Re: Searching for an editor...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:01:43 -0600
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> wrote:
> Robert Storey <y2kbug@ms25.hinet.net> writes:
>
> > To be more specific, Xemacs has more beautiful fonts and lets you
> > change default font size.
>
> I don't see why you can't change the default font size in
> Emacs... you can change the default font, and with it the size. Is
> XEmacs using fontconfig these days? If not, the fonts are coming
> from the same place. XEmacs does seem to default to displaying more
> things in proportional fonts than Emacs does, though I'm not sure
> that's a good thing.
OK, you can change it in Emacs too, but not so easily or elegantly. Font
handling is something Xemacs is actually good at. I type in Chinese
sometimes, and the Chinese fonts look terrible in Emacs, but are quite
acceptable in Xemacs.
> > But Emacs is also good, and of course has the advantage of working
> > on the command line as well as in X.
>
> Well, so can XEmacs.
OK, you've got me there.
Now I have a question. Does anyone know why in text mode, M-<
(beginning-of-buffer) and M-> (end-of-buffer) don't work? They work fine
in text mode in some other distros, but not in Debian or Slackware. In
X, they always work in every distro (Debian and Slackware included).
regards,
Robert
Reply to: