asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) (03/14/91)
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I need the binaries for GNU EMACS because I want to write the code at home. I can then mail (uucp) it off to where it has to go (I say this, as I got some replies about the fact that if I was developing code, I must have the development package, and thus MUST have vi). -AJS -- | asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu or asherman%cpe@swan.ulowell.edu or | | {backbone}!ulowell!ul-cpe!asherman | | "The protection of private data.... can therefore be circumvented.... but | | this, of course, is cheating." -- 'C++ P.L.' pp 137 by Bjarne Stroustrup | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (03/14/91)
In article <ASHERMAN.91Mar13182334@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu> asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) writes: >Sorry I didn't make myself clear. > [...] >some replies about the fact that if I was developing code, I must have the >development package, and thus MUST have vi). > [...] Huh? Come again. But you DO have "vi" if you have (at least) the 3.51 Foundation Set disks. The ENCRYPTION SET (two disks) for "System Software Version 3.51" contains the following goodies: crypt ed vi shlib makekey libc.a libp.p Personally, I use GNU EMACS and have for 12+ years, since Stallman's efforts were first collected and distributed under an ONR/ARPA contract. If you want to get technical, here's the blurb from the cover sheet of the manual and tape which RMS personally handed to me back around 1978 or 1979: EMACS Manual for TWENEX USERS by Richard M. Stallman [...] ...work done at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for the laboratory's research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense under Office of Naval Research contract N00014-75-C-0643. That contract number tells me that EMACS has been around since at least 1975, and the date on the last TeX manual I have is "5 September 1980" for version 150 though I presently have version 160+ on my DEC-20 systems. These early versions are written in MIT-Teco ... if you ever want to see source code that looks like modem line noise, let me know! :-) The Teco portion is implemented in more-readable DEC-10/20 assembly language. In any event, to bring up GNU EMACS on the 3B1 means you're gonna need several MB of free disk for the executable, its on-line docs, and its support programs and LISP code. As far as performance goes, I have no complaints. And some people have GNU EMACS as their login shell because it's so featureful in ways that aren't obvious to the uninitiated. Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
sparkie@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Mark J. Horn) (03/15/91)
In article <2128@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: [ ... ] >But you DO have "vi" if you have (at least) the 3.51 Foundation Set disks. > >The ENCRYPTION SET (two disks) for "System Software Version 3.51" contains the >following goodies: > > crypt > ed > vi > shlib > makekey > libc.a > libp.p [ ... Stuff about GNU Emacs deleted ... ] Ah, Thad...? I hate to possibly humiliate myself by disagreeing with a net.god, BUT! I did NOT get vi in my Encryption Set. I have a set of disks called "Enhanced Editors" I spent about two months having to use ed before I found someone who would sell me these disks! Did I spend those 2 months in vain? Is it just me or have did other people get their copy of vi from Enhanced Editors? - sparkie -- ___ ___ ___ ___ _ _ _ ___ / __\| . \/ . \| . \| |/ /|_|| _ | sparkie@picard.cs.wisc.edu \__ \| __/| || _ /| < | || _[ - or - \___/|_| |_|_||_|\\|_|\_\|_||___| harier!sparkie@cs.wisc.edu
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar15.025846.26031@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> sparkie@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Mark J. Horn) writes: > [...] >Ah, Thad...? I hate to possibly humiliate myself by disagreeing with a >net.god, BUT! I did NOT get vi in my Encryption Set. I have a set of disks >called "Enhanced Editors" I spent about two months having to use ed before >I found someone who would sell me these disks! Did I spend those 2 months in >vain? > [...] PLEASE do NOT use that phrase "...net.god...". I am the LAST person who would ever pretend such exalted status. Since I restrict the Users' Group postings to ``ba'', I suppose most of you don't see my very-clearly worded "...I don't claim to be a UNIX guru" which also appears on each meeting's TeX printed agenda. For over a decade I thought UNIX was crap because I listened to others whose opinions I respected .... then came the 3B1 "fire sale" back in 1987 at which point I was able to afford my own UNIX system. I taught myself UNIX, and now have over 10 systems, and am picking up a SVR4 68030-based system this coming Monday (company is footing the bill) on which I'll be porting my company's major product (since the A/UX systems simply have been too much hassle, what with bug after bug after bug, esp. since the 3B1 is by FAR a better UNIX system than anything from Apple (and I have A/UX 1.*, 2.0 and 2.0.1 so I do know what I'm talking about))); the new system is the Commodore Amiga A3000UX which, from all reports I've seen, is ``THE'' 680x0 version of UNIX SVR4. I'm going to convert the two Mac ][ A/UX systems to printer servers for the office secretaries since they (the A/UX) aren't even adequate as uucp servers. Sheesh, more $$$ down the drain on Apple junk. :-( I have NO intention of getting rid of any of my 3B1 systems, and, in fact, am always on the lookout for more simply because they ARE good. In any event, Sparkie, I clearly said the "3.51 ENCRYPTION SET" and not the "Enhanced Editors" in reference to EVERYONE (with 3.51) having "vi". True, the "Enhanced Editors" package does have "vi", but that's part of the Development Set. The "Encryption Set" is part of the Foundation Set. I do NOT know if the Foundation Set prior to 3.51 had "vi" in the Encryption Set since 3.51 was the release version in 1987 (when I bought my first 3B1). Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) (03/16/91)
thad@public.BTR.COM writes: >I have NO intention of getting rid of any of my 3B1 systems, and, in fact, >am always on the lookout for more simply because they ARE good. Oh, yeah? Wanna buy mine? :-) >The "Encryption Set" is part of the Foundation Set. I do NOT know if the >Foundation Set prior to 3.51 had "vi" in the Encryption Set since 3.51 was >the release version in 1987 (when I bought my first 3B1). Might be some confusion here. First - the versions of vi in the Enhanced Editors set and the Encryption Set are different - the Encryption Set version includes, of course, encryption, whereas the Enhanced Editors base version does not. Also, the Encryption Set is not necessarily a standard part of the Foundation Set. Units sold outside of the U.S., for example, do not have it. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | | He's moody, but he's cute. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+