Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread Sven Burgener
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 04:40:13PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > Sven Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 09:11:08AM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote: > > > The bigger margin allows for more deeply-nested attributions > > > before the lines start wrapping, that's all. > > > >

Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread Rob VanFleet
Ok everybody, I get the point ; ). I've been set to 72 since the first message requesting it. I have a new perspective on the matter now. -Rob On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 12:59:55PM -0500, Bob Bernstein wrote: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 05:26:04AM -0600, Rob VanFleet wrote: > > > Sorry, did some pa

Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread Bob Bernstein
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 05:26:04AM -0600, Rob VanFleet wrote: > Sorry, did some pasting in my last message and I guess I mucked things > up a bit. Any particular reason as to 72? I was originally wrapping at > 79 chars, which seemed to work well enough (no one complained at least). Keep in mind

Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread Colin Watson
Sven Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 09:11:08AM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote: >> The bigger margin allows for more deeply-nested attributions before the >> lines start wrapping, that's all. > >That can be cured, though. > >In vi (vim), I use the key-combination 'gqj'. I

Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread Sven Burgener
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 09:11:08AM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote: > Lo, on Monday, January 1, Rob VanFleet did write: > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:04:30AM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > ...set your linewrap to 72 chars. > > > > Sorry, did some pasting in my last message and I guess I muck

Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread Richard Cobbe
Lo, on Monday, January 1, Rob VanFleet did write: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:04:30AM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > $ x-terminal-emulator -T Mutt -e mutt > > Many thanks. > > > ...set your linewrap to 72 chars. > > Sorry, did some pasting in my last message and I guess I mucked th

Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread Glyn Millington
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 05:26:04AM -0600, thus spake Rob VanFleet: > Sorry, did some pasting in my last message and I guess I mucked things > up a bit. Any particular reason as to 72? I was originally wrapping at > 79 chars, which seemed to work well enough (no one complained at least). This is

Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread Rob VanFleet
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:04:30AM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > $ x-terminal-emulator -T Mutt -e mutt Many thanks. > ...set your linewrap to 72 chars. Sorry, did some pasting in my last message and I guess I mucked things up a bit. Any particular reason as to 72? I was originally w

Re: Running something in a terminal

2001-01-01 Thread kmself
on Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 04:55:23AM -0600, Rob VanFleet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I'm running the mailcheck applet in gnome and I'm wanting to for it to > run mutt if it is clicked on. If I just enter the command to be run > as "/usr/bin/mutt", nothing happens. How can I tell it to launch > m