Re: Microsoft and Xenix.

2001-06-23 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That would be the X version of emacs. And there's the explanation > for the split between GNU and X emacs: it got forked and the > closed-source version had a vew years of divergent development > before opening back up, by which point it was very

Re: Microsoft and Xenix.

2001-06-23 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would be the X version of emacs. And there's the explanation for the split between GNU and X emacs: it got forked and the closed-source version had a vew years of divergent development before opening back up, by which point it was very different to