Re: Fatal error (11). Emacs/ Linux hosed my very long document.

[wlcna]

"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
3d6111f1.0409161437.30ef8b7d@posting.google.com">news:3d6111f1.0409161437.30ef8b7d@posting.google.com...
>I recently switched to xemacs as my default word processor so I could
> do formatting in TEX for a very long document.  Most recently I've
[...]

I don't really care about this discussion because I don't like/can't stand 
emacs (I use vi and vim) and also initially thought the o.p. was a complete 
liar and troll, but having looked at his other posts and his posting 
history, I no longer believe this and moreover...  I NOW THINK this guy has 
a point:  xemacs is a pile of crap if this guy was editing for five hours 
and it crashed out of nowhere on him.

I think xemacs has a problem here because I've NEVER ONCE experienced a 
crash with vim, whether it be using it from the command line or gui.  Not 
once, and it's the only editor I've been using for years, and I don't use it 
in any plain, stripped down versions, but pretty well feature-maxed 
versions, under multiple operating systems and windowing environments.  This 
guy was editing for five hours and he gets a crash "out of nowhere."

Obviously, lightning does strike, but this person is not describing that - 
he's describing a perfectly functioning machine, and the only thing crashing 
is what? Xemacs.

The xemacs people actually do owe a response.  Is xemacs simply the same 
kind of crap made by Microsoft?  This user's experience would seem to 
indicate that may be so.

One can call him an idiot for not saving, but his whole intent was to USE 
Linux tools to REVIEW them.  This makes sense.  And putting himself in the 
risky situation he put himself in makes a bit of sense also.  He got burned, 
his review will now reflect that, people will learn from his getting burned. 
He will not gloss over this fact.

I also just read the xemacs/lemacs versus emacs/RMS stuff on jwz.org and I 
must say this jwz person sounds like a prize putz, as well as the Richard 
Gabriel person and all of those Lucid people.  I find it hard to believe 
that there were people defending this obviously MERCENARY, SELF-PROMOTING, 
SHALLOW bunch within that discussion.  While I don't like emacs, I would 
completely take his side in that discussion.  It's obvious inside of the 
discussion itself that the xemacs people were determined to try to blow the 
original emacs out of the water.  Quite bad behavior, as rms himself said, 
though even then without much rancor (unlike the other side).

I would think the o.p. might try regular emacs and report his experiences 
there, since the problem could simply be with the non-standard, separately 
maintained version he chose to use, xemacs, which may simply be a 
crash-prone pile of crap compared to regular emacs.