Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey

[Marcel Ventosa <mve1@runbox.com>]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:53:22 +0200
Thibaut Verron <thibaut.verron@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le ven. 16 oct. 2020 à 09:24, Marcel Ventosa <mve1@runbox.com> a
> écrit :
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:52:49 +0200
> > Thibaut Verron <thibaut.verron@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > Le ven. 16 oct. 2020 à 08:03, Marcel Ventosa <mve1@runbox.com> a
> > > écrit :  
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 23:59:07 -0400
> > > > Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > I hope that only a minority of Emacs users know about MELPA,
> > > > > and I'd rather not inform the rest about it.  But if
> > > > > something is going to inform them anyway, it is better to do
> > > > > it with a denunciation.  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've been using Emacs (and MELPA) for the best part of a decade
> > > > and knew nothing about this! I'm concerned to use only free
> > > > software and actively avoid proprietary software, so this is a
> > > > bit of a shock.  
> > >
> > > As I understand it, Melpa packages cannot *be* or *install*
> > > non-free software. But some will not work without such software,
> > > which can in theory encourage users to install it.
> > >
> > > So unless you yourself installed non-free software, Melpa cannot
> > > have made your Emacs configuration non-free by accident.  
> >
> > I understand, thanks for the explanation. In that case, I think I'm
> > well informed enough to have avoived the dangers. I wonder how many
> > people are not.  
> 
> I personally don't think many users install non-free software because
> they saw it wrapped in a Melpa package.
> 
> Taking the example of emacs-lastpass given above, I don't see how
> anyone would even find this package without searching for it with the
> keyword "lastpass".
> 
> The audience, rather, is users who are currently using Lastpass in
> their browsers but are interested in bringing some of their online
> activities to Emacs, but rely on their password manager to do so.
> 
> In due time, with the new "taste of freedom", they might even switch
> to Keepass or Bitwarden (note: I don't use a password manager in
> Emacs, so I have no idea of the quality of each support package,
> beyond their existence), but in any case, I believe that for those
> users, the existence of transitional solutions is a good thing.

I understand your point, and transitional solutions may indeed be a good
thing (though they can lead both ways). However, it's a long-standing
position of GNU not to be seen to endorse these compromises, whether or
not their existence is a good thing. For me, the name GNU has always
signified a free software safe haven. The idea that one might be misled
into installing proprietary software because of well earned trust in GNU
should be avoided at all costs.

I would posit the same if I was a member of a vegan organization that
was relaxing their views on eating animals to ease the transition. While
there is little doubt transitions can be beneficial, the vegan
organization should not confuse it's tenets.

Perhaps. Transitional solutions go both ways though. A cursory glance at
Reddit's Emacs group is enough to notice not only ignorance of the
philosophy behind GNU, but quite recurrent mockery of what it stands
for. Usually in the form of deriding RMS. For the most recent example,
one user comments under abrochard's survey post: "So, will you be
censoring the survey to maintain ideological purity, like rms
insisted?", to which abrochard responds: "I agree with you. The
discussion around Melpa is a big factor as to why the survey is
happening in parallel to the gnu project."

> I absolutely support the fact that Melpa is not activated by default,
> and that there should be a warning about the existence of those
> packages everywhere possible. But I still consider that the value of
> those packages outweigh their dangers, just like the win32 build of
> Emacs.
> 
> > > ELPA means Emacs Lisp Package Archive, so both Melpa and GNU Elpa
> > > are ELPA's. I think that commonly referring to GNU Elpa as simply
> > > Elpa (which I am also guilty of) is a bigger source of confusion
> > > than Melpa and GNU Elpa sharing the same suffix.  
> >
> > As written on the MELPA Github about page:
> >
> > "MELPA is Milkypostman's ELPA or Milkypostman's Experimental Lisp
> > Package Archive if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
> >
> > Perhaps the shared `E' in `Elpa' is purely coincidental?  
> 
> I didn't know about the Experimental version, thanks. If anything, the
> quoted sentence is self-contradicting for me.
> Also, the title of the melpa.org page is "MELPA (Milkypostman’s Emacs
> Lisp Package Archive)".
> 
> In any case, I don't know if an acronym with a different vowel but
> still ending with LPA, such as Milpa, would be less confusing.

Yes, I see it as a problem when an unofficial offshoot of a project does
not make it crystal clear that it is so. In fact, and on the same topic,
a post was made about the survey yesterday on Reddit by Abrochard with
the title "The Emacs User Survey 2020 will open on Oct 19th," which
makes it sound as though it were an official survey. Further down the
thread, a user criticized RMS of trying to censor the survey, mentioning
the MELPA discussion in particular, to which Abrochard responded: "I
agree with you. The discussion around Melpa is a big factor as to why
the survey is happening in parallel to the gnu project."

I'm not saying the obfuscation is purposeful either in the case of
`MELPA' imitating the name of the existing `GNU ELPA', or of Adrien
calling his survey *The* Emacs User survey", but what I do think is that
all non-GNU initiatives that affect perception of GNU, particularly the
ones that clearly do not share the GNU philosophy (the survey referred
to `GNU/Linux' as `Linux', for example), would seem much more
transparent if they were very clearly and visibly labeled as unofficial.
My hope, of course, would be that these initiatives could respect the
GNU philosophy, even if they did not share it.