This does
   not constitute a recommendation for nonfree software in any way
   that I can see.  Sure, Carbon itself is nonfree, but we are not
   promoting it merely by talking about Carbon Emacs, are we?

I'm not really sure.

I don't think I would have had any particular objection to "If you
only have the goal of using Emacs outside of the terminal, and you
don't mind missing out on the programs and features that you could use
under X11, you could just install the Carbon version."  Pretty
different from the ringing endorsement of Carbon/Aqua that we heard.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Tim McNamara]

Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> writes:

>    Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> writes:
>
>    > If you don't dig it, I'm not going to get upset.  You work
>    > however you want to work, I'm not trying to stop you or insult
>    > you or convert you or tell you what works for you when I
>    > haven't really got a clue or anything of the sort.  The point I
>    > was making is that on GNU lists, it is forbidden to recommend
>    > nonfree software.
>
>    Forbidden?  I'd rather say "inappropriate".
>
> Stallman does say "please", so I guess I should have said
> "undesireable" and maybe even "disrespectful."  "Inappropriate"
> works.  And don't forget "punishable by Stallman's ire."
>
> 1993
>
>  Please don`t use GNU newsgroups to recommend proprietary software,
>  regardless of what it is for.  In particular, don`t send messages
>  to this list/group praising proprietary speech programs.  It`s bad
>  enough that some people do use them; please avoid encouraging more
>  to do so.

This is gnu.emacs.help, which is a Usenet newsgroup.  It is about
using Emacs and not about furthering RMS's issues about free software.
While I think he is fundamentally correct and thought that _Free
Software, Free Society_ is an excellent book, GNU does not own any
piece of Usenet, and voluntary or otherwise censorship is not
appropriate if RMS expects to be able to maintain his or anyone else's
freedom.  Somebody wants to make it a condition of a mailing list,
that's another issue.

> [...]
>
> 2003
>
>  A few months ago, I found out that Knoppix included some non-free
>  software, and the developer said he didn't want to change that.
>
>  If he has changed his policies in the meantime, please tell me;
>  that would be good news.  But otherwise, please do not recommend
>  the use of Knoppix on GNU mailing lists.  Please recommend only
>  entirely free software.
>
>  (I am not on the help-gnu-emacs list; someone forwarded me a couple
>  of messages on this thread.)
>
>
>    However, Carbon Emacs is just as free as X11 Emacs, and it would
>    be stupid not to be able to talk about it on this group.  This
>    does not constitute a recommendation for nonfree software in any
>    way that I can see.  Sure, Carbon itself is nonfree, but we are
>    not promoting it merely by talking about Carbon Emacs, are we?
>
> I'm not really sure.
>
> I don't think I would have had any particular objection to "If you
> only have the goal of using Emacs outside of the terminal, and you
> don't mind missing out on the programs and features that you could
> use under X11, you could just install the Carbon version."  Pretty
> different from the ringing endorsement of Carbon/Aqua that we heard.

So it's not OK to talk about using Emacs under Aqua because that's not
free software, but it's apparently OK to talk about using Emacs under
Windows.  At least you haven't jumped all over those threads with your
size twelves.  Wassup with that?

And, for that matter, what "features" and programs run under Emacs/X11
that can't be run under Emacs/Aqua?  I've used both- I use the X11
version because it has a much smaller footprint- and haven't found any
functional differences- except that the scroll wheel works under the
Aqua environment but not under X11.

And, Joe, please consider using a quote string.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-15, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> I've used both- I use the X11 version because it has a much smaller
> footprint

The resident size is smaller, but of course you have to be running the
X11 server, which has considerable costs of its own.  If I'm running an
X11 server anyway, I'll usually run the X11 emacs.  If I'm not, I'll run
the carbon emacs for sure. I definitely can't see running an X11 server
just to get a windowed emacs; that really doesn't make any sense to me
at all. 

When I first switched from linux to osx I used X11 all the time, mainly
because I tried to replicate my linux environment.  At some point I
realized that this was a bad strategy for getting the most out of osx.
Now that I'm fully transitioned I find that I only need X11 very
occasionally, and this despite the fact that my job is all about
distributed-systems software.  As a result, I rarely use X11 emacs
anymore.


In any case, having the choice is very nice.



> - and haven't found any functional differences- except that the scroll
> wheel works under the Aqua environment but not under X11. 

Scroll-wheel works ok for me in X11 emacs 21.3.50.1.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Tim McNamara]

D P Schreber <schreberdp@rayban.net> writes:

> On 2004-12-15, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> I've used both- I use the X11 version because it has a much smaller
>> footprint
>
> The resident size is smaller, but of course you have to be running
> the X11 server, which has considerable costs of its own.  If I'm
> running an X11 server anyway, I'll usually run the X11 emacs.  If
> I'm not, I'll run the carbon emacs for sure. I definitely can't see
> running an X11 server just to get a windowed emacs; that really
> doesn't make any sense to me at all.

That's a good point.  I leave X11 running all the time because I use
several applications that call for it.  However, I should have been
more specific and said "disk footprint."  I've got an old iMac with a
4GB drive and the Carbon Emacs install just takes up more space than I
can afford.

>> - and haven't found any functional differences- except that the
>> scroll wheel works under the Aqua environment but not under X11.
>
> Scroll-wheel works ok for me in X11 emacs 21.3.50.1.

I can't get it to work for whatever reason.  Not a big deal.  I have a
two button mouse with scroll wheel, and X11 Emacs does accept clicking
for scroll wheel for the middle mouse button, which is more important
to me.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-15, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> Scroll-wheel works ok for me in X11 emacs 21.3.50.1.
>
> I can't get it to work for whatever reason.  Not a big deal.  

No, not a big deal, but it's handy, and it really should work.  Is
(fboundp 'mwheel-install) true?  If so, run (mwheel-install).  If not, I
guess you need find a copy of mwheel and load/require it.  Used to be
that XFree had a 5-button mouse model, with the two scrolling actions
treated as mouse-4 and mouse-5.  I assume that's still true. So in emacs
it's just a matter of binding those buttons to calls to scroll-down  and
scroll-up.


> I have a two button mouse with scroll wheel, and X11 Emacs does accept
> clicking for scroll wheel for the middle mouse button, which is more
> important to me.

Middle-click is pretty crucial everywhere in X11 :) 

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   This is gnu.emacs.help, which is a Usenet newsgroup.  It is about
   using Emacs and not about furthering RMS's issues about free software.
   While I think he is fundamentally correct and thought that _Free
   Software, Free Society_ is an excellent book, GNU does not own any
   piece of Usenet, and voluntary or otherwise censorship is not
   appropriate if RMS expects to be able to maintain his or anyone else's
   freedom.  Somebody wants to make it a condition of a mailing list,
   that's another issue.

Why not take it up with him.

   >    However, Carbon Emacs is just as free as X11 Emacs, and it would
   >    be stupid not to be able to talk about it on this group.  This
   >    does not constitute a recommendation for nonfree software in any
   >    way that I can see.  Sure, Carbon itself is nonfree, but we are
   >    not promoting it merely by talking about Carbon Emacs, are we?
   >
   > I'm not really sure.
   >
   > I don't think I would have had any particular objection to "If you
   > only have the goal of using Emacs outside of the terminal, and you
   > don't mind missing out on the programs and features that you could
   > use under X11, you could just install the Carbon version."  Pretty
   > different from the ringing endorsement of Carbon/Aqua that we heard.

   So it's not OK to talk about using Emacs under Aqua because that's not
   free software, but it's apparently OK to talk about using Emacs under
   Windows.  At least you haven't jumped all over those threads with your
   size twelves.  Wassup with that?

I didn't say that it isn't OK to talk about using Emacs under Aqua, I
said it isn't OK to recommend Aqua over the available free
alternative.  Did you read the statement of mine that you're quoting?

I don't really have anything to say about Windows.  If someone said
that it was better to use Emacs under Windows than it is to use it
under X11, I'd have the same objection.

   And, for that matter, what "features" and programs run under Emacs/X11
   that can't be run under Emacs/Aqua?  

xmodmap, modifiers, and window managers are the main things I was
thinking of.  Also, there are plenty of X-only graphical programs
seperate from Emacs.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Kevin Rodgers]

Tim McNamara wrote:
 > Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> writes:
 >> Please don`t use GNU newsgroups to recommend proprietary software,
 >> regardless of what it is for.  In particular, don`t send messages
 >> to this list/group praising proprietary speech programs.  It`s bad
 >> enough that some people do use them; please avoid encouraging more
 >> to do so.
 >
 > This is gnu.emacs.help, which is a Usenet newsgroup.  It is about
 > using Emacs and not about furthering RMS's issues about free software.
 > While I think he is fundamentally correct and thought that _Free
 > Software, Free Society_ is an excellent book, GNU does not own any
 > piece of Usenet, and voluntary or otherwise censorship is not
 > appropriate if RMS expects to be able to maintain his or anyone else's
 > freedom.  Somebody wants to make it a condition of a mailing list,
 > that's another issue.

The gnu.emacs.help newsgroup is bidirectionally gatewayed with the
help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org mailing list hosted by the FSF, so they are for
all intents and purposes equivalent.

http://www.gnu.org/help/gethelp.html
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs

-- 
Kevin Rodgers

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Friedrich Dominicus]

>
> 1993
>
>  Please don`t use GNU newsgroups to recommend proprietary software,
>  regardless of what it is for.  In particular, don`t send messages to
>  this list/group praising proprietary speech programs.  It`s bad enough
>  that some people do use them; please avoid encouraging more to do so.
>
> [...]
>
> 2003
>
>  A few months ago, I found out that Knoppix included some non-free
>  software, and the developer said he didn't want to change that.
>
>  If he has changed his policies in the meantime, please tell me; that
>  would be good news.  But otherwise, please do not recommend the use of
>  Knoppix on GNU mailing lists.  Please recommend only entirely free
>  software.
well tolerance wasn't, isn't and won't be Stallmans thing. 

Friedrich

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[David Kastrup]

Friedrich Dominicus <just-for-news-frido@q-software-solutions.de> writes:

>> 1993
>>
>>  Please don`t use GNU newsgroups to recommend proprietary software,
>>  regardless of what it is for.  In particular, don`t send messages to
>>  this list/group praising proprietary speech programs.  It`s bad enough
>>  that some people do use them; please avoid encouraging more to do so.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> 2003
>>
>>  A few months ago, I found out that Knoppix included some non-free
>>  software, and the developer said he didn't want to change that.
>>
>>  If he has changed his policies in the meantime, please tell me; that
>>  would be good news.  But otherwise, please do not recommend the use of
>>  Knoppix on GNU mailing lists.  Please recommend only entirely free
>>  software.
> well tolerance wasn't, isn't and won't be Stallmans thing. 

If you call it self-compromising instead of tolerance, it probably
gets closer to the mark.  He is tolerant as long as he does not feel
somebody is stepping on his toes.

Anyway, if he were less like that, he'd have felt no need to start the
GNU project.  I probably could not stand a world with only Stallmans
in it (which would also go for a world with replicas of myself), but I
consider a world with one of him an improvement over a world without
him.

YMMV

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.5858.1103024787.27204.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
 Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:

> Why would I want to use some parochial, proprietary, monolithic,
> *nonfree* windowing system when I could use an advanced, portable,
> highly configurable free one (i.e., X11 and ratpoison ;))?  I run OS
> X, but my user experience is essentially indistinguishable from my
> experience on GNU/Linux.

If you don't care for Apple's GUI, why are you even bothering to run OS 
X instead of GNU/Linux?  It seems strange to use a Mac and then 
essentially ignore its distinguishing feature.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

>>>>> "BM" == Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

BM> If you don't care for Apple's GUI, why are you even bothering to run OS 
BM> X instead of GNU/Linux?  It seems strange to use a Mac and then 
BM> essentially ignore its distinguishing feature.

Maybe due better  HW support ? Some graphic card  use non free drivers
even under  Linux. And MAC OS  X relies on Darwin  that is distributed
under a GNU GPL compatible license.

The big problem  in Mac OS X  is that cp and othe  file system related
utilities are broken since they do not consider multi-fork files.


-- 
 /\            ___
/___/\__|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____________________
  //--\ | | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico e fancazzista 
\/

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-14, Gian Uberto Lauri <GianUberto.Lauri@eng.it> wrote:
>BM> If you don't care for Apple's GUI, why are you even bothering to run OS 
>BM> X instead of GNU/Linux?  It seems strange to use a Mac and then 
>BM> essentially ignore its distinguishing feature.
>
> Maybe due better  HW support ? 

He could run darwin in that case.  As Barry says, it's pretty strange to
buy a copy of osx if you don't like the windowing system.

All this is somewhat beside the point though.  The carbon support code
is part of gnu emacs, so OF COURSE this is an appropriate forum for
discussing it.  Otoh it's not the right forum for discussing the pros
and cons of different window systems in general, which is why I never
raised that topic.  We have our UT friend to thank for that.  All I said
was if the OP had only been interested in getting a windowed emacs
running locally (which is how I understood his original post), then the
best way to do that would be to use emacs' support for the local window
system.  Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.




> The big problem  in Mac OS X  is that cp and othe  file system related
> utilities are broken since they do not consider multi-fork files.

Now we're way off topic, but since you raised it: very few applications
use resource forks anymore, and file management tools are readily
available for the handful of cases in which they are used.  If that's
the big problem with osx, it's pretty much been solved already.
>
>

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   All I said was if the OP had only been interested in getting a
   windowed emacs running locally (which is how I understood his
   original post), then the best way to do that would be to use emacs'
   support for the local window system.  Seems pretty uncontroversial
   to me.

There's a difference between "local" and "preinstalled".  My X11
server is local.  It isn't preinstalled.  Does that somehow make it
"worse"?  No.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

>>>>> "DPS" == D P Schreber <schreberdp@rayban.net> writes:

DPS> As Barry says, it's pretty strange to
DPS> buy a copy of osx if you don't like the windowing system.

Not this strange. If you want the Mac hardware you have to buy the Mac
software here it Italy.  If I had a chance to buy  a bare iMac I would
have bought.

-- 
 /\            ___
/___/\__|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____________________
  //--\ | | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico e fancazzista 
\/

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   In article <mailman.5858.1103024787.27204.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
    Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> wrote:

   > Why would I want to use some parochial, proprietary, monolithic,
   > *nonfree* windowing system when I could use an advanced, portable,
   > highly configurable free one (i.e., X11 and ratpoison ;))?  I run OS
   > X, but my user experience is essentially indistinguishable from my
   > experience on GNU/Linux.

   If you don't care for Apple's GUI, why are you even bothering to run OS 
   X instead of GNU/Linux?  It seems strange to use a Mac and then 
   essentially ignore its distinguishing feature.


The machine isn't actually owned by me, so I'm a little uncomfortable
changing the OS, especially since I haven't bothered to hang on to the
install CD's.  I could probably make it dual boot, but even that might
bother the people I might have to give the machine back to someday.
Well, I don't know if anyone would really care or not.  And since the
UI I use is all free software and I'm not very likely to get
interested in what's happening in the lower levels of the system, I'm
not in a big hurry to switch OS's at this point anyway.

But besides that, I like the feeling that I've helped a little with
"porting" the free software experience to OS X.  I think that there
are probably a number of people who go Mac not because of the
windowing system but because they think that it will make it easier
for them to start using free-as-in-beer software.  (Probably a
misperception, though it would be pretty darn easy if Apple shipped
the machines with X11 and Fink preinstalled.)

Macs are more expensive and, I imagined at the time, slightly better
built.  I wasn't paying, Fink was providing the software, and so I
chose Apple.

Since then I've become much more of a free software aficionado.  

I don't think that Apple's "distinguishing feature" as you put it
really isn't so hot, or all that special, when compared with X11, and
it wasn't what attracted me to the system.

My laptop, and its replacements, have critically malfunctioned, in
total, about a half-dozen times in the last two and a half years.

Next time I get to choose a machine, I'll probably go with a sturdy
x86 model and try out GNU/Hurd.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Joe Corneli]

   I don't think that Apple's "distinguishing feature" as you put it
   really isn't so hot, or all that special, when compared with X11, and
   it wasn't what attracted me to the system.

Sorry about the double negative, what I meant was --

   I think that Apple's "distinguishing feature" as you put it
   really isn't so hot, or all that special, when compared with X11, and
   it wasn't what attracted me to the system.

(Hopefully clear.)

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[Tim McNamara]

Used to be that you had to have a placeholder for XFree86 in the fink
/sw directory tree, if you were using the Apple X11 or an X11 install
that was independent of fink.  I don't know if this is still the case,
I gave up on fink long ago- but if it is still the case, then this may
be your problem.

Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-13, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> Used to be that you had to have a placeholder for XFree86 in the fink
> /sw directory tree, if you were using the Apple X11 or an X11 install
> that was independent of fink. 

You have to install 'virtual' packages so as to meet the build- and
run-time dependencies, but these virtual package don't usually install
anything real.  They're pretty much just table entries, and sometimes
symlinks.  

In the case of the X11 virtual package, you can't install it unless you
have the full X11 sdk in place.  This is what I meant earlier when I
said I was surprised fink didn't complain when the OP built X11 emacs:
since he hadn't installed the sdk, he shouldn't have been able to
install the virtual package for X11, and without the latter, the build
requirements for the X11 emacs package shouldn't have been met.  Seems
weird it let him proceed with the build.  Maybe the specification
(.info) file for the X11 emacs packge is wrong?  Or maybe he copied a
fink installation from elsewhere?  That would preserve the virtual
package whether or not the sdk was installed.


<ot>

> I gave up on fink long ago

Software package managers are an excellent idea, but like the other
third-party package managers for osx, fink has to go through some
contortions to keep a consistent state on the one hand while co-existing
with Apple software updates on the other.  There's no clean solution to
this.  Ideally osx would come with an official package manager as part
of the system, the way Redhat and successors come with RPM.  Since it
doesn't, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that it's better to
avoid third party managers like fink and darwinports.

</ot>