Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> Jon Cast wrote:
>
> > Sorry to start a flamewar, but this needs replying to:
>
> Sure. In PRIVATE mail.
>
> Please take this incipient flamewar offline.
I have no interest in a flame war even offline. I didn't even understand
half of what Jon was saying about politi
"Katherina O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am very interested in a cygwin/xfree86 emacs,
Thank you for your interest.
> However I must mention that I am very happy that xemacs is available
> in a cygwin version.
Naturally.
> In the past I tried porting emacs to cygwin/xfree86/less
Jon Cast wrote:
> Sorry to start a flamewar, but this needs replying to:
Sure. In PRIVATE mail.
Please take this incipient flamewar offline.
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:
Hello,
I am very interested in a cygwin/xfree86
emacs, because NTemacs can't be regarded
as an full emacs port, and xemacs isn't
really compatible, and much too slow.
Furthermore I believe that since the
21.1 emacs has become better than xemacs.
However I must mention that I am very
happy that xe
Sorry to start a flamewar, but this needs replying to:
"John A. Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> smiley notwithstanding, that doesn't seem all that amusing to me
Of course not. After all, you (and all those Linux supporters and
every one else (referring to the Linux supporters, not to you
Jon Cast wrote:
> FWIW, I'm a GNU fanatic who wouldn't touch XEmacs with a ten-foot
> pole :)
smiley notwithstanding, that doesn't seem all that amusing to me
XEmacs is of course GPL'd, and I'd direct anyone who might wonder
about the source of misguided comments such as the above to:
http://w
David Rothenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, there's a true Cygwin port of XEmacs available now (as well as
> a Windows-native port). See http://www.xemacs.org
FWIW, I'm a GNU fanatic who wouldn't touch XEmacs with a ten-foot
pole :)
Seriously, this kind of message is one (although b
FWIW, there's a true Cygwin port of XEmacs available now (as well as a
Windows-native port). See http://www.xemacs.org
Jon Cast wrote:
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I think that we need a CygEmacs - an emacs that will be compiled
> > with the real Cygwin ported gcc (i.e. without the
> > -mno-cygwin).
>
> From: Jon Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:33:11 -0600
>
> > CygEmacs will have UNIX APIs for I/O (files and
> > sockets), and M$Windows APIs for the display and the keyboard. This
> > is already done (partly) by the Cygwin port of rxvt.
>
> I used to agree with you, but th
You wrote:
> I think that we need a CygEmacs - an emacs that will be compiled
> with the real Cygwin ported gcc (i.e. without the
> -mno-cygwin).
I should probably point out that I am (slowly) working on such a port
of Emacs.
> CygEmacs will have UNIX APIs for I/O (files and
> sockets), and M$
Below is Eli Zaretskii mail from 23 Feb 2002.
I think that we need a CygEmacs - an emacs that will be compiled with
the real Cygwin ported gcc (i.e. without the -mno-cygwin). CygEmacs
will have UNIX APIs for I/O (files and sockets), and M$Windows APIs
for the display and the keyboard. This is alr
11 matches
Mail list logo
