info-gnus-english
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:48:23 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Brian Palmer <bpalmer@gmail.com> writes:

> Quoting from the faq that is distributed with emacs (not the one in
> xemacs, that I can tell, which might mean something -- or might not):
>
>     File: efaq,  Node: Difference between Emacs and XEmacs,  Next: Emacs for 
> MS-DOS,  Prev: Current GNU
> distributions,  Up: Finding Emacs and related packages
>
>     What is the difference between Emacs and XEmacs (formerly "Lucid Emacs")?
>     =========================================================================
>
>     First of all, they're both GNU Emacs.  XEmacs is just as much a later
>     version of GNU Emacs as the FSF-distributed version.  This FAQ refers to
>     the latest version to be distributed by the FSF as "Emacs," partly
>     because the XEmacs maintainers now refer to their product using the
>     "XEmacs" name, and partly because there isn't any accurate way to
>     differentiate between the two without getting mired in paragraphs of
>     legalese and history.
>
> Yes, this means that there is no good way to distinguish between the
> two dominant emacs-variants.

Emacs and XEmacs.  What is bad about that?

> For various reasons, some people seem to get annoyed when you use
> fsfemacs to indicate the one being distributed by the FSF , which
> would otherwise be my preference when I need to distinguish between
> emacs and xemacs.

Why?  If you need to distinguish between Emacs and XEmacs, call them
Emacs and XEmacs.  What is easier than that?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]