AFAIK, only xemacs users have the (completely useless) pleasure of doing
M-x all-hail-emacs
and seeing (I'm paraphrasing) "obsolete function, use all-hail-xemacs
instead"
M-x all-hail-xemacs
is quite hilarious, but you have to have sound to fully appreciate it.
Eric
Phillip Lord wrote:
> >>>>> "GCVR" == GCVR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GCVR> Hi
>
> GCVR> While there seems to be a bit of a lull on the heavy
> GCVR> technicalities regarding Emacs/JDE: I have not used Xemacs
> GCVR> yet, and I am very happy with Emacs and JDE on Win95/NT so
> GCVR> far. Are there really good reasons why one should consider
> GCVR> changing to Xemacs? (when they get the bug mentioned in recent
> GCVR> communications fixed).
>
> Its a little prettier, it can do proportional width and
> height fonts, and can display arbritary images in its buffer. There
> are a number of packages available on XEmacs alone (and vice
> versa). However it tends to annoy GNU heads because the software
> maintainers of XEmacs are a bit lax about maintaining copyright
> information about the code, which means that there is always a risk of
> some company claiming properitary ownership over parts of XEmacs. Its
> not happened with XEmacs (to my knowledge) but I know it happened to
> GNUEmacs in the past when they were a bit laxer.
>
> Theres a description of the differences in the relevant
> FAQ's. In a touching display of the the advantages of the free
> software movement over commericial software the description of why
> GNUEmacs is crap, and XEmacs is much better can be found in the
> GNUEmacs FAQ, whilst a piece by Stallman generally slagging off the
> XEmacs maintainers can be found in the XEmacs FAQ. www.emacs.org. and
> www.xemacs.org are the relevant places....
>
> Personally I think the best reason for using one or the
> other is because you are used to it. I prefer GNUEmacs, and I cant be
> bothered re-writing my bulging .emacs files for the pleasure of
> switching over. Other people who have used XEmacs on unix are of
> course waiting with baited breath for it to becomes stable on win32
> for the same reason.
>
> Phil
