🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr9.224504.26706@demott.com> kdq@demott.com (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
   In article <1991Apr9.171225.663@odin.corp.sgi.com> portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes:
   >In article <HOWCOME.91Apr8165325@media-lab.media.mit.edu>, Hakon Lie 
   >writes:
   >>   there. I realize that Epsilon may run counter to rms' policies, but
   >>   I'm prepared to take the moral consequences of actually *buying*
   >>   something GNU-like.
   >>
   >>It's a waste of money, the GNU products are in most cases superior to
   >>the commercial versions. If they aren't -- someone (maybe you) will
   >>make them better..
   >
   >I don't understand what you're talking about.  Unless you have a
   >386 or better, you are never going to get GNU Emacs to run on your
   >laptop. Other than that, Epsilon has far, far more features and
   >far more extensibility than every public-domain editor available.

There is no doubt that GNU-emacs requires performace. However, that
doesn't make it an inferior editor. It requires performace because it
does a lot of things other editors won't do. Including Epsilon. How
can you claim that an editor without an undo facility has "far more
features" ?

       I would pay $1000 for Epsilon, and I wish the damn thing were
   available for all machines (like my non-intel-processor-based UNIX
   systems) because it beats the hell out of not only every other editor
   I've tried, but out of emacs too (IMNSHO).

I am seriously interested in how you came to this conclusion.

-h&kon
--
					       _____
Hakon W Lie 				      /    
howcome@media-lab.media.mit.edu		----MIT Media Lab---
(617)253-0312				----an ec
					----s s  hnocracy----
					----o  ti
					     c   tute-of---
					      hi
					        stic--