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 13:24:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87tzdn7sar.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> References: <10697146.3630221218551689983.JavaMail.www@wwinf4615> <20080812171404.GB7999@muc.de> <20080813092057.GA3010@muc.de> <20080814083817.GA2593@muc.de> <877iak7xfp.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <873al79akr.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1218713155 9163 80.91.229.12 (14 Aug 2008 11:25:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:25:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: ams@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 14 13:26:47 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 1KTayc-00018H-Nx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:26:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50663 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KTaxg-0003Xt-8j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:25:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KTaxB-0003Ms-9p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:25:17 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KTaxA-0003MV-N8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:25:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59410 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KTaxA-0003MQ-DU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:25:16 -0400 Original-Received: from saeurebad.de ([85.214.36.134]:41830) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KTax2-0003qB-9I; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:25:08 -0400 Original-Received: by saeurebad.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id AC5D62F00CA; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:25:07 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (83-221-69-159.dynamic.primacom.net [83.221.69.159]) by saeurebad.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06392F00C4; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:25:06 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Alfred M. Szmidt's message of "Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:37:54 -0400") 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:102442 Archived-At: Hi, "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes: > > Freedom should never stand over software quality and usability. > > > > Freedom must always stand over software quality and usability, without > > it we cannot improve the software in question. > > Not when your definition of freedom forbids certain improvements. > > Free software does not forbid any kinds of improvment. It explicitly > protects that right. > > Emacs has still no support to load shared libraries during runtime and > IIRC it was rejected back then due to political reasons. I call this > crippling. > > If a feature allows someone to subjugate the rights of a computer > user, then it is better not to implement it. You always assume people are stupid. Please don't do that, it really offends me. The only way a user can become enslaved is by not having a choice. If there are free alternatives and someone choses to use the non-free version, this is not the fault of the non-free software but the users own free decision. > The Emacs maintainers decided that this feature would do a greater > disservice to users than having it included, so they decided not to. > It is no different to rejecting a feature because it does something > annoying, you may call it crippling, but it is just good managment of > a project. First of all, I don't consider dictatorship a good management style. Second, if that feature annoys someone BUT she has the possibility to disable it, there is no problem with it. Some people are annoyed by the transient mark, some are not. Even if all maintainers would find that feature annoying, it would be a good thing to have it anyway for some people might find it useful. Hannes