Re: launch a program in an arbitrary frame

[Emanuel Berg]

Hikaru Ichijyo <ichijyo@macross.sdf.jp> writes:

> The whole reason I got into Emacs was because I was
> hoping it could bring my Internet usage back to the
> happy days back when it was almost all text, almost
> all done through the keyboard, all in one integrated
> environment (no more "mousercize" to use the
> Internet). The mouse slows me down and makes me keep
> having to move my right arm back and forth.

100% correct.

> And on any kind of Unix system, adjusting any
> setting is usually done with text files in a text
> editor. Emacs just seemed like it could bring it all
> together, system administration and Internet usage,
> and make the mouse only necessary for programs that
> truly need to be graphical. I'm gradually realizing
> that, and it's a really elegant way of working.

Yes :)

> The AJAX sites like Facebook still need a thick
> browser like Firefox. I ran into a message thread in
> another forum where people were talking about
> integrating full WebKit suite capabilities into an
> Emacs browser, but Stallman was against it.
>
> To which, I say...GOOD!!! I'm glad the voice of
> reason (ok, the voice of RMS) is prevailing here!
> The last thing Emacs needs is for the twenty ton
> bloat that now affects thick web browsers to come
> like a snake into paradise and afflict us all.

1) Of course, I don't like Ajax and absolutely not
   Facebook, however adding support for things one
   doesn't like will have the effect of not alienating
   people who do like those things. If we go the extra
   mile they (perhaps) won't be instantly turned
   off/afraid, and in time and gradually they will be
   exposed to different things through the back door,
   and in even more time perhaps that will make them
   drop the Facebook etc. hysteria and become
   independent computer users.

2) This "bloat" thing is often based on
   a misconception that stems from the Windoze and
   accursed Apple systems which have desktops that are
   relentless in bugging you and driving you crazy
   with popups, icons - all kinds of visual noise.
   To be honest, the thrice-accursed Linux world has
   not been immune to this and many popular distros
   have walked the same sad path.

   The reaction to this has been the wish for
   a "minimal", "streamlined", and "clean" system.
   But just because you have tons of features,
   software, and power, that doesn't mean your system
   has to be bulky, ill-organized or "dirty"! There is
   no such correlation. It can be, if the GUI is such
   that for every piece of software you install, you
   get another annoying icon, popup, menu, etc.
   But that is the *GUI* in particular, and not the
   software toolkit or the system. What you see, don't
   have to be what (all) you get! Didn't you watch the
   "Robots in disguise" show as a kid?

   Here is an example:

       http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/dumps/system.png

   'lspath' is a zsh function:

        lspath () {
          (($#)) || set ''
          print -lr -- $^path/*$^@*(N:t) | sort -u
        }

    What it does is, it lists all the executables in
    the user's PATH ("path" is a zsh feature). As you
    see from the screenshot, that number is 3356! And,
    if that number is 10 000 or even 100 000, assuming
    the software is good, the screenshot will look
    just the same, save for the change of that digit.
    Adding more things doesn't have to add the
    "bloat" unless you let it!

    So it is not "bloated" just because it has
    features, tools, and power, it is (can be) bloated
    because the GUI chooses to put all this in your
    face *all the time*, instead of when you yourself
    say it is time to use a particular piece of
    software, at what time that, and only that, is
    invoked and displayed.

> Anyway, Emacs is basically turning into the console
> through which I use the Internet and do all things
> on my system (and other systems).

Yes. Before there was a desktop, there was an editor.
The editor was much more powerful, but people couldn't
handle all that power. Now, many people that would
instinctively use the editor simply do not know there
is an alternative to the desktop. It is a sad state.
All we can do is do the right thing ourselves.

    I'm not trying to preach. I believe I can reach.
    But your mind ain't prepared. I see you when you
    get there. (Coolio 1997)

> Well, that isn't the way Gnus is messing my
> windows up.
>
> It's more like this:
>
> Say you have three buffers setup with a window
> layout you like. You launch Gnus. It brings up its
> Group buffer, and so far, you're fine. Then you read
> an article, and the whole frame is replaced with
> Gnus' Group/Article split -- so much for your window
> layout. It's the Group/Article split that seems to
> make Gnus incompatible with any kind of window
> layout you might be using, so I've just been putting
> anything that I care about the layout of in
> a separate frame. The Gnus Help and Server buffers
> haven't been doing anything bad to me -- they're
> just simple single-window screens.

To me it sounds like it is the same problem and
because of that applying the same solution with
different data is a good first step.

But, to be exact, you display articles from the
summary buffer. Say you have a list of articles.
You hit RET. What do you want to happen then, exactly?
And what do you want not happening, that is?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573