Re: future of emacs20
Jim McCloskey writes:
> |> I'm not a great fan of orphaning complicated packages. Are there users
> |> that need emacs20 because emacs21 is broken for some things?
> So it's not just an issue of what's broken, I think. It's also a
> matter of whether the number of users in the situation I just
> described justifies the effort that would be required to maintain
> emacs20 as a package.
While emacs21 is unusable on things like Sun Ultra-1's and Pentiums,
it's also unusable in some shared and networked environments, even
with top-of-the-line hardware. Emacs21 is a resource hog compared to
20. Not so much in terms of memory, but it seems to use a lot more
processor time, and is so bandwidth-hogging, it can be unusable over
even a fairly fast network.
I think there are two things that need to change with emacs21 before
support for emacs20 is dropped: it should be usable by multiple users
on out-of-date, but reasonable systems; and it should be usable over a
network. The first one will change with time; the second one will
require the Emacs maintainers to figure out *why* emacs21 is so chatty
on the X11 connection. Unfortunately, I've seen no desire to do this.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |