Yeah, I admit, fair complaints. Emacs can be tricky to render things exactly how you like - I use it on Mac, Linux, GUI and terminal and do have different semantics for each.
The tradeoff is that Emacs does let you handle it all - you're not forced to accept platform defaults like in some editors. Most editors have their UI/behavior largely baked in by the platform. You can customize colors and keybindings, but the fundamentals - window management, font rendering, how system keys work, terminal integration - are mostly dictated by whether you're on Mac, Windows, or Linux.
So when you have mac Emacs behaving differently than Linux Emacs, it's not because the software forced you into that corner - it's because the underlying systems are different and Emacs exposes that difference rather than hiding it behind a unified abstraction layer.
Emacs gives you the rope to make things consistent across platforms, but also the rope to hang yourself. Other editors pre-tie the knot for you.
The tradeoff is that Emacs does let you handle it all - you're not forced to accept platform defaults like in some editors. Most editors have their UI/behavior largely baked in by the platform. You can customize colors and keybindings, but the fundamentals - window management, font rendering, how system keys work, terminal integration - are mostly dictated by whether you're on Mac, Windows, or Linux.
So when you have mac Emacs behaving differently than Linux Emacs, it's not because the software forced you into that corner - it's because the underlying systems are different and Emacs exposes that difference rather than hiding it behind a unified abstraction layer.
Emacs gives you the rope to make things consistent across platforms, but also the rope to hang yourself. Other editors pre-tie the knot for you.