Re: why does M-w (kill-ring-save) hurt so bad?
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:47:26 -0600
Krishnakumar B <kitty(a)cse.wustl.edu> wrote:
Huh.. You think slandering people who do the actual work is
entertaining ? Jamie might have a point but there are certainly nicer
ways to put forth one's views. Not that I think Ben would care much.
You might also want to read this:
Jamie's been foaming at the mouth since before you left high school.
We're all used to it. What you've perhaps missed is the kernel of truth
in his rant (undocumented interface change bad and unwelcome [in his
case, homicidal rage inducing]).
Do you seriously think posting messages like this will make XEmacs
developers go down on their knees and beg you to use XEmacs ?
Frankly, I don't give a fuck. Consider my post a bug report, ignore it,
whatever.
However, I've got you talking which is a positive start. (And for the
record, I actually got a response where Jamie failed ;-)
Sorry your installation is broken.
That may be so. But as soon as building from CVS stopped being amusing,
I figured that the RedHat RPM would be safe. Perhaps not (wouldn't be
the first time folks on this list have had an issue with the RH XEmacs
RPMs).
The fact remains:
(keller) 1015$ cat /proc/26573/status
Name: xemacs
State: S (sleeping)
Tgid: 26573
Pid: 26573
PPid: 26278
TracerPid: 0
Uid:
Gid:
FDSize: 256
Groups: 1000
VmSize: 175368 kB
VmLck: 0 kB
VmRSS: 165372 kB
VmData: 157448 kB
VmStk: 2096 kB
VmExe: 1712 kB
VmLib: 9144 kB
SigPnd: 0000000000000000
SigBlk: 0000000000000000
SigIgn: 8000000000000000
SigCgt: 000000005b81feff
CapInh: 0000000000000000
CapPrm: 0000000000000000
CapEff: 0000000000000000
You can use whatever editor you like. Don't blame it on XEmacs.
I always have done, sir. I'd just prefer to use XEmacs cause aside from
performance and quick-sand-shifting interfaces it's way better. If that
were not true, I wouldn't be lurking on the list (I _do_ actually have
better things to do).
-g
Attachments:
- attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 189 bytes)