Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>]

"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:

  >     So you are in effect saying that you preemptive attack was baseless and
  >     without any technical justification (the HR approach was so wrong that's
  >     not even worth disscussing).  Refusing to provide a technical
  >     justification after so many requests is quite telling.  Thank you.
  > 
  > It was entirely reasonable for Eli object to a change that looked like
  > it would make things more difficult for him -- he did not have to try
  > to actually do the work before he could object to this.

It would have been reasonable to object, but what he did cannot be
called object.  Had he just been objecting, this issue would have been
easily solved.  It was much worse than that, and it was totally
unfounded too.  At least 3 people told him that at the time.

  > The fact that he ultimately went along with the change, rather than
  > undoing it, 

That what he wants us to believe, but it is not the reality.  After
reviewing his changes I can confirm what I have been saying from day 1:
there's no relation between fixing the MSDOS port and removing the
non-MULTI_KBOARD support.

  > argues that removing the no-MULTI_KBOARD code was a good
  > change.  But it doesn't change the conclusion that you should have
  > asked.

I wouldn't put too much base on a conclusion based on a false premise.

Now, can we please drop this topic?  It has been a terrible waste of
time.  Putting so much energy into discussing a platform which, given
the evidence we have has no users, it is close to being dead, and it is
of no strategic importance to GNU does not seem like a good idea.