From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:29:53 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <8761nusb90.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87vbkovhh7.fsf@engster.org> <87387rvobr.fsf@engster.org> <83ppat84hk.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106143933.0090bc83@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3v77ij6.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106154539.3d0752c4@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87wq4ype3z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878uherlf3.fsf@wanadoo.es> <20150108194342.1bd83ed1@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <20150109131335.1a39f892@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1420918211 15325 80.91.229.3 (10 Jan 2015 19:30:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 19:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 10 20:30:06 2015 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 1YA1ja-0000wp-J1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:30:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56017 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YA1jZ-0008GS-K4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:30:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55627) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YA1jR-0008EV-8Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:29:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YA1jP-0007ED-MM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:29:57 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59619) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YA1jP-0007Dd-HO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:29:55 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YA1jN-0007QD-SD; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:29:54 -0500 In-reply-to: <20150109131335.1a39f892@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> (perry@piermont.com) 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:181129 Archived-At: [[[ 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. ]]] > Dare I say there is a freedom issue here? Now you're really stretching things. With proprietary software, the developers' decisions about what features to implement, or not implement, are restrictions on the users. The point of free software is that our decisions -- whatever we may decide -- are not restrictions. What I see is that you do are trying to pressure me in a certain direction and you're willing to stretch things to do it. In the messages arguing for the full AST I have often seen strained arguments and gaps. This is not the way to convince me. Rather, it stimulates resistance. It makes me skeptical about everything those people say. Where I do not see a gap or exaggeration, that doesn't mean there isn't one. Changing the subject -- making arguments about refactoring while I am trying to understand about completion -- doesn't impress me favorably. It interferes with my effort to understand the issue. Here's how all this appears to me. I am considering choosing a course that seems dangerous, and someone asserts that it is obligatory, a forced move. He presents arguments I cannot follow, about a feature I have never seen, which he claims is very important but I don't know that. The arguments cite facts about whose veracity I have no independent knowledge. I cannot evaluate those arguments. Under the circumstances, I can either follow his judgment on faith, or ignore it. I might follow his judgment, if I have the fullest confidence in him at all levels. I would have to be sure he has evaluated the whole issue from all sides. I would have to confident that he would have looked hard for some way to avoid the dangerous course; that if there is a way, he would have found it and recommended it. I don't have that sort of confidence in people who cut corners to lobby for the dangerous course. I suspect you have not tried hard enough to find a way to avoid it. What I intend to do is investigate these issues thoroughly _one by one_ to see what options exist for each, and what is good or bad about them. I will think about refactoring when I understand it well enough to be able to judge arguments myself. First I will learn about it from people who are not trying to pressure me about it. You can help me do this, when I get to it, by giving me factual answers to the questions I will ask. -- 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.