From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Johannes Weiner Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:33:46 +0200 Message-ID: <877iak7xfp.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> References: <10697146.3630221218551689983.JavaMail.www@wwinf4615> <20080812171404.GB7999@muc.de> <20080813092057.GA3010@muc.de> <20080814083817.GA2593@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1218706559 21982 80.91.229.12 (14 Aug 2008 09:35:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Richard M. Stallman" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 14 11:36:51 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 1KTZFy-00061y-St for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:36:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39210 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KTZF2-0005Lp-Dk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:35:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KTZDv-0004yW-Er for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:34:27 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KTZDt-0004xS-A6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:34:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43280 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KTZDs-0004x2-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:34:25 -0400 Original-Received: from saeurebad.de ([85.214.36.134]:41135) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KTZDf-0002Fv-O2; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:34:13 -0400 Original-Received: by saeurebad.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id C858B2F00CA; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:34:09 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (83-221-69-159.dynamic.primacom.net [83.221.69.159]) by saeurebad.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132BC2F00C4; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:34:09 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20080814083817.GA2593@muc.de> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:38:17 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.3 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:102434 Archived-At: Hi, Alan Mackenzie writes: > Hi, Richard! > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 01:19:22AM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote: >> Switching to GNU is possible in principle, but it's difficult, >> time-consuming and expensive. > >> Doing things that are difficult and/or time-consuming and/or expensive >> in order to escape from proprietary software is precisely the way to >> show people that freedom matters. That is how you lead. Developing >> GNU was also difficult and time-consuming, and some aspects have been >> expensive. > > Hey, you snipped too much of the context, you rascal! The effort I was > talking about was that of a large company, with all the bureaucracy and > inertia that goes with it. These large companies aren't much concerned > about freedom, unless it is their own. They might not even be legally > permitted in some jurisdictions to bother much about freedom. > > Other people and groups are advancing free software by emphasising free > software's high quality. Yet you don't recognise their efforts as > legitimate, even though they increase the use of free software, and hence > freedom itself. I find this puzzling, and I know I'm not alone. Freedom should never stand over software quality and usability. The same way as security should never do that. If your security model is to take the power off your machines you will have a worse solution that one with higher risk. Richard, if your argument is really that it is _good_ to have time-consuming software in order to demonstrate by using it that you care so much about freedom that you stop solving your problems efficiently, then I am really sorry for you. Primarily, software is problem-solving. If your software comes in a flavor that doesn't restrict user's freedom, this is really nice. If you cripple software for freedom's sake, you have driven the purpose of software ad absurdum. Hannes