From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/4112 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: kier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user Subject: Re: Which is better, xemacs or gnu emacs? Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:25:52 +0100 Message-ID: References: <3d6111f1.0409161437.30ef8b7d@posting.google.com> <2r14t7F14lvf5U1@uni-berlin.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138670104 21890 80.91.229.2 (31 Jan 2006 01:15:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:15:04 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: nobody Tue Jan 17 17:33:15 2006 Original-Path: quimby.gnus.org!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!lnewsoutpeer01.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewsinpeer01.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.) Original-Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.editors,comp.emacs.xemacs,gnu.emacs.gnus Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 81-178-239-120.dsl.pipex.com Original-X-Trace: 1095546352 news.dial.pipex.com 29929 81.178.239.120:61425 Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Original-Xref: bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de gnus-emacs-gnus:4253 Original-Lines: 92 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 4253 Tue Jan 17 17:33:15 2006 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:4112 Archived-At: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:14:05 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: > "Mike Cox" writes: > >> "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? > > 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