Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[jidanni]

I see, I was given an adulterated knoppix.  It turns out that Mr. BV1AL
had removed our blessed [ http://www.stallman.org/saint.html ]  emacs
from his home brew knoppix.

>>>>> "B" == bv1al  <bv1al@cle.linux.org.tw> writes:

B> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote:
>> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
>> that has been posted to gmane.emacs.bugs as well.
>> 
>> Sorry we're only supposed to post bugs here... ok, then "what is
>> wrong" with emacs that makes it not a priority item to be fit into the
>> famous knoppix CD last time I checked?

B> Sorry, it's me, I removed "emacs21" from KNOPPIX.

Thou shall pay for this sin.  Thou shall be sent to emacs bootcamp.

>> I was thinking if I had a hard disk failure, I would just 'pop in the
>> knoppix', but without emacs?!  Perhaps his disk is filled with fun and
>> games as first priority?  Perhaps he is a "vi guy"?
 
B> The original KNOPPIX from German do contained "emacs21"
B> as you know, the "emacs21" eats about 40MB while not
B> compressed, a monster eats many but less people use it
B> (or depend on it), so I removed it from my KNOPPIX.

Out goes the emacs and in goes the dance lessons, I'm sure.

B> My KNOPPIX "home edition" is 698MB, including RealPlayer8,
B> 3D designer, and virus scanner--- these are all commercial
B> but free download software, not included on the "public
B> edition" CD ISO.

Obviously the young man has his priorities in the wrong place.

B> However, you may run vi, joe, qe on my KNOPPIX
[ ftp://cle.linux.org.tw/pub/iso/KNOPPIX/bv1al/ ]

I don't even which one of those is at least like the 60kb mg
[micrognuemacs] binary.

B> --- BV1AL

sniff...
-- 
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

jidanni@dman.ddts.net writes:

   B> My KNOPPIX "home edition" is 698MB, including RealPlayer8,
   B> 3D designer, and virus scanner--- these are all commercial
   B> but free download software, not included on the "public
   B> edition" CD ISO.

   Obviously the young man has his priorities in the wrong place.

perhaps someone will write 3d-designer.el et al...

to attempt to turn this thread into somewhat of a bug report: as i
munge on emacs for vms, and thinking back on efforts to dynamically
link shared object libraries, i wonder if two new elisp-visible
PEEK and POKE (to use the dread basic terminology) instructions for
direct memory access might be useful for implementing emacs the
linker.  surely someone can write a semantic bovinator compatible
parser for GNU ld linker scripts; from that, we bootstrap into
wrapping libelf (on ELF systems); from that, emacs can runtime ffi
anything (even easier if headers are also available)...

thi

emacs too big for knoppix?

[Dan Jacobson]

Sorry we're only supposed to post bugs here... ok, then "what is
wrong" with emacs that makes it not a priority item to be fit into the
famous knoppix CD last time I checked?

I was thinking if I had a hard disk failure, I would just 'pop in the
knoppix', but without emacs?!  Perhaps his disk is filled with fun and
games as first priority?  Perhaps he is a "vi guy"?
-- 
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, May 04 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote:

> [...] "what is wrong" with emacs that makes it not a priority item
> to be fit into the famous knoppix CD last time I checked?

It makes more sense to ask this on the Knoppix list (see
gmane.linux.debian.knoppix).

> Perhaps his disk is filled with fun and games as first priority?

I don't think so.  IIRC, the CD is full.  So if you suggest to add a
new package, you should suggest a package that can safely be removed
instead.  But check the list archives first (this is more or less a
FAQ).

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- PGP key available via WWW   http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[Janusz S. Bień]

On Sun, 04 May 2003  Dan Jacobson <jidanni@dman.ddts.net> wrote:

> Sorry we're only supposed to post bugs here... ok, then "what is
> wrong" with emacs that makes it not a priority item to be fit into the
> famous knoppix CD last time I checked?

I just looked at a Knoppix download site
ftp://knoppix.ftp.fu-berlin.de/.  I haven't downloaded the image but
the list of packages ftp://knoppix.ftp.fu-berlin.de/packages.txt.  It
definitely shows

ii  emacs21                  21.2-1                   The GNU Emacs editor.

Looks like you are wrong...

Anyway, the right forum for Knoppix matters is the list
debian-knoppix.linuxtag.org

List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix>,
	<mailto:debian-knoppix-request@linuxtag.org?subject=subscribe>

or Knoppix bug tracking system

        http://knoppixfr.tuxfamily.org/bugs/

Best regards

Janusz


-- 
                     ,   
dr hab. Janusz S. Bien, prof. UW
Prof. Janusz S. Bien, Warsaw Uniwersity
http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[Richard Stallman]

Knoppix includes non-free software.  Regardless of whether Emacs is
included in it, people should not use Knoppix.

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Knoppix includes non-free software.  Regardless of whether Emacs is
> included in it, people should not use Knoppix.

Oh, but Knoppix is just the road to installing a Debian system
to one's hard disk eventually.

Books like "Stop smoking in a single step." with just the single line
"Just don't." are not necessarily bestsellers.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[Richard Stallman]

    > Knoppix includes non-free software.  Regardless of whether Emacs is
    > included in it, people should not use Knoppix.

    Oh, but Knoppix is just the road to installing a Debian system
    to one's hard disk eventually.

This may be true in some cases, but "installing a Debian system" is
not a well-defined destination.  Debian distributes non-free packages
as well as free ones.  Using Knoppix as it stands may be a road to
installing Debian with non-free packages and leaving it that way.

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > Knoppix includes non-free software.  Regardless of whether
>     > Emacs is included in it, people should not use Knoppix.
> 
>     Oh, but Knoppix is just the road to installing a Debian system
>     to one's hard disk eventually.
> 
> This may be true in some cases, but "installing a Debian system" is
> not a well-defined destination.  Debian distributes non-free
> packages as well as free ones.  Using Knoppix as it stands may be a
> road to installing Debian with non-free packages and leaving it that
> way.

So is the Internet.  Should we discourage getting Emacs via the
Internet since one could install non-free packages that way, too?

I'd love to add something akin to not being more papist than the pope,
but it would be sort of tautological.

Anyhow, I don't know the Debian package system, but if I remember
correctly, it does make it obvious which packages are free and which
are unfree, and so the choice is for the user to make.  Freedom
includes the user's freedom to install non-free software, and our
freedom to pester^W educate him about it.  As long as we are dealing
with informed choices, I guess that is more or less the extent of what
one can and should do.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[Janusz S. Bień]

On 06 May 2003  David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) wrote:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

> > This may be true in some cases, but "installing a Debian system" is
> > not a well-defined destination.  Debian distributes non-free
> > packages as well as free ones.  Using Knoppix as it stands may be a
> > road to installing Debian with non-free packages and leaving it that
> > way.
> 
> So is the Internet.  Should we discourage getting Emacs via the
> Internet since one could install non-free packages that way, too?

Congratulation, David - this is an extremely good argument.

> 
> I'd love to add something akin to not being more papist than the pope,
> but it would be sort of tautological.
> 
> Anyhow, I don't know the Debian package system, but if I remember
> correctly, it does make it obvious which packages are free and which
> are unfree, and so the choice is for the user to make.  

Exactly. You decide to install non-free packages on a package by
package basis. At any moment you can review your installation and the
non-free packages are clearly separated.

> Freedom
> includes the user's freedom to install non-free software, and our
> freedom to pester^W educate him about it.  As long as we are dealing
> with informed choices, I guess that is more or less the extent of what
> one can and should do.

I fully support you.

BTW, the really radical approach would involve emigrating from a
country where law allows software patents, but the choice of
destination may become very limited :-(.

Regards to everybody

Janusz

-- 
                     ,   
dr hab. Janusz S. Bien, prof. UW
Prof. Janusz S. Bien, Warsaw Uniwersity
http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/

Re: emacs too big for knoppix?

[David Kastrup]

jsbien@mimuw.edu.pl (Janusz S. Bień) writes:

> On 06 May 2003  David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) wrote:
> 
> > Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > This may be true in some cases, but "installing a Debian system" is
> > > not a well-defined destination.  Debian distributes non-free
> > > packages as well as free ones.  Using Knoppix as it stands may be a
> > > road to installing Debian with non-free packages and leaving it that
> > > way.
> > 
> > So is the Internet.  Should we discourage getting Emacs via the
> > Internet since one could install non-free packages that way, too?
> 
> Congratulation, David - this is an extremely good argument.

Silence from the sidelines.  I am trying to pacify the raging Gnu, not
annoy it.

> > I'd love to add something akin to not being more papist than the
> > pope, but it would be sort of tautological.
> > 
> > Anyhow, I don't know the Debian package system, but if I remember
> > correctly, it does make it obvious which packages are free and
> > which are unfree, and so the choice is for the user to make.
> 
> Exactly. You decide to install non-free packages on a package by
> package basis. At any moment you can review your installation and
> the non-free packages are clearly separated.

That's why I am not bothered about Knoppix: I feel that for serious
work you'll have to make the step to getting more from Debian, and
then at the latest the exposure to the free/nonfree distinction
becomes inavoidable.  Considering that Knoppix is most often employed
for getting a first GNU/Linux experience on Windows-only systems, I
think that the first step in the right direction will quite often not
remain the last.

> > Freedom includes the user's freedom to install non-free software,
> > and our freedom to pester^W educate him about it.  As long as we
> > are dealing with informed choices, I guess that is more or less
> > the extent of what one can and should do.
> 
> I fully support you.

Oh, but we were just having a friendly domestic quarrel here.
Certainly about matters of principle, but you would not have seen us
drawing a bush-knife over that.

At least that's what I hope.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum