From xemacs-m  Tue Jan 14 08:47:29 1997
Received: from nvwls.cc.purdue.edu (root@nvwls.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.7.3])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id IAA16242 for <XEmacs-Beta@XEmacs.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:47:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from nvwls.cc.purdue.edu (nuspl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nvwls.cc.purdue.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA20862 for <XEmacs-Beta@XEmacs.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:40:32 -0500
Message-Id: <199701141440.JAA20862@nvwls.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-to: nuspl@purdue.edu
X-Mailer: MH-E 5.0.2
X-Attribution: jjn
X-Face: K'Q`VIQx)c-;TPHDA`.,kBQq(WyNe3AdopJ?B(.4yT%n|F?4>+?x]pQ4XC83s-4;|U{%9x]
 =yr4dko
To: XEmacs-Beta@XEmacs.org
Subject: Linux Journal: "Xemacs vs. GNU Emacs"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:40:30 -0500
From: Joe Nuspl <nuspl@nvwls.cc.purdue.edu>


I just received my new copy of Linux Journal and read the above
mentioned article.  Besides using bizarro capitalization such as
Xemacs, eLISP, .Emacs, and .xEmacs, there were some points that need
to be addressed:


--GNU Emacs has GPM support

	I still have the patches that Bill sent to the list with GPM
	support.  I would like to see this in the 19.15 release.

--The difference in menu and key configurations.

	Hasn't RMS conceded that the XEmacs's key notation is cleaner
	and adopted it?

--New users of GNU Emacs are more likely to find help on the net

	Huh?  How many articles does Steve respond to on a daily basis?
	Maybe if we have Erik Naggum on our side?

