From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: python.el changes in emacs-24 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:18:09 +0900 Message-ID: <87ha27ns26.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <53CE0AF1.7060602@online.de> <53CFCA3B.1010904@cs.ucla.edu> <87wqb3zwid.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87r41bob3h.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k373zbup.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1406186329 30169 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2014 07:18:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 24 09:18:42 2014 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 1XADIX-0003EX-Dy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:18:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48404 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XADIW-0007C9-Q8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:18:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46181) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XADIL-0007BH-Jn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:18:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XADID-0007yS-4X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:18:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:35440) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XADI3-0007xe-Li; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:18:12 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608CF3FA0B3F; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:18:09 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 554ED1A28DD; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:18:09 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <87k373zbup.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" acf1c26e3019 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.223 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:173117 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > > On the contrary, Tim's argument, while expressed in buzzword-like > > terms, is well-founded in human psychology and the expertise of > > marketing (without relying on the distasteful aspects of marketing). > > I quote: > > So isn't the best way to get people to experience the freedom they > could if they used Emacs is by convincing them via its transparent > awesomeness? :) > > What does he mean with "transparent awesomeness"? Who cares? It is indeed a buzzword, but there's nothing wrong with buzzwords as such. The problem is when buzzwords are used to conceal a lack of content. As I understand Tim's usage, the buzzword represents the fact that Emacs provides a lot of advantages to its users, and those features are often a criterion for selection of applications. (Do you disagree with those characterizations of Emacs and of application selection?) If Emacs satisfies more use cases, it will attract more users (no?), and some of them will learn to value software freedom for itself. The logic turns out to be fallacious (see below for the standard analysis of why it's not a good idea), but it's not absent. Now, Tim was in a hurry, so he created a buzzword that to him evokes a certain feeling of wonder. From introspection, I suppose he experiences it from time to time when he realizes that Emacs is doing something cool that he hadn't even known he wanted. That's when I experience something like "transparent awesomeness", anyway. :-) Presumably some such value (to potential users or to existing users) is why Stefan permitted the commit. Tim just offered his opinion that appealing to potential users as a vehicle to introduce them to free software, and thus to software freedom, might be a good strategy. We've heard that before, of course. > Now you claim that this an argument on par with the explanation > "Think of Free Speech, not of Free Beer" that is actually so > marginal to Free Software that it is not even part of the Gnu > Manifesto. No, I claim that "free as in speech" is a buzzword. The content of that buzzword is hardly marginal -- it's the whole chimichanga, the notion that software freedom, like freedom of speech, is a fundamental right. And that is one of the associations that "free as in speech" is intended to evoke. Calling something a buzzphrase, as if that defeats the argument all by itself, is neither good logic nor good strategy, unless there really is no content. But in Tim's case, there is content, it just doesn't work well in practice. You should point out the practical problem, rather than focusing on the buzzword. > The Declaration of Independence sets forth values that the Founding > Fathers have _chosen_ to be so important to them that they will not > accept systems that assign them secondary value. Indeed. And the Free Software Movement elevates software freedom to that same level (ie, where assigning secondary value to software freedom is unacceptable), arguing that no government exercising its just powers would franchise patents or copyrights in software. No? > Not every effective use of human psychology is a good thing solely > because it is effective. I didn't say it was (nice try at invoking Godwin's Law, by the way). I implied that an effective use of psychology to help spread the value of software freedom (understood as a fundamental right) to more people would be a good thing. Do you disagree? The problem with this kind of use of psychology[1] is that it's simply not terribly effective, and can even be counterproductive. Far too often the result is that such users experience the benefit of free software (in a particular application), but don't learn to associate it with software freedom. Many even become rather confused about the relative importance of "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech". It's also a nasty temptation to (some) advocates: it can evolve into a deliberate strategy of avoiding reference to software freedom to get more users (especially corporate users) to accept the software. Indeed that has been advocated by (some) "open source" advocates, as you point out. So overall it's best that free software advocates avoid that strategy completely. So far the best known strategy avoids "psychology" entirely and goes directly to talking about software freedom. On the development side, just develop the software that serves needs best as the developers understand it, and encourage users to join in as they can. Footnotes: [1] Ie, trying to get people interested in software freedom by providing them with "free samples" (which they can not only "try with no obligation," but "keep with no obligation" as well) of free software with attractive features.