Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbvax!daemon
From: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: fa.editor-p
Subject: Re: Learning Z vs Zmacs
Message-ID: <938@ucbvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Sep-83 03:32:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.938
Posted: Sun Sep 25 03:32:49 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Sep-83 04:11:39 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Computer Science
Lines: 14

From JQJ@SU-SCORE.ARPA  Sun Sep 25 00:32:28 1983
    Date:  6 Sep 1983 0616-EDT
    From: RMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
    The MIT system, which LMI uses, has several improvements relating to
    the editor.  For example, Ztop and the Lisp (Edit) window really work,
    and provide all the session management facilities that Dyer describes.

This just isn't true, except for a limited number of subsystems that
can be run in any window.  Z succeeds because all the subsystems that
it is concerned with CAN be.  However, I think part of the complaint
was that so much of the Lisp Machine environment could not be unified
by such an interface.

I agree with the rest of what you say about Zmacs/Emacs vs Z.