Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:20:49 +0100 From: Mattias Pantzare <pantzer@ludd.luth.se> To: Marc Schneiders <marc@oldserver.demon.nl> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/13644 Message-ID: <200001262320.AAA08154@queeg.ludd.luth.se> In-Reply-To: Message from Marc Schneiders <marc@oldserver.demon.nl> of "Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:06:22 %2B0100." <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001262356290.168-100000@propro.oldserver.demon.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 1. Is it 'done' on BSD? The book gave me the idea that emacs is a real > GNU thing, so much 'hallelujah' in it. I don't mind that, but wouldn't > like to jump into learning it all, if it isn't really supported in > BSD-circles. And I want to be politically correct of course :-) Emacs is used on almost every UNIX there is, and a few other operating = systems... > 2. Which version should I use/learn/configure? "Most younger ... use > Xemacs." I'm 39. Does the fact that I still occasionally use > WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS, because the ctrl and alt key-strokes [for > notes, size e.g.] somehow come natural for me, suggest the non-X > version? No, there is no non-X version. emacs AND xemacs can both be used as a X11= = program and as a normal text-program. The keys are the same. The diffrenc= ens = are minor. The diffrence from the description in the xemacs port: XEmacs has similar functionality to GNU Emacs. It uses a different = display model, including support for Motif menu and scroll bars and the ability to run as a widget inside other applications. Many people say it looks nicer than GNU Emacs. > A third, now I'm at it: Does the Windows version (it is on the CD with > the book) really work? Would be nice to use at work maybe, once I got > used to it or maybe fond of it. Probably, there is versions that work. :-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001262320.AAA08154>