From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/4106 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: aquila_deus@yahoo.co.uk (Aquila Deus) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user Subject: Re: Which is better, xemacs or gnu emacs? Date: 18 Sep 2004 00:30:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <3d6111f1.0409161437.30ef8b7d@posting.google.com> <2r14t7F14lvf5U1@uni-berlin.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138670100 21837 80.91.229.2 (31 Jan 2006 01:15:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: nobody Tue Jan 17 17:33:14 2006 Original-Path: quimby.gnus.org!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!proxad.net!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.editors,comp.emacs.xemacs,gnu.emacs.gnus Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.134.2.204 Original-X-Trace: posting.google.com 1095492632 22695 127.0.0.1 (18 Sep 2004 07:30:32 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:30:32 +0000 (UTC) Original-Xref: bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de gnus-emacs-gnus:4247 Original-Lines: 67 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 4247 Tue Jan 17 17:33:14 2006 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:4106 Archived-At: "Mike Cox" wrote in message news:<2r14t7F14lvf5U1@uni-berlin.de>... > "Tim McNamara" 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. > > > 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. > > > 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.