Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Reuben Thomas]

A minor gripe: from time to time I submit errors (mostly typos) in the GNU
Emacs sources and documentation to the list. One thing that I haven't
considered an error up to now is references to "MS-DOG", "Windoze" and the
like.

However, today I was nearly bitten by a reference to "Netrape". I was
annoyed because I was working on Netscape-related code in browse-url.el,
and was hence interested in all references to the program. My usual tools
(grep, incremental search) would have missed this one.

So would the maintainers consider changing such mis-spellings? I'm not
asking them to go on a big hunt, but only for them to treat reports of
such errors as they'd treat reports of any other typo. Indeed, in this
case, a quick s/MS-DOG/MS-DOS/ and s/Windoze/Windows/ would catch many of
them, but there are others as I indicated above.

-- 
http://www.mupsych.org/~rrt/ | humour, n.  unexpected recognition

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Richard Stallman]

    A minor gripe: from time to time I submit errors (mostly typos) in the GNU
    Emacs sources and documentation to the list. One thing that I haven't
    considered an error up to now is references to "MS-DOG", "Windoze" and the
    like.

Writing "MS-DOG" is a common practice for us--it is not an error.
"Windoze" is not so common, so maybe it could be useful to change.

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Reuben Thomas]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Writing "MS-DOG" is a common practice for us--it is not an error.

But it does look unprofessional. Hmm...perhaps I've just mislaid my sense
of humour.

-- 
http://www.mupsych.org/~rrt/ | Il ne vaut pas la peine de peigner l'eau

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Richard Stallman]

    > Writing "MS-DOG" is a common practice for us--it is not an error.

    But it does look unprofessional.

I don't give much credence to other people's ideas of what looks
"professional".

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     A minor gripe: from time to time I submit errors (mostly typos)
>     in the GNU Emacs sources and documentation to the list. One
>     thing that I haven't considered an error up to now is references
>     to "MS-DOG", "Windoze" and the like.
> 
> Writing "MS-DOG" is a common practice for us--it is not an error.

It serves no useful purpose, in my opinion, and it makes creating
useful indices and keyword searches more difficult.

In addition, it makes one look like a hypocrite if one stresses the
importance of using the correct name for systems like GNU/Linux.

While I do understand that the "MS-DOG" terminology has found its way
into GNU documentations long before the "GNU/Linux" issue came up, I
would not think it amiss changing it now where it still persists.  I
don't think that there remains any necessity of pointing out the
deficiencies of MS-DOS as an operating system nowadays, and we don't
call, say, FreeDOS (if it is mentioned anywhere) FreeDOG, either.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
> Date: 19 Jan 2004 00:16:30 +0100
> > 
> > Writing "MS-DOG" is a common practice for us--it is not an error.
> 
> It serves no useful purpose, in my opinion, and it makes creating
> useful indices and keyword searches more difficult.

How so?  Please elaborate.

AFAIR, we have index entries in place to make this a non-issue.  If
you have practical examples where these humorous names can hinder
documentation, please post them, perhaps some improvements are in
order.

> In addition, it makes one look like a hypocrite if one stresses the
> importance of using the correct name for systems like GNU/Linux.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with testing the sense of humor
of Emacs users.  Someone once posted an angry message about Antinews
on similar grounds, but I don't think we must be that dead serious
about these things.  We can always use a bit of smiling once in a
while.

GNU/Linux is different: you don't laugh about the beliefs of people
whom you respect.

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il> writes:

> > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> > Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
> > Date: 19 Jan 2004 00:16:30 +0100
> > > 
> > > Writing "MS-DOG" is a common practice for us--it is not an error.
> > 
> > It serves no useful purpose, in my opinion, and it makes creating
> > useful indices and keyword searches more difficult.
> 
> How so?  Please elaborate.

If you do a full-text search for MS-?DOS, you won't find the relevant
occurences.

> AFAIR, we have index entries in place to make this a non-issue.  If
> you have practical examples where these humorous names can hinder
> documentation, please post them, perhaps some improvements are in
> order.
> 
> > In addition, it makes one look like a hypocrite if one stresses
> > the importance of using the correct name for systems like
> > GNU/Linux.
> 
> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with testing the sense of
> humor of Emacs users.  Someone once posted an angry message about
> Antinews on similar grounds, but I don't think we must be that dead
> serious about these things.  We can always use a bit of smiling once
> in a while.
> 
> GNU/Linux is different: you don't laugh about the beliefs of people
> whom you respect.

Ok, so the sense of humor from Emacs users we are testing for is
demonstrated by laughing about the beliefs of people whom they don't
respect?

It's not exactly the definition of "humor" I would want to project.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
> Date: 19 Jan 2004 07:51:57 +0100
> > > 
> > > It serves no useful purpose, in my opinion, and it makes creating
> > > useful indices and keyword searches more difficult.
> > 
> > How so?  Please elaborate.
> 
> If you do a full-text search for MS-?DOS, you won't find the relevant
> occurences.

I think there's an "MS-DOS" near every "MS-DOG" instance, but if you
find one place where this isn't true, please point me to it.

> Ok, so the sense of humor from Emacs users we are testing for is
> demonstrated by laughing about the beliefs of people whom they don't
> respect?

That's how I see it, yes.  Note that I didn't create the MS-DOG name,
so this is simply my view of this issue.

> It's not exactly the definition of "humor" I would want to project.

It's one possible definition, I guess.

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Alan Mackenzie]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il> wrote on 19 Jan 2004 08:27:48 +0200:
>> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
>> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
>> Date: 19 Jan 2004 00:16:30 +0100

>> > Writing "MS-DOG" is a common practice for us--it is not an error.

[ .... ]

>> In addition, it makes one look like a hypocrite if one stresses the
>> importance of using the correct name for systems like GNU/Linux.

> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with testing the sense of humor
> of Emacs users.  Someone once posted an angry message about Antinews on
> similar grounds, but I don't think we must be that dead serious about
> these things.  We can always use a bit of smiling once in a while.

Personally, I don't think it's very funny humour.  When one calls MS-DOS
"MS-DOG" or MS-Windows "windoze", one is holding in contempt not only the
sleazy marketing types at Microsoft, but also the programmers who wrote
these systems.  I think these programmers have done a competent job,
especially considering the constraints they have had to work under.

I am speculating here, but I would think these programmers suffer a good
deal more from MS's business practices than mere users.  Many times, for
example, they will have been forced against their better judgement to do
the Wrong Thing, and this will gnaw away at their consciences and
integrity.  [They might even be forbidden from using Emacs at work :-(]
I don't think they need or deserve the extra slap on the face of having
their creations maligned by other hackers.

> GNU/Linux is different: you don't laugh about the beliefs of people
> whom you respect.

Whom should one respect?  Whom should one despise?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Richard Stallman]

    Personally, I don't think it's very funny humour.  When one calls MS-DOS
    "MS-DOG" or MS-Windows "windoze", one is holding in contempt not only the
    sleazy marketing types at Microsoft, but also the programmers who wrote
    these systems.

They are all working on non-free software.  And making lots of money
for it.  I don't feel much compassion for them.

    I am speculating here, but I would think these programmers suffer a good
    deal more from MS's business practices than mere users.

If they feel really bad, they could quit.

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.969.1074573915.928.bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>     Personally, I don't think it's very funny humour.  When one calls MS-DOS
>     "MS-DOG" or MS-Windows "windoze", one is holding in contempt not only the
>     sleazy marketing types at Microsoft, but also the programmers who wrote
>     these systems.
> 
> They are all working on non-free software.  And making lots of money
> for it.  I don't feel much compassion for them.

You have contempt for people because they have jobs doing what they like?

I don't really have much problem with people using these derogatory 
nicknames in Usenet postings and similar media; this is an informal 
environment, and it's common to throw opinions and biases around in 
conversation.  But putting them in published software documentation just 
makes us all seem unprofessional and juvenile, and hurts the whole free 
and open software movement.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:39:34 GMT
> 
> I don't really have much problem with people using these derogatory 
> nicknames in Usenet postings and similar media; this is an informal 
> environment, and it's common to throw opinions and biases around in 
> conversation.  But putting them in published software documentation just 
> makes us all seem unprofessional and juvenile, and hurts the whole free 
> and open software movement.

Just FYI, these names were in the manual since about forever,
certainly before I came on board of Emacs maintenance circa 1993.
Heck, even the name of the Texinfo source file for the MS-DOS appendix
to the manual is msdog.texi.

So I think whatever juvenile and unprofessional attitude follows from
this, it's been out there for so long that nothing can now change our
image in people's eyes, and any damage it could have possibly done to
the free software movement is already done.

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[David Kastrup]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@elta.co.il> writes:

> So I think whatever juvenile and unprofessional attitude follows
> from this, it's been out there for so long that nothing can now
> change our image in people's eyes, and any damage it could have
> possibly done to the free software movement is already done.

Only if nobody bothers reading a manual nowadays that he has not
already read and memorized before.

I do get this impression sometimes, but then where would the point be
in maintaining manuals in the first place?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.978.1074588520.928.bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
 "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@elta.co.il> wrote:

> > From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
> > Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
> > Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:39:34 GMT
> > 
> > I don't really have much problem with people using these derogatory 
> > nicknames in Usenet postings and similar media; this is an informal 
> > environment, and it's common to throw opinions and biases around in 
> > conversation.  But putting them in published software documentation just 
> > makes us all seem unprofessional and juvenile, and hurts the whole free 
> > and open software movement.
> 
> Just FYI, these names were in the manual since about forever,
> certainly before I came on board of Emacs maintenance circa 1993.
> Heck, even the name of the Texinfo source file for the MS-DOS appendix
> to the manual is msdog.texi.
> 
> So I think whatever juvenile and unprofessional attitude follows from
> this, it's been out there for so long that nothing can now change our
> image in people's eyes, and any damage it could have possibly done to
> the free software movement is already done.

Back in the old days, GNU software was mostly distributed within the 
self-contained hacker community.  We all were in on the joke, and used 
the same jargon and nicknames amongst ourselves.  The documentation was 
written with that target audience in mind.

Like it or not, though, times have changed.  *BSD and Linux are becoming 
mainstream software, which means that we have to expect that the 
documentation will be used by people not so clued in to this mindset.  
If we don't want to alienate the potential converts, I don't think we 
should perpetuate these attitudes in media intended for them.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Re: Variant spellings in GNU Emacs documentation

[Sam Steingold]

> * Barry Margolin <onezne@nyhz.zvg.rqh> [2004-01-20 07:39:34 +0000]:
>
> In article <mailman.969.1074573915.928.bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
>  Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>>     Personally, I don't think it's very funny humour.  When one calls
>>     MS-DOS "MS-DOG" or MS-Windows "windoze", one is holding in
>>     contempt not only the sleazy marketing types at Microsoft, but
>>     also the programmers who wrote these systems.

Yep, and also their users.
Got a problem with that?

>> They are all working on non-free software.  And making lots of money
>> for it.  I don't feel much compassion for them.
>
> You have contempt for people because they have jobs doing what they like?

so?  to take it to extreme, what if death camp guards liked their jobs?

> I don't really have much problem with people using these derogatory
> nicknames in Usenet postings and similar media; this is an informal
> environment, and it's common to throw opinions and biases around in
> conversation.  But putting them in published software documentation
> just makes us all seem unprofessional and juvenile, and hurts the
> whole free and open software movement.

I agree with you completely, every word!
All these "official renaming campaigns" sound like "green grapes".
yuk.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
"A pint of sweat will save a gallon of blood."          -- George S. Patton