Re: Bug#729660: ITP: xemacs21 -- highly customizable text editor
On 11/16/2013 08:37 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Russ claimed that XEmacs has some features that emacs doesn't, however,
>> he wasn't able to mention them.
> The one that bothered me the most when I switched to Emacs was that XEmacs
> narrows the cursor when it as the end of a line, which is very nice for
> detecting trailing whitespace. I came up with a hack for Emacs that
> mostly simulates this, but requires running elisp after every single
Well, emacs marks trailing white spaces as red blocks. At least in
> The faces handling between Emacs and XEmacs is way different, which means
> that if you have extensive XEmacs customization, switching to Emacs can be
> quite painful. (It was for me.)
Ok. But this isn't really an argument for or against either version,
it simply originates from the fact that both are separate packages.
> I believe that color handling is better in XEmacs than Emacs, although I
> forget what I ran into and have subsequently gotten used to what Emacs
Hmm, ok. There are rare cases where colors, i.e. contrast is poor on
emacs when editing certain text but it works fine in most cases
> There were various other things that I just did without when I switched
> several years ago, but my recollections are hazy plus it's probably not
> fair since I switched some time ago and Emacs has gotten better. (I've
> not personally used Emacs 24 yet, for example, so I don't know what it can
> do.) However, I've had discussions with other friends who use the Emacs
> family heavily and who are still on XEmacs and they had a long list of
> things that didn't work the way they wanted in Emacs. They weren't things
> that affected me personally, so I'm afraid I don't remember the details
> beyond thinking at the time that they were reasonable concerns.
I would love to hear these, too ;).
> Emacs vs. XEmacs is a little like the perpetual vim vs. nvi argument.
> They work differently. Which is "better" can be a matter of opinion,
> speaking as an nvi user who can't stand vim despite the fact that vim
> clearly does more and nvi is in deep-freeze maintenance mode. If you're
> used to one of them, switching to the other one is painful.
I didn't know that people were fighting such wars over this. I thought
the original idea of XEmacs was to port emacs to X11 which had not
happened prior to that.
> If someone proposed to remove nvi from the archive because vim is better,
> I would be quite annoyed. If it ever did get removed from the archive, I
> would probably adopt it and reintroduce it, because nvi is the editor that
> I'm used to for small files and for root editing tasks, I want to keep
> using it, and none of the things that are wrong with it are fatal for that
I am not saying that I want to actively remove packages because I don't
like them. Please don't get me wrong. I was just worried about
>> As mentioned before by Paul and Andreas, we're wondering why all of a
>> sudden Mark is picking up the package while it has been abandoned all
>> the time and eventually removed. There was no ITA as far as I know.
> Because he just now got around to it? Because he thought he'd be able to
> deal without it but decided he didn't want to? Because he now has enough
> free time to do a proper job of it?
> And, rather more to the point, what the hell business is it of yours?
> Other Debian Developers don't have to justify their priorities and the
> disposition of their time to you. I think this sort of grilling is quite
> demoralizing and frustrating.
Jeez, no need to freak out. I elaborated my reasons and I was just
asking questions. I am not hampering anyones freedom whatsoever,
I am just worried about bugs in general because I remember how utterly
annoying the last freeze was because of this.
And, really, I didn't start this discussion, there is no need to solely
bash me now for asking questions.
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - email@example.com
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - firstname.lastname@example.org
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913