underatree
I have never used live export, but looked for it in its dropdown menu, found it, and clicked it: https://i.imgur.com/0LG6nnS.png
It renders images and doesn't rely on ASCII for its rendering.
I agree Emacs could benefit from some polish, on the whole.
What is it in particular?
I see some UI operations block on TRAMP operations which is laggy and annoying.
Emacs-devel are keen for it, and eglot.el is a good contender for inclusion.
My impression is that you are not familiar with Emacs.
Lisp is not widely used, and this is an impediment to Emacs' popularity.
However, when people speak about Emacs customizability, they are referring to a deeper level of customizability than most programs (even NeoVim/VS Code), in which its innards and UI are all subject to modification, at runtime, within the beast itself. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it happens to be my preference at least.
But productivity isn't my only goal.
I want to give back to the community: Emacs is introspectable enough that it allows me to easily contribute.
I want to explore a different UI paradigm, which blurs the line between user and developer.
I want to support a grassroots developed editor.
+1.
Emacs is a powerhouse of customizability, and it needs to work on functionality by default.
> Instead it's a toy for some old people who are still holding onto the remnants of an age that passed a long time ago. Emacs is basically useless compared to VS Code, and its authors are what's holding it back.
I don't think Emacs is held back by its authors. The article might not make it clear but RMS does not contribute much to the vision or code of Emacs today. Read emacs-devel, and though there's occasionally some conflicts, the authors are keen on progress aligned with what people expect from an editor.
Emacs is a complex platform, owing to its unique vision on blurring the line between user and developer. The authors do a great job of keeping that up-to-date.
Emacs supports customization needs to the nth degree, but I've found that this is a false economyy.
I agree Emacs needs to be easier to get started with.
* standards based: i.e. it has demonstrated commitment to openness and universality
* multi stakeholder: i.e. it has momentum
* can self host: i.e. power can reside with communities
* has clients that support encrypted video chat: i.e. I can use it today.
XMPP does that.
To clarify, I prefer an ad-free browsing experience.
However, I haven't seen an alternative to ads that works for adequately funding content on the /open/ web.
I like that most journalism, YouTube, and social media are free for all.
Benefit: Removing ads isn't much of a benefit for me, since having tracking protection and first party isolation.
Cost: Ads blocker require high privilege permissions that I choose not to grant.
If VR is coming to the web, Mozilla need to at least be ready for this, if not leading it.
If Mozilla doesn't track with this ad, I'm _okay_ with it.
Mozilla plays an important role in providing platform diversity.
Any user that wants Mozilla to succeed but protests by using a WebKit based browser is achieving only a pyrrhic victory.
Was finding another team ever offered as an option (other than on a PIP)?