151–160 of 181 posts
Emojify[0] provides all the emoji support I seem to need on both Ubuntu and macOS. It uses non-proprietary emojis though. If that's unacceptable, it can take arbitrary directories for emojis[1]. I must say, Emacs still runs better on macOS than Xcode does on Linux. [0]: https://github.com/iqbalansari/emacs-emojify [1]: https://github.com/iqbalansari/emacs-emojify/issues/19
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GNU didn't originate from a unix mindset. You should know this. That doesn't mean their software is bad. Also, Emacs is incredibly useful, and one of the best general-purpose text editors out there.
GNU didn't originate from a unix mindset. You should know this. I do and oh-how-right you are. What I have major difficulty with is comprehending why people like it, and why they tolerate Stallman's nonsense when there are alternatives. The "rip it all out because it's not ours and re-invent everything just because" attitude is so fundamentale broken.
There are other examples, like tar (I know you would disagree, but dammit, GNU tar is so useful). When there isn't, or Stallman deliberately cripples his software, there are usually alternatives (clang, etc.) which we use, unless "we" are FSF people. Which most of us aren't.
Yes, his attitude is somewhat broken, although I understand why it exists. Also, he's not quite as NIH as you seem to think: There are several cases where he advocates use of software that isn't his own (heck, he advocates clang, or at least has no problem with it).
Also, I have no objection to long options, or to utilities that are a little bit richer (just so long as they still interoperate, and you can still use the standard options, which is usually the case).
And several other Mac features were stopped before they made it into the official release. This is Richard Stallman's policy: "GNU Emacs should never offer people a practical reason to use some other system instead of GNU. Therefore, when someone implements a useful new feature but only for a non-GNU system, we do not accept it that form." https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg01... https://lists.…
If the goal is to encourage people to use GNU software and potentially even migrate to a full GNU system, I find this policy counterintuitive. It comes off as needless and antagonistic and it pushes me further away from GNU and towards free software that's not so tangled up in rigid philosophies, or worse, proprietary software.
Let’s not forget that thanks to its libre licensing this is a strategic issue, but not a technical one – recovering the removed features on macOS is a few patches away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the goal is simply universal interoperability No, the goal is that "GNU Emacs should never offer people a practical reason to use some other system instead of GNU". Universal interoperability is just a side effect.
You've got it backwards. Stallman may be disagreeable at times, but he's no fool. It's written this way to address the root cause of interop issues, which are themselves a secondary effect. Of course he wants people to choose GNU, but most importantly, he wants to preserve people's freedom to choose GNU , which means it must not become a second-class citizen to proprietory additions from Apple, Microsoft, or anyone e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remove z option in tar? Where did that come from?
From the fact that tar is a tape archiver, and according to the UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" it should empathically not dub as a (de)compressor. GNU implements tools inside of other tools. Emacs is a perfect example if that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remove z option in tar? Where did that come from?
From the fact that tar is a tape archiver, and according to the UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" it should empathically not dub as a (de)compressor. GNU implements tools inside of other tools. Emacs is a perfect example if that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is removing multicolor font support crippling emacs?
I'd say it's a feature, not a bug. There is no place for colorful smileys in my text files.
Your argument sounds like "A man shouldn't be allowed to marry a man because I don't want to marry a man"
As one of GNU's flagship products, why shouldn't Emacs remind users that it is not in agreement with Apple's treatment of its users? GNU has an agenda, just like Apple does. Intel cripples icc for non-Intel CPUs, making it emit pessimised assembler. Apple makes sure that its hardware only works with other Apple products and that macOS can only be legally virtualised on Apple hardware. Everyone has an agenda. The diff…
It was done for rather childish reasons... and it makes no sense. It doesn't serve them. It doesn't serve anyone...
But its what I expect from GNU, and the FSF hardcore community at large... you know, the PETA of software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GNU didn't originate from a unix mindset. You should know this. I do and oh-how-right you are. What I have major difficulty with is comprehending why people like it, and why they tolerate Stallman's nonsense when there are alternatives. The "rip it all out because it's not ours and re-invent everything just because" attitude is so fundamentale broken.
As somebody who does tolerate Stallman's nonsense, I can tell you why: It's because some of his software is really good. Like Emacs. I'm willing to bet that you're a VI user, but for us Emacs users, there really is no substitute. And if you want a Scheme package, Guile is a really good one (although it's not as efficient as some of the compiled schemes): Andy is doing a great job with it. There are other examples, li…
And you'd win that bet. Not even a vim user (except on Amiga), but straight vi. Why? Because vi was always there when I needed a text editor, and by learning vi, I automatically learned ed, sed, and ex. All of a sudden, I could write multi line sed programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the fact that tar is a tape archiver, and according to the UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" it should empathically not dub as a (de)compressor. GNU implements tools inside of other tools. Emacs is a perfect example if that.
If it's a tape archiver, why is it allowed to write to disk? Check and mate.
To put this into perspective for you, you could use the block device /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s2 as a tar file to write a tape archive to:
tar cvf /some/path /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s2
The manual page for tar clearly states that tar is for tape archive manipulation:
BSDTAR(1) BSD General Commands Manual BSDTAR(1)
NAME
tar -- manipulate tape archives
Your statement is an indication that what you really need is to read AEleen Frisch's Essential System Administration so that the UNIX concepts would sink in, because if you're making such statements, you're just not there yet.