Re: [PATCH] Changes to man/xemacs-faq.texi

Hrvoje> [ note that I am Hrvoje, not Hrovje ] Hrvoje> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: Hrvoje> Could you please change `Emacs' to `FSF Emacs' or `GNU Hrvoje> Emacs'? XEmacs is just as much Emacs as is FSF Emacs. Hrvoje> We already use `GNU Emacs' and `FSF Emacs' elsewhere. I certainly Hrvoje> don't care if any of it pisses off Stallman, especially so for `GNU Hrvoje> Emacs' (since he uses that term himself). I do avoid `FSF Emacs' in Hrvoje> public forums. Hrvoje> Once again, Emacs is a clearly more generic term and using it to mean Hrvoje> `FSF Emacs' obfuscates matters. I agree. If we submit to RMS's wishes and call FSF Emacs `Emacs', we are playing the game that FSF Emacs is the mainstream, standard version, and XEmacs is some offbeat variant. Rather we should use names that reflect the true situation, namely that there are two separate continuing streams of development for Emacs. For that reason, I recommend using `XEmacs' and `FSF Emacs'. That is accurate, unambiguous, and not disrespectful. Using `Standard Emacs' would be a mistake for the same reason as using `Emacs'. XEmacs is just as standard as FSF Emacs. XEmacs is Emacs. We hack Emacs. Someday, one of the Emacs development streams will end. The surviving Emacs will have the sole right to call itself simply `Emacs'. Martin