Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 12, 2018 20:25 UTC (Thu) by xtifr (guest, #143)
In reply to: Emacs & TLS by naptastic
Parent article: Emacs & TLS

First of all, even if emacs *were* merely a text editor, it's not like all documents in the world are stored on a single machine. The ability to edit files stored on multiple machines from a single instance of an editor provides some *obvious* benefits. Most obviously, cut-and-paste without depending on a graphical user interface (no X required). Beyond that, there's the ability to use keystroke recording to define on-the-fly macros. If you could only edit files on a single machine, you would have to re-record your macro on each new machine with files which need editing--a potentially error-prone process. As it is, you can record the macro once, then apply it to files stored on machines all across your network.

But beyond that, of course, emacs is no more a text editor than gnome or kde is a window manager. But since that's not the question you asked, I won't go into detail about it, except to note that bundling IDLE with python wouldn't make it inappropriate to write other apps in python.

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 15, 2018 15:05 UTC (Sun) by naptastic (guest, #60139) [Link] (1 responses)

> As it is, you can record the macro once, then apply it to files stored on machines all across your network.

I can??? That's REALLY cool. With the tools in my current toolbox, I'd end up writing a script (probably sed or Perl), uploading the script someplace all my hosts could access, and then maybe

for $host in $(cat hosts_to_zoit); do ssh -t $host "curl $script_url | /bin/sh"; done

and then realize I need to go do something else like shave, or set something on fire... or maybe learn Emacs. ;)

> bundling IDLE with python wouldn't make it inappropriate to write other apps in python.

This answers my question the same way a kōan provides enlightenment. It's not a direct answer, but having read it, my question is answered. Thank you!

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 19, 2018 6:38 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Not that I know emacs, really, but I believe it's a bit like Forth. An extensible system that will do whatever you want.

In Forth, you combine primitives until you have a system that does complicated things - like a BIOS, say.

In Lisp, you combine primitives until you have the kitchen sink with emacs :-)

So under the hood, emacs IS Lisp, a powerful programming environment. A completely different approach to languages like C and Fortran, where the compiler is completely separate from the application.

Cheers,
Wol

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 18, 2018 7:57 UTC (Wed) by Shugyousha (subscriber, #93672) [Link] (6 responses)

> First of all, even if emacs *were* merely a text editor, it's not like all documents in the world are stored on a single machine. The ability to edit files stored on multiple machines from a single instance of an editor provides some *obvious* benefits. Most obviously, cut-and-paste without depending on a graphical user interface (no X required). Beyond that, there's the ability to use keystroke recording to define on-the-fly macros. If you could only edit files on a single machine, you would have to re-record your macro on each new machine with files which need editing--a potentially error-prone process. As it is, you can record the macro once, then apply it to files stored on machines all across your network.

Personally, I always thought that using something like sshfs and then use the locally installed editor is a much more elegant solution for editing files on different machines. That way your text editor doesn't have to know about network protocols at all.

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 18, 2018 8:48 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Can be really slow though.

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 18, 2018 14:22 UTC (Wed) by rweikusat2 (subscriber, #117920) [Link] (4 responses)

Whichever way you turn it, the filesystem API cannot be married to "the network" in a sensible way. An application using a network filesystem remains a networked application and has to be written accordingly. And demanding that all applications using the filesystem have to be written as if they were networked applications just to support the ill-conceived idea of "a network filesystem", as "friends of the NFS" are/ were wont to do, is not reasonable.

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 18, 2018 14:31 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link] (1 responses)

Except that even local filesystems are on a network. It's a PCIe bus and usually quite fast. But still a network.

The newer block device schedulers even borrow ideas from networks.

Programmers can try to ignore the complexities when using local filesystems, but in reality they still have all the same problems. Devices can time out, be forced to reset, or just disappear. Even if they're local.

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 18, 2018 16:02 UTC (Wed) by rweikusat2 (subscriber, #117920) [Link]

Technically, any connection between two "electric things" can be regarded as "sort-of a network" but that's besides the point.

The filesystem API is an abstract interface provided by the kernel which enables applications to work with "files" and "directories" presumably backed by some kind of persistent storage medium. Making this work is a problem the kernel has to deal with as the API doesn't (and was never meant to) enable applications to do it. The most visible exponent is the "uninterruptible sleep state" --- applications using the file system API don't "block" because it's assumed that all operation will complete within some fairly short time. This isn't really true in practice but usually involves hardware failures (or software errors) which aren't supposed to occur (and hence, all bets are off).

In contrast to this, some functionally critical device on a network, eg, a switch or a router, not being available for an unspecified time or not being capable of handling all of the traffic it should have handled during some time interval are perfectly normal occurences and applications are expected to cope with that.

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 18, 2018 15:04 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (1 responses)

An application using a network filesystem remains a networked application and has to be written accordingly.

This statement seems to lead me towards one of two conclusions about you:

You think people shouldn't be able to share a single home directory across multiple computers.
You think all applications for modern operating systems should be written as networked applications.

I shall be nice, and assume the second :)

Emacs & TLS

Posted Jul 18, 2018 15:52 UTC (Wed) by rweikusat2 (subscriber, #117920) [Link]

A speculation you happen to consider plausible is not a conclusion.