On Monday, September 19, 2005 7:09 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I am using Emacs on Windows-XP with ange-ftp to edit files on a remote > > Unix system (SunOS). > > Sometimes this makes sense, but it is almost always better to run > Emacs on the remote system, and display locally in an X client.
My experience suggests otherwise. In favour of the X way: * You can run commands such as compile, grep et al. * version control and auto-revert (amongst others) will only work this way. Against... * Using X requires continuous, reliable network bandwidth. If you connect over an isdn line, or a low-bandwidth/congested link, any X app is a nightmare. * It requires both emacs and X libraries be installed on all remote boxes. This is certainly not my experience. * To actually *enjoy* using the remote emacs assumes that the remote box has a "recent-enough" version of emacs to support the features you use. * You have to have login access on the remote box. * You have to have the authority to set up .emacs, .abbrev_defs and customisations just the way you want them. * It requires that the remote site has all of the elisp packages that you use. * If you need to edit files on more than one box, you would need a separate emacs session for each, relying on the clipboard for copying data from one to the other. (In the real world, with ever more cautious firewalling, you cannot guarantee that any two remote boxes can communicate directly.) * Running emacs remotely means you are using the remote box's resources. One thing emacs could never be accused of is being lightweight! You might not be too popular if a box with limited memory starts thrashing just because you wanted to edit a file. If twenty users all run emacs on a central server, it crawls. If they run emacs locally, there is no problem. In contrast, using ange-ftp (or tramp) requires one download to read the file, you work locally in an emacs environment tailored exactly to your preferences, independent of the network, and then upload the finished file. FWIW, I work both ways. I'm a developer, and for most of my work, I use emacs running remotely on the development box using X. This gives me access to compile & friends. For everything else, particularly connecting to customer sites, most of which have neither emacs nor X and where all our staff use the same login account, I use NTemacs. If I could transparently run remote commands, I'd never use a remote emacs. > > Cygwin has a reasonable X client. I think you mean server ;-) Actually, these days it's much more than reasonable, better than any of several commercial, some very expensive, offerings I have tried. Phil ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************
