Re: Elisp addiction not as bad in light of Linux forkoholism

[Emanuel Berg]

Nikolay Kudryavtsev <nikolay.kudryavtsev@gmail.com>
writes:

> I think Erik Naggum supported a fork of emacs back
> in the day, because he hated MULE.
>
> And I'm not even mentioning xemacs, and other
> emacsen.

You actually did mention xemacs, either that or I'm
hallucinating because of too much head trauma trying
to think straight.

C'mon. There is always an exception to a rule, and
there is always an extreme example that makes all
generalizing thoughts impossible.

For example: all people are unique, but that doesn't
stop us from having hospitals were practices are based
on us being 99% the same.

Here is a list of Linux distributions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

Do you have anything near that for Emacs?

In a way it makes sense for *Linux* to be "forked"
because of different physical settings and hardware
needs ("ported" is perhaps the word then). But all
those distros, over and over? Oh, no.

There is no doubt in my mind Emacs has been tinkered
with just as much but only minimally forked. Forking
is the poor-man's "configuration and extention", as
they call it on the covers of Emacs books.

-- 
underground experts united