From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Steven Degutis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Does anyone really use emacs in terminal? Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 16:08:02 -0500 Message-ID: References: <0b72021c-139f-4269-8e81-5b5ef97fb83d@googlegroups.com> <8761yu64e4.fsf@Servus.decebal.nl> <87r4higq45.fsf@gmail.com> <87ip2tyftv.fsf@yahoo.fr> <20130508155351.GA5399@hysteria.proulx.com> <87a9o5xkiy.fsf@yahoo.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1368047307 2889 80.91.229.3 (8 May 2013 21:08:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 21:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" To: Nicolas Richard Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 08 23:08:25 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UaBb6-0008Bx-AA for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 23:08:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34926 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaBb5-0007vi-RR for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 17:08:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36463) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaBaq-0007q4-8O for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 17:08:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaBal-0002aF-MU for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 17:08:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:45491) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaBal-0002Zl-GD for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 17:08:03 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id bg2so1610174pad.25 for ; Wed, 08 May 2013 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aiWwo6sNau5/yVp7AHu6s8thnef2b9549wZcoAY+Ews=; b=mdYcQf0dJBdgtsR1HTU5InDYRmocEGKYakzvzHhiRmQC1QmvmDi1ndsLpzFG9Qpa+G UuNhk4CgemkqRUkA5Ta2CbmaVeDu+cYJ71CtQX6LQT/4GsIDd7Zn0Dl/1zD4amEX5k2+ 8c6eoPazfiFnKF4g60AZuoeJFL+3oKrBgtAxy2DUoT6mSMvrWJrabjh0lLiwfxbCrDhk TL2otjZaM/d6ZkLwWAuK6zfXJGEg7q8NfenwFozTNMtddm7he82DfC6kHItMWs9TP+Fn 9p6/m/T0vwUf7wYFIKBT6B6R2OhmnpUxcvJ4HMJxwtNMEHuWmnLYjsY3dUIjapLp8KTv yH9w== X-Received: by 10.68.99.226 with SMTP id et2mr9400342pbb.91.1368047282375; Wed, 08 May 2013 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.70.58.231 with HTTP; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a9o5xkiy.fsf@yahoo.fr> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.220.52 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:90557 Archived-At: So, I was going to link to certain xkcd comics that this thread reminded me of, to point out the vanity of these excessive concerns over security. But then I clicked to the next comic. And the next. Each one evoked a more keen sense of existential futility than the last. So I asked myself, "really, what's the point in replying?" True story. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Nicolas Richard wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: >> I disagree. There is nothing wrong with it. It is no different than: >> >> # emacs -nw > > I would not do that either, not only because emacs is a huge beast which > can have bugs, but most importantly because I don't trust myself in not > doing anything harmful inadvertantly after some time [*]. Anyway we can > agree to disagree (and/or continue off list if you wish). I simply > wanted to point out the existence of sudoedit which I found a very smart > idea when I discovered it. > > [*] I sometimes wish I could use some programs as separate users and > only when needed give one of them the right on a given set of > files/directories. Unfortunately my skills are too limited to be able to > use such a setup (and it's overkill compared to the very limited > security I enforce in other areas on my computer). But if anyone reading > this has hints on how to achive that setup or anything similar, > suggestions are very welcome and my mailbox is open. > > -- > Nico. > > >