Re: Bug#729660: ITP: xemacs21 -- highly customizable text editor
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
> On 11/16/2013 01:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> Your assertations here both seem rather strong and unsupported,
>> especially the idea that people don't use Emacs in graphical mode - it
> I have yet to see someone who does.
*waves*.
> I'm a long-time emacs user and so are many of other developers I work
> together with and everyone I know of who uses emacs as their primary
> editor doesn't use X11 support, you just don't need it in most
> cases.
Your circle of acquaintances is much narrower than you think it is.
> emacs is powerful through it's keyboard shortcuts and you are much more
> efficient and faster when using them as opposed to navigating through
> the menus with your mouse.
Why do you think running Emacs in graphical mode has anything to do with
menus? Personally, I run Emacs in graphical mode exclusively but turn off
all of the menus. I still like having strong mouse support, gutter icons,
cursor shape changes based on whether there is trailing whitespace, full
color and font support that a terminal window can't provide, and so on and
so on. Some of which XEmacs is still better at than Emacs.
> Well, as I said, if you're really using emacs for what it's renown for,
> you don't care about the X11 user interface and the looks because you
> use non-windowed mode anyway.
Complete nonsense.
This thread is ridiculous. If Mark wants to maintain xemacs21, he gets to
maintain xemacs21. There's no feasible argument here that its presence in
the archive will somehow hurt our users. It's a lot of work to maintain,
but if he wants to tackle it, that's the whole *point* of Debian:
packaging the things that we want to use and we want to spend time on.
In the past, we've only rejected things that are almost certainly useless
(because they're strictly inferior to other things in the archive) or
because they have uncorrectable security vulnerabilities or uncorrectable
Policy violations. None of those are true of XEmacs. I used it for
years, switched to Emacs only because upstream wasn't moving fast enough
for me, and found the switch disruptive (although I'm past it now). I can
certainly understand why people wouldn't want to move. It has some nice
features that Emacs still doesn't have.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: