Re: Which is better, xemacs or gnu emacs?

[zrr]

aquila_deus@yahoo.co.uk (Aquila Deus) writes:

> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:<2r14t7F14lvf5U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "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?
>
> XEmacs is faster, and easier to install, especially on windows.
>
  XEmacs's mule support is not as good as Emacs.
>> 
>> > 2.  Nothing has perfect stability, everything else does not.
>> 
>> I understand.  So are you saying GNU/Emacs is more stable?
>
> The CVS 21.3.50 I tried last year crashes almost everyday. And there
> are always some weird problems in emacs with other packages (usually
> out-dated and unmaintained). XEmacs beta has problems though, but not
> serious.
>
>> 
>> > 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?
>
> Word is designed for kids... there is even no regexp searching.
>
  Absolutely, M$ Word is rubbish, but regexp searching is not a
  necessary function for such a WYSIWYG word processor.
>> 
>> > 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.
>
> In fact I find auto-backup very annoying for me.
>
>> 
>> > 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.