From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:59:29 +0300 Message-ID: <83zizxztpq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <560CCEBA.9080607@online.de> <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8737xrweel.fsf@googlemail.com> <87r3lazla7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87bnce1ko7.fsf@googlemail.com> <87mvvyz5a8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5qi7zi.fsf@googlemail.com> <87io6mz0en.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83612l26ss.fsf@gnu.org> <87egh9zvqq.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444028404 23355 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2015 07:00:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 07:00:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jens.k.loewe@googlemail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 05 08:59:54 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZizkW-0007CY-I4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:59:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44568 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZizkV-0003ZI-Q1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 02:59:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZizkH-0003Z9-Ey for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 02:59:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZizkG-000649-0Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 02:59:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout26.012.net.il ([80.179.55.182]:47403) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZizkB-00063b-VY; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 02:59:32 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout26.012.net.il by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NVQ00N00J2GXV00@mtaout26.012.net.il>; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:02:24 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NVQ00M55JK00V50@mtaout26.012.net.il>; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:02:24 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87egh9zvqq.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.182 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:190922 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Cc: jens.k.loewe@googlemail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:15:41 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: David Kastrup > >> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 01:20:16 +0200 > >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> > >> You might have missed it, but Windows 10 goes ahead nevertheless. So > >> far testers have not been able to find any settings that would not send > >> a continuous string of data related to keypresses to Microsoft servers. > > > > Google did, among its first few hits: > > > > http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/603524/Windows-10-Microsoft-Key-Logger-Record-Privacy > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/windows-10-doesnt-offer-much-privacy-by-default-heres-how-to-fix-it/ > > Ah, but turning those settings off does not really suffice. > > Which includes further advice on how to turn the other stuff off. Look, this particular point of yours is simply invalid: for any problem encountered on Windows, there are always solutions and/or workarounds that work. It sometimes takes time to discover them (Windows 10 was released only 2.5 months ago), but eventually they do surface. The enormously large number of people using Windows and the basic user desire to solve problems they bump into, coupled with the Internet and the efficiency of the search engines, makes any such malware-like features easily bypassed for those who don't want them. The basis for the Free Software movement and the GPL, as I understand it, was, and still is, that denying free access to the software sources prevents the free flow and exchange of ideas, which is immoral, unethical, and detrimental to progress, and whose only justification is greed and the desire to increase profits. The supposedly easier way of fixing bugs and adding features by the user herself is IMO a beneficial side-effect, and is today limited to adding features (as workarounds for bugs will usually be found by googling). The free flow of ideas argument is still very much valid, although it, too, is not black-and-white anymore, because there's enormous amount of information out there, both in books and in articles, that describes the inner workings of Windows (don't know about MacOS, OS X etc.) to astonishing depth and detail. Bottom line, I submit that representing the split as black-and-white chasm-like one is nowadays a misrepresentation. Things are more like shades of gray, not in the least due to the fact that the modern societies are much more open than they were in 1980s. Which goes a long way towards explaining why people don't easily see the core of the GPL's rationale and quite a few are sincerely confused about the Free Software movement's main principles and ideas. It also makes our job explaining those ideas quite a bit harder. But trying to make it easier by representing the issues as black-and-white is not TRT, IME, and it will always fail given an intelligent enough opponent who knows her ground. You (not you personally, David) can even be accused in trying to con your audience by false statements, which then might have far-reaching effect on our argumentation in general.