From: ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA (Paul Derbyshire)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Which is better... EMACS or RHIDE? [Shameless RHIDE plug]
Date: 1 Aug 1997 10:14:47 GMT
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <5rscun$bkg@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
References: <33DD805E DOT DF5783BC AT ix DOT netcom DOT com> <33DE1B61 DOT D8DABC92 AT a DOT crl DOT com>
Reply-To: ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA (Paul Derbyshire)
NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.carleton.ca
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk


> EMACS just grow on you.

It grows on your hard drive, consuming it meg by meg. That's how it
starts. But that's not all. It slips into the download dirs of any
internet "ftp" machine. It propagates like a virus. It has been found
infesting the boot sector of a floppy disk and spreading that way, when
someone decided to determine why the 1.44 meg floppy was only registering
3 kb of free space but had just been formatted...



Get RHIDE. It takes up half a meg, and it STAYS half a meg. :)
And you can actually run it on an old 8-meg 486... (not to mention Windows
NT. Emacs is allergic to Windows NT. NT must have stricter stuff to
protect itself from memory hogs and viruses!)
--
    .*.  Where feelings are concerned, answers are rarely simple [GeneDeWeese]
 -()  <  When I go to the theater, I always go straight to the "bag and mix"
    `*'  bulk candy section...because variety is the spice of life... [me]
Paul Derbyshire ao950 AT freenet DOT carleton DOT ca, http://chat.carleton.ca/~pderbysh