On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing
similar.
>>>
>>> A
On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing
similar.
>>>
>>> A
Quoting Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No idea. There was also the multi tty support that Emacs was lacking
> > but which has been implemented recently.
>
> What is multi tty support?
>From the author:
"you can create frames on multiple tty de
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is multi tty support?
Having a single Emacs process display several frames on different
terminals (virtual consoles, xterms... well, ttys). If you invoke
emacsclient or gnuclient in a terminal with DISPLAY unset, it can be
found nice to have it appear i
JÃrÃme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No idea. There was also the multi tty support that Emacs was lacking
> but which has been implemented recently.
What is multi tty support?
Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >> I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
> >> system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing
> >> similar.
> >
> > According to what I read, it is not a missing f
> "RK" == Raimund Kohl-Fuechsle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RK> Talking about GNU Emacs and XEmacs lately ... I am playing in my
RK> mind with switching from Woody do Gentoo
Since with Gentoo you compile all you install, take the GNU Emacs
tarball, launch the configure script and then Mak
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:56:11 +0100
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, following both XEmacs and Emacs development lists,
> it seems to me that XEmacs is not doing much progress these
> days, especially because of a lack of manpower.
> On the contrary, the GNU Emacs teem is very pr
On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
>> system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing
>> similar.
>
> According to what I read, it is not a missing feature, it is an
> unwanted feature. I'm personaly happy
Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > is very productive and Emacs is not only catching up (multi tty) but
> > also brings nice new features like bidirectional editing, nifty gtk2
> > widgets, configurable fringes, and so.
>
> That is true, the lack of BIDI support is especially annoying,
On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mule in Emacs in not the same as the one in XEmacs, so a mule-free
> version might not be relevant.
A part from BIDI support what is different, I remembered when Mule
started (officially) xemacs was far less buggy then emacs.
>
>> 3. Mail: the excelle
Quoting Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Just curious. Any example of how XEmacs is in some ways superior
> > to Emacs? (this is a serious question). Thanks.
>
> I don't know if that's changed since then, but one of the reasons I
> switched from FSF Emacs to XEmacs is t
Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 9 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> You are kidding? Xemacs is still in some ways superior to emacs and
> >> giving up Xemacs is making debian *less* attractive.
> >
> > Just curious. Any example o
On 9 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You are kidding? Xemacs is still in some ways superior to emacs and
>> giving up Xemacs is making debian *less* attractive.
>
> Just curious. Any example of how XEmacs is in some ways superior to
> Emacs? (this i
On Tue, Mar 09 2004 at 06:26:37PM BRT, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You are kidding? Xemacs is still in some ways superior to emacs and
> > giving up Xemacs is making debian *less* attractive.
>
> Just curious. Any example of how XEmacs i
Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are kidding? Xemacs is still in some ways superior to emacs and
> giving up Xemacs is making debian *less* attractive.
Just curious. Any example of how XEmacs is in some ways superior
to Emacs? (this is a serious question). Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
>On 9 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Despite claims that he's around, James Lewis-Moss *still* isn't
>maintaining xemacs21 or xemacs21-packages at all properly -- he
>obviously doesn't have enough time. Look at the RC bugs, and note the
>total lack of comment from him.
>
>He said he didn't
Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Despite claims that he's around, James Lewis-Moss *still* isn't maintaining
> xemacs21 or xemacs21-packages at all properly -- he obviously doesn't have
> enough time. Look at the RC bugs, and note the total lack of comment from
> him.
Perhaps coul
18 matches
Mail list logo
