holotko wrote:
> > > fixed a bug in an XEmacs package caused by using nreverse on a list
> >
> > NO Glynn, XEmacs is a sacrilege ;-). Emacs without the X is the right
> > editor ;*)).
>
> Isn't there an "emacs-nox", a no X version of emacs which runs under X??
There are two issues that I think should be clarified here.
Firstly, Emacs and XEmacs are distinct versions of the Emacs editor.
Emacs is the `original' version, which is maintained by RMS and the
FSF. XEmacs (formerly Lucid Emacs) is a spin-off, originally developed
by Lucid Inc (now defunct).
The primary reason for the schism is that many people are dissatisfied
with the way that RMS maintains Emacs. In particular, he is felt to be
unresponsive to the wishes of other developers. XEmacs' development
model is generally considered to be more open.
For example, for a package to be bundled with Emacs, the copyright has
to be held by the FSF, whereas for XEmacs the package must be under
the GPL, but it doesn't matter who holds the copyright.
Secondly, both Emacs and XEmacs can be built with or without X support
(XEmacs 21.0 will also run on Win32). IIRC, Slackware offers a choice
of Emacs binaries. The emacs-nox package contains an emacs binary
without X support, so it will only run on a TTY.
The `standard' Emacs binary will run either on a TTY or under X.
XEmacs can do both simultaneously. You can start it on a TTY, and then
use `M-x make-frame-on-display' to create an X frame. Also, you can
use the `gnuclient' program to connect to a running XEmacs process,
effectively adding a TTY `frame'.
--
Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
