lee wrote: > Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes: > > For email I use the 'mutt' mail user agent. It is extremely fast. It > > ... > > I totally agree :) And you're definitely going to love gnus! I've used > mutt for 15 years or so and never could find anything better --- until I > tried gnus. Gnus is like the "power version" of mutt. Give it a try, > it's part of emacs. Use emacs 24.2.x, there have been important fixes > to gnus. Maybe I should give gnus a new try. I had tried it before and found it much to slow to use. But every couple of decades it is good to give programs a second try. :-) I can't remember when I last tried it now but I am sure it was on HP-UX 10.20 at the time and the last release there was in 1996. It is probably time to give gnus another chance. > Mutt always felt like badly integrated with emacs. It doesn't work > so well to run mutt in emacs, and using emacs as an external editor > for mutt isn't ideal, either. Mutt does have the feel of the other editor rather than emacs. It feels more like do one thing at a time and don't get interrupted. But I have many text terminals and will create another one to operate in parallel when I am interrupted. I use it with emacs as the configured editor. I have optimized my emacs startup so that it launches quite quickly. I have used the configuration of using emacsclient and screen and mutt. That works fairly well when running from a very thin client where I am going to log into a server system for everything. But for running on the local desktop that way never quite hooked me in. Although I know other people really like that configuration. I definitely use screen and emacs and everything else when working on servers remotely. But I usually don't live in email remotely. > Gnus removes this issue. Gnus has features I've been missing in > mutt, and mutt will probably never have them. Gnus has features I > never even dreamed of. You have motivated me to queue gnus up for another try. :-) > Gnus is slower than mutt, yet not so slow that I couldn't live with it. > It's not really slow. It being slow was the main reason I had moved away from it before. I had tried RMAIL but of course that is a little odd. I had tried gnus but it was at that time too slow. I had loved emacs VM and used VM for a number of years before switching to mutt. For me Unix mail clients I actually used were bin mail, mailx aka Mail, Elm, emacs VM, Mutt and I am still using Mutt. I have always regretted not having used the Rand mail handler mh. It always seemed like it embodied the Unix philosophy the best of any of them. > > For the web I tend to use Firefox for most things. I use the > > 'firemacs' plugin for keyboard driving. > > Have you tried dwb? It uses vi-like key bindings and webkit. I kept > pressing the wrong keys and went back to seamonkey. Vi just isn't my > thing. No. I will try it. Have you tried midori web browser? It is quite a nice lightweight web browser too and it is also based on webkit. It also has a nice default set of key bindings for the Unix user. > > for the growing 10% that requires fluff and glitter of massive > > Javascript and Flash I use Chromium with the 'vimium' extension. > > Hm I tried Chromium a while ago and found it can't do anything at all. I find Chromium to have the best support for heavy web sites that have lots of Javascript and make use of complicated html and html5. I normally use a different browser but then when a site isn't working correctly I break out Chromium for the heavy lifting. The only real problem is Chromium not having the support team for backports similar to Iceweasel. Therefore I can only really recommend Chromium for Testing and Unstable. For Stable Squeeze Midori works the best that I have found so far for difficult sites. Or Iceweasel from Backports. Chromium is annoying for keystrokes because of the architecture of a supervisor process and children processes in tabs. Plugins and key customization only work in external windows, not internal windows. Therefore the user interface is very inconsistent. That drives me crazy sometimes. > > Each tab in Chromium is a separate process. Therefore I can kill the > > tab and free up the memory consumed by those sites. > > Cool, maybe I should try it again. Seamonkey uses so much CPU and > memory that I'd really like to have a replacement. Or a supplement. Use your favorite on most sites but use a different browser on difficult sites. A problem for me if I were to use Iceweasel for everything is that it would grow to consume all memory. By using separate browsers then the idle browser can be swapped out by the system. But with using Iceweasel for everything it would grow so large that it would consume all memory. The system is happier if I keep Iceweasel small and only temporarily use other browsers for memory hog sites and then exit them afterward. > > user I have customized the default screen command key from C-a (used > > by me in emacs all of the time) to C-z. > > That was something that really annoyed me with screen. I couldn't agree > with myself with key to use instead and left it at the default and > always greatly missed C-a. Tmux uses C-b instead of C-a by default --- > somehow that is much better :) As an emacs user C-b would be a conflict. I use that key all of the time. I chose C-z by default suspend-emacs because in screen I don't normally use job control. In screen I would open another window rather than suspend the current job. Therefore using C-z for screen doesn't conflict with an emacs key for me. But it might for you if you have remapped it. I normally remap emacs C-z to be the same as emacs M-v because I got used to that from a different set of keybinds from a different version of emacs from way back. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature