You must log in or register to comment.
doom for starters, vanilla with your custom config for expirienced users.
What is the difference between the vanilla and GNU versions?
To dilute the result?
Technically MicroEmacs is not really emacs. It’s just an editor with the same keys configurations.
In my personal opinion, if it is directly called an emacs-like editor and has emacs keybinds, I would consider it emacs.
But some people would disagree, and I understand that. I still put it there because I personally consider it a miniature version of emacs
Well, you’d say that. The whole poll is incorrect in my non-personal opinion, there are 2 versions of emacs, Gnu Emacs and XEmacs. The rest are just distros and micro is as much emacs as Visual Studio Code with an emacs extension.
For this old timer, emacs achieved nirvana with version 19.34 (hilit19 anyone?), when RMS and his merry men retook the crown from the Lucid pretenders. The 19 series were like the last of the air-cooled Porsche 911’s contemporaneously in vogue. Things stabilized with versions 20 and 21, then languished until some pretty lousy but well meaning programmers revitalized development in 2008.
i didn’t even know there were different flavors. I just been using the stock for the last 2 decades or so. haha
They are not really flavors, just different distributions. Same underlying Emacs.
And here I thought I was going to miss out on 31 flavors and more.
mg is the successor to microemacs.
Did you mean “spacemacs”? I haven’t heard of spaceman.
Yeah. Autocorrect