Re: Which is better, xemacs or gnu emacs?

[Tim McNamara]

"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:m2wtysbw01.fsf@Stella-Blue.local...
>> mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes:
>>
>> > I recently switched to xemacs as my default word processor so I
>> > could do formatting in TEX for a very long document.  Most
>> > recently I've been using Microsoft Word, the latest version.  I
>> > switched because I thought that emacs had perfect stability and
>> > no crashes.  My perception was formed due to the constant
>> > FSF/GPL/Linux advocacy promoted on slashdot and all the comp
>> > newsgroups.
>>
>> As a couple of minor quibbles:
>>
>> 1.  XEmacs is not Emacs, and XEmacs is not GNU or FSF software.
>>     XEmacs and Emacs are not interchangeable.
>
> So which is better, XEmacs or GNU/Emacs?

Both.

>> 2.  Nothing has perfect stability, everything else does not.
>
> I understand.  So are you saying GNU/Emacs is more stable?

No.  I've never used XEmacs, so I cannot comment on it.

>> 3.  As a result, saving frequently and backing up one's documents
>> is
>>     always a good idea.
>
> So I could probably just use MS Word and get the features of VBA and
> COM+ support, not to mention the robust default functionality?  If
> everyone crashes, why not just use the most feature rich program
> that has the most users?

Ummm, the feature set of Emacs and XEmacs blows Word out of the water,
Mike.  All Word can do is word processing.  Emacs can read your
e-mail, Usenet news (I'm using it now for this), run spreadsheets,
browse the Web, and make coffee.  Well, not directly.  Yer just
trolling with these questions.

>> 4.  Emacs by default creates backup documents, you'll find them in
>>     the same directory as the file you were working on with a tilde
>>     after the filename.  Hopefully XEmacs, which I've never used,
>>     does the same thing.
>
> I looked for it.  I also did that ALT-M thing to try to recover.
> Whatever happened must of been quite serious because it ate my
> autosave document.

Hummm.  Did you read the docs before using?

>> See:
>>
>> http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html
>
> WOW.  Those OSS/GNU guys really are immature.  I followed a link on
> the xemacs.org site and they really duked it out over emacs.  For
> those of you who would really like to see RMS and the XEMACS team
> battle from 15 years ago, visit this site:
> http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html
>
> Talk about a nasty exchange.

Nothing like the venom of those who've spent thousands of dollars on
Microsoft products that are barely functional.