Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com&gt; writes: IME, *absolutely* wrong. this might be thought adequate if one accepts the fallacy above (that XEmacs is in death throes). as things stand, it would only be harmful. anecdotal stuff: the two companies I last worked (and work now) for use XEmacs for all editing tasks. the first probably chose it just for the pretty pictures, but the current one does so based also on some features that it has and FSF Emacs doesn't. like, for instance, the ability to open a frame on anothor display or a tty. this is a *crucial* feature, as many people here frequently work from home (hey, like I'm doing just now). another feature I like is the ability to build XEmacs without MULE, so that I make it (with the rest of my X environment) cyrillic-friendly just by setting appropriate fonts in the X resources. the ability to update packages (like Gnus) without having to maintain a manual installation and without waiting for the next Emacs release is also nice, if not that critical. in short: XEmacs has real features that keep it wanted. the other argument used when arguing that some piece of software is dying is lack of maintainers. I don't know if that's true, but I hope not. -- For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like. -- fortune