The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding

[Robert Uhl]

Twisted <twisted0n3 at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have two frames open right now: one 80x70, the other around 180x70
>> (characters, not pixels).  One isn't split at all; the other is split
>> into four windows, horizontally and vertically.
>
> Then you're obviously not using the One True Emacs I am criticizing,
> which is a console app.

No, the One True Emacs supports GUIs.  It has since 1991.  Take a look
at <http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/Emacs_2.png>.

>> emacs has continued doing its own thing, mostly because that thing is
>> better.  The CUA standards (there exists an emacs package if you
>> really want them) are broken and lame--I and most other don't wish to
>> cripple our text editor of choice.
>
> "CUA standards"? I'm sorry, I don't speak Botswanan. If you mean
> Windows standards like for cut, copy, and paste, "broken and lame" is
> obviously in the eye in the beholder, and something 97% of computer
> users are used to is the defacto standard, so it's the other 3% that
> are "broken and lame". ;)

Popularity is no measure of goofness.

> No, we're discussing ... oh, nevermind. It looks like there are
> several utterly different pieces of software that have one thing in
> common - the name "emacs".

That is actually true.  There's GNU emacs (the original and still the
best).  There's XEmacs (a fork of the same).  Then there are a myriad of
ancient emacsen, most particularly Gosling emacs.

However, the only two which matter are GNU emacs and XEmacs.  Both have
supported a GUI for 16 years now.  I don't have XEmacs installed, so I
cannot tell you if it has the tutorial.  I would be truly surprised if
it didn't.

>> Neither is right nor wrong; you're just used to one.  The emacs keys are
>> certainly more flexible and powerful, though.  Some might consider them
>> right for that reason.

[snip]

> This is also a change from your earlier position that they were, and I
> quote, "broken and lame", assuming you mean the same stock Windoze
> keybindings you meant with the cryptic term "CUA standards".

Not really--they're broken and lame because they are less flexible and
powerful.

How 'bout you actually try using a modern emacs?  It'll even support
your chosen operating system.

-- 
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish.  And if he can't
be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that's a good enough
outcome for me.                         --Steve VanDevender, 1 May 2000