On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:42:14 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >
> > So untrue. Following up on Abigail's hate, there have been numerous
> > times in the recent month that I typed 'ex -v' just to NOT get into
> > some vi clone like gvim or vim.
>
> Are you a
On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:42:14 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >
> > So untrue. Following up on Abigail's hate, there have been numerous
> > times in the recent month that I typed 'ex -v' just to NOT get into
> > some vi clone like gvim or vim.
>
> Are you a
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:42:14PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >
> > So untrue. Following up on Abigail's hate, there have been numerous
> > times in the recent month that I typed 'ex -v' just to NOT get into
> > some vi clone like gvim or vim.
>
> Are y
On Mon, 21 May 2007, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>
> So untrue. Following up on Abigail's hate, there have been numerous
> times in the recent month that I typed 'ex -v' just to NOT get into
> some vi clone like gvim or vim.
Are you actually getting Joy's vi or is it Bostic's nvi? The latter is in
many
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:06:49 -0700, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
> > What I hate about every Linux distro I've used is that when I type
> > 'vi file', I get an editor that isn't vi.
>
> There is no vi. vi is dead. There are only vi compatables.
So untrue. Following up on Abigail's hate, t
> What I hate about every Linux distro I've used is that when I type
> 'vi file', I get an editor that isn't vi.
There is no vi. vi is dead. There are only vi compatables.
Long live vim.
On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:16:50 +0200, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote:
> * Sean O'Rourke [2007-05-21 17:25]:
> > David Cantrell writes:
> > > The big problem with emacs is that it looks like that most
> > > unhelpful of "help" systems, GNU info.
> >
> > Meh, I personally prefer it to a wad of randomly-stru
* Sean O'Rourke [2007-05-21 17:25]:
> David Cantrell writes:
> > The big problem with emacs is that it looks like that most
> > unhelpful of "help" systems, GNU info.
>
> Meh, I personally prefer it to a wad of randomly-structured
> HTML,
My ideal looks like this:
* Manpage with usage/synopsis
David Cantrell writes:
> The big problem with emacs is that it looks like that most unhelpful of
> "help" systems, GNU info.
Meh, I personally prefer it to a wad of randomly-structured HTML,
though I agree that the standalone Info reader is a polyp of
evil. In any case, it sure beats either a PD
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 04:28:11PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Abigail wrote:
> >What I hate about every Linux distro I've used is that when I type
> >'vi file', I get an editor that isn't vi. It's usually vim. I guess
> >that's a great editor for some, and I don't mind it being ther
On 5/21/07, Abigail wrote:
What I hate about every Linux distro I've used is that when I type
'vi file', I get an editor that isn't vi. It's usually vim. I guess
that's a great editor for some, and I don't mind it being there.
But don't call it vi. It isn't.
Real Unixes have vi. Linux doesn't.
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:40:03AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 5/18/07, Tony Finch wrote:
> >On Thu, 17 May 2007, Zach White wrote:
> >>
> >> -Zach (Who's still upset that there's no way he can use nvi's multi-level
> >>undo model when stuck in vim)
> >
> >Oh you can, except the key b
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 07:35:46PM +0300, Yossi Kreinin wrote:
> Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> >I like Emacs [yay carefully selective quoting!]
> What are you talking about? XEmacs has an excellent online GUI help system!
The big problem with emacs is that it looks like that most unhelpful of
"help" sys
I do hear echoes of the Multics crowd complaining, justifiably at
times,
about the problems of Unix.
It's a shame Multics didn't survive in the wild long enough for the
hatefulness inherent in its "memory mapping only" file access to become
common knowledge.
SMS is unreliable the way UDP or email is unreliable.
Yebbut, "SMS is unreliable" is generally brought up in the "SMS vs
pagers" debate.
And pagers are unreliable the way email over UDP as implemented by
Microsoft would be.
Pavlov’s dog was definitely existing, and Schrodinger’s cat is in a
state of quantum indeterminacy, therefore the non-existent dog implies
(by the Everett-Wheeler-Graham Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics), you simply aren’t entangled with the world-line in which
your cellphone cov
On 2007-05-21 at 13:19 +1000, Matt McLeod wrote:
> Anyone using SMS for anything genuinely critical is an idiot. It may
> be that your machines keeling over isn't critical enough for it to
> matter
It may be that it matters but we're not daft enough to trust any
external system to successfully
On 5/21/07, Yoz Grahame wrote:
On 5/20/07, Matt McLeod wrote:
> SMS is unreliable the way UDP or email is unreliable.
Um, aren't those two completely different classes of unreliability?
Email is unreliable due to shitty implementations of a reliable
protocol, whereas UDP is unreliable by desig
On 5/20/07, Matt McLeod wrote:
SMS is unreliable the way UDP or email is unreliable.
Um, aren't those two completely different classes of unreliability?
Email is unreliable due to shitty implementations of a reliable
protocol, whereas UDP is unreliable by design. (Unless this definition
of "un
On 5/21/07, Phil Pennock wrote:
All this "GSM SMS is unreliable" talk is just so much crap from either
people with vested interests or people too ignorant to realise just how
brown and smelly are the parrotted words spewing forth from their
mouths.
Or, y'know, people who have worked with SMS i
On 2007-05-20 at 19:20 -0400, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> If a non-existent dog licks its butt, does that mean I can get cell
> phone coverage in a suburban area four miles from the downtown of a
> major US metropolis? Hell no.
What's scary is that cell coverage is apparently better than pager
cov
Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2007-05-20 at 18:52 -0400, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>> Hey, don't knock US Internet banking. At least it's better than US
>> mobile networks.
>
> My cat is better at licking its butt than is my non-existent dog.
If a non-existent dog licks its butt, does that mean I can
On 2007-05-20 at 18:52 -0400, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Hey, don't knock US Internet banking. At least it's better than US
> mobile networks.
My cat is better at licking its butt than is my non-existent dog.
-Phil
Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2007-05-20 at 13:49 +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>> I guess there is no end in ranting about Internet banking.
>
> Sir, I strongly suspect that you're dealing with a Dutch bank.
>
> You have no idea how good you have it.
>
> Regards,
> -Phil, who has moved NL -> USA
Hey
24 matches
Mail list logo
