![]() ![]() I didn’t have any problems getting Cygwin set up (some people reportedly find it fidgety and difficult), nor did I have issues using the versions of vim and Emacs that come with it. #EMACS TRAMP WINDOWS#However, you again have special notation for handling normal Windows files: cygdrive/c/. You can use the Cygwin bash shell just like any other bash shell, and most commands will work seamlessly since they are all compiled natively. This doesn’t matter so much if set up aliases for folders you commonly use.Ĭygwin is another option. It’s a bit of a pain to interface natively with normal Windows files, since you have to use /mnt/c/ to get to to them. I use it a lot, but I didn’t at the beginning when I was less comfortable in the terminal (it does not run GUI applications). The Windows Subsystem for Linux is one option. There are several ways to overcome this fact. ![]() rarely do I script or seek out a new feature, the digging is tough but there are handy command guides for both.Windows doesn’t support a lot of common Unix commands, ssh included. even with more emacs experience relatively I've used small portions in each camp. I have hardly explored the tip of the iceberg. If your case has highlighting and auto-features you don't want, then configuring minimally might help - should be able to do that without rebuilding.Įmacs is so vast, I noticed most when I found out it can send/receive e-mail. the default build of emacs has a lot of lisp but it takes more disk than RAM space, and has always been efficient for me excepting large files & net/sys lag. ![]() ![]() Not sure of ways to improve the remote performance, though. try the list at (low in the left nav) I like PuTTY on Windows, where selection=copy & right-click=paste. My experience has led me to believe the machine hosting emacs would be the bottleneck If your use case improves, use remote client! I have resorted to editing remotely with emacs, this reminds me. #EMACS TRAMP HOW TO#Why does it spend so much time in tramp-sh-file-name-handler? I tried to advice a function tramp-sh-file-name-handler to store and return cached results but it does not work, probably this function has some side effects.Īny ideas how to improve tramp performance? (I use emacs 23.1 under WindowsXP) So, actual file transfer takes 132 sec, about 1/3 of total time. Profiling results with elp-instrument-package are the following (I opened 3 remote files of 1.5 MB each one) tramp-file-name-handler 1461 350.41599999 0.2398466803 I tried different tramp-default-method (telnet, pscp, ftp), all of them have the same performance. Is there a way to improve emacs tramp performance? For me it's faster to open an external ftp client (filezilla), transfer files to the local disk and open them in an external editor (notepad) than open them with emacs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |