GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: transpose of a matrix
Next: Russian Spies ???? This is Hilarious !!!!! Does anyone BELIEVE it ? after 911 Inside JOB and ANTHRAX
From: David Kastrup on 29 Jun 2010 11:24 Xah Lee <xahlee(a)gmail.com> writes: > • GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism, by Ben Wing > http://xahlee.org/[...] > > plain text version follows. > > -------------------------------------------------- > GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism, by Ben Wing > > Ben Wing, 2001? [...] > Notes from XahLee.org > > This article, was orginially at “http://www.666.com/xemacs/xemacs- > split-bens-opinion.htm” as of mid 2000, but is gone as of 2010-06-28. > The content is retrived from web.archive.org on 2010-06-28. Do you have Ben's permission to redistribute an old paper he has withdrawn from his own server? [...] > Of Software, published 1996, which accounts some XEmacs vs GNU Emacs > history. I wrote a review in 1998, see: Book Review: Patterns of [...] > * The Lemacs/FSFmacs Schism (2000), by Jamie W Zawinski. jwz.org > * XEmacs vs. GNU Emacs, edited by Stephen J Turnbull. xemacs.org [...] > It is unfortunate, since Xemacs really is ahead of emacs in many > technical ways. However, its semi-dead status is well relfected from > its website xemacs.org. Pages there haven't been updated for 5 or 10 > years. Its current maintainer, Stephen Turnbull, is a regular > participant on GNU Emacs dev forum. Well, SO BLOODY WHAT!?!? Stephen indeed participates on the Emacs developer list, mostly sharing experience and trying to consolidate XEmacs and Emacs interfaces. He has done and is continuing to do _miracles_ with regard to making the consequences of the schism not more painful to anybody involved than technically necessary. He is not using Emacs himself AFAICT. And he is not compromising himself or XEmacs while communicating with the Emacs developers for the sake of making things easier for all involved parties. I know no other developers (including myself) that have half the heart, brains and guts it takes to do this job as well as he does. I have no idea how he manages. In spite of having gotten off the wrong foot LIKE EVERYBODY WHO TRIED. If there is one person who stands convincingly for the idea that XEmacs is connected with a culture that is worth to survive in whatever manner, it is Stephen. So will you please stop sabotaging his work? Thanks. -- David Kastrup
From: Xah Lee on 29 Jun 2010 11:51 On Jun 29, 8:24 am, David Kastrup <d...(a)gnu.org> wrote: > Xah Lee <xah...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism, by Ben Wing > > http://xahlee.org/[...] > > > plain text version follows. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism, by Ben Wing > > > Ben Wing, 2001? > > [...] > > > Notes from XahLee.org > > > This article, was orginially at http://www.666.com/xemacs/xemacs- > > split-bens-opinion.htm as of mid 2000, but is gone as of 2010-06-28. > > The content is retrived from web.archive.org on 2010-06-28. > > Do you have Ben's permission to redistribute an old paper he has > withdrawn from his own server? > > [...] > > > Of Software, published 1996, which accounts some XEmacs vs GNU Emacs > > history. I wrote a review in 1998, see: Book Review: Patterns of > > [...] > > > * The Lemacs/FSFmacs Schism (2000), by Jamie W Zawinski. jwz.org > > * XEmacs vs. GNU Emacs, edited by Stephen J Turnbull. xemacs.org > > [...] > > > It is unfortunate, since Xemacs really is ahead of emacs in many > > technical ways. However, its semi-dead status is well relfected from > > its website xemacs.org. Pages there haven't been updated for 5 or 10 > > years. Its current maintainer, Stephen Turnbull, is a regular > > participant on GNU Emacs dev forum. > > Well, SO BLOODY WHAT!?!? Stephen indeed participates on the Emacs > developer list, mostly sharing experience and trying to consolidate > XEmacs and Emacs interfaces. > > He has done and is continuing to do _miracles_ with regard to making the > consequences of the schism not more painful to anybody involved than > technically necessary. > > He is not using Emacs himself AFAICT. And he is not compromising > himself or XEmacs while communicating with the Emacs developers for the > sake of making things easier for all involved parties. > > I know no other developers (including myself) that have half the heart, > brains and guts it takes to do this job as well as he does. I have no > idea how he manages. In spite of having gotten off the wrong foot LIKE > EVERYBODY WHO TRIED. > > If there is one person who stands convincingly for the idea that XEmacs > is connected with a culture that is worth to survive in whatever manner, > it is Stephen. > > So will you please stop sabotaging his work? > > Thanks. > > -- > David Kastrup LOL David. You took it the wrong way. Xah
From: Raymond Toy on 29 Jun 2010 23:24 On 6/29/10 10:08 PM, Fren Zeee wrote: > Nice article. Perhaps, someone should resurrect all of Ben Wing's > archives as a single website or a pdf or a zip since he is no longer > around. I expanded the post to a few more groups where it might help > others. A simple google search through xemacs archives show that he has done some unicode work on xemacs around the beginning of this year. He's still around, unless something has happened to him since then. Ray
From: Tim X on 30 Jun 2010 01:51 Xah Lee <xahlee(a)gmail.com> writes: > • GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism, by Ben Wing > http://xahlee.org/emacs/gnu_emacs_xemacs_schism_Ben_Wing.html > > plain text version follows. > > -------------------------------------------------- > GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism, by Ben Wing > > Ben Wing, 2001? > [snip] Essentially, it seems to boil down to two different philosopies, neither of which can be deemed wrong as they are in reality just a personal standpoint. RMS is frequently criticised for being difficult, intractible and/or ideological. Is this necessarily a bad thing, especially when applied to something like free software and open source, which is fundamentally a philosophical and ideological construct? In fact, would the whole GNU FSF concept of free software actually mean anything if RMS had not taken a non-compromising stand point? Given all the work that RMS has put in, I would suggest that if he wants to take a stand and stick to it, he is perfectly entitled to. Nobody forces anyone to use GNU Emacs or adopt his position if they don't want to - there is plenty of choice out there. Even if you disagree with him, he at least has the decency to remain consistent and unlike too many of our politicians, doesn't redefine their meaning or position in a desperate attempt to gain support or popularity. Ironically, in light of all the SCO litigation, I'd suggest RMS' insistance on copyright being signed over seems very prudent. In addition, given the developments in GNU Emacs over the past 10 years, many of the fears and even advantages claimed by the Xemacs camp really don't seem justified. Furthermore, despite the claimed resistance ascribed to RMS regarding features and change, it appears that GNU Emacs has largely closed the gap while XEMacs appears to be stagnating. It could be argued that GNU Emacs has evolved despite RMS, but that either means that he wasn't the impediment he was thought to be or his ability to control how GNU Emacs evolves was overstated (or possibly, he was right to stick with what he believed). Apart from possible flame baiting, what exactly was the point of dredging all of this up again? > > Xah > ∑ http://xahlee.org/ > > ☄ -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Fren Zeee on 30 Jun 2010 02:09
MY GOD YOU GUYS ARE IMPOSSIBLE - FULL OF BIG EGOS !!! Are you guys going to fight like little kids over RMS and the philosophies and a blame game or going to explain his ideas as in my question above about ADT C structure |