From xemacs-m  Sat Mar 15 17:50:45 1997
Received: from atreides.eng.mindspring.net (atreides.eng.mindspring.net [207.69.183.11])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA24846
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:50:44 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 18465 invoked by uid 52477); 15 Mar 1997 23:50:16 -0000
Sender: sj@atreides.eng.mindspring.net
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: dired/gnus on a tty
References: <199703152215.XAA13530@sol1.cybernet-ag.net> 	<kigybboiygo.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> 	<yvialo7oep8a.fsf@atreides.eng.mindspring.net> <QQchar22185.199703152327@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Sudish Joseph <sj@eng.mindspring.net>
Date: 15 Mar 1997 18:49:55 -0500
In-Reply-To: Kyle Jones's message of Sat, 15 Mar 1997 18:27:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <yviak9n8emvc.fsf@atreides.eng.mindspring.net>
Lines: 22
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.25/XEmacs 20.1

Kyle Jones writes:
> I could understand it if we were still running on PDP-11s, but
> thankfully those days are behind us.  Whittling XEmacs down the
> smallest memory footprint at the expense of code maintenance is
> shifting costs in the wrong direction.

Toolbars cause X to get very excited and send lots of stuff down my
PPP link.  Menus are next on my list of things to compile out.  While
gnuattach and simultaneous X/tty support rewlz, I'd much rather have
an X frame to work in.  And I will, with x2 and XEmacs sans toolbars
and menus.

I agree that the current system makes it very difficult for packages.
It might be better to have stuff stubbed out instead of compiled out,
but I guess the resulting mess may make it even harder on package
writers.  Is it even possible to do this in a sane manner?

Has anyone investigated the extent of the breakage if one starts an
XEmacs on a tty and then spawns an X frame?  For eg., some of the X
init lisp code won't be loaded at all.

-Sudish

