Emacs Webapp/Plugin

Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1415 bytes --]

Someone tell me again why it is a bad idea to develop a Chrome/Chromium
(browser or Chrome OS) plugin that is essentially just the basic Emacs bits
that we know and love?  I did sort of raise this issue a while back to no
avail but it is an itch that just won't go away.

The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps available on
this imagined system, just web apps and browser plugins.  Using this
system, I will visit a site that has a text file, think DropBox or Google
Drive or some such, for example.  This text file is in fact an org-mode
text file.  So I want Chrome to automagically recognize this and invoke an
Emacs plugin to edit the document.  Now, as near as I can tell, this
particular plugin is not available in the Chrome App store, or anywhere
else.  I kind of expected/hoped Steve Yegge would have written it by now
but ... he's probably too busy just being famous (or infamous).

In any case, how practical/impractical is it to talk about this group of
developers producing such a tool using the current code base?

Left to my own devices, I would be inclined to write the plugin first
trying not to modify Emacs internals but I have a hunch that will prove
impractical.  Once there are internal Emacs changes required the question
arises on how best to package the tool in the bazaar sources.

Would this notion be a variant of the ability to "embed" Emacs into another
app?

-pmr

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1570 bytes --]

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[joakim]

Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com> writes:

> Someone tell me again why it is a bad idea to develop a
> Chrome/Chromium (browser or Chrome OS) plugin that is essentially just
> the basic Emacs bits that we know and love? I did sort of raise this
> issue a while back to no avail but it is an itch that just won't go
> away.
>
> The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps available
> on this imagined system, just web apps and browser plugins. Using this
> system, I will visit a site that has a text file, think DropBox or
> Google Drive or some such, for example. This text file is in fact an
> org-mode text file. So I want Chrome to automagically recognize this
> and invoke an Emacs plugin to edit the document. Now, as near as I can
> tell, this particular plugin is not available in the Chrome App store,
> or anywhere else. I kind of expected/hoped Steve Yegge would have
> written it by now but ... he's probably too busy just being famous (or
> infamous).
>
> In any case, how practical/impractical is it to talk about this group
> of developers producing such a tool using the current code base?
>
> Left to my own devices, I would be inclined to write the plugin first
> trying not to modify Emacs internals but I have a hunch that will
> prove impractical. Once there are internal Emacs changes required the
> question arises on how best to package the tool in the bazaar sources.
>
> Would this notion be a variant of the ability to "embed" Emacs into
> another app?

I'm not really sure what youre asking, but embedding Emacs in a browser
would not be too hard. Its already mostly possible with the window id
flags. See emacswiki for examples. If you are asking how to simply make
Emacs handle particular urls downloaded by the browser, thats also
possible, and in Firefox you need a plugin that you configure, should
work the same with Chrome.

If you are asking if its possible to deploy emacs to the google
appstore, and install it as a chrome plugin, that should be technically
possible.

Lastly, I dont think this is what you asked, but its also possible to
embedd webkit in emacs, in the emacs xwidget branch. (webkit is the
renderer chrome uses, more or less)

>
> -pmr
>

-- 
Joakim Verona

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Jeremiah Dodds]

Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com> writes:

> Someone tell me again why it is a bad idea to develop a Chrome/Chromium (browser
> or Chrome OS) plugin that is essentially just the basic Emacs bits that we know
> and love? I did sort of raise this issue a while back to no avail but it is an
> itch that just won't go away.
>
> The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps available on this
> imagined system, just web apps and browser plugins. Using this system, I will
> visit a site that has a text file, think DropBox or Google Drive or some such,
> for example. This text file is in fact an org-mode text file. So I want Chrome
> to automagically recognize this and invoke an Emacs plugin to edit the document.
> Now, as near as I can tell, this particular plugin is not available in the
> Chrome App store, or anywhere else. I kind of expected/hoped Steve Yegge would
> have written it by now but ... he's probably too busy just being famous (or
> infamous).
>
> In any case, how practical/impractical is it to talk about this group of
> developers producing such a tool using the current code base?
>
> Left to my own devices, I would be inclined to write the plugin first trying not
> to modify Emacs internals but I have a hunch that will prove impractical. Once
> there are internal Emacs changes required the question arises on how best to
> package the tool in the bazaar sources.
>
> Would this notion be a variant of the ability to "embed" Emacs into another app?
>
> -pmr
>

If you haven't seen it, you might want to check out
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Edit_with_Emacs .

-- 
Jeremiah Dodds

github: https://github.com/jdodds
irc   : exhortatory

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.dodds@gmail.com>wrote:

> Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com> writes:
> ...
> > -pmr
> >
>
> If you haven't seen it, you might want to check out
> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Edit_with_Emacs .


I use this all the time.  What I'm trying to accomplish is to integrate
Emacs into the Browser via a plugin/extension mechanism.  My underlying
model is Chrome OS where you cannot install Emacs for something like
Edit_with_Emacs to connect via the Emacs server.

-pmr

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1035 bytes --]

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    Someone tell me again why it is a bad idea to develop a Chrome/Chromium
    (browser or Chrome OS) plugin that is essentially just the basic Emacs bits
    that we know and love?

For one thing, I am concerned people might use it in Chrome, which is
nonfree software with a universal back door.  If that caught on, it
would be a disaster in terms of our primary goal: giving users
freedom.

    The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps available on
    this imagined system, just web apps and browser plugins.

That IS a disaster, in terms of users' freedom.  It pushes users
into total dependence on servers.  We must oppose it, not accept it.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[William Gardella]

Paul Michael Reilly <pmr-9u8/wbatHBfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Jeremiah Dodds <
> jeremiah.dodds-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>     Paul Michael Reilly <pmr-9u8/wbatHBfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> writes:
>     ...
>     > -pmr
>     >
>    
>     If you haven't seen it, you might want to check out
>     http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Edit_with_Emacs .
>
>
> I use this all the time.  What I'm trying to accomplish is to
> integrate Emacs into the Browser via a plugin/extension mechanism.
>  My underlying model is Chrome OS where you cannot install Emacs for
> something like Edit_with_Emacs to connect via the Emacs server.
>
> -pmr

As I understand it, you can install software onto a Chromebook or
similar by putting the device into developer/non-signed-boot mode, after
which it is similar to installing stuff on a Gentoo box.  Even without
resorting to that, one could always SSH into a "proper" GNU system with
an Emacs server installed; this is what I have long done on work
computers (usually Windows boxes) that don't permit me to install
software.  There is a working SSH client in the Chrome Web Store.

Other than that, I think the cause is basically hopeless; a Chromebook
is a Tivoized device.

-- 
I use grml (http://grml.org/)

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>     Someone tell me again why it is a bad idea to develop a
>     Chrome/Chromium (browser or Chrome OS) plugin that is
>     essentially just the basic Emacs bits that we know and love?
>
> For one thing, I am concerned people might use it in Chrome, which
> is nonfree software with a universal back door.  If that caught on,
> it would be a disaster in terms of our primary goal: giving users
> freedom.

Wait, doesn't Emacs run on lots of nonfree systems?

>     The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps
>     available on this imagined system, just web apps and browser
>     plugins.

Is this a meaningful distinction?  I mean, on a system where the
browser is the main "shell," and the browser makes sufficiently
powerful mechanisms available, isn't a web app / browser plugin an
"app" as far as the user can tell?

> That IS a disaster, in terms of users' freedom.  It pushes users
> into total dependence on servers.

What if it's their server ...?

-miles

-- 
Kilt, n. A costume sometimes worn by Scotchmen [sic] in America and Americans
in Scotland.

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2652 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM, William Gardella <gardellawg@gmail.com>wrote:

> Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com> writes:
>
> ...
> > I use this all the time.  What I'm trying to accomplish is to
> > integrate Emacs into the Browser via a plugin/extension mechanism.
> >  My underlying model is Chrome OS where you cannot install Emacs for
> > something like Edit_with_Emacs to connect via the Emacs server.
> >
> > -pmr
>
> As I understand it, you can install software onto a Chromebook or
> similar by putting the device into developer/non-signed-boot mode, after
> which it is similar to installing stuff on a Gentoo box.  Even without
> resorting to that, one could always SSH into a "proper" GNU system with
> an Emacs server installed; this is what I have long done on work
> computers (usually Windows boxes) that don't permit me to install
> software.  There is a working SSH client in the Chrome Web Store.
>

Again, my goal is to have a seamless, robust Emacs experience when editing
or viewing files in a Web constrained device.  Nothing exemplifies the
experience I am after more than visiting an org-mode file on my server
directly or via something like Google Drive or Drop Box and having the file
handler be Emacs, i.e. I visit https://my.server.com/foo.org and rather
than see the browser display something akin to "Sorry, I don't know how to
deal with that, Jim", I want the opened tab to display what org-mode would
display and keystrokes in the tab to be interpreted as org-mode would, by
an Emacs instance handling the file.

Using an ssh type mechanism is neither seamless, robust nor practical.

Other than that, I think the cause is basically hopeless; a Chromebook
> is a Tivoized device.
>

My cause is not hopeless, I am convinced.  I've never used a Tivo so I do
not understand the analogy.  Also, I use the Chromebook as a name to
characterize an experience: where a browser is the main (possibly sole)
application and all computing is done via URL references.  This computing
model is important to me because it enormously simplifies my computing
environment and allows me to focus on hacking rather than system
administration.  It also allows me to use commodity hardware, although I
will be the first to admit that the initial Chromebook devices were
underpowered and less than useful.  On my MacBook Air, I basically use
Chrome and Emacs, which was the catalyst to asking the question: is there a
way to combine the two seamlessly?  I cannot imagine Emacs ever being a
Chrome replacement but I can imagine Emacs handling a file in a Chrome tab.
 Now I just need to find a practical way to make it happen. :-)

-pmr

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3336 bytes --]

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1498 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>     Someone tell me again why it is a bad idea to develop a Chrome/Chromium
>     (browser or Chrome OS) plugin that is essentially just the basic Emacs
> bits
>     that we know and love?
>
> For one thing, I am concerned people might use it in Chrome, which is
> nonfree software with a universal back door.  If that caught on, it
> would be a disaster in terms of our primary goal: giving users
> freedom.
>

People use Emacs every day on Windows, which is nonfree software with a
universal back door AND a malevolent management team antithetical to users
freedom.


>     The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps available on
>     this imagined system, just web apps and browser plugins.
>
> That IS a disaster, in terms of users' freedom.  It pushes users
> into total dependence on servers.  We must oppose it, not accept it.
>

We've had this conversation before.  I neither oppose not accept dependence
on servers in general but use my own servers and encourage the development
of server based communities where users' freedoms are embraced and
preserved.

The mobile computing paradigm, small computing devices that act as clients
to data on servers, is a fact of life for the foreseeable future, as is
giant companies which span the gamut from Masters of Evil
(Microsoft/Apple/Facebook, imho) to not so evil (Google).  Unfortunately,
"not so evil" is probably as good as it will ever get.

-pmr

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2065 bytes --]

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1041 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> >     The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps
> >     available on this imagined system, just web apps and browser
> >     plugins.
>
> Is this a meaningful distinction?  I mean, on a system where the
> browser is the main "shell," and the browser makes sufficiently
> powerful mechanisms available, isn't a web app / browser plugin an
> "app" as far as the user can tell?
>

Yes, the plugin/extension is an app as far as the user is concerned and the
distinction is mainly relevant to shape the discussion as this forum has
been historically concerned with Emacs as a traditional desktop
application.  Emacs as an embeddable piece of code is interesting to my
goal and is something I need to understand better.  It could be part of the
solution I am looking for.


> > That IS a disaster, in terms of users' freedom.  It pushes users
> > into total dependence on servers.
>
> What if it's their server ...?
>

Miles, nice to see you "get it".

-pmr

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1627 bytes --]

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Bastien]

Hi Paul,

Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com> writes:

> I've never used a Tivo so
> I do not understand the analogy.  

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

> On my MacBook Air, I basically use Chrome and Emacs, which
> was the catalyst to asking the question: is there a way to combine
> the two seamlessly?

I don't see what is not seamless here.

Open distant readable .org files with Chrome.
Open distant writable .org files with Emacs.

> I cannot imagine Emacs ever being a Chrome
> replacement but I can imagine Emacs handling a file in a Chrome tab.

I don't see what's more practical in opening an .org file in a
Chrome tab rather than in Emacs.

Do you plan to implement something?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[William Gardella]

Paul Michael Reilly <pmr-9u8/wbatHBfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> writes:
> ...
> Using an ssh type mechanism is neither seamless, robust nor
> practical.

It's not "seamless," but it can certainly be robust and practical (and
perhaps more seamless when your SSH client is a Chrome tab).  SSHing out
to an Emacs instance that contains, e.g., your Org files is quite
effective in my experience of getting by without the ability to install
Emacs on work computers.

>     Other than that, I think the cause is basically hopeless; a
>     Chromebook
>     is a Tivoized device.
>
>
> My cause is not hopeless, I am convinced.  I've never used a Tivo so
> I do not understand the analogy.  Also, I use the Chromebook as a
> name to characterize an experience: where a browser is the main
> (possibly sole) application and all computing is done via URL
> references.  This computing model is important to me because it
> enormously simplifies my computing environment and allows me to focus
> on hacking rather than system administration.  It also allows me to
> use commodity hardware, although I will be the first to admit that
> the initial Chromebook devices were underpowered and less than
> useful.  On my MacBook Air, I basically use Chrome and Emacs, which
> was the catalyst to asking the question: is there a way to combine
> the two seamlessly?  I cannot imagine Emacs ever being a Chrome
> replacement but I can imagine Emacs handling a file in a Chrome tab.
>  Now I just need to find a practical way to make it happen. :-)
>
> -pmr

Some alternatives you might look at:

1. ymacs ( http://www.ymacs.org/ ) is a free software AJAX "Emacs-alike"
editor.  But, of course, having a backend written in JavaScript rather
than Emacs Lisp, it does not include the huge, encyclopedic codebase of
GNU Emacs.  It does do reasonably good syntax highlighting, edit code
using some Emacs conventions, and it is extensible, but feature-wise,
what you would be getting is far more like microemacs or ZILE than GNU
Emacs.  I'm not sure if that's what you mean when you talk about Emacs
features we all know and love.  For me, it would not be seamless if it
doesn't run Org, Gnus, and the fifty million other Elisp programs I
use.

2. Some content management systems, most notably Ikiwiki, understand Org
files these days as a markup option.

3. Conkeror is a JavaScript-based web browser based on the XULrunner
engine used by Mozilla which follows Emacs-like user interface
conventions and is highly extensible.

4. Nic Ferrier develops an asynchronous Emacs webserver project called
Elnode, aimed at making it possible to create interactive web
applications using Elisp.  I know that one idea that has been floated by
him for things Elnode could do is to create a purely web-based
Emacsclient.  That might be closest to what you need--web-based
interface with a real Emacs instance on the other end--but it doesn't
exist yet by a long shot.

-WGG

-- 
I use grml (http://grml.org/)

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    > For one thing, I am concerned people might use it in Chrome, which is
    > nonfree software with a universal back door.  If that caught on, it
    > would be a disaster in terms of our primary goal: giving users
    > freedom.
    >

    People use Emacs every day on Windows, which is nonfree software with a
    universal back door AND a malevolent management team antithetical to users
    freedom.

So what?  I hope you don't think ethical conclusions depend only on
the FORM of the situation.  There is a difference between an enemy 100
miles away and an enemy outside your door.

Using Emacs on a nonfree system is bad, but nothing new.  Turning
Emacs into an extension for a nonfree browser would be a big change
for the worse.  We will try to prevent that.

    The mobile computing paradigm, small computing devices that act as clients
    to data on servers, is a fact of life for the foreseeable future, 

It cannot be reconciled with the goals of the free software movement,
so our mission includes changing that.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 > It cannot be reconciled with the goals of the free software movement,
 > so our mission includes changing [the prospective dependence on
 > "the cloud" that everybody predicts or at least fears].

Do you have a plan for changing that you've talked about, or are
willing to talk about?  Preferably not on this list, though, this OT
subthread is already long enough.  And preferably a plan that doesn't
involve jousting with windmills.  (If you have a blog post or similar,
no need to rehash it.)

Steve

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[joakim]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman writes:
>
>  > It cannot be reconciled with the goals of the free software movement,
>  > so our mission includes changing [the prospective dependence on
>  > "the cloud" that everybody predicts or at least fears].
>
> Do you have a plan for changing that you've talked about, or are
> willing to talk about?  Preferably not on this list, though, this OT
> subthread is already long enough.  And preferably a plan that doesn't
> involve jousting with windmills.  (If you have a blog post or similar,
> no need to rehash it.)

FWIW I have a personal project that I discussed on the GTA04 mailing
list. (The GTA04 is a continuation of the free phone plattform project,
the Openmoko Freerunner)

The project is basically about providing an easy method for people to
create personal clusters using free software, in its basic form
consisting of a personal server, and a portable terminal in phone or
tablet or laptop format.

In essence the project aims to provide configuration data for a
GNU/Linux distribution, so that deploying such a cluster can be an easy
matter.

The project is described here, including first iteration technical
choices for the existing implementation:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openmoko.community/61714/match=personal+cluster



>
> Steve
>
>
>

-- 
Joakim Verona

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    The project is basically about providing an easy method for people to
    create personal clusters using free software,

It seems strange to use the term "cluster" for "several computers that
communicate sometimes, in very different roles".

As for the server, isn't that what Freedombox is for?

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

     > It cannot be reconciled with the goals of the free software movement,
     > so our mission includes changing [the prospective dependence on
     > "the cloud" that everybody predicts or at least fears].

    Do you have a plan for changing that you've talked about, or are
    willing to talk about?

I don't have a plan for how to win this.  However, the first step is
clear: don't grant legitimacy to what they suggest we do.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[chad]

On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> As for the server, isn't that what Freedombox is for?

Freedombox looks (to me) like it's more about open, secure, private communications infrastructure, rather than Free compute servers.  There is some overlap, and maybe there are plans to expand Freedombox, but as an example, Freedombox would be aimed more at making sure users aren't trapped in gmail, yahoo, facebook, and twitter, while Joakim is talking about making sure users and developers aren't trapped in Google App Engine or Amazon Web Services.

As computing usage moves out of the office and onto mobile devices, quite a lot of desired computing activity is moving into free-not-Free and cheap network services that are (currently) opaque and encumbered. For many of these services, the source code is open, but the service itself is closed, ala TiVo-ization. Quite often, developers use these services (Google or Amazon) simply because the Free alternatives either don't exist or are much more costly (in time and money).

I hope that helps,
*Chad

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[joakim]

chad <yandros@mit.edu> writes:

> On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> As for the server, isn't that what Freedombox is for?
>
> Freedombox looks (to me) like it's more about open, secure, private communications infrastructure, rather than Free compute servers.  There is some overlap, and maybe there are plans to expand Freedombox, but as an example, Freedombox would be aimed more at making sure users aren't trapped in gmail, yahoo, facebook, and twitter, while Joakim is talking about making sure users and developers aren't trapped in Google App Engine or Amazon Web Services.
>
> As computing usage moves out of the office and onto mobile devices, quite a lot of desired computing activity is moving into free-not-Free and cheap network services that are (currently) opaque and encumbered. For many of these services, the source code is open, but the service itself is closed, ala TiVo-ization. Quite often, developers use these services (Google or Amazon) simply because the Free alternatives either don't exist or are much more costly (in time and money).

I haven't studied Freedombox in detail. Maybe I can work with the
Freedombox image as a base to provide the services Chad clarifies above.

But the main difference between my goal and FreedomBox seems to be that
I want to provide configuration descriptions for all nodes of a network
of computers and other systems that collaborate at all times. Thats why I
used the term "Cluster".

So, AFAICS FreedomBox does not provide a configuration description for
an OS image that runs on phone hardware, that will rely on a
corresponding image that runs on a server, basically an old school
client-server configuration.

This way I think free software can provide an overall system provididng
the same services as the non-free alternatives with less effort than
providing separate projects that work together only after substantial
configuration.

Anyway, I hope this makes the goal clearer. 

[BTW It might seem that this topic is completely OT for this list, but
many of us phone os hackers seem to share the goal of running Emacs
usefully on a phone]

>
> I hope that helps,
> *Chad
>

-- 
Joakim Verona

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    But the main difference between my goal and FreedomBox seems to be that
    I want to provide configuration descriptions for all nodes of a network
    of computers and other systems that collaborate at all times. Thats why I
    used the term "Cluster".

    So, AFAICS FreedomBox does not provide a configuration description for
    an OS image that runs on phone hardware, that will rely on a
    corresponding image that runs on a server, basically an old school
    client-server configuration.

What is a "configuration description"?  I never saw that term before.

Alas, there is no a free system that can run on a phone.  But even if
there were one, why would you need to get this from your server?

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[joakim]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     But the main difference between my goal and FreedomBox seems to be that
>     I want to provide configuration descriptions for all nodes of a network
>     of computers and other systems that collaborate at all times. Thats why I
>     used the term "Cluster".
>
>     So, AFAICS FreedomBox does not provide a configuration description for
>     an OS image that runs on phone hardware, that will rely on a
>     corresponding image that runs on a server, basically an old school
>     client-server configuration.
>
> What is a "configuration description"?  I never saw that term before.

A description of how to set up a system in a particular configuration.
These are preferably handled by specialized software.

For GNU/Linux there is for example Puppet, among others. It works like this:
- There is a configuration server called the "puppet master"
- client machines, which can be other servers, laptops, or whatever,
register with the Puppet master.
- A daemon called the "Puppet Agent" is run on the client system.
- The Puppet Agent consults with the Puppet Master to fetch various
configuration settings.

In this case I want to provide the following configuration settings:
- which server software to install on the server. For instance the imapd
Dovecot.
- Which mail client to install on a laptop, for instance Evolution.
- both server and client get the appropriate configuration to
communicate using imap.

The point of this i to make it easy for people to get an entire free
stack running without spending weeks configuring. It is not easy for an
unexperienced user to make all the installs and configurations.

Furthermore the Android stack appears "free" or "open" to some
people. If nothing else the project I describe will result in an article
that can be used for didactical purposes.

> Alas, there is no a free system that can run on a phone.  But even if
> there were one, why would you need to get this from your server?

I'm not sure why you say that there are no free systems available for
phones. In my particular case I use the GTA04 which has mostly open
hardware. On this open hardware I run the QTmoko GNU/Debian
distribution. If I havent made any misstake, the parts I use are free.
(There are many other projects similar to QTMoko)

If you mean that the GSM network itself isn't free, or that the GSM
subprocessor requires a binary blob to operate legally on a public
network, that is indeed a problem. These problems are being addressed by
several projects, but must be considered long-term. Overall there are
many many details, I can't cover each here.

Anyway, so the phone I use is basically a small GNU/Linux system with a
3G modem. So you can in principle use a configuration system like
"Puppet" to conveniently configure it. (As a technical side-note Puppet
might not be the most suitable system, because it requires a Ruby stack
running on the client. I'm investigating "Pallet" instead, which just
requires bash and ssh on the client, which runs fine on my phone)



> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
>   Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

-- 
Joakim Verona

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    - There is a configuration server called the "puppet master"
    - client machines, which can be other servers, laptops, or whatever,
    register with the Puppet master.
    - A daemon called the "Puppet Agent" is run on the client system.
    - The Puppet Agent consults with the Puppet Master to fetch various
    configuration settings.

What do you mean by "configuration settings"?
Could you give me some examples?

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    I'm not sure why you say that there are no free systems available for
    phones. In my particular case I use the GTA04 which has mostly open
    hardware.

It comes fairly close, but it has peripherals (more than one) that
require nonfree "blobs".

    Anyway, so the phone I use is basically a small GNU/Linux system with a
    3G modem.

I don't know how the main processor communicates with the 3G modem.
If it is by memory sharing, the firmware in the modem can take control
of the entire system.


--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[joakim]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     - There is a configuration server called the "puppet master"
>     - client machines, which can be other servers, laptops, or whatever,
>     register with the Puppet master.
>     - A daemon called the "Puppet Agent" is run on the client system.
>     - The Puppet Agent consults with the Puppet Master to fetch various
>     configuration settings.
>
> What do you mean by "configuration settings"?
> Could you give me some examples?

I can describe my own cluster briefly. Perhaps that will help clarify:

- A fileserver, Exodia, also running the Puppetmaster and an NFS
server. 
- Five client-machines that mount the NFS share. The details of the NFS
share are distributed using Puppet-agent from the puppetmaster on
Exodia. So, if I want to add a new cliesnt-machine to my cluster, it is easy to
get the relevant NFS share mounted.

- I have a gateway-machine which has a firewall. The firewall settings
  are distributed from the puppetmaster. Its therefore fairly easy to match
  the ports needed for a webserver running on Exodia to the ports opened
  and redirected by the gateway.

Now, if I want to share the setup of the entire cluster with someone
that wants to build a similar cluster, I can simply share the puppet
template files I use to run my cluster. 
  
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
>   Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

-- 
Joakim Verona

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[joakim]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     I'm not sure why you say that there are no free systems available for
>     phones. In my particular case I use the GTA04 which has mostly open
>     hardware.
>
> It comes fairly close, but it has peripherals (more than one) that
> require nonfree "blobs".

You don't need to use those peripherals. I find the device quite
functional without them. To make the device even more useful, the device
would benefit from the success of this high priority GNU project:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/new-high-priority-project-powervr-drivers/

I verified this information with the project, and can provide full
details if deemed interesting.

This is no worse than most of my other machines. I try to do my best
buying hardware that work with free software, and avoid using the
hardware parts requiring non-free blobs.


>
>     Anyway, so the phone I use is basically a small GNU/Linux system with a
>     3G modem.
>
> I don't know how the main processor communicates with the 3G modem.
> If it is by memory sharing, the firmware in the modem can take control
> of the entire system.

In the case of the GTA04 the modem is a completely separate system that
communicates with the main processor with a serial USB connection. There
is no memory sharing.


>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
>   Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

-- 
Joakim Verona

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Jason Rumney]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I don't know how the main processor communicates with the 3G modem.
> If it is by memory sharing, the firmware in the modem can take control
> of the entire system.

Normally it is via a comm port (or similar; sometimes USB or SPI are
used in place of a UART to get higher transfer speeds).

The other main source of binary blobs in mobile plaforms is graphics
drivers and video accelerators, which are interfacing with the main CPU
(in the same package, but a separate processing core) via memory
sharing.

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

I think I understand now, and it is useful.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    >     I'm not sure why you say that there are no free systems available for
    >     phones. In my particular case I use the GTA04 which has mostly open
    >     hardware.
    >
    > It comes fairly close, but it has peripherals (more than one) that
    > require nonfree "blobs".

    You don't need to use those peripherals. I find the device quite
    functional without them.

I see how you could use it without Wifi and bluetooth, but
does the video work at all without the powervr?

    In the case of the GTA04 the modem is a completely separate system that
    communicates with the main processor with a serial USB connection. There
    is no memory sharing.

That is good enough, then.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[joakim]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     >     I'm not sure why you say that there are no free systems available for
>     >     phones. In my particular case I use the GTA04 which has mostly open
>     >     hardware.
>     >
>     > It comes fairly close, but it has peripherals (more than one) that
>     > require nonfree "blobs".
>
>     You don't need to use those peripherals. I find the device quite
>     functional without them.
>
> I see how you could use it without Wifi and bluetooth, but
> does the video work at all without the powervr?

Yes it works quite well without the PowerVR driver. You dont get
graphics acceleration, but that doesn't really matter for many applications.


>     In the case of the GTA04 the modem is a completely separate system that
>     communicates with the main processor with a serial USB connection. There
>     is no memory sharing.
>
> That is good enough, then.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
>   Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

-- 
Joakim Verona

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Using Emacs on a nonfree system is bad, but nothing new.  Turning
> Emacs into an extension for a nonfree browser would be a big change
> for the worse.  We will try to prevent that.

Wait ... "nonfree browser" ... you mean chrome?

My understanding was that although binary distributed by google wasn't
free, because it includes various bells and whistles implemented with
non-free libraries (e.g. video decoding ...?), the guts of the browser
_is_ actually free software, and a completely free version of it
exists ("chromium", which is in debian) which simply omits the
non-free bells and whistles.  I've tried both, and didn't notice any
obvious difference between them, so I'm not really sure what exactly
the bells-and-whistles consists of...

I don't know how the difference between the free and non-free versions
affects plugins though...

-miles

-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Lennart Borgman]

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> My understanding was that although binary distributed by google wasn't
> free, because it includes various bells and whistles implemented with
> non-free libraries (e.g. video decoding ...?), the guts of the browser
> _is_ actually free software, and a completely free version of it
> exists ("chromium", which is in debian) which simply omits the
> non-free bells and whistles.  I've tried both, and didn't notice any
> obvious difference between them, so I'm not really sure what exactly
> the bells-and-whistles consists of...
>
> I don't know how the difference between the free and non-free versions
> affects plugins though...

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome

(What is "metrics" mentioned there?)

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Nix]

On 4 Aug 2012, Lennart Borgman uttered the following:

> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding was that although binary distributed by google wasn't
>> free, because it includes various bells and whistles implemented with
>> non-free libraries (e.g. video decoding ...?), the guts of the browser
>> _is_ actually free software, and a completely free version of it
>> exists ("chromium", which is in debian) which simply omits the
>> non-free bells and whistles.  I've tried both, and didn't notice any
>> obvious difference between them, so I'm not really sure what exactly
>> the bells-and-whistles consists of...
>>
>> I don't know how the difference between the free and non-free versions
>> affects plugins though...

There is a 'more secure' version of Flash in there (using PPAPI rather
than NPAPI, so somewhat sandboxed: this happens to be the only Flash
implementation still receiving active development on GNU/Linux platforms
anymore). That's it. Exciting? Not hardly.

The loss of actual useful functionality from Chrome to Chromium is
entirely ignorable if you don't care about Flash -- and it is becoming
increasingly less worth caring about, thank goodness.

> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome
>
> (What is "metrics" mentioned there?)

It's an anonymous reporting mechanism: a (small) fraction of your more
unusual user-interface operations are reported to Google so that they
can tell e.g. if UI elements are badly structured, what operations
people frequently do, that sort of thing. It sounds really creepy, but
is also quite useful -- this was how Google determined that far too many
people were just saying 'yeah, go ahead' when it warned about loading of
insecure scripts from an SSL page, for instance. I'd say that as long as
it remains opt-in, it's not worth worrying about: the code that
implements this mechanism *is* IIRC free, so you can look in Chromium to
satisfy yourself that it's not doing anything really creepy like
reporting the contents of input boxes without permission. (I'm actually
mildly annoyed that I can't turn it on in my otherwise-unmodified
Chromium install -- why should the fact that I want my browser to be
100% free software prevent me from helping the developers in this way?)

-- 
NULL && (void)

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    Normally it is via a comm port (or similar; sometimes USB or SPI are
    used in place of a UART to get higher transfer speeds).

The Replicant developers have told me that it is usually by memory
sharing, and that the phone radio modem might be able to take control
of everything that way.  This device seems to be an exception,
perhaps because its designers were concerned about the issue.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

Chromium is a free browser.
Chrome is a nonfree browser.

Because we don't have the full source code of Google Chrome,
we can't change it and we can't even tell what it does.
The fact that parts of it are the same as another free program
doesn't alter the problems.

    My understanding was that although binary distributed by google wasn't
    free, because it includes various bells and whistles implemented with
    non-free libraries (e.g. video decoding ...?), the guts of the browser
    _is_ actually free software,

A combination of free code and nonfree code is nonfree.
The free parts don't make the nonfree parts ok.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Chromium is a free browser.
> Chrome is a nonfree browser.

Right.

> Because we don't have the full source code of Google Chrome,
> we can't change it and we can't even tell what it does.
> The fact that parts of it are the same as another free program
> doesn't alter the problems.

Indeed, but that seems irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

>     My understanding was that although binary distributed by google wasn't
>     free, because it includes various bells and whistles implemented with
>     non-free libraries (e.g. video decoding ...?), the guts of the browser
>     _is_ actually free software,
>
> A combination of free code and nonfree code is nonfree.
> The free parts don't make the nonfree parts ok.

Nobody is saying they do.

What I'm trying to say is:

If chromium and chrome have the same app/plugin interface, then making
Emacs (or anything else) use that interface is targeting an interface
shared by _both_ free and non-free systems.

In that case, objections that "we shouldn't add this support because
it supports a non-free system" are not correct -- doing so would
support (completely) free systems as well, and that seems to make the
case for adding such support much stronger.

-miles

-- 
Inhumanity, n. One of the signal and characteristic qualities of humanity.

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    > For one thing, I am concerned people might use it in Chrome, which
    > is nonfree software with a universal back door.  If that caught on,
    > it would be a disaster in terms of our primary goal: giving users
    > freedom.

    Wait, doesn't Emacs run on lots of nonfree systems?

Yes, it does.  However, in this scenario, Emacs would do less of the
job than it does now, and would depend on more proprietary software.
That is a step in the wrong direction.

    >     The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps
    >     available on this imagined system, just web apps and browser
    >     plugins.

    > That IS a disaster, in terms of users' freedom.  It pushes users
    > into total dependence on servers.

    What if it's their server ...?

IF it is the user's own server, there's nothing wrong with using using
that server.  But that is not the way Google intends Chromeboxes to be
used, not probably the way most people will use them.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

    If chromium and chrome have the same app/plugin interface, then making
    Emacs (or anything else) use that interface is targeting an interface
    shared by _both_ free and non-free systems.

    In that case, objections that "we shouldn't add this support because
    it supports a non-free system" are not correct

I must disagree.  This is an issue of practical effects, not
principle.  If the practical effect is that Emacs does less, and is
partly replaced by Chrome, that's something we want to discourage
people from using.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[William Gardella]

Richard Stallman <rms-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org> writes:

>     > For one thing, I am concerned people might use it in Chrome, which
>     > is nonfree software with a universal back door.  If that caught on,
>     > it would be a disaster in terms of our primary goal: giving users
>     > freedom.
>
>     Wait, doesn't Emacs run on lots of nonfree systems?
>
> Yes, it does.  However, in this scenario, Emacs would do less of the
> job than it does now, and would depend on more proprietary software.
> That is a step in the wrong direction.
>
>     >     The underlying premise is that there are no "desktop" apps
>     >     available on this imagined system, just web apps and browser
>     >     plugins.
>
>     > That IS a disaster, in terms of users' freedom.  It pushes users
>     > into total dependence on servers.
>
>     What if it's their server ...?
>
> IF it is the user's own server, there's nothing wrong with using using
> that server.  But that is not the way Google intends Chromeboxes to be
> used, not probably the way most people will use them.

To make a small, tangential point here, there is Elnode (
https://github.com/nicferrier/elnode/ ) which is a kind of dynamic web
framework for Emacs Lisp, built on the idea of using asynchronous
Emacsen as subprocesses to do the job of serving pages.  As noted in the
documentation, one project proposal from the author is the idea of
implementing an emacsclient under elnode.  That would have the potential
to offer users of all browsers (not just Chrom[ium] or Firefox or
whatever) a way to use a remote Emacs on systems where all they have
access to is a browser.

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Alex Bennée]

On 29 July 2012 11:53, Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM, William Gardella <gardellawg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> Again, my goal is to have a seamless, robust Emacs experience when editing
> or viewing files in a Web constrained device.  Nothing exemplifies the
> experience I am after more than visiting an org-mode file on my server
> directly or via something like Google Drive or Drop Box and having the file
> handler be Emacs, i.e. I visit https://my.server.com/foo.org and rather than
> see the browser display something akin to "Sorry, I don't know how to deal
> with that, Jim", I want the opened tab to display what org-mode would
> display and keystrokes in the tab to be interpreted as org-mode would, by an
> Emacs instance handling the file.

Sorry to jump in on an old discussion but you may be interested in:

https://github.com/stsquad/emacs-chromebooks

Which needs a dev-mode ChromeOS and Crouton install but attempts to
give you that experience. At the moment the development version of
Edit with Emacs allows a "foreground" message to be sent to Emacs to
bring it to the front of the display (handily bound to a keyboard
shortcut).

> Using an ssh type mechanism is neither seamless, robust nor practical.
>
>> Other than that, I think the cause is basically hopeless; a Chromebook
>> is a Tivoized device.
>
>
> My cause is not hopeless, I am convinced.  I've never used a Tivo so I do
> not understand the analogy.  Also, I use the Chromebook as a name to
> characterize an experience: where a browser is the main (possibly sole)
> application and all computing is done via URL references.  This computing
> model is important to me because it enormously simplifies my computing
> environment and allows me to focus on hacking rather than system
> administration.  It also allows me to use commodity hardware, although I
> will be the first to admit that the initial Chromebook devices were
> underpowered and less than useful.  On my MacBook Air, I basically use
> Chrome and Emacs, which was the catalyst to asking the question: is there a
> way to combine the two seamlessly?  I cannot imagine Emacs ever being a
> Chrome replacement but I can imagine Emacs handling a file in a Chrome tab.
> Now I just need to find a practical way to make it happen. :-)

It's what I'm aiming for. I have a Pixel and I use Chrome for all my
web browsing and have an Emacs session running which I can bring to
the fore to deal with email (mu4e) and development work.

The only current wrinkle is a bit of a pain if the Chromebook suspends
while Emacs is in the full frame confuses the Aura WM. This usually
entails entering the console crouton shell and deleting the frame by
hand. However I'm working on better integrating with ChromeOS power
management to auto delete the frame when the system suspends.

-- 
Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1142 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Alex Bennée <kernel-hacker@bennee.com>wrote:

> On 29 July 2012 11:53, Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM, William Gardella <gardellawg@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Again, my goal is to have a seamless, robust Emacs experience when
> editing
> > or viewing files in a Web constrained device.  Nothing exemplifies the
> > experience I am after more than visiting an org-mode file on my server
> > directly or via something like Google Drive or Drop Box and having the
> file
> > handler be Emacs, i.e. I visit https://my.server.com/foo.org and rather
> than
> > see the browser display something akin to "Sorry, I don't know how to
> deal
> > with that, Jim", I want the opened tab to display what org-mode would
> > display and keystrokes in the tab to be interpreted as org-mode would,
> by an
> > Emacs instance handling the file.
>
> Sorry to jump in on an old discussion but you may be interested in:
>
> https://github.com/stsquad/emacs-chromebooks


This is awesome.  Thank you so much for making this contribution.

-pmr

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1791 bytes --]

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

    > > Again, my goal is to have a seamless, robust Emacs experience when
    > editing
    > > or viewing files in a Web constrained device.

This seems like an attempt to make a palliative
for something that really ought to be _fixed_.
That can have a bad effect, in the long term.

So we need to study the issue.  What is the "web constrained"
device?  What is the constraint that it has, and what causes
that constraint?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2019 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>         [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
>         [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
>         [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.
>
>     > > Again, my goal is to have a seamless, robust Emacs experience when
>     > editing
>     > > or viewing files in a Web constrained device.
>
> This seems like an attempt to make a palliative
> for something that really ought to be _fixed_.
> That can have a bad effect, in the long term.
>
> So we need to study the issue.  What is the "web constrained"
> device?  What is the constraint that it has, and what causes
> that constraint?
>

You very well might be right.  The particular device is a Chrome Pixel but
the generic system is Chromium OS (and Chrome OS since it derives from
Chromium OS).   "Web constrained" means that only web applications run on
the device as far as the User is concerned.  My desire has been to have
Emacs integrated into the Chromium OS as pretty much a file handler either
directly (like Flash is in Chrome) or as a plug-in, like Flash is in
Chromium.  I know you are not a fan of Cloud based systems in general but,
when used wisely, theses systems can save the User a ton of system
administration and provide even more function.  The key for acceptance to
me has been the realization that there is a lot of cloud based computing
where I could care less if the government has back doors or the provider
does awful things and for those things where I care about privacy and
integrity from the cloud, I can use my own servers, or servers that I trust
to a very high degree.  As a hacker, cloud based systems let me focus on
hacking, not system administration and they let me use inexpensive
computers (think ChromeBook or ChromeBox systems) interchangeably, no small
benefit.

Hope that helps,

-pmr

p.s. Richard, sorry for the fat-fingered empty message which preceded this
one. :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2504 bytes --]

Re: Emacs Webapp/Plugin

[Richard Stallman]

      I know you are not a fan of Cloud based systems in general

I don't have a general attitude toward all those different things.  I
adamantly reject the term "Cloud-based systems", because it spreads
confusion and lumps together unrelated issues.  To say anything
formulated in terms of "Cloud" promotes misunderstanding.
I invite you to join me in avoiding the term.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.

In this specific case, two different issues arise:

* If someone else's server does your computing, that is SaaSS.  See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html.

* Storing your data in someone else's server is showing them to the
NSA.  All data connected with a person is sensitive, including your
location when you connect to that server.

								 but,
    when used wisely, theses systems can save the User a ton of system
    administration and provide even more function.

Are you suggesting that saving some trouble is a good reason to
surrender control over your data and your computing?  That's precisely
the idea that we need to lead people to abhor.

At the basic ethical level, supporting use of Emacs in such a context
is comparable to supporting use of Emacs on Losedows or SmackOS --
which we are willing to do.

However, there is an important difference one level down.  I don't
think many people are likely to use Windows or SmackOS because Emacs
runs on them.  In our community, people are likely to understand that
those systems do wrong to the user.  But I fear that many might decide
to use thin client machines because of the convenience you cite.  We
have talked about the harm they do for only 3 years or so.

A trade-off solution occurs to me: include this support, but lecture
the user, "You're making a terrible mistake using a system like this
one" (plus why), in each Emacs session.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.