This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: Not being given the option of installing packages on setup
- From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:07:42 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Not being given the option of installing packages on setup
- References: <006c01c66337$63d348a0$b6922080@Tasha> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0604181831170.21441@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <e23rlq$6lu$1@sea.gmane.org> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0604181914090.21441@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <4445B094.10504@byu.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0604182354250.24439@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <44462E48.9010903@byu.net> <20060419170020.GA7257@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:34:16AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >According to Igor Peshansky on 4/18/2006 10:04 PM:
> >>Why can't we all just get along?..
> >>
> >>Heh, next you'll be saying the same about VIm and Emacs...
> >
> >Why stop there - why not get the best of Linux and Windows?
> >
> >(Oh wait - cygwin does that...)
> >
> >And speaking of vi vs. emacs, which editor do most cygwin developers
> >use? I'm in the emacs camp (okay, hiss if you want), so maybe I should
> >consider adopting the emacs package since it has been orphaned for so
> >long.
>
> I use vi.
>
> I started out on a PDP-10 using first TECO, then SOS, then FINE (fine is
> not emacs), then EDT. When I started working mainly on UNIX (Ultrix), I
> tried to find an emacs-like editor for everything. However, when I
> switched jobs and starting porting software to a bunch of different UNIX
> systems, vi was the only editor which was consistently available. So, I
> reluctantly started using vi all of the time just so I wouldn't go crazy
> trying to switch back and forth.
>
> I remember sitting in an associate's office and commiserating about the
> *stoopidity* of the whole concept of vi with it's hjkl arrow keys and
> different modes for input and editing. Now I'm happily ensconced in
> that mindset. I still understand the allure of emacs, though.
FWIW, it's the only mindset that makes sense for touch-typists. I mean,
being able to move around the document without taking your fingers off the
home row -- what can be better? :-)
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"