From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: python.el changes in emacs-24 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:15:10 +0200 Message-ID: <87k373zbup.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <53CE0AF1.7060602@online.de> <53CFCA3B.1010904@cs.ucla.edu> <87wqb3zwid.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87r41bob3h.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1406171741 23840 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2014 03:15:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 24 05:15:36 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 1XA9VH-0005E8-D8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:15:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47921 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XA9VG-0001N8-JN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:15:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44612) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XA9VC-0001My-2u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:15:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XA9VA-00049T-Jb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:15:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57967) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XA9VA-00049N-FK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:15:28 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36910 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XA9V8-0001dl-P4; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:15:27 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0C2FE0862; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:15:10 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87r41bob3h.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (Stephen J. Turnbull's message of "Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:26:58 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:173115 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > At any rate, I am distrustful of any argument relying on the > > catchiness of buzzphrases. > > You mean like "Free as in speech"? Free Software does not depend on that phrase in any manner. It serves as an explanation of the kind of freedom that Free Software is focused on. There are other explanations. > There is *nothing* but buzzphrase (an "emotionally attractive axiom", > if you prefer[1]) that distinguishes the Free Software Movement from > the Open Software Movement. You would do well to remember that. The main difference in philosophy is that the Open Software Movement indeed believes that Free Software was lacking the right buzzphrase for selling the Four Software Freedoms. > 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"? It is in reply to Glenn's question Why is python.el in emacs-24 seeing extensive changes at this time, for things that don't seem to be regressions? (Or were all these things working in 23.4's python.el?) Ref: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-05/msg00309.html So the answer for why a quality assurance decision has been overriden is "transparent awesomeness" to "get people to experience the freedome they coiuld if they used Emacs by convincing them via its transparent awesomeness". 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. > The issue here is simply that on this list, the "economic" arguments > characteristic of open source advocacy are considered at best > incidental, and at worst harmful because they could (at least in > theory) lead to conclusions that contradict that axiom. But this was not about "economic arguments characteristic of open source advocacy". This was about throwing a software engineering decision for creating a consistent quality release into the wind by claiming "transparent awesomeness". > Footnotes: > [1] "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Unfortunately, > "self-evidence" is at the root of the most extreme arguments for > applying capitalist principle to ideas, as well. "A is A", as John > Galt would say. 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. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." is indeed hyperbole since there are obviously systems _not_ ascribing the same level of importance or absoluteness to the named "truths", self-evidence be damned. If there weren't, there would be no necessity of declaring independence. Now if we read that passage in full, it is rather sobering: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. You call this buzzphrases, and indeed calling all this a buzzphrase will make people accept the curtailing of personal freedoms for the sake of "preserving their country", a country whose self-identity is supposed to be founded on the principle of _not_ accepting the curtailing of personal freedoms. You start with the philosophy, you bolster it with catchphrases, and then you hold onto the catchphrases while letting the philosophy evaporate. Yes, this is an effective use of human psychology. The stability of systems in some manner depends on their scalability. Where is the point in being a billionaire when you can be housed and fed with rather smaller means? That's where marketing comes in: its purpose is to save greed as a fundamental driving factor of human behavior from becoming saturated and get it to scale it to arbitrary level by making people desire things they don't need. And just like marketing tries to remove the caps on greed in order to keep the scale open for the driving forces of capitalism, so propaganda tries to remove the caps on cowardice in order to keep the scale open for the driving forces of fascism. Not every effective use of human psychology is a good thing solely because it is effective. -- David Kastrup