Emacs (atleast the version 21) is already very user-friendly, in the sense that you can do almost everything (except C-g) via a mouse. The console-users had of course, better use some keys, but it is still better than trying to run MSWORD on a console:)
Re: your point about they keybindings, good point, imho. I have seen that point raised often, and has been the subject of much debate. I think most of the 'heavy' users, and the masters certainly, like the defaults. And that new users soon come to like the defaults. (me, for instance). So, imho, it doesn't look like that is going to happen any time soon...
But if you are a sysadmin, you can do that:) (for exampple using site-start.el)... of course, people like me would then try to undo your change in my.emacs and come shouting at you..:)
>You cannot change the keybindings in Emacs >withtout breaking thousands of Emacs modules >written by as many programmers anywhere over the >world.
As an emacs developer, i can only say that this statement does not make much sense to me. (Even if it did, it ain't not that bad, but that's a different issue..)
"Modules" often come with minor modes --- when you activate the minor mode, the 'module's local keybindings take precedence.
If they don't come with minor modes, and yet bind keys, yes they do run the risk of the key being 'taken over' by another module.
Many modules simply let the user choose the keys---and there are well-set and well-respected conventions for what sort of keys should be left alone for the user to use.
okay, here's a relevant section from a page on gnu.org--->
"One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. "
you may read the complete page at: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
>Care to respond to the other point? The body of > work by the GNU project themselves - excluding > GPL software written people whose opinions have > not been poled - is surely a tiny amount of any >distribution, right?
no, I am no authority on the subject, but from what i have seen and heasrd, that is completely false. The very basis of GNU's claim to some 'naming' right is that its works form the single largest component of the GNU/Linux distribution.
In fact, perhaps Not only the single-largest contribution, but also larger than all other components combined. In other words, > 50%.
Here's a simple solution to the 'learning curve' problem, yet easy to remember:
Devise a own password-generating algorithm in your head.. you pop in a number into your head, say between a to z or 1 to 9 Then all you gotta do to generate your password is run it through the algorithm. Of course, your algorithm should generate something completely funky.. like zdR4gt59. But since you know the algorithm, you will initially have to regenerate the passwd inside your head, but soon enough, you will come to remember it..
i use this algo all over the place.. An example of this algo is:
And since one ought to have different passwords on differnet machines, your algo could leave a space or 2 for the machine-specific bits.. And the machine-specific bits could again be a simple function of what the machine name is.. say a rot13 on them or something...
> Well, it's not Linus at fault here - it's > >the distro makers, so why does RMS target >Linus specifically? (and continue to hint at an >ego that he named it after himself when it was >someone else that chose the kernel's name).
target Linus? RMS is targetting "Linux" not Linus, he is asking that "Linux" be called "GNU/Linux"...
During arguments, others (and perhaps even RMS (?)) may have pointed out that Linux is named after Linus, but that's not the issue here...
>The GPL doesn't say that names have to be >prefixed with GNU
IMHO, you are confusing the issue. It is not GPL but GNU we are talking about here.
RMS is not claiming the GNU/Linux name because it is GPled. He claims the name because a vast majority of what you see on "linux" is actually stuff developed by the GNU project. And linux is just the kernel. If GNU project wrote most of the system, it is natural for the president of the project to want to atleast have some naming right to what he wrote, wouldn't you think so?
how would you feel if i took something you wrote and named it all after myself? And when you ask for credit, i label you a 'fanatic'...
Wouldn't you want to have some say or credit in naming a piece of software where you have > 60% of the contribution?
At least he does not want to name it Richarm.
Linus named it all after himself!
Having GNU in the name is a credit not just to GNU, but to the thousands of developers who have contributed to the GNU system.. RMS is fighting for credit for you and me, and you don't even realize that.. It sucks that people choose to bash the same guy who brought you the very GPL which has led to all this Linux-success.. singlehandedly, and sometimes without an apartment to live in because of his insistence...
If you are so opposed to GNU and RMS, Why don't you stop using GNU/Linux and write your own GNU/Linux, Iamthefallen? And of course, GCC, , GDB, Emacs and all other GNU tools.. written by GNU (and again, largely by RMS)...
Slashdot Mirror
Gmarceau
:)
:) (for exampple using site-start.el) ... of course, people like me would then try to undo your change in my .emacs and come shouting at you.. :)
Emacs (atleast the version 21) is already very user-friendly, in the sense that you can do almost everything (except C-g) via a mouse. The console-users had of course, better use some keys, but it is still better than trying to run MSWORD on a console
Re: your point about they keybindings, good point, imho. I have seen that point raised often, and has been the subject of much debate.
I think most of the 'heavy' users, and the masters certainly, like the defaults. And that
new users soon come to like the defaults. (me, for instance). So, imho, it doesn't look like that is going to happen any time soon...
But if you are a sysadmin, you can do that
IF you forget how to exit:
:)
File-Menu --> Exit Emacs.
Simple, eh?
>You cannot change the keybindings in Emacs >withtout breaking thousands of Emacs modules >written by as many programmers anywhere over the >world.
As an emacs developer, i can only say that this statement does not make much sense to me. (Even if it did, it ain't not that bad, but that's a different issue..)
"Modules" often come with minor modes --- when you activate the minor mode, the 'module's local keybindings take precedence.
If they don't come with minor modes, and yet bind keys, yes they do run the risk of the key being 'taken over' by another module.
Many modules simply let the user choose the keys---and there are well-set and well-respected conventions for what sort of keys should be left alone for the user to use.
i am the author of that article, and here's some related information countering some of your points..
.
.
.
[ gets an automatic (Score 5: Informative) ]
never mind, not the author..
[back to (Score -1: Troll) ]
goes back home crying after uselessly losing all my karma of 1 through this post. Why did i have to do this???
*sniff*
okay, here's a relevant section from a page on gnu.org--->
"One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. "
you may read the complete page at:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
hope this helps (?)
>Care to respond to the other point? The body of > work by the GNU project themselves - excluding > GPL software written people whose opinions have > not been poled - is surely a tiny amount of any >distribution, right?
no, I am no authority on the subject, but from what i have seen and heasrd, that is completely false. The very basis of GNU's claim to some 'naming' right is that its works form the single largest component of the GNU/Linux distribution.
In fact, perhaps Not only the single-largest contribution, but also larger than all other components combined. In other words, > 50%.
Does this address what you wanted me to?
Here's a simple solution to the 'learning curve'
problem, yet easy to remember:
Devise a own password-generating algorithm in your head.. you pop in a number into your head, say between a to z or 1 to 9 Then all you gotta do to generate your password is run it through the algorithm. Of course, your algorithm should generate something completely funky..
like zdR4gt59. But since you know the algorithm, you will initially have to regenerate the passwd inside your head, but soon enough, you will come to remember it..
i use this algo all over the place.. An example of this algo is:
And since one ought to have different passwords on differnet machines, your algo could leave a space or 2 for the machine-specific bits.. And the machine-specific bits could again be a simple function of what the machine name is.. say a rot13 on them or something...
> Well, it's not Linus at fault here - it's > >the distro makers, so why does RMS target >Linus specifically? (and continue to hint at an >ego that he named it after himself when it was >someone else that chose the kernel's name).
target Linus? RMS is targetting "Linux" not Linus, he is asking that "Linux" be called "GNU/Linux"...
During arguments, others (and perhaps even RMS (?)) may have pointed out that Linux is named after Linus, but that's not the issue here...
>The GPL doesn't say that names have to be >prefixed with GNU
IMHO, you are confusing the issue. It is not GPL but GNU we are talking about here.
RMS is not claiming the GNU/Linux name because it is GPled. He claims the name because a vast majority of what you see on "linux" is actually stuff developed by the GNU project. And linux is just the kernel. If GNU project wrote most of the system, it is natural for the president of the project to want to atleast have some naming right to what he wrote, wouldn't you think so?
how would you feel if i took something you wrote and named it all after myself? And when you ask for credit, i label you a 'fanatic'...
Wouldn't you want to have some say or credit in naming a piece of software where you have > 60% of the contribution?
At least he does not want to name it Richarm.
Linus named it all after himself!
Having GNU in the name is a credit not just to GNU, but to the thousands of developers who have contributed to the GNU system.. RMS is fighting for credit for you and me, and you don't even realize that.. It sucks that people choose to bash the same guy who brought you the very GPL which has led to all this Linux-success.. singlehandedly, and sometimes without an apartment to live in because of his insistence...
If you are so opposed to GNU and RMS, Why don't you stop using GNU/Linux and write your own GNU/Linux, Iamthefallen? And of course, GCC, , GDB, Emacs and all other GNU tools.. written by GNU (and again, largely by RMS)...