From xemacs-m  Tue Apr 22 06:21:32 1997
Received: from mgate.uni-hannover.de (mgate.uni-hannover.de [130.75.2.3])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA10018
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 06:21:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from helios (actually helios.tnt.uni-hannover.de) by mgate 
          with SMTP (PP); Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:19:09 +0200
Received: from daedalus.tnt.uni-hannover.de by helios (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) 
          id NAA25307; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:18:46 +0200
Received: by daedalus.tnt.uni-hannover.de (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02744;
          Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:18:44 +0200
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:18:44 +0200
Message-Id: <199704221118.NAA02744@daedalus.tnt.uni-hannover.de>
From: Heiko Muenkel <muenkel@tnt.uni-hannover.de>
To: hniksic@srce.hr
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Packaging criteria
In-Reply-To: <kigd8rsgyk9.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
References: <m2ohbdz4ey.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <kign2qxouar.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <m2d8rs6dgd.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <kigiv1kok6z.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <m24td468p4.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <kigenc8r1z9.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <199704181459.QAA00608@daedalus.tnt.uni-hannover.de> <kigd8rsgyk9.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: n}R'l6CHRf>pi&bj7[x0CW3:kmXm@1)7m+l*9[fp;-Ow4Xe~=5E;skf?2> 
        y]f{HzB|Q(\V9+y$PP~.4G[2n4W7{6Ilm[AMY9B:0kj.K_$-d%p4YIF*bX;=ADp6{ 
        HS@NEv9c.VII+9PgXHASx}K(jy^t=q%qzZ72q1e4E;O!$A$`&wgtLk"1%p.nC_G!] 
        4d1!+J4Q#YD_iXeEy`1x)d\r$1Qn\'23n|[8Y_xzuXJJ7W(EGqnzB]`]aq??;+z=) 
        DW~\'Vq&F'g%QU[Mv2:}nS>SdZFTEC2GsgB=Q,:~H<R5S[:ZN%B:s0;|v1x"Jb
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>>>> "Hrv" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

    Hrv> Heiko Muenkel <muenkel@tnt.uni-hannover.de> writes:
    >> PS: The fundamental mode is sufficient to edit every file in
    >> every language and there are sometimes situations where users
    >> would prefer or even need such a spartanic XEmacs.

    Hrv> This is a very wrong attitude for an Emacs editor.  I don't
    Hrv> know about you, but *I* wouldn't use XEmacs if the C mode
    Hrv> wouldn't come with it by default.  XEmacs is written in C,
    Hrv> after all, and after Lisp mode, it's the most basic thing we
    Hrv> can provide.

    Hrv> As for Fundamental mode being good enough for this; why
    Hrv> bother with XEmacs at all?  Why don't we just use vi?  It's
    Hrv> "sufficient" too.  Please refer to Per Abrahamsen's excellent
    Hrv> article on this issue.

You don't understand what I want. I think that there's no mode, which
is realy used by everyone. Ok there are some modes which are used by
more people than other modes. But why do you don't like to give
everyone a chance to put together only those XEmacs packages, which he
needs? 

Another good reason for a very small basic XEmacs is, that there are
sometimes situations, where one (mostly systemmanagers) needs a small
editor - and I don't want to use the vi in these situations.


Heiko

PS: My XEmacs will propably ever have an Emacs Lisp mode and a C mode
    - but that's not a reason for me to vote for a basic XEmacs with
    these packages.
 

