From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: whither GNU Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:56:30 -0700 Message-ID: <48AF987E.2040106@emf.net> References: <10697146.3630221218551689983.JavaMail.www@wwinf4615> <87d4k6qm9g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87r68kr1v5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <48AE09B2.3080900@emf.net> <4eb0089f0808212040x33b77760id935e79982c85eee@mail.gmail.com> <48AF3035.3020100@emf.net> <858wuoad0u.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219464395 9498 80.91.229.12 (23 Aug 2008 04:06:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 23 06:07:28 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KWkPP-0006d6-JF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:07:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36003 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KWkOS-00005k-0x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KWkOO-00005f-96 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KWkON-00005T-K2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33774 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KWkON-00005Q-Ho for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]:51362) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KWkOI-0007Bt-Vi; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:19 -0400 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter-42inc: Scanned X-42-Virus-Scanned: by 42 Antivirus -- Found to be clean. Original-Received: from [69.236.75.128] (account lord@emf.net HELO [192.168.1.64]) by mail.42inc.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.13) with ESMTPA id 37469712; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:05:58 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: <858wuoad0u.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:102851 Archived-At: David Kastrup wrote: > If technical superiority would have been RMS' priority, he would not > have started the GNU project: It all started when he wanted to fix a bug in a printer driver (the story goes).... > a starting project will always be worse > than existing solutions. That's nothing to do with what we're talking about. It's fine: we're building a new system and it starts off "behind the pack". Of course. The question is what happens when we get to a fork in the road. Say, you are hacking some GNU code and a choice arises: you can make a change that makes it better or you can avoid that change. So, there's the choice. RMS is offering some pretty abstract "theory" about why you should choose to *not* make the improvement in these cases. Now, I'm not really reaching for some overarching theory of my own about what makes a program better or worse but I will go so far as to say that there are some straightforward cases. GCC is better (all else being equal) with tree print/read. Emacs is better with a dynamic loader. I don't think those are controversial assertions *other than* RMS' theory that those features put the free software movement at risk. Now, wait and let's see if I understand this: I should fight for software freedom in order (among other things) to have the rights to inspect and improve a program I use but, in the course of my fight for software freedom, I should inspect but not improve in these certain cases. Sorry, that seems like a reductio ad absurdum conclusion -- there must be some bogus premise. The bogus premise, I see from about 20 years of history, is that it is important to fret over what proprietary hacks a feature might enable. It's a bogus premise because foresight is not 20-20: we sure kept people from making proprietary Emacs or GCC add-ons but, meanwhile, built a heck of a platform for proprietary web software. Fretting over tactics to avoid creating such platforms is pointless. 20 years of experience shows this. So, I say, back to common sense and simple minded "make the programs better." Reject a dynamic loader in Emacs if there is no good use for it or if the maintenance cost is too high but don't reject it because someone might possibly use it to launch proprietary code -- they'll do that anyway, one way or another, using whatever features we do include. > The free software movement which he started > has always and consistently considered non-free software unacceptable. > The "Open Source Movement", in contrast, tries selling free development > models via claims of technical superiority. RMS has never ascribed to > that somewhat seductive idea. > This has nothing to do, either, with the Open Source Industrial Complex, or ESR's eyeball fetish, or any of that. Quite independently of any of those things there is a fork in the road: dynamic loader or no. > I don't see your use of insulting language like "think harder" It's not insulting. It's colloquial and comparatively mild. So: guess again. > as a > desirable contribution either. You imply that people coming to > different conclusions than you or having other priorities must be > stupid. > Well, that's kind of true. Yes, I think it is a dumb idea to ban features like a dynamic loader in GNU Emacs. That's not insulting. I'm using "dumb" in the technical sense. It means "please rethink that," or something close. It also means "um, I'm not sure people should trust the leadership if this is what they're coming up with." If you can't say words like that in an engineering discussion then you can't have an engineering discussion. It isn't personal. It isn't an attack. Those words summarize the conclusion of the critical analysis. My own mistakes in software engineering I usually describe as "bone-headed" or "idiotic" or something like that. Those words are attributes of mistaken ideas -- they aren't personal attacks. Those are useful words in part because it is always important to remember that anyone, especially one's self, can be "bone headed" in an engineering project. That's why we have peers -- to point that kind of bogosity out, when it happens, if you are lucky. > I can assure you that Richard is not an idiot He's been my supervisor. I've worked in an office down the hall from him. I've interacted with him on and off for about 20 years. I personally happen to like him although we aren't close. I'm pretty familiar with his strengths and weaknesses as a software engineer. > (which is not to say that > you can't find some relative idiots among free software supporters as > well as anywhere else). I can also tell you that this sort of public > insulting and derision is not going to win any points for your case. > Nobody is slinging insults and derision UNTIL YOU JUST THERE. Stop impugning my character. I can be understood perfectly well without interpreting my comments as "insult" and "derision". You have absolutely no excuse for attacking my reputation that way. Knock it off. > Richard is not a person who takes kindly to this sort of behavior. And > I don't see that I can blame him much for that. > Are you his spokesperson? > If you want to show off your purported superiority, Um.... as one who is posturing as a defender of civility, you make a *fine* hypocrite. > go ahead and make a > spectacle of yourself. WTF?!? > But if you want to have your arguments > considered at all, you'd better choose a different conversation style Ok. Try this one: shut up with that noise. I've been critical of some ideas that have governed GNU. You've "spun" that as if I'm on some kind of personal rampage trying to attack RMS and prove my superiority or something. YOU are the problem here, sycophant, and I'm tired of being attacked in the way you are attacking me. -t