Re: How many use eMacs and Gnus on daily basis?

[David Z Maze <dmaze@mit.edu>]

me@privacy.net writes:

> Now is this plain eMacs?
>
> Isn't there something called Xemacs as well?

"Same thing, but different."  If memory serves, XEmacs started life as
a branch from "normal" ("FSF" or "GNU") Emacs over frustration on
getting one of the older releases out.  It's historically had a little
better support for inlined images, proportional fonts, and the like,
at the cost of supporting those features differently from "normal"
Emacs when it's added them in as well.  XEmacs's other advantage is
that it comes with an add-on bundle of approximately every elisp
package out there; "normal" Emacs is much more conservative about what
can be included (due to likely-justified license paranoia: while people
complain about the Linux kernel being of dubious heritage, all code
distributed with Emacs has had copyright assigned to the FSF).

My current feel is that XEmacs doesn't offer a whole lot that's not in
Emacs, and my normal environment makes it a little easier to use
Emacs.  Gnus supports both fine, including adapting to whichever emacs
is currently being used.

  --dzm [hoping he used the correct terminology to refer to the emacsen]