Re: [PATCH] Changes to man/xemacs-faq.texi
sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
Note that what Hrovje suggests will alienate RMS should he ever see
it
(both alternatives). He told me he either wants people, when using
"GNU Emacs", to also call XEmacs "GNU XEmacs". Just calling them
"Emacs" and "XEmacs" is also fine with him, but not a cross between
the two. So currently there's no way to refer to both in one document
that will please both camps.
[ I personally think we should ignore RMS's sensitivity on the matter
and follow Hrvoje's suggestion. I was just wondering whether anyone
cares about not pissing off RMS. ]
What pisses RMS off I think, is that he can't stand us using Emacs as
a generic term adressing all flavours of it. I do think it's good that Emacs
be a generic term and I do think we shouldn't care about what he
says. However, let's not intentionally piss him off more than that, using
StallMacs and the like :-)
--
/ / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/
- / / - / / /_/ / E.N.S.T. INF C214 mailto:vernaļ¼ inf.enst.fr
/_/ / /_/ / /__ / 46 rue Barrault Tel. (33) 01 45 81 80 72
75634 Paris cedex 13 Fax. (33) 01 45 81 31 19