Re: text editors

[Erik Christiansen]

On 30.03.19 01:29, deloptes wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> 
> > I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs.  I am trying to convince
> > people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You
> > can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp".
> 
> Sorry John, but all of this is obsolete, if you are pragmatic enough, you
> would admit it. Just take a step back and have a look from the other side.
> What I am trying to say is that it is not worth investing time in learning
> it - learning not lisp, but the whole emacs stuff and partially lisp,
> because as someone said sooner or later you need this or that - finally
> this is THE feature of emacs. If you do not take advantage of lisp, then
> why not use any other editor. Sorry!

As a 30 year vim/vi veteran, I'm not wildly predisposed to emacs, but
some of its users might prefer 3-key chords to vim's modality - having
to remember whether you're in normal or insert mode for minutes at the
time. (Unless you turn on an indicator. I change the cursor colour as
well as having mode displayed in the status line. Over-65s may be granted
that dispensation, perhaps.)

The only other editor I've used is the line editor, CREDIT. (Yes,
everything was in capitals only, IIRC.) That was 1981, and it was on
the Intel "Blue Box" MDS, complete with 8" floppy drives. (Harddrives
were only know on mainframes and top end minicomputers back then.)

Erik

Re: Laptop fails to suspend

[Esteban L]

Hello,

Unless I am mistaken, Buster is still in development/testing?

If thats the case, I would expect behavior exactly like that.

As to troubleshooting it? My guess is you would have to be a talented program, 
to debug, and code your own modules.

On March 30, 2019 12:56:12 AM GMT+01:00, Sam Smith  wrote:
>I have an older Lenovo T520 laptop that I've ran Debian on for years
>and 
>I have never had any issues with putting it to "sleep" or suspending 
>when closing the lid. However after upgrading from stretch to Buster, 
>suspend fails to work.
>
>I run KDE and I've tried to suspend from the desktop using the built in
>
>"suspend" button (right next to "shutdown" or "reboot" buttons), as
>well 
>as using systemd or pm-suspend from the command line but they all
>result 
>in the same issue. The issue is that once the machine starts to go into
>
>suspend mode, the power led flashes and the screen then goes blank. 
>Normally at this point the power led would stop flashing and would stay
>
>off, however it keeps flashing. I've left it for a couple of minutes
>but 
>it never stops. Keyboard is unresponsive and I have to force it to
>power 
>off (hold down power button). How might I go about trouble shooting
>this?
>
>Thanks,
>Sam

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: text editors

[David Wright]

On Sat 30 Mar 2019 at 01:29:48 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> 
> > I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs.  I am trying to convince
> > people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You
> > can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp".
> 
> Sorry John, but all of this is obsolete, if you are pragmatic enough, you
> would admit it. Just take a step back and have a look from the other side.

I'm finding it very difficult to follow your argument. What, exactly,
is obsolete. Using emacs, or the myth. If this thing is obsolete,
when was it current and when did it become obsolete?

And what do you mean by the other side? The side of the persuader, or
the side of the persuaded, or something else entirely.

> What I am trying to say is that it is not worth investing time in learning
> it - learning not lisp, but the whole emacs stuff and partially lisp,
> because as someone said sooner or later you need this or that - finally
> this is THE feature of emacs. If you do not take advantage of lisp, then
> why not use any other editor. Sorry!

Emacs has a huge repertoire of functionality accessible through its
commands, without any requirement to know or use *lisp. You sometimes
see some lisp-ish stuff on the screen when, say, using its help
system, but it can be ignored if you don't understand it. Just keep
feeding it files and commands.

People buy cars and drive them around without understanding what's
going on under the bonnet. Yes, you could learn to be a mechanic and
improve their performance but it's certainly not necessary. It would
be ridiculous to suggest that people shouldn't bother to learn to
drive unless they take courses in mechanics, and if they refuse,
to ask them why they didn't use uber instead.

Cheers,
David.

Re: troubleshooting nfs-kernel-server on Raspbian Jessie

[Jason]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:20:17PM -0500, Jason wrote:
> I am trying to set up an NFS export on a Ras Pi (Raspbian Jessie). 
> Something seems to be missing and I need help troubleshooting it.
> 
> At first the NFS port 2049 was not even being opened. After much futzing 
> around I discovered that if I manually start rpcbind with
> 
> $ sudo /etc/init.d/rpcbind start
> 
> then restart the nfs-kernel-server I can get it to work, but only if I 
> spell out the full ip address of the client. For instance if I put this 
> in /etc/exports it works:
> 
> /srv/export 192.168.1.1(rw,sync)
> 
> but not if I change it to this to allow other machines on the LAN to 
> mount (I get: mount.nfs: access denied by server while mounting 
> 192.168.1.15:/srv/export):
> 
> /srv/export 192.168.1.*(rw,sync)

Now discovered that the below does work:
/srv/export 192.168.1.0/24(rw,sync)

So now I guess I'm down to one question.
> 1) Why does rpcbind not start automatically on boot?

Thanks,
-- 
Jason

troubleshooting nfs-kernel-server on Raspbian Jessie

[Jason]

I am trying to set up an NFS export on a Ras Pi (Raspbian Jessie). 
Something seems to be missing and I need help troubleshooting it.

At first the NFS port 2049 was not even being opened. After much futzing 
around I discovered that if I manually start rpcbind with

$ sudo /etc/init.d/rpcbind start

then restart the nfs-kernel-server I can get it to work, but only if I 
spell out the full ip address of the client. For instance if I put this 
in /etc/exports it works:

/srv/export 192.168.1.1(rw,sync)

but not if I change it to this to allow other machines on the LAN to 
mount (I get: mount.nfs: access denied by server while mounting 
192.168.1.15:/srv/export):

/srv/export 192.168.1.*(rw,sync)

So I have two questions:
1) Why does rpcbind not start automatically on boot?

2) Why can I not specify a range of client addresses in /etc/exports  ?

Thanks,
-- 
Jason

Re: text editors

[Jude DaShiell]

I started working for the Navy at an installation in Warminster PA.  The
experience with emacs David describes certainly happened on the base where
I worked.  The secretaries weren't told what they were doing was
programming so they developed and shared their own macros and as a result
of that, emacs became a legend on the base.  User services knew never to
disturb the emacs on the assistant technical director's computer or they
would get hurt.  The assistant technical director was number 3 in the
hierarchy on the base's org chart.  Above that position was the technical
director and above the technical director was the Admiral in command of
the base.



--

Re: text editors

[John Hasler]

I wrote:
> I am trying to convince people not to be deterred from trying it
> because of myths such as "You can't use Emacs if you can't program in
> Lisp".

Bob Bernstein writes:
> That last claim is really, really far from the truth. I know one of
> the old LISP programmers from the Kendall Square, Cambridge days, and
> he hates to use emacs.

I don't think anyone ever asserted that you must use Emacs if you do
program in Lisp.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: text editors

[Bob Bernstein]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, John Hasler wrote:

I am trying to convince people not to be deterred from 
trying it because of myths such as "You can't use Emacs 
if you can't program in Lisp".


That last claim is really, really far from the truth. I 
know one of the old LISP programmers from the Kendall 
Square, Cambridge days, and he hates to use emacs.


:)

--
Fraught with portent

Re: text editors

[David Wright]

On Fri 29 Mar 2019 at 19:22:47 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2019 19:08:20 deloptes wrote:
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > > deloptes writes:
> > >> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now
> > >> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this.
> > >
> > > The results of ignoring it are evident all over the Web.
> >
> > this is true, unfortunately. It was 2009 when I finally gave up. If
> > found out that in every single are of science there is the mainstream
> > and the good stream, but the mainstream supressing the good stream ...
> > I was dreaming of applications programmed in PL, but found out that it
> > is not desired, so it is laughable how today everybody is talking of
> > AI. WTF! It's screwed at the base and unless things change there,
> > nothing will change else where.
> > This is crap and this whole discussion around emacs and lisp is
> > laughable as well - overblown text editor for what ... to write text
> > files?! Give me a break, pls!
> 
> +10 deloptes

I'm glad you understood it. Perhaps you could gloss it for me in a
private email.

> The editor is a personal choice. What I care about is what comes out of 
> it.

Of course you do. So do I. With a few exceptions, most of the work
I have done on computers has been the production of text files
(about which deloptes appears to be dismissive).

As a consequence, the text editor is one of the most important tools,
and what workperson doesn't care about their tools, seeking to improve
them, and to improve their ability to use them. I've already learnt
a couple of new things about emacs and, in another forum, I recently
learnt a few things about vi and its server (or daemon) mode.

But we all have to make choices about what we can spend time on.
Unfortunately, at the moment, any lisp dialect is well down the
list. Even if I had the time, my focus would be on the dialect
scheme and, in particular, guile. How much help that would be for
my use of emacs, I don't know.

Cheers,
David.

Re: text editors

[deloptes]

John Hasler wrote:

> I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs.  I am trying to convince
> people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You
> can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp".

Sorry John, but all of this is obsolete, if you are pragmatic enough, you
would admit it. Just take a step back and have a look from the other side.
What I am trying to say is that it is not worth investing time in learning
it - learning not lisp, but the whole emacs stuff and partially lisp,
because as someone said sooner or later you need this or that - finally
this is THE feature of emacs. If you do not take advantage of lisp, then
why not use any other editor. Sorry!

Re: text editors

[John Hasler]

I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs.  I am trying to convince
people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You
can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp".
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Laptop fails to suspend

[Sam Smith]

I have an older Lenovo T520 laptop that I've ran Debian on for years and 
I have never had any issues with putting it to "sleep" or suspending 
when closing the lid. However after upgrading from stretch to Buster, 
suspend fails to work.


I run KDE and I've tried to suspend from the desktop using the built in 
"suspend" button (right next to "shutdown" or "reboot" buttons), as well 
as using systemd or pm-suspend from the command line but they all result 
in the same issue. The issue is that once the machine starts to go into 
suspend mode, the power led flashes and the screen then goes blank. 
Normally at this point the power led would stop flashing and would stay 
off, however it keeps flashing. I've left it for a couple of minutes but 
it never stops. Keyboard is unresponsive and I have to force it to power 
off (hold down power button). How might I go about trouble shooting this?


Thanks,
Sam

Re: text editors

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 29 March 2019 19:08:20 deloptes wrote:

> John Hasler wrote:
> > deloptes writes:
> >> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now
> >> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this.
> >
> > The results of ignoring it are evident all over the Web.
>
> this is true, unfortunately. It was 2009 when I finally gave up. If
> found out that in every single are of science there is the mainstream
> and the good stream, but the mainstream supressing the good stream ...
> I was dreaming of applications programmed in PL, but found out that it
> is not desired, so it is laughable how today everybody is talking of
> AI. WTF! It's screwed at the base and unless things change there,
> nothing will change else where.
> This is crap and this whole discussion around emacs and lisp is
> laughable as well - overblown text editor for what ... to write text
> files?! Give me a break, pls!

+10 deloptes

The editor is a personal choice. What I care about is what comes out of 
it.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: text editors

[deloptes]

John Hasler wrote:

> deloptes writes:
>> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now I
>> have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this.
> 
> The results of ignoring it are evident all over the Web.

this is true, unfortunately. It was 2009 when I finally gave up. If found
out that in every single are of science there is the mainstream and the
good stream, but the mainstream supressing the good stream ... I was
dreaming of applications programmed in PL, but found out that it is not
desired, so it is laughable how today everybody is talking of AI. WTF! It's
screwed at the base and unless things change there, nothing will change
else where.
This is crap and this whole discussion around emacs and lisp is laughable as
well - overblown text editor for what ... to write text files?! Give me a
break, pls!

Re: text editors

[David Wright]

On Fri 29 Mar 2019 at 09:35:21 (+), Dekks Herton wrote:
> David Wright  writes:
> > On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 08:30:47 (+), Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> >> > "JH" == John Hasler  writes:
> >> 
> >> JH> deloptes writes:
> >> >> learning emacs means learning lisp
> >> 
> >> JH> Not true.
> >> 
> >> In my experience is true. But needs some more words.
> >> 
> >> When you intensively start using Emacs, and you start asking to the
> >> editor "Oh, True One Editor, what is the meaning of this keystroke?"
> >> (😊) and see the answer, when you take a look to the .emacs of a more
> >> experienced user, you see, sooner or later you understand that there
> >> is a way to tell Emacs how "to do useful things"[*]. And since these
> >> things are useful to you, you learn to do them. Even if you do not
> >> know that what you are doing is "programming in LISP".
> >> 
> >> [*] I lost the source where I read that in an organization even
> >> secretaries used Emacs, and that these secretaries learnt how to do
> >> "useful things" without a problem. Mostly because they were unaware
> >> they were programming.
> >
> > I would have thought that secretaries were more competent at
> > cut-and-paste than I am, and that is the way in which I have assembled
> > my ~250 line emacs startup file. That, and substituting one string
> > for another in these pasted sections and seeing if they still work.
> > I'm afraid I don't call that programming in *lisp or learning *lisp.
> 
> Don't [•] secretaries, i've seen a lot that would make better programmers
> than whom they work looking at the macros they use.

[I assume that you meant to write some derogatory verb at • or else
it got lost, as did your entire comment in the other two versions
I've received from you.]

It's rather difficult to carry on a conversation unless you use the
same nouns to refer to things as others have used. Yes, when writing
literature, it makes sense to add some variety in one's choice of
words, but this is a technical forum. It was fairly obvious to me
that "secretaries" was being used as a term to refer to "people
engaged in clerical work". There are plenty of secretaries doing
far more sophisticated work than this and, as a job title, the term
reaches all the way to the top of organisations, with University
Secretaries, Secretaries of State and the like.

I think I made my point clearly enough: assembling a file of macros
that do useful things does not necessarily equate with programming
those said macros. I used my own startup file as an example.
It turned out that the example actually involved troff, ed and shell
rather than emacs and *lisp. It's probably easier for non-programmers
to cobble together useful shell scripts than to make headway in *lisp,
so without knowing to what level they took these scripts, it's
difficult to judge whether they *were* programming.

Back in the early 1970s, a 4-digit version of the game "Bulls and Cows"¹
was written using the line-by-line editor Edit (by Gill Cross) by
ingenious use of its single in-store buffer. If it wasn't written by
Frank King, who wrote such a game on the Titan at Cambridge, then it
was obviously inspired by it. That *was* programming.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulls_and_Cows

Cheers,
David.

Re: text editors

[John Hasler]

Gian writes:
> And the elegance of the tool is more important that it seems at first
> glance.

deloptes writes:
> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now I
> have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this.

The results of ignoring it are evident all over the Web.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: text editors

[deloptes]

Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:

> EC> It's not. They are written in vimscript, analogous to elisp.
> 
> Sorry not. While Elisp is a Lisp dialect, therefore is a language that
> has been formally proved to be equivalent to turing-machine, that is
> not certain for vimscript.
> 
> And the elegance of the tool is more important that it seems at first
> glance.

I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now I have
not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. I have worked with PL and
prolog for a while ... unfortunately I think in coming years or decades it
all will be declared dead ... when the true AI from China will take
over :D :D :D

regards

Re: text editors

[Stefan Monnier]

> Sorry not.  While Elisp is a Lisp dialect, therefore is a language that
> has been formally proved to be equivalent to turing-machine, that is
> not certain for vimscript.

Vimscript may not be as elegant and powerful as Elisp, but there is no
doubt that it is Turing-complete (pretty much any language with a `while`
loop and some kind of dynamic allocation is Turing-complete, so it's
a pretty low bar).
It's a full-blown programming language.


Stefan

Re: Kodi Bluray support.

[Curt]

On 2019-03-29, Alexandre GRIVEAUX  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do anybody play bluray with kodi ?
>
> Its work well with VLC on the same machine with:
>
> - libaacs
> - libdplus
> - some others related
>
> But i'm unable to play it with kodi, kodi detect a DVD instead of 
> bluray.

Then what happens? Because a cursory reading of the internets indicates
this ('detecting' a dvd rather than a bluray) isn't a show-stopper.

I also read that you need a KEYBD.cfg file in ~/.config/aacs in order to
play (decode) bluray discs with kodi.

That file seems to be here:

 https://vlc-bluray.whoknowsmy.name/files/KEYDB.cfg

Maybe you have that file already.

Good luck.

> I'm using paquages from debian repos.
>
> Thanks
>
>


-- 
“Let us again pretend that life is a solid substance, shaped like a globe,
which we turn about in our fingers. Let us pretend that we can make out a plain
and logical story, so that when one matter is despatched--love for instance--
we go on, in an orderly manner, to the next.” - Virginia Woolf, The Waves

Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

> "EC" == Erik Christiansen  writes:

EC> Yes, yes, reflexive combativeness is jolly good fun, but
EC> understanding is more useful in the long term.

In my experience, if the language is elegant and wise, you can write
your code "easily" and often you get better coding.

EC> word used refers to being an analogue, i.e. taking the same place
EC> in the other editor.

As someone else wisely pointed out in this thread (my apologies for
forgetting the name), Emacs is built in Lisp, the interpreter and some
speed critical parts are coded in C, but the latter are somewhat "C
coded Lisp objects".

Differently from other tools that can be extended with "plugins", in
Emacs is simpler to pass from the "I know which key to press" to the
"I know what code to write" - provided you have some minimal knowledge
of Lisp syntax and constructs - because in Emacs every keystroke
triggers a function call and you Emacs tells you which function is
invoked, how to use it and even, if you have the lisp sources
installed, see its implementation. That's how some "random amateur
lisp coder" was able to bang the original html-helper-mode to the tool
he used to survive ASP pages :).

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

> "EC" == Erik Christiansen  writes:

EC> On 28.03.19 21:32, Matyáš Bobek wrote:
>> I reckon writing vim extensions in C must be quite obscure... How
>> is it done?

EC> It's not. They are written in vimscript, analogous to elisp.

Sorry not. While Elisp is a Lisp dialect, therefore is a language that
has been formally proved to be equivalent to turing-machine, that is
not certain for vimscript.

And the elegance of the tool is more important that it seems at first
glance.

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

Re: text editors

[John Hasler]

Gian quotes:
> " It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent
> models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These
> two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between them. As
> computers have grown more powerful, the new languages being developed
> have been moving steadily toward the Lisp model."

deloptes writes:
> Was this statement made before OOP came to the world?

OOP is to the swamp between Lisp and C as the Everglades are to the wet
spot in my pasture.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: text editors

[Erik Christiansen]

On 29.03.19 10:50, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > "EC" == Erik Christiansen  writes:
> 
> EC> Yes, yes, reflexive combativeness is jolly good fun, but
> EC> understanding is more useful in the long term.
> 
> In my experience, if the language is elegant and wise, you can write
> your code "easily" and often you get better coding.
> 
> EC> word used refers to being an analogue, i.e. taking the same place
> EC> in the other editor.
> 
> As someone else wisely pointed out in this thread (my apologies for
> forgetting the name), Emacs is built in Lisp, the interpreter and some
> speed critical parts are coded in C, but the latter are somewhat "C
> coded Lisp objects".
> 
> Differently from other tools that can be extended with "plugins", in
> Emacs is simpler to pass from the "I know which key to press" to the
> "I know what code to write" - provided you have some minimal knowledge
> of Lisp syntax and constructs - because in Emacs every keystroke
> triggers a function call and you Emacs tells you which function is
> invoked, how to use it and even, if you have the lisp sources
> installed, see its implementation. That's how some "random amateur
> lisp coder" was able to bang the original html-helper-mode to the tool
> he used to survive ASP pages :).

Yup, again, output-only mode - unrelated to input. A ROM-based monologue
doesn't make for much of a conversation, certainly not a thoughtful one.

Erik

Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

> "d" == deloptes   writes:

d> Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>> " It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent
>> models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These
>> two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between
>> them. As computers have grown more powerful, the new languages
>> being developed have been moving steadily toward the Lisp model."

d> Was this statement made before OOP came to the world?

Nope. If you go and read the whole article you understand his point.

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

> "d" == deloptes   writes:

>> The trick with Emacs is doing as much things you can with one
>> istance, avoding continual start and stops.

d> Don't know! Really!

Not all are as smart as you are.

a> One can live and do everything without Emacs.

Indeed. But will lose the fun :)

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

> "EC" == Erik Christiansen  writes:

EC> When leading software development teams, I never asked team
EC> members which editor they favoured, either at hiring interview, or
EC> later. We just agreed on coding standards, and they configured
EC> their editors to conform.

👍

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

Re: Advantages of downloading Debian packages over tor

[Jonathan Sélea]

I do it for machines that is accessible over Tor only.

And in some cases, just because I can do it.

-- 
Jonathan Sélea

PGP Key: 0x8B35B3C894B964DD
Fingerprint: 4AF2 10DE 996B 673C 0FD8  AFA0 8B35 B3C8 94B9 64DD 

On tor, 2019-03-28 at 07:18 +, André Rodier wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Is there any advantage, in terms of privacy, to download Debian
> packages 
> over the Tor network?
> 
> Are you doing it yourself, and if yes, for what reason(s)?
> 
> Is using the Tor transport better than a standard http proxy (e.g. 
> privoxy → tor) ?
> 
> Thanks for your insights.
> 
> André Rodier
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: text editors

[Erik Christiansen]

On 29.03.19 10:44, deloptes wrote:
> One can live and do everything without Emacs. 

Can't resist paraphrasing that in light of Emacs' OS-like reputation:

One can live and do everything within Emacs ... or without.

I would be tempted to have a look at ne, except that my fingers would
just continue to work vim-wise, after more than 30 years of daily vim/vi 
use, up to 8 hrs per day. 

When leading software development teams, I never asked team members
which editor they favoured, either at hiring interview, or later. We
just agreed on coding standards, and they configured their editors to
conform. 

Erik

Kodi Bluray support.

[Alexandre GRIVEAUX]

Hello,

Do anybody play bluray with kodi ?

Its work well with VLC on the same machine with:

- libaacs
- libdplus
- some others related

But i'm unable to play it with kodi, kodi detect a DVD instead of 
bluray.


I'm using paquages from debian repos.

Thanks

Re: text editors

[deloptes]

Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:

> " It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent
> models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These
> two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between them. As
> computers have grown more powerful, the new languages being developed
> have been moving steadily toward the Lisp model."

Was this statement made before OOP came to the world?

looks like

Re: text editors

[deloptes]

Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:

> If your work comprises repetitive tasks that can be automated, then
> Emacs can help you a lot.
> 
> If you have several, unrelated, small tasks, theni firing up vim and
> then closing it may be a good choice.
> 
> The trick with Emacs is doing as much things you can with one istance,
> avoding continual start and stops.

Don't know! Really!
I use some time Makefile or ansible recently for various things. I still do
not find pragmatic reason for learning Emacs. As said before this is only
my opinion, but I think it is important mentioning this, given the
propaganda around Emacs. One can live and do everything without Emacs. For
the enthusiasts, they are free to to choose how deep they dive into Emacs.

regards

Re: text editors

[Dekks Herton]

David Wright  writes:

> On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 08:30:47 (+), Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>> > "JH" == John Hasler  writes:
>> 
>> JH> deloptes writes:
>> >> learning emacs means learning lisp
>> 
>> JH> Not true.
>> 
>> In my experience is true. But needs some more words.
>> 
>> When you intensively start using Emacs, and you start asking to the
>> editor "Oh, True One Editor, what is the meaning of this keystroke?"
>> (😊) and see the answer, when you take a look to the .emacs of a more
>> experienced user, you see, sooner or later you understand that there
>> is a way to tell Emacs how "to do useful things"[*]. And since these
>> things are useful to you, you learn to do them. Even if you do not
>> know that what you are doing is "programming in LISP".
>> 
>> [*] I lost the source where I read that in an organization even
>> secretaries used Emacs, and that these secretaries learnt how to do
>> "useful things" without a problem. Mostly because they were unaware
>> they were programming.
>
> I would have thought that secretaries were more competent at
> cut-and-paste than I am, and that is the way in which I have assembled
> my ~250 line emacs startup file. That, and substituting one string
> for another in these pasted sections and seeing if they still work.
> I'm afraid I don't call that programming in *lisp or learning *lisp.
>
> Some of the code dates back to lenny, and I have no idea whether it
> ought still to be there, or whether it's having a desirable or
> undesirable effect. I suspect it, and some other bits have atrophied.
>
> When I read through it (like now), I find useful things that I'd
> forgotten I had set up. OTOH I rely on much of it all the time.
>
> If you call the programming/learning, then that's where our
> disagreement lies, and not in emacs at all. You could equally
> be talking about those incantations that I feed to ALSA.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>

-- 
Regards.
 
PGP Fingerprint: 3DF8 311C 4740 B5BC 3867  72DF 1050 452F 9BCE BA00

Re: text editors

[Dekks Herton]

David Wright  writes:

> On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 08:30:47 (+), Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>> > "JH" == John Hasler  writes:
>> 
>> JH> deloptes writes:
>> >> learning emacs means learning lisp
>> 
>> JH> Not true.
>> 
>> In my experience is true. But needs some more words.
>> 
>> When you intensively start using Emacs, and you start asking to the
>> editor "Oh, True One Editor, what is the meaning of this keystroke?"
>> (😊) and see the answer, when you take a look to the .emacs of a more
>> experienced user, you see, sooner or later you understand that there
>> is a way to tell Emacs how "to do useful things"[*]. And since these
>> things are useful to you, you learn to do them. Even if you do not
>> know that what you are doing is "programming in LISP".
>> 
>> [*] I lost the source where I read that in an organization even
>> secretaries used Emacs, and that these secretaries learnt how to do
>> "useful things" without a problem. Mostly because they were unaware
>> they were programming.
>
> I would have thought that secretaries were more competent at
> cut-and-paste than I am, and that is the way in which I have assembled
> my ~250 line emacs startup file. That, and substituting one string
> for another in these pasted sections and seeing if they still work.
> I'm afraid I don't call that programming in *lisp or learning *lisp.

Don't secretaries, i've seen a lot that would make better programmers
than whom they work looking at the macros they use.

> Some of the code dates back to lenny, and I have no idea whether it
> ought still to be there, or whether it's having a desirable or
> undesirable effect. I suspect it, and some other bits have atrophied.
>
> When I read through it (like now), I find useful things that I'd
> forgotten I had set up. OTOH I rely on much of it all the time.
>
> If you call the programming/learning, then that's where our
> disagreement lies, and not in emacs at all. You could equally
> be talking about those incantations that I feed to ALSA.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>

-- 
Regards.
 
PGP Fingerprint: 3DF8 311C 4740 B5BC 3867  72DF 1050 452F 9BCE BA00

Re: text editors

[Erik Christiansen]

On 29.03.19 08:47, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > "EC" == Erik Christiansen  writes:
> 
> EC> On 28.03.19 21:32, Matyáš Bobek wrote:
> >> I reckon writing vim extensions in C must be quite obscure... How
> >> is it done?
> 
> EC> It's not. They are written in vimscript, analogous to elisp.
> 
> Sorry not. While Elisp is a Lisp dialect, therefore is a language that
> has been formally proved to be equivalent to turing-machine, that is
> not certain for vimscript.

Yes, yes, reflexive combativeness is jolly good fun, but understanding
is more useful in the long term. The statement you think you've replied
to would seem to use "equal"¹, but the actual word used refers to being an
analogue, i.e. taking the same place in the other editor.

Erik

¹ As in "of equal standing", perhaps.

-- 
No one really listens to anyone else, and if you try it for a while
you'll see why.
   - Mignon McLaughlin

Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

> "d" == deloptes   writes:

d> My personal choice is ne on debian. For everything else there are
d> decent editors with GUI. My preference is eclipse and kate ... but
d> it also doesn't matter. I simply can not find any logical or
d> practical argument learning or using emacs ... and I work with
d> linux servers on daily bases.

If your work comprises repetitive tasks that can be automated, then
Emacs can help you a lot.

If you have several, unrelated, small tasks, theni firing up vim and
then closing it may be a good choice.

The trick with Emacs is doing as much things you can with one istance,
avoding continual start and stops.

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

> "d" == deloptes   writes:

d> Pierre Fourès wrote:
>>> So there are many nifty things in Emacs. But the real killer is
>>> the integration of all those nifty things.
>>> 
>> 
>> Wow, this gave me the desire to give a real serious try to Emacs !

d> Don't sell your soul to the devil (jokingly) :D

Sorry, the editor of the devil is vi (six in roman): vi vi vi!

Emacs is the Only Editor!

In article , 
in response to an infidel, Per Abrahamsen  wrote:  

PA> On the other hand, an argument can be made that Emacs *is* an os.  
PA> You can't get much closer to the os than that.

  Although I agree with you on the fundamental idea, I am afraid that
this sentence diminishes The One Editor, and disposes of one of its
fundamental mysteries; were we all not to know your usually perfect
orthodoxy, cries of blasphemy would be heard.

  Emacs (let His name be honoured forever) is not only an OS; it is an
OS *and* a programming language (The One Programming Language -- see
alt.religion.lisp) *and* a set of editors, the programming language
being the personnification of the link between the editors and the
OS.  Whether Emacs is One in Three or Three in One remains an open
theological question.

  Let the benediction of Emacs always be upon your head,

(😊 - inserted by name)

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

> "d" == deloptes   writes:

d> John Hasler wrote:
>> In fact, much of what we now know as Emacs *is* extensions written
>> in Elisp and many more extensions are available.  You no more need
>> to know Elisp to use them or to install additional ones than you
>> need to know C to use Vim.

d> I prefer learning C ;-)

http://www.paulgraham.com/rootsoflisp.html

" It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent
models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These
two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between them. As
computers have grown more powerful, the new languages being developed
have been moving steadily toward the Lisp model."

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

Re: text editors

[Erik Christiansen]

On 29.03.19 17:26, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> " Toggle relative line numbering.
> function! NList_toggle()
> if &rnu == 1
>  set nornu" For absolute, elide the 'r'.
>   else
>  set rnu  " For absolute, elide the 'r'.
>   endif
> endfun

Apologies. There's almost always something omitted when pasting from
elsewhere. Let's include the connection to the F1 key:

noremap  :call NList_toggle()

A more meaningful function name would be better, too.
(but important here is only the connection, and the toggling, for the
moment.)

Erik

Re: text editors

[Teemu Likonen]

Erik Christiansen [2019-03-29 16:26:41+11] wrote:

> It's not. They [Vim extensions] are written in vimscript, analogous to
> elisp.

Vim script is analogous to Emacs Lisp in the point of view that both of
them are used to extend and configure the editor. There is also
important difference which comes from the environment.

Vim is written in the C language which provides the editor interface and
the programming environment for Vim script. Some Vim's features are
written in Vim script language.

Emacs's core is written in the C language but the relation to Emacs Lisp
is different from Vim. Very big part of the editor and the Lisp
environment is written in Emacs Lisp. So Emacs Lisp is not only an
extension language or a scripting language. It's also the
_implementation_ language of the Emacs system itself. This means that
Emacs developers and Emacs users mostly work on the same language and
users can go much deeper into the Emacs core than in Vim's case.

For example, text buffers are first-class Lisp objects in the Emacs
system, just like integers, strings and other usual programming language
objects. Below is an example with "M-x ielm" REPL:

ELISP> (type-of "foo")
string
ELISP> (current-buffer)
#
ELISP> (type-of (current-buffer))
buffer

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen   - .-..    //
// PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 ///


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature