unofficial mirror of emacs-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
Cc: arne_bab@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: A new collaborative editing package (maybe tangent)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2024 22:48:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1rMgcu-0003Ne-BY@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1E21F13D-008F-4E22-96AC-4B37B753EFC5@gmail.com> (message from Yuan Fu on Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:14:47 -0800)

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > > Why so?  There are other collaborative editing systems, right?  Why
  > > can't it be compatible with those that use the same method - or at
  > > least one of them (if they are incompatible with each other)?

  > I don’t think any one of them are designed with interoperability
  > in mind; most of them are non-free software.

You may be right about that, but it doesn't conclusively answer
the question.

Are you saying that there is NO other implementation of either OT or CRDG
with which we could feasibly interoperate?  It sounds that way, but I'd like
to be sure I understand.

If interoperability is not a feasible option, that is unfortunate, but
it follows we don't need to think about the possibility of
interoperation with existing systems when designing this.

We still need to think carefully about the factors that do apply,
when choosing whic one, or which ones, of OT and CRDG to support.

  > > Would it make sense for collab-mode to support both methods?  Are the
  > > differences just matters of detail, or are the concepts
  > > incommensurable?

  > It wouldn’t make sense. As I said, they are significantly different. 

I take your word for it that they are significantly different -- but
that's not a very clear or specific statement.  It doesn't
automatically follow that one program cannot support both methods to
some extent.

I suggest raising the question in this form: if I wanted to support
both, how would I go about it?

Would it make sense for machine A, which is hosting a document, to
communicate with machines B and C using OT, and in parallel to
communicate with machines D, E and F using CRDG?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)





  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-08  3:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-30  4:22 A new collaborative editing package (maybe tangent) Yuan Fu
2023-12-30  5:28 ` Karl Fogel
2023-12-30 10:56   ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-01-02  3:16     ` Richard Stallman
2023-12-30 19:49   ` Yuan Fu
2023-12-31 15:33     ` T.V Raman
2024-01-01  4:35       ` Yuan Fu
2024-01-01 15:49   ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-02  3:54     ` Yuan Fu
2024-01-05  4:22       ` Richard Stallman
2023-12-30  8:56 ` Aw: " Arne Babenhauserheide
2023-12-30 20:09   ` Yuan Fu
2024-01-01  3:32     ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-01  4:53       ` Yuan Fu
2024-01-01 23:09         ` Stefan Kangas
2024-01-02  3:45           ` Yuan Fu
2024-01-04  3:59         ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-04  8:02           ` Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
2024-01-05  0:33             ` Yuan Fu
2024-01-06  4:33               ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-06  7:14                 ` Yuan Fu
2024-01-08  3:48                   ` Richard Stallman [this message]
2024-01-09  2:49                     ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-06  4:33               ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-06  7:17                 ` Yuan Fu
2024-01-08  3:48                   ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-07  4:28             ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-07  4:28             ` Richard Stallman
2024-01-07  7:06               ` Yuan Fu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=E1rMgcu-0003Ne-BY@fencepost.gnu.org \
    --to=rms@gnu.org \
    --cc=arne_bab@web.de \
    --cc=casouri@gmail.com \
    --cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).