Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#111

Post by Perseids »

tikhonj wrote: post #5

With inline LaTeX previews, we're already surprisingly close. In fact, I'd say that going all the way would be almost a step back. WYSIWYG is ultimately not an ideal editing paradigm: it wins in the short term, being easy to learn, but drags you down in the long term. I've recently started using Quora a bit more. Unlike StackOverflow, they use a WYSIWYG editor. I've found this significantly less convenient than Stack…

If have come to greatly appreciate Lyx' [1] WYSIWYMean approach. When you are mostly writing code or plaintext markdown is great, but if you have to typeset and edit a lot of formulas using Tex quickly becomes a pain. Lyx allows you to edit them graphically with the standard Tex syntax and displays them while you type which is a huge improvement to just rendering them after you have finished it. Unfortunately the videos I've found online all heavily use the mouse interface to choose subscript, special characters etc. which doesn't do Lyx' real efficiency via keyboard shortcuts justice.

If you want to try it yourself: The most important commands are [ctrl]+[m] to enter math mode (or [ctrl]+[shift]+[m] for display formulas) and [alt]+[m] for a lot of math shortcuts, specifically [alt]+[m] and then any bracket to open matching size adapting brackets of this type. To enter a sum for example press "[ctr]+[shift]+[m]\sum[space]_k=1[space]^\infty[space][space]\frac[space]1[down arrow]k^2[space][space][space]". The shortcut [alt]+[p] and then [space] to choose the paragraphs meaning (section, itemize, standard, …) is also a huge productivity boost.

[1] http://www.lyx.org/WhatIsLyX

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#112

Post by ecspike »

gexla wrote: post #36

> I don't know how to use Org mode, and don't know what it does (it seems to do so many things), but if it displays through Emacs then there are many formatting features that it can't display in a WYSIWYG fashion like Libre Office. I can't believe Stallman doesn't know how to use Org mode. If he is interested in selling people on Emacs, then Org mode is one of the killer features for the presentation. I don't expect…

I totally agree. I started using Org mode when I was taking an algorithms course that required a bunch of LaTeX diagrams.

The ability to embed code to generate a diagram is clutch.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#113

Post by shubb »

mathattack wrote: post #90
melling wrote: post #82

Stallman lacks a coherent vision. He has an end goal but he really doesn't have a great plan to get there. It's really frustrating. Emacs could be a lot better. For instance, it has taken forever to get a high-performance Lisp working inside of Emacs. I think Guile is partly there? Anyway, since we'll all be long dead before his plan starts to work, I think the better solution is to support inexpensive software. For…

Is it that Stallman lacks a manager's mindset of breaking the vision into manageable pieces, and then delegating them out? Or is it that this is so against the ethos, that he couldn't make it happen with a volunteer workforce?

Well, I guess if you consider his other interests, like the GNU Userland (which is most of what users recognise as linux), the GPL licsense (and generally 'Free Software'), and his part in the opening up of the software/hardware market...

I think this was a joke from Stallman. Your comment reads like we can conclude from EMACS going off track that he sucks as a leader. You and I might (quick strongly in my case) dislike Free Software, but I think we can recognise that Stallman gets things done.

If you want to point at a place where Stallman didn't succeed, I'd probably look more at Herd. At least people use Emacs.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#114

Post by rimantas »

new299 wrote: post #50
rimantas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sure what it enables millions of people to do: freely communicate no matter the distance, but I don't really get what freedoms it denies. Do I lose som freedom just but installing it, or must I use it for that to take an effect?

You can choose to be denied a freedom, quite obviously. If you choose to use Skype you are granted the ability to make free Skype calls. You are denied the freedom to: * Freely distribute * Modify * Read the source code. Among others, so it's a trade off. One that Stallman disagrees with and believes denies you too many freedoms. Stallman is a weird guy, and hardly a pragmatist. But I don't think the things he says c…

No matter how you spin is, the end result is: installing Skype gives me more freedom than not having it. That'a all. There is no freedom it denies.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#115

Post by rimantas »

terhechte wrote: post #55
rimantas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sure what it enables millions of people to do: freely communicate no matter the distance, but I don't really get what freedoms it denies. Do I lose som freedom just but installing it, or must I use it for that to take an effect?

Freedom, in Stallmans words, is not meant to be 'free as in beer' (like free skype calls). Instead he refers to the freedom to read, modify, understand, and ultimately choose everything about the software that you use. I.e. be able to answer these questions (say about Skype): - Is any communication not properly encrypted - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded - Is there a way to add feature "x" to th…

That's just stupid dream not utopist. Having access to source code would me absolutely nothing, unless you are willing to check the actual code installed on the each system involved in communication chain.

Back to the point: Skype does not give me some freedom, fine. But it denies zero freedoms too.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#116

Post by dllthomas »

rimantas wrote: post #114
new299 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can choose to be denied a freedom, quite obviously. If you choose to use Skype you are granted the ability to make free Skype calls. You are denied the freedom to: * Freely distribute * Modify * Read the source code. Among others, so it's a trade off. One that Stallman disagrees with and believes denies you too many freedoms. Stallman is a weird guy, and hardly a pragmatist. But I don't think the things he says c…

No matter how you spin is, the end result is: installing Skype gives me more freedom than not having it. That'a all. There is no freedom it denies.

You don't, mostly[1], lose freedom by installing Skype. You lose freedom by becoming reliant on Skype, and by installing (and using) Skype you are putting yourself at significant risk of that.

[1] You also may lose some control over your system, which may limit your freedom. At the extreme, consider malware. Recent, relevant Dilbert comic that I assume is an exaggeration: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-11-06

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#117

Post by camdez »

streptomycin wrote: post #107
melling wrote: post #82

Stallman lacks a coherent vision. He has an end goal but he really doesn't have a great plan to get there. It's really frustrating. Emacs could be a lot better. For instance, it has taken forever to get a high-performance Lisp working inside of Emacs. I think Guile is partly there? Anyway, since we'll all be long dead before his plan starts to work, I think the better solution is to support inexpensive software. For…

The real problem was that software was expensive?? Also, I don't know how much of the success/failure of FOSS can be pinned on RMS. He's just one man. The plan was never for the entire movement to be dependent on him.

Moreover, the amount of work that he has done towards this end is incredible. His productivity (at least in the early days of GNU) was astounding and inspiring. Perhaps one RMS didn't get us there, but two? Or five? It'd be a treat to know what that would have looked like.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#118

Post by FedRegister »

ordinary wrote: post #33
daleharvey wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh C-+ / C-- actually work, at least in my emacsforosx, have no idea when that started working, but nice, one complaint off my list, but its not hard to imagine many more to make emacs more user friendly

Note that these keys zoom , they don't change the font size. Useful for displaying, not useful if you're looking to export or print text.

Well, yeah. The whole point of a text editor it to edit plain text.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#120

Post by ewzimm »

reuven wrote: post #77
gexla wrote: post #36

> I don't know how to use Org mode, and don't know what it does (it seems to do so many things), but if it displays through Emacs then there are many formatting features that it can't display in a WYSIWYG fashion like Libre Office. I can't believe Stallman doesn't know how to use Org mode. If he is interested in selling people on Emacs, then Org mode is one of the killer features for the presentation. I don't expect…

I completely believe it. First of all, Stallman isn't known for hiding his opinions, or masking his version of the truth. But beyond that, Stallman has often failed or refused to use technologies that the rest of us take for granted. Years ago, I spoke with him about a proposed bill in the US Congress that would have affected intellectual property laws. (I can't remember the specifics.) At some point, Stallman, who h…

In several instances, Stallman has asked people to complain to their representatives that bills posted online required running non-free Javascript on their computers in order to access them. I'm not sure if the instance you mention was influenced by this issue, but he does avoid reading things that require non-free software.
Post reply on HN