News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why GNU Emacs?. Parent comment

Re:Why GNU Emacs? by alayne on Sunday February 14, 2016 @05:08PM (#11100211)
Sublime Text is proprietary closed source. That seems counter to modern Unix/Linux goals.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by sien on Sunday February 14, 2016 @05:51PM (#11100382)
There is Atom these days which is OS and similar to ST.

Mind you, Atom takes longer to start than Visual Studio.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by dingo_bat on Monday February 15, 2016 @09:13AM (#11103463)
VS Code is open source and starts as fast as notepad.exe. Also, I think it has more features than atom.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by pjmlp on Sunday February 14, 2016 @05:50PM (#11100380)
Which UNIX isn't proprietary?

Note UNIX, not UNIX like.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by groovy2shoes on Sunday February 14, 2016 @06:10PM (#11100453)
All of the BSDs.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by pjmlp on Sunday February 14, 2016 @06:13PM (#11100461)
Which of them is certified as such?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by curt15 on Sunday February 14, 2016 @07:11PM (#11100703)
Who really cares about whether something is "certified" UNIX? Certification is not some seal of quality. "Unix" is commonly understood to denote "functional" unix systems as well for lack of a more convenient term.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by pjmlp on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:51AM (#11101728)
That os what the UNIX-like expression is for.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by mitchty on Sunday February 14, 2016 @07:58PM (#11100873)
OS X would have been the only one certified. Even then I wouldn't call it a BSD per-se.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by groovy2shoes on Sunday February 14, 2016 @06:20PM (#11100494)
Oh, didn't realize you meant only certified Unices. I'll be on my way...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GNU Emacs? by nalck on Sunday February 14, 2016 @06:44PM (#11100595)
Illumos
[ Parent | on HN ]