Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[David Kastrup]

mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes:

> I recently switched to xemacs as my default word processor so I
> could do formatting in TEX for a very long document.  Most recently
> I've been using Microsoft Word, the latest version.  I switched
> because I thought that emacs had perfect stability and no crashes.
> My perception was formed due to the constant FSF/GPL/Linux advocacy
> promoted on slashdot and all the comp newsgroups.
>
> I was also inspired by Paul Graham's claims that LISP will not core
> dump and you can debug and get back to work.
>
> So with this background, I decided

to troll on a number of Usenet groups, as witnessed by the selection
of groups you post to, and by your posting history.

> that my comprehensive review of Linux, and GNU programs would be
> written using all open source tools and operating systems.  This
> review was to be submitted to several news sites including slashdot
> and OSNEWS.
>
> Much to my dismay, as I was working on my very long review (about
> 100 pages typed), xemacs core dumped on me.  I was unable to recover
> anything.  I didn't save my document because I never expected emacs
> to core dump.  The worst I thought would happen would be some LISP
> error.  Hopefully someone can debug emacs and fix this dangerous
> bug.  Until then, I'm probably going to go back to Microsoft Word
> 2003.  THe following is my core dump file:
>
> linux:~ # xemacs
>  
> Fatal error (11).

So you managed to get an XEmacs executable that would dump core right
at the start, because of faulty RAM, because of bad libraries, because
of bad compilation options (see the PROBLEMS file).  It is an
impressive feat to write a 100 page document with an editor that dumps
core before you can type a single character or load a file.

> Your files have been auto-saved.
> Use `M-x recover-session' to recover them.

That's more or less all there is to it.  The auto-save files are named
#filename# or similar, so in case that you have an XEmacs that dumps
core before you can recover the session, you can just work from there,
with the naked file.

> Your version of XEmacs was distributed with a PROBLEMS file that may
> describe your crash, and with luck a workaround.  Please check it
> first, but do report the crash anyway.  Please report this bug by
> invoking M-x report-emacs-bug, or by selecting `Send Bug Report'
> from the Help menu.  If necessary, send ordinary email to
> `crashes@xemacs.org'.  *MAKE SURE* to include the XEmacs
> configuration from M-x describe-installation, or equivalently the
> file Installation in the top of the build tree.

[...]

> Lisp backtrace follows:
>  
>   redisplay-echo-area()
>   # bind (inhibit-read-only zmacs-region-stays stdout-p frame message)
>   raw-append-message("space = select, d = keywords, e = edit, v =
> view, q = quit, ? = help" #<x-frame "emacs" 0x1c93> nil)
>   # bind (stdout-p frame message label)
>   append-message(message "space = select, d = keywords, e = edit, v =
> view, q =
> quit, ? = help" nil nil)
>   # bind (stdout-p frame message label)
>   display-message(message "space = select, d = keywords, e = edit, v =
> view, q = quit, ? = help")
>   # bind (str args fmt)
>   message("%s" "space = select, d = keywords, e = edit, v = view, q =
> quit, ? =
> help")
>   finder-summary()
>   # bind (id key)
>   finder-list-matches("news")
>   # bind (key)
>   #<compiled-function nil "...(19)" [finder-file-regexp key
> finder-current-item
> string-match finder-commentary finder-list-matches] 3 nil nil>()
>   call-interactively(finder-select)
>   # (condition-case ... . error)
>   # (catch top-level ...)
> Segmentation fault

This Lisp backtrace does not point to any editing actions, anyway.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Which is better, xemacs or gnu emacs?

[Aquila Deus]

"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2r14t7F14lvf5U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:m2wtysbw01.fsf@Stella-Blue.local...
> > mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes:
> >
> > > I recently switched to xemacs as my default word processor so I
> > > could do formatting in TEX for a very long document.  Most recently
> > > I've been using Microsoft Word, the latest version.  I switched
> > > because I thought that emacs had perfect stability and no crashes.
> > > My perception was formed due to the constant FSF/GPL/Linux advocacy
> > > promoted on slashdot and all the comp newsgroups.
> >
> > As a couple of minor quibbles:
> >
> > 1.  XEmacs is not Emacs, and XEmacs is not GNU or FSF software.
> >     XEmacs and Emacs are not interchangeable.
> 
> So which is better, XEmacs or GNU/Emacs?

XEmacs is faster, and easier to install, especially on windows.

> 
> > 2.  Nothing has perfect stability, everything else does not.
> 
> I understand.  So are you saying GNU/Emacs is more stable?

The CVS 21.3.50 I tried last year crashes almost everyday. And there
are always some weird problems in emacs with other packages (usually
out-dated and unmaintained). XEmacs beta has problems though, but not
serious.

> 
> > 3.  As a result, saving frequently and backing up one's documents is
> >     always a good idea.
> 
> So I could probably just use MS Word and get the features of VBA and COM+
> support, not to mention the robust default functionality?  If everyone
> crashes, why not just use the most feature rich program that has the most
> users?

Word is designed for kids... there is even no regexp searching.

> 
> > 4.  Emacs by default creates backup documents, you'll find them in
> >     the same directory as the file you were working on with a tilde
> >     after the filename.  Hopefully XEmacs, which I've never used, does
> >     the same thing.
> 
> I looked for it.  I also did that ALT-M thing to try to recover.  Whatever
> happened must of been quite serious because it ate my autosave document.

In fact I find auto-backup very annoying for me.

> 
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html
> 
> WOW.  Those OSS/GNU guys really are immature.  I followed a link on the
> xemacs.org site and they really duked it out over emacs.  For those of you
> who would really like to see RMS and the XEMACS team battle from 15 years
> ago, visit this site:
> http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html
> 
> Talk about a nasty exchange.

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

>> Yes, this means that there is no good way to distinguish between the
>> two dominant emacs-variants.
>
> Emacs and XEmacs.  What is bad about that?

That "Emacs" also denotes the whole family.

I don't know whether "FSF Emacs" or "GNU Emacs" is more appropriate.

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak@knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard Taylor
<richard@rtaylor93.wanadoo.co.uk>
 wrote
on Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:28:31 +0100
<2qv41kF142tp6U1@uni-berlin.de>:
> Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> I recently switched to xemacs as my default word processor so I could
>> do formatting in TEX for a very long document.  Most recently I've
>> been using Microsoft Word, the latest version.  I switched because I
>> thought that emacs had perfect stability and no crashes.  My
>> perception was formed due to the constant FSF/GPL/Linux advocacy
>> promoted on slashdot and all the comp newsgroups.
>> 
>> I was also inspired by Paul Graham's claims that LISP will not core
>> dump and you can debug and get back to work.
>> 
>> So with this background, I decided that my comprehensive review of
>> Linux, and GNU programs would be written using all open source tools
>> and operating systems.  This review was to be submitted to several
>> news sites including slashdot and OSNEWS.
>> 
>> Much to my dismay, as I was working on my very long review (about 100
>> pages typed), xemacs core dumped on me.  I was unable to recover
>> anything.  I didn't save my document because I never expected emacs to
>> core dump.  The worst I thought would happen would be some LISP error.
>> Hopefully someone can debug emacs and fix this dangerous bug.  Until
>> then, I'm probably going to go back to Microsoft Word 2003.  THe
>> following is my core dump file:
>> 
>
> I can see that all of your problems will be solved, as MS Word, in 
> common with all MS software, has an excellent reputation as robust 
> software which almost _never_ crashes, certainly not as often as 
> GNU/Linux applications.
>
> Personally, I make a point to never save my work either. Certainly not 
> once I'm getting close to the 100 page mark. Since my software is known 
> to _never_ crash, what possible good could it do me to save a copy 
> dozens of hours of hard work to my hard drive?
>
> Certainly, none of the problems you have experience could be laid at the 
> feet of the user, as it is customary to expect that one can type a 
> 100-page document without the slightest chance of:
>
> 	A) Loosing power,
>
> 	B) Hardware failiure
>
> 	C) Software failiure unrelated to word processor/text editor,
>
> 	D) General malign fate.

E) Cats walking over the keyboard.
F) Kids walking over Dad (or Mom) and inadvertantly doing things.
G) X11 crashes.  (Hey, not even Linux is perfect. :-) )
H) Alien space beings knock at one's door and invite you to participate
in a variation of the Philadelphia Experiment, after tying you up with
a bale of copper wire and attaching it to an odd-looking contrivance
that looks suspiciously like an alien nuclear battery.

(OK, so I made the last one up. :-) )

>
> You have, of course, my deepest sympathies. Rest assured that I will 
> never again take the risk of using or advocating XEmacs, GNU Emacs, or 
> any other GNU Project/FSF software. After all, it's clearly not suitable 
> for the needs of a /reasonable/ user.
>

Mike Cox?  Reasonable?  :-)  Surely you jest...

In any event, I for one would not use Emacs (mostly because I never got
around to learning it) but that's beside the point; if one wants 100
pages of document, perhaps it makes more sense, especially for web
design, to generate 100 individual Webnodes?

Then again, that leads to renumbering and/or filename
problems.  Any editor worth its salt (presumably that
includes Emacs, vi, and many others) will do the following:

[1] Open the file mydocument.whatever for readonly access, and read it
    into memory or a scratchpad file somewhere.
[2] (Optional) Save the memory or scratchpad on an occasional basis.
[3] When saving, create the new file in mydocument.whatever.new or
    .mydocument.whatever.new or ... well, whatever.
[4] After the save is confirmed (presumably by careful I/O checking;
    each I/O call returns the number of bytes written -- another
    method might be to check the size of the written file using stat()),
    mydocument.whatever can be renamed to mydocument.whatever.bak
    and .mydocument.whatever.new renamed to mydocument.whatever.

In vi, I write ':w' frequently anyway, just in case.  (I don't know the
Emacs equivalent.)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[Tim McNamara]

Craig Kelley <namonai@that.google.thingy> writes:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:17:34 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> 4.  Emacs by default creates backup documents, you'll find them in
>>     the same directory as the file you were working on with a tilde
>>     after the filename.  Hopefully XEmacs, which I've never used,
>>     does the same thing.
>
> The tilde document is the last version; the auto backup will be the
> filename surrounded by hash marks (#).

Thanks for that- if Emacs ever crashes while I'm editing a docuent,
I'll know what to look for.

Re: Which is better, xemacs or gnu emacs?

[Tim McNamara]

"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:m2wtysbw01.fsf@Stella-Blue.local...
>> mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes:
>>
>> > I recently switched to xemacs as my default word processor so I
>> > could do formatting in TEX for a very long document.  Most
>> > recently I've been using Microsoft Word, the latest version.  I
>> > switched because I thought that emacs had perfect stability and
>> > no crashes.  My perception was formed due to the constant
>> > FSF/GPL/Linux advocacy promoted on slashdot and all the comp
>> > newsgroups.
>>
>> As a couple of minor quibbles:
>>
>> 1.  XEmacs is not Emacs, and XEmacs is not GNU or FSF software.
>>     XEmacs and Emacs are not interchangeable.
>
> So which is better, XEmacs or GNU/Emacs?

Both.

>> 2.  Nothing has perfect stability, everything else does not.
>
> I understand.  So are you saying GNU/Emacs is more stable?

No.  I've never used XEmacs, so I cannot comment on it.

>> 3.  As a result, saving frequently and backing up one's documents
>> is
>>     always a good idea.
>
> So I could probably just use MS Word and get the features of VBA and
> COM+ support, not to mention the robust default functionality?  If
> everyone crashes, why not just use the most feature rich program
> that has the most users?

Ummm, the feature set of Emacs and XEmacs blows Word out of the water,
Mike.  All Word can do is word processing.  Emacs can read your
e-mail, Usenet news (I'm using it now for this), run spreadsheets,
browse the Web, and make coffee.  Well, not directly.  Yer just
trolling with these questions.

>> 4.  Emacs by default creates backup documents, you'll find them in
>>     the same directory as the file you were working on with a tilde
>>     after the filename.  Hopefully XEmacs, which I've never used,
>>     does the same thing.
>
> I looked for it.  I also did that ALT-M thing to try to recover.
> Whatever happened must of been quite serious because it ate my
> autosave document.

Hummm.  Did you read the docs before using?

>> See:
>>
>> http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html
>
> WOW.  Those OSS/GNU guys really are immature.  I followed a link on
> the xemacs.org site and they really duked it out over emacs.  For
> those of you who would really like to see RMS and the XEMACS team
> battle from 15 years ago, visit this site:
> http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html
>
> Talk about a nasty exchange.

Nothing like the venom of those who've spent thousands of dollars on
Microsoft products that are barely functional.

Re: Which is better, xemacs or gnu emacs?

[kier]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:14:05 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>> news:m2wtysbw01.fsf@Stella-Blue.local...
>>> mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes:
>>>
>>> > I recently switched to xemacs as my default word processor so I
>>> > could do formatting in TEX for a very long document.  Most
>>> > recently I've been using Microsoft Word, the latest version.  I
>>> > switched because I thought that emacs had perfect stability and
>>> > no crashes.  My perception was formed due to the constant
>>> > FSF/GPL/Linux advocacy promoted on slashdot and all the comp
>>> > newsgroups.
>>>
>>> As a couple of minor quibbles:
>>>
>>> 1.  XEmacs is not Emacs, and XEmacs is not GNU or FSF software.
>>>     XEmacs and Emacs are not interchangeable.
>>
>> So which is better, XEmacs or GNU/Emacs?
> 
> Both.
> 
>>> 2.  Nothing has perfect stability, everything else does not.
>>
>> I understand.  So are you saying GNU/Emacs is more stable?
> 
> No.  I've never used XEmacs, so I cannot comment on it.

I have. It's never crashed on me.

> 
>>> 3.  As a result, saving frequently and backing up one's documents
>>> is
>>>     always a good idea.
>>
>> So I could probably just use MS Word and get the features of VBA and
>> COM+ support, not to mention the robust default functionality?  If
>> everyone crashes, why not just use the most feature rich program
>> that has the most users?
> 
> Ummm, the feature set of Emacs and XEmacs blows Word out of the water,
> Mike.  All Word can do is word processing.  Emacs can read your
> e-mail, Usenet news (I'm using it now for this), run spreadsheets,
> browse the Web, and make coffee.  Well, not directly.  Yer just
> trolling with these questions.

Well, he *is* a troll. :-)

> 
>>> 4.  Emacs by default creates backup documents, you'll find them in
>>>     the same directory as the file you were working on with a tilde
>>>     after the filename.  Hopefully XEmacs, which I've never used,
>>>     does the same thing.

It does. Easily recoverable.

>>
>> I looked for it.  I also did that ALT-M thing to try to recover.
>> Whatever happened must of been quite serious because it ate my
>> autosave document.

We believe you. Not. 

> 
> Hummm.  Did you read the docs before using?

I doubt it.

> 
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html
>>>
>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html
>>
>> WOW.  Those OSS/GNU guys really are immature.  I followed a link on
>> the xemacs.org site and they really duked it out over emacs.  For
>> those of you who would really like to see RMS and the XEMACS team
>> battle from 15 years ago, visit this site:
>> http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html
>>
>> Talk about a nasty exchange.
> 
> Nothing like the venom of those who've spent thousands of dollars on
> Microsoft products that are barely functional.

-- 
Kier

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[David Kastrup]

"wlcna" <wlcna@nospam.com> writes:

> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:3d6111f1.0409161437.30ef8b7d@posting.google.com...
>>I recently switched to xemacs as my default word processor so I could
>> do formatting in TEX for a very long document.  Most recently I've
> [...]
>
> I don't really care about this discussion because I don't like/can't stand 
> emacs (I use vi and vim) and also initially thought the o.p. was a complete 
> liar and troll, but having looked at his other posts and his posting 
> history, I no longer believe this and moreover...  I NOW THINK this guy has 
> a point:  xemacs is a pile of crap if this guy was editing for five hours 
> and it crashed out of nowhere on him.
>
> I think xemacs has a problem here because I've NEVER ONCE
> experienced a crash with vim, whether it be using it from the
> command line or gui.  Not once, and it's the only editor I've been
> using for years, and I don't use it in any plain, stripped down
> versions, but pretty well feature-maxed versions, under multiple
> operating systems and windowing environments.  This guy was editing
> for five hours and he gets a crash "out of nowhere."

Well, according to "this guy", he had been writing a review, and had
written 100 pages at the time of the crash.  A 100 page review, and
written at a speed of 20 pages per hour.

And then, while he is writing with this fervor, XEmacs crashes, of all
things, in the package finder.  What is he doing browsing the package
finder in the middle of such a heated editing session?  And then he
gets a traceback which indicates no crucial function at all, like what
would happened if you did a kill -SEGV explicitly on XEmacs.

And lo and behold, the autosave file is missing.  It is one of the
most foolproof systems ever, and it is purportedly not doing anything.
I have done editing with completely unstable development versions of
Emacs, and never lost more than about a line of text when it crashed.

And then we have Mike Cox, a _known_ anti-Linux troll from
comp.os.linux.advocacy, and he crossposts his report without much
usable information (and the given information rather unbelievable) to
a bunch of groups including advocacy groups.

No really, your vim preferral in all respect, but I am afraid that
_this_ posting is nothing to feed it.

> One can call him an idiot for not saving, but his whole intent was
> to USE Linux tools to REVIEW them.  This makes sense.  And putting
> himself in the risky situation he put himself in makes a bit of
> sense also.  He got burned, his review will now reflect that, people
> will learn from his getting burned.  He will not gloss over this
> fact.

Hard to gloss over anything if you write 100-page reviews.

> I also just read the xemacs/lemacs versus emacs/RMS stuff on jwz.org
> and I must say this jwz person sounds like a prize putz, as well as
> the Richard Gabriel person and all of those Lucid people.  I find it
> hard to believe that there were people defending this obviously
> MERCENARY, SELF-PROMOTING, SHALLOW bunch within that discussion.

They had a business to run that needed to be profitable.  I'd not call
that "mercenary".  "Mercenary" means making _other_ people's business
your own in exchange for money.

> While I don't like emacs, I would completely take his side in that
> discussion.

Emacs will be pleased to hear that.  But since you are 10 years late,
it will not interest many others.

> I would think the o.p. might try regular emacs and report his
> experiences there, since the problem could simply be with the
> non-standard, separately maintained version he chose to use, xemacs,
> which may simply be a crash-prone pile of crap compared to regular
> emacs.

Nice piece of flame-bait here.  Thankfully, you are not representative
for the typical vim user.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[Josh]

Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:

> I was pressing random keys trying to figure out how to save my
> document.  I was looking through the emacs help menu on how to
> do it (enduring a lot of computer beeping).  That's when it
> crashed.  Emacs is a nightmare to navigate.  Where is the "Save
> As" button on this thing???

You wouldn't happen to have noticed the "Save As" option in the
"File" menu, perhaps?

> The reason I didn't even save in the first place was because
> emacs never asked me to create a new document when I started it
> up.  It just dumped me in some "buffer".  In VIM you have to
> specify a file when you open a document.  Makes sense, and it
> works unlike emacs.

You would have, of course, missed this text in the scratch buffer
on startup as well?

;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp
;; evaluation.  If you want to create a file, first visit that
;; file with C-x C-f, then enter the text in that file's own
;; buffer.

In particular, the first sentence is quite telling...

>> One presses C-g.  That's it.  You then use ^ in the Group
>> buffer to go to the server buffer and close the connection to
>> the server with C.  You leave the server buffer with q, and
>> then you just continue working once the connection is up
>> again.
>
> Try it.  Didn't work for me.

This works fine for me.  Of course, I don't have a modem to test
with, so I'll have to settle for bringing the interface down.

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[Mike Cox]

David Kastrup wrote:

> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'll admit that I don't know too much about emacs.  I was
>>>>>> pressing some random keys in the emacs window and all of a
>>>>>> sudden it just collapsed and core dumped.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pressing random keys while writing a 100 page document in 5
>>>>> hours.  There are probably few other ways of getting this sort of
>>>>> output in this time rather than pressing random keys.
>>>>
>>>> I was pressing random keys trying to figure out how to save my
>>>> document.
>>> 
>>> After writing 100 pages of TeX document you try figuring out basic
>>> features of an editor.  Why didn't you write the document using
>>> "cat"?
>>
>> I went throught the emacs tutorial that shows the basic commands.  I
>> then entered the buffer and started typing.  After I was done, I was
>> going to convert everything to TeX.  It was only going to be very
>> basic TeX stuff.
> 
> 100 pages with lots of screen shots.  How do you include screen shots
> in a text that is not even written in TeX?

Easy.  

1.Create the screenshots.  Put them in a folder.  
2.Open emacs.  Type text in the buffer.  
3.When the text was finished, I would have gone onto Oreily's Safari and put
a TeX book in my virtual bookshelf.  I would have then read the TeX book
and followed along formatting my document.

I only got to step 2 when emacs crashed, hosing my text.  With the text, and
the size of the screenshots, I estimate that I would have had 100 pages of
review.  I don't know for certain because I never built the complete thing
of course.

> 
>>>> I was looking through the emacs help menu on how to do it (enduring
>>>> a lot of computer beeping).  That's when it crashed.  Emacs is a
>>>> nightmare to navigate.  Where is the "Save As" button on this
>>>> thing???
>>> 
>>> Try the "File/Save As" menu.  This is not so very uncommon between
>>> applications now, is it?
>>
>> Its kind of hard when the screen is not redrawing itself and xemacs
>> isn't responding to any commands.
> 
> In which case it would seem somewhat surprising that you can browse
> the help system looking for info about how to save a buffer.

Of course you can.  With another instance of emacs (have two emacs running). 
The other instance of emacs cannot save the file of the other instance, but
you can read the help.

> 
> At the moment you should be more concerned about saving face, though.
> There does not seem to be enough around for all the egg you insist to
> be putting on.

I'm just stating what happened.  Maybe it was user error, who knows. I
certainly will admit I am an emacs beginner.  It is true that I thought
emacs to be superiour to Word or VIM because of the LISP promotion everyone
was doing in the comp groups and in slashdot (Paul Graham chiefly).


>>>> The reason I didn't even save in the first place was because emacs
>>>> never asked me to create a new document when I started it up.  It
>>>> just dumped me in some "buffer".  In VIM you have to specify a
>>>> file when you open a document.
>>> 
>>> Since when?  You end in a scratch buffer if you start without
>>> specifying a file on the command line, just like with Emacs/XEmacs,
>>> and you end in a buffer for a particular file if you start it with
>>> a file name argument, just like Emacs/XEmacs.
>>
>> Ok now I know this.  Everything else about emacs seems so
>> counter-intuitive, especially the "scratch buffer" which is
>> supposedly for something called LISP.
> 
> Well, then start up Emacs with a file name in the first place.  Just
> like you do with vim.

I will next time.

>>>> Makes sense, and it works unlike emacs.
>>> 
>>> It works just the same as with Emacs/XEmacs.  Can't you come up with
>>> some lies that are more difficult to refute?
>>
>> These aren't lies, just my experience trying to use XEmacs.
> 
> That vim automagically guesses file names to use and XEmacs doesn't?
> Sorry that is a lie.  Without a file name, you get a scratch buffer in
> vim, too.

I never thought that you could specify a filename when starting emacs out. 
The tuturial doesn't even mention it if I recall correctly.  I read the VIM
tutorial and that is how I knew to do that in VIM.  I read the Emacs
tutorial and it showed a bunch of weird key commands and described some
alien modes.  It also mentioned that is is based in LISP.

>>>>>> And no there was NO autosave file.  And I was using a vanilla xemacs
>>>>>> version that comes standard with SuSE 8.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, according to "this guy", he had been writing a review, and
>>>>>>> had written 100 pages at the time of the crash.  A 100 page review,
>>>>>>> and written at a speed of 20 pages per hour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With a lot of screen shots and diagrams that I had already created.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In TeX.  And you include all those screen shots and diagrams in your
>>>>> source.  And know that the output will be 100 pages.  Which is pretty
>>>>> hard to estimate unless you actually run TeX on the file.  Which is
>>>>> pretty hard to do without saving the file first.  And you write a
>>>>> review that is supposed to be published on the Web with TeX.
>>>>
>>>> Well, first off, I don't know how to use TeX.
>>> 
>>> And you write a 100 page document including screen shots without
>>> knowing how to use TeX.
>>
>> I didn't say I included the screenshots in my document now, did I???
> 
> You said that you lost a 100 page document when XEmacs crashed.  And
> then you said that the 100 pages were due to screenshots.  If the
> screenshots were not in the document, it would be hard to see how they
> could have got lost.

They didn't get lost.  They are still in my folder.  A person can correctly
guess at the size of a document without putting it all together.  Each
screenshot was about 2 pages. If I had 25 screen shots that is 50 pages.
And from the amount of text I had, it probably came out to 45 pages.  I did
the math, and I would have had a 100 page document.

The screenshots are easier to recreate than the text.  That is why I
mentioned it even.  There is a bug in xemacs somewhere because it core
dumped.

> 
>> I had them created but they were not in the document, they were in
>> my home directory.  I just estimated that each screenshot would take
>> about 2 pages, because my monitor is half a page in size.
> 
> So you had 50 screen shots prepared to put into your document, and you
> managed crashing XEmacs for some reason before writing any of the rest
> of your document, so that you lost all 100 pages you had not yet
> written.  And XEmacs refused to provide an autosave file with all the
> 100 pages you had not yet written.  While that is a pity, I must say
> that I somehow think you are expecting too much.
> 
>> As for the document size, the scratch buffer doesn't show a new page
>> like MS Word does, it just keeps the text going and going.
> 
> A new page.  When you intent to convert this to TeX.  Wow.
> 
>> To me it seemed like a 100 pages.  There was no way to know for sure
>> unless I imported it into MS Word or printed it out.  But my best
>> guess is that it would end up that size.
> 
> Once you put in all the screenshots that weren't there and which you
> lost nevertheless.  My condolences.
> 
>>>> I was going to do the format after I had everything written out. I
>>>> wanted everything typed just in case I couldn't figure out how to
>>>> use TeX. I had my screenshots done already and they take about 2
>>>> pages each.
>>> 
>>> And you already included them into your TeX document, though you
>>> don't know TeX and have not read one scrap of documentation about
>>> either TeX or Emacs.  So that all your 100 pages were lost.  In a
>>> manner that all screen shots magically disappeared from your disk.
>>> Wow.  Congrats.  You are a real magician.
>>
>> Read the above.  I still have my screenshots.  Those I could have
>> easily recreated if they were lost BTW.  What I did lose was a lot
>> of unformatted text that I was going to format using TeX after I had
>> it written out.
> 
> 100 pages of them including screen shots.
> 
>>>> So my scratch buffer was quite full of text, I'm not sure if it was
>>>> 100 pages, but it sure seemed like it.
>>> 
>>> You are quite full of it.  I'm not sure if it 100 percent, but it
>>> sure seems like it.
>>
>> I hope I'm clearing it up in this post.  I can see how you could
>> have become confused.
> 
> It's not that it needed much clearing up, in particular given your
> posting history, but you nevertheless manage an impressive job doing
> that.
> 
>>>>>> There is a GNUS bug in xEMACS AND FSF Emacs.  I'll bet you can
>>>>>> even reproduce it.  Get a dialup connection to the internet.
>>>>>> Start up gnus.  Read your favorite groups, and if your dailup
>>>>>> connection disconnects while you are downloading an article, GNUS
>>>>>> will completely FREEZE UP!!!!  I had to stop using GNUS because of
>>>>>> that reason and am now using knode.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One presses C-g.  That's it.  You then use ^ in the Group buffer to
>>>>> go to the server buffer and close the connection to the server with
>>>>> C.  You leave the server buffer with q, and then you just continue
>>>>> working once the connection is up again.
>>>>
>>>> Try it.  Didn't work for me.
>>> 
>>> I do this all the time.
>>
>> What I think you are forgetting is that I'm a NEW emacs user.
> 
> And the key combinations work differently for new users?  Hardly.  You
> could complain that the info about C-g is hard to find, and about how
> to go about reconnecting to a broken connection.  But that's not what
> you complained about.  You said that the keys I gave you didn't work.
> And that places you from the category of newbie into that of liar.

They didnt work.  When emacs was unresponsive, and not redrawing itself,
nothing worked.  I had my document in the buffer and I was attempting to
use gnus when it crashed.  And when I mean crashed, the screen stopped
redrawing itself and then emacs just disappeared.  That is a core dump.
> 
>> Of course you have no problems using emacs, you've been using it
>> however many X years.
> 
> It does not behave differently to newbies than to experienced users.
> Finding out everything will require work, of course.  But lying about
> it does not help.
> 
>> You are used to it so much that you don't even probably do things
>> that *could* break it.
> 
> You have no idea how many things in XEmacs and Emacs I managed to
> break.  Because I am a programmer.

Maybe that is why you are so touchy about this.  Could it be that something
you program is related to emacs?  Are you an emacs developer?  It is better
to admit that something is broken and fix it than to try and save face and
hide it.  Look at Microsoft and the Word "Disk Full" bug.  I doubt that
people will think any less of emacs if there is a bug in it.  

They will just realize that emacs is another program, not some
indestructible LISP crash-free super program.  They will realize that it is
just like MS Word, where instead of Visual Basic, it uses LISP for its
extendability.

> 
>>>> Try again.  I tried all the key combinations from the emacs
>>>> tutorial, C-g included.  I tried this on both xemacs and fsf emacs,
>>>> both hung.  You can try it too.  Get SuSE 8.2 and do it using both
>>>> xemacs or fsf emacs.
>>> 
>>> It works.  Simple as that.
>>
>> That's what Bill Gates says about Windows too.  Doesn't make it true
>> now???
> 
> I would not say that Windows does not work, all in all.  Just not for
> my purposes.  However, C-g works just fine for interrupting access to
> a broken connection.  I use it all the time.
> 

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[Miles Bader]

So what is it with all the trolls getting on Paul Graham's case lately?

-Miles
-- 
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[Miles Bader]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
> Oh, so you were being a jerk intentionally?  That's OK then, everybody
> has days like that.

"Not obeying linux troll's headers" == "jerk"??

I think you need to get out more Stephen...

-Miles
-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Miles" == Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

    Miles> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

    >> Oh, so you were being a jerk intentionally?  That's OK then,
    >> everybody has days like that.

    Miles> "Not obeying linux troll's headers" == "jerk"??

Not only did you obey them the first time, but now you're deliberately
ignoring FUT to reset them to the troll's?  Maybe you're not Miles at
all!  If so, my apologies to the real Miles for being taken in.  :-)

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote:
>Much to my dismay, as I was working on my very long review (about 100
>pages typed), xemacs core dumped on me.  I was unable to recover
>anything.  I didn't save my document because I never expected emacs to

Looks like a troll to me.  How many people type in 100 pages of
text without an interuption that results in a saved file?

Regardless, anyone who does that kind of typing is a fool not to
have enabled autosave, just in case the power fails, the cpu
burns up, the police knock at the door, or whatever.

-- 
FloydL. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com