# The Most Important UNIX Program Ever Written



## chenly (Feb 9, 2003)

I'm talking, of course, about xroach, easily the most important UNIX program ever written. Does anyone, ANYone, else want to recompile the source to GCC 3.x, i.e., 10.2/Jaguar? I'm thinking it would work fine with Apple's X server, but...? OK, so who's with me?


----------



## BitWit (Feb 9, 2003)

what's xroach?


----------



## Y Dobon (Feb 9, 2003)

I forget, but it's not GNU Emacs, truly the most important UNIX program ever written. Which is probably reflected in this thread's sluggish response rate.


----------



## symphonix (Feb 10, 2003)

Is that the one where the little cockroaches run and hide underneath the windows, and if you close a window they scuttle away and hide under another?


----------



## d1taylor (Feb 10, 2003)

GNU Emacs as the most important program written?  While Gosling and Stallman might like to hear that, I'm always surprised at the number of people who talk about Emacs versus the number of people who actually use the bloated behemoth... ;-)

Vi user since 1980, and proud of it!


----------



## chenly (Feb 10, 2003)

xroach is *obviously*  not the most important UNIX program ever written; take a look at my signature below, including the hyperlink to get a look into the scary world of my sense of humor.

Seriously, tho', would anyone be interested in recompiling this small, representative X application into GCC 3.x/OS X 10.2? I ask this because I am unfamiliar with GCC 3.x, and would like a sample project to prep me for learning  the new complier. Any takers?


----------



## btoneill (Feb 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Y Dobon _
> *I forget, but it's not GNU Emacs, truly the most important UNIX program ever written. Which is probably reflected in this thread's sluggish response rate. *



Emacs is only important because it's known as the most bloated UNIX app ever written. That, and it caused XEmacs (formally Lucid Emacs) to come about which has, and probably will forever, annoy the living hell out of RMS. Why people continue to use the damn thing I will never know.


----------



## Y Dobon (Feb 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by btoneill _
> *Emacs is only important because it's known as the most bloated UNIX app ever written.*


 Ahahahahahaha!!!! That's hilarious! (Or at least a hilarious troll.)

GNU Emacs 21.3.50.1 compiled on my system from the 2003-02-08 CVS sources is taking up 9MB of memory with one shell buffer. On the other hand, Apple Terminal 1.3.1 is taking up almost 13MB of memory. 

Granted vi's memory requirements are less than those of GNU Emacs, but it does a very poor job when opening up largish text files (e.g., access logs on a moderately popular web server). However, if you're running vi in an Apple Terminal window, you're already using more memory than Emacs compiled with Carbon support, even if you're editing a puny six-line shell script.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 10, 2003)

.. while in your signature you have something else than the terminal's answer to that man command .. we should go and find out what is that 'greatest' software for unix?


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chenly _
> *xroach is *obviously*  not the most important UNIX program ever written; take a look at my signature below, including the hyperlink to get a look into the scary world of my sense of humor.*



Wait, that cow flash animation is the most important unix prog ever written? 

Btw, Emacs with carbon takes over 130 MB = that's an OS and not an editor anymore.


----------



## chenly (Feb 10, 2003)

Giaguara: see your quote of me above

"xroach is *obviously* not the most important UNIX program ever written; take a look at my signature below, including the hyperlink to get a look into the scary world of my sense of humor."

My signature in a reference to my character, not to the content of my posts. It's a shame you aren't as fluent with English as with code. Hmm....

Now, back to topic: is anyone familiar with GCC 3.x interested in a joint recompiling/recoding project for xroach?


----------



## Y Dobon (Feb 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *Btw, Emacs with carbon takes over 130 MB = that's an OS and not an editor anymore. *


 Of disk space, not memory. I was talking memory. But what does it matter? Disk is cheap.

In any case, anyone who actually uses Emacs never thinks of it as simply a text editor. It is, in fact, a way of life. You can read mail and news, have a compile going, running an ftp session, checking out holidays for 2003, and be editing a file in one Emacs session. Vi users don't realize that. They can't see the forest for the trees -- they don't get the big picture.

I have nothing against vi. I use it myself for fast and dirty text editing. But it is just a text editor that works well for smaller sized files.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 11, 2003)

Uh, we are talking about THIS?


----------



## chenly (Feb 11, 2003)

Giaguara, go write some f*uckin' code, and dont' reply to my posts in the future--you just sidetrack them.


----------



## hazmat (Feb 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Y Dobon _
> *
> In any case, anyone who actually uses Emacs never thinks of it as simply a text editor. It is, in fact, a way of life. You can read mail and news, have a compile going, running an ftp session, checking out holidays for 2003, and be editing a file in one Emacs session. Vi users don't realize that. They can't see the forest for the trees -- they don't get the big picture.
> *



It's more that we simply don't care. 

chenly: chill out.


----------



## edX (Feb 11, 2003)

chenly - if you aren't interested in Giaguara's posts then please use your 'ignore' button. but do not be so rude and arrogant as to try and tell someone else what they should and should not post. 

of course, now that Giaguara is a moderator, you might find yourself in some trouble by not reading what she has to say at times. 

I suggest you relax and not take yourself quite so seriously.


----------



## elfin (Feb 11, 2003)

Xbill!!!


----------

