Re: PURESIZE increased (again)

[Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>]

Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> wrote:

> If you have so little memory that 170K is worth worrying about, you
> quite simply have not enough memory to run Emacs (and _definitely_ not
> enough memory to run things like Gnome, KDE or common web browsers
> like Mozilla).  If you have so little memory that even 10K is
> non-negligible, I have no idea what you could run.

You bring up a good point. In what sort of environments do people run
Emacs?

If they are running under X or under Windows, Emacs certainly won't be
the largest process. If they are running in a console on a PC or
mainframe, 170 kB is probably nothing to worry about either.

However, what if folks are running Emacs on embedded devices? Or PDAs?
It's probably not worth our time to worry about these devices in the
general case (since the number is probably zero given the constraints),
but rather provide a stripped-down version of Emacs that pretty much
just provides basic editing, plus anything else that space permits. That
would then allow Emacs to run on these small devices. For comparison,
most of the applications on my Treo are less than 100 kB, although a
couple have pushed over the 1 MB threshold.

Someday, when I have Linux running on my smartphone, I would like to be
able to edit files in directories in Emacs instead of editing
"categorized memos" as I do today.

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.