From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:33:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: <570553.73339.qm@web95014.mail.in2.yahoo.com> <20080731093022.GB2886@muc.de> <20080801153128.GB13919@muc.de> <20080802171212.GA2138@muc.de> <20080803180101.GB6025@muc.de> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217864154 31777 80.91.229.12 (4 Aug 2008 15:35:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dhruva@ymail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 04 17:36:44 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 1KQ26s-0005zD-5K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:36:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48241 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ25x-0000bI-22 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:35:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ25A-00084y-5a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:34:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ256-00080U-Dl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:34:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51932 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ256-00080G-5t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:34:44 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:52864) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KQ256-0001bt-2c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:34:44 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KQ247-0006he-TS; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:33:43 -0400 In-reply-to: <20080803180101.GB6025@muc.de> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:01:01 +0000) 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:102041 Archived-At: > Your statement assumes both approaches can/do lead to victory. That is > precisely what I am not sure of. Real chess players need to be able to play either strategy. That's because both stategies can win, in chess. It is not clear that the same is true here. That's the weakness of analogy as an argument: the analogy does not show where its limits are. > But just using Emacs and other free programs on Windows is not victory. There will be no ultimate victory, as such, IMAO. There will always be users of restricted software, so long as such is available. You cannot see the future any more than I can, so stop spreading defeatism.