Re: Bug related to `start-process' and `process-connection-type'

[Al Petrofsky]

rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) writes:

> If you contrast GNU Emacs with XEmacs, that conveys a mistaken
> impression that it is unrelated to GNU.  We don't use XEmacs in the
> GNU system, but it is derived from GNU (an earlier version of Emacs).
> Please call them "Emacs" and "XEmacs", or else "GNU Emacs" and "GNU
> XEmacs".

I don't think this solves the problem.

The word "emacs" predates the GNU project, and is often used to cover
a vast family of editors.  The reason people sometimes say "GNU emacs"
is that they are attempting to identify the version maintained by the
GNU project.  They don't say "GNU xemacs" mostly because "xemacs" is
sufficient to identify that version.

If people were to refer to xemacs as "GNU xemacs" as you suggest, then
"GNU emacs" starts to sound like a generic term for any emacs derived
from GNU emacs.  What term are you recommending people use when they
want to unambiguously identify the branch of GNU emacs that you
maintain?  "GNU-maintained GNU emacs"?  "FSF GNU emacs"?  Something
else?

-al