Re: Which is better, xemacs or gnu emacs?

[kier]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:14:05 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> "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.

I have. It's never crashed on me.

> 
>>> 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.

Well, he *is* a troll. :-)

> 
>>> 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.

It does. Easily recoverable.

>>
>> 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.

We believe you. Not. 

> 
> Hummm.  Did you read the docs before using?

I doubt it.

> 
>>> 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.

-- 
Kier