6 ms·

Would ssh-ing into another machine count?

by speek 16y ago

mnemonik 16y ago
I don't think the Author actually cares about emacs so much as what emacs stands for. Emacs represents the Free Software movement, and for it to be on the iPad would mean that Apple has changed their perspective on software development.
dasht 16y ago
No. When you give control over YOUR computer to some third party, you are giving up you freedom. Apple insists on having that kind of control over iPad purchasers. I can't speak for the FSF but I think it is a safe prediction that there will be no support port of GNU Emacs to iPad unless Apple changes its tune.
- lallysingh 16y ago
  Say it with me: The iPad is not a computer. It's a web browsing appliance. Hackers want computers, full computers. And plenty of vendors (including apple) sell them in many different configurations, styles, and prices. Many other people do not want full computers -- they're a pain to manage and maintain, and their interfaces are too general-purpose and get in the way. Complaining about the freedom about an iPad is like complaining about the freedom in your TV's firmware or (fairly-advanced) toaster.
  - wollw 16y ago
    My N800 manages to be an "Internet Tablet" and have XTerm installed by default. Using it isn't necessary but it's nice to be able to run command line programs when I want.
  - cema 16y ago
    He is not complaining. He is explaining.
  - bodhi 16y ago
    I've heard this line of reasoning many times, and I've just figured out what I dislike about it. The iPad is a computer. It has a general-purpose operating system, and a very general-purpose input method. The reason that people like me are irritated is that the limitations that lead to you saying "[it] is not a computer" are business/social reasons, not technical. Given that a lot of the people here are technical-minded, it's reasonable to complain that the iPad is artifically restricted.
    - lallysingh 16y ago
      Any line between embedded and "full" computers isn't technical, without choosing fairly arbitrary criteria. A palm pre runs linux, and has a keyboard, it's SDK is HTML/JS. Why aren't people complaining about that? I believe that it's b/c they already knew what a phone was, and that they were happy that they got some power to hack phones when the smarter ones came out. The iPad went the other direction. The endpoint's the same -- a specialized device for a specific set of activities -- but now developers feel that things have been taken away instead of added. A social reason if I ever heard one. We're only going to see more specialized devices -- embedded systems are getting enough power to get really interesting -- so it's best that us hackers get used to it now.
      - bodhi 16y ago
        Ok, so you see the iPad as a "a specialized device for a specific set of activities", whereas I and others see it as a general-purpose computer, that is artificially restricted. An iPad could technically run Emacs, but won't due to policy restrictions. > it's best that us hackers get used to it now I'd rather not, and I'd rather complain about companies that push computing in that direction. It seems to be a philosophical difference between us.
        loewenskind 16y ago
        Personally I'm glad that Apple ignores people like you and hope the trend continues. Hackers (a kind of slang word for "producers") already have a capible device. It's called a desktop computer. Everyone else is mostly a consumer. Apple has given us the (almost) perfect consumer device. Finally a machine that can be with us literally all time. We've tried the "I know! Make it a real computer!" route before. They were called tablets. Tablets failed for two reasons: horrible interface (stylus, yuck) and it was a real computer. Netbooks got closer by fixing the interface but they still suck because it's a whole computer. It took Apple figure out to forget the computer. Give a good interface in an instant-on device.
  - jpr 16y ago
    > Say it with me: > The iPad is not a computer. You and I both know that's a lie. And I don't utter lies, especially ones that only exist to serve big companies at the expense of ordinary people.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      I disagree. Does it have, or potentially have a full OS? Sure. So do tons of embedded devices (e.g. home routers), but I bet many of those devices would void your support if you "jail broke" them. It's meant to be a device, regardless of what you think it's capable of. There is a reason nerds/geeks are never consulted by sales. If you don't like the device then don't buy it. I'm sure plenty of nerds will be out there saying "but! Lets make it a whole computer! Then we'll kill apple!". Buy one of their devices to go with your Android phone. Don't mind all the people laughing as you trudge your way through using them.
  - CodeMage 16y ago
    Say it with Apple: The iPad is not a web browsing appliance. They are selling it as a computer, without mentioning the word "computer". Just look at the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY A device that can do all that has usually been called "computer".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
mechanical_fish 16y ago
So, as an iPad owner who is wondering about emacs, this is one avenue I've considered. A second: distribute emacs as source and let people who own the developer kit compile and install it. Given the rather large overlap between developers and emacs users, this might not be so bad. But it may be hard to envision anyone going through the effort. I'd be very curious to see what kind of emacs-like editor could be written in Javascript. Or a hybrid, with a JS front end Ajaxing away to a back end. And, of course, there's the obvious alternative of writing something that looks and works sort of like emacs but is written in Objective-C. If indeed there is sufficient interest in a serious text editor for the iPad, the BBedit and Textmate folks would appear to be sitting pretty.

Would ssh-ing into another machine count?

by speek 16y ago

Would ssh-ing into another machine count?

I don't think the Author actually cares about emacs so much as what emacs stands for. Emacs represents the Free Software movement, and for it to be on the iPad would mean that Apple has changed their perspective on software development.

dasht 16y ago

No. When you give control over YOUR computer to some third party, you are giving up you freedom. Apple insists on having that kind of control over iPad purchasers. I can't speak for the FSF but I think it is a safe prediction that there will be no support port of GNU Emacs to iPad unless Apple changes its tune.

lallysingh 16y ago
Say it with me: The iPad is not a computer. It's a web browsing appliance. Hackers want computers, full computers. And plenty of vendors (including apple) sell them in many different configurations, styles, and prices. Many other people do not want full computers -- they're a pain to manage and maintain, and their interfaces are too general-purpose and get in the way. Complaining about the freedom about an iPad is like complaining about the freedom in your TV's firmware or (fairly-advanced) toaster.
- wollw 16y ago
  My N800 manages to be an "Internet Tablet" and have XTerm installed by default. Using it isn't necessary but it's nice to be able to run command line programs when I want.
- cema 16y ago
  He is not complaining. He is explaining.
- bodhi 16y ago
  I've heard this line of reasoning many times, and I've just figured out what I dislike about it. The iPad is a computer. It has a general-purpose operating system, and a very general-purpose input method. The reason that people like me are irritated is that the limitations that lead to you saying "[it] is not a computer" are business/social reasons, not technical. Given that a lot of the people here are technical-minded, it's reasonable to complain that the iPad is artifically restricted.
  - lallysingh 16y ago
    Any line between embedded and "full" computers isn't technical, without choosing fairly arbitrary criteria. A palm pre runs linux, and has a keyboard, it's SDK is HTML/JS. Why aren't people complaining about that? I believe that it's b/c they already knew what a phone was, and that they were happy that they got some power to hack phones when the smarter ones came out. The iPad went the other direction. The endpoint's the same -- a specialized device for a specific set of activities -- but now developers feel that things have been taken away instead of added. A social reason if I ever heard one. We're only going to see more specialized devices -- embedded systems are getting enough power to get really interesting -- so it's best that us hackers get used to it now.
    - bodhi 16y ago
      Ok, so you see the iPad as a "a specialized device for a specific set of activities", whereas I and others see it as a general-purpose computer, that is artificially restricted. An iPad could technically run Emacs, but won't due to policy restrictions. > it's best that us hackers get used to it now I'd rather not, and I'd rather complain about companies that push computing in that direction. It seems to be a philosophical difference between us.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        Personally I'm glad that Apple ignores people like you and hope the trend continues. Hackers (a kind of slang word for "producers") already have a capible device. It's called a desktop computer. Everyone else is mostly a consumer. Apple has given us the (almost) perfect consumer device. Finally a machine that can be with us literally all time. We've tried the "I know! Make it a real computer!" route before. They were called tablets. Tablets failed for two reasons: horrible interface (stylus, yuck) and it was a real computer. Netbooks got closer by fixing the interface but they still suck because it's a whole computer. It took Apple figure out to forget the computer. Give a good interface in an instant-on device.
- jpr 16y ago
  > Say it with me: > The iPad is not a computer. You and I both know that's a lie. And I don't utter lies, especially ones that only exist to serve big companies at the expense of ordinary people.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    I disagree. Does it have, or potentially have a full OS? Sure. So do tons of embedded devices (e.g. home routers), but I bet many of those devices would void your support if you "jail broke" them. It's meant to be a device, regardless of what you think it's capable of. There is a reason nerds/geeks are never consulted by sales. If you don't like the device then don't buy it. I'm sure plenty of nerds will be out there saying "but! Lets make it a whole computer! Then we'll kill apple!". Buy one of their devices to go with your Android phone. Don't mind all the people laughing as you trudge your way through using them.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  Say it with Apple: The iPad is not a web browsing appliance. They are selling it as a computer, without mentioning the word "computer". Just look at the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY A device that can do all that has usually been called "computer".
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

mechanical_fish 16y ago

So, as an iPad owner who is wondering about emacs, this is one avenue I've considered. A second: distribute emacs as source and let people who own the developer kit compile and install it. Given the rather large overlap between developers and emacs users, this might not be so bad. But it may be hard to envision anyone going through the effort. I'd be very curious to see what kind of emacs-like editor could be written in Javascript. Or a hybrid, with a JS front end Ajaxing away to a back end. And, of course, there's the obvious alternative of writing something that looks and works sort of like emacs but is written in Objective-C. If indeed there is sufficient interest in a serious text editor for the iPad, the BBedit and Textmate folks would appear to be sitting pretty.