Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Marcel Ventosa <mve1@runbox.com> [2020-10-16 11:25]:
> 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.

That is right.

> 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.

That is right, some organization lose their purpose or deviate it.

GNU project never deviates its purpose and is in that sense without compromises.

> 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."

That is right, there is some mockery of free software philosophy,
especially on IRC #emacs channel, that is very sad state that
intelligent people cannot recognize they are being very rude, it is
type of opression taking place on official GNU communication lines, as
long as #emacs channel on IRC is considered official, that I do not
know. Reddit is not.

> Yes, I see it as a problem when an unofficial offshoot of a project does
> not make it crystal clear that it is so.

It is very easy to clone MELPA, to build packages, to exclude list of
packages and to have your own ELPA locally installed, or to offer such
on Internet for others, in a fixed mode, not continually built
mode. It requires review, and collaboration of many developers to make
it safe and secure for others.

> 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."

The Reddit page is hidden propaganda, they said "they contacted
emacs-devel but got no response" which is not true. There were
positive feedbacks overall, and acknowledgment including
acknowledgment by RMS. 

> 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.

If it would be some belief or only philosophy, fine, but it is not. It
is technical term.

Obviously people do not call "Linux" for Android operating system,
neither they call Android GNU because it is not GNU. Yet it runs on
Linux kernel. Also Replicant operating system is not called
GNU/Replicant as it is not GNU, so it is Replicant, operating system
running in Linux kernel.

Linux when published by Linus Torvalds in beginning, there is where he
said that you need GNU for operating system, Linux is only kernel. How
more clearer than that can it be?

Now when somebody says: Archlinux that is derived name, it can be
named of operating system. By the way, Archlinux is promoting
proprietary software without differences, so I cannot recommend it.

Jean