python.el changes in emacs-24

python.el changes in emacs-24

[Glenn Morris]

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

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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

I plead guilty of telling him to go ahead.


        Stefan

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Andreas Röhler]

On 21.07.2014 16:25, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> 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
>
> I plead guilty of telling him to go ahead.
>
>
>          Stefan
>
>


Which seems the right decision. BTW as language-specific modes have to compete with specialized editors,
what about adopting a policy of continous-delivery here?

Andreas

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Stefan Monnier]

> BTW as language-specific modes have to compete with specialized
> editors,

We're not in the business of competing,


        Stefan

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Tim Visher]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Stefan Monnier
<monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> BTW as language-specific modes have to compete with specialized
>> editors,
>
> We're not in the business of competing,

What business are you in then? Isn't it right to say that Emacs is
competing with all the other editors available to people?

--

In Christ,

Timmy V.

http://blog.twonegatives.com/
http://five.sentenc.es/ -- Spend less time on mail

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Paul Eggert]

On 07/23/2014 10:37 AM, Tim Visher wrote:
>> We're not in the business of competing,
> What business are you in then?

Freedom for software users.  Please see:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Tim Visher]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> On 07/23/2014 10:37 AM, Tim Visher wrote:
>>>
>>> We're not in the business of competing,
>>
>> What business are you in then?
>
>
> Freedom for software users.  Please see:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

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? :)

--

In Christ,

Timmy V.

http://blog.twonegatives.com/
http://five.sentenc.es/ -- Spend less time on mail

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[David Kastrup]

Tim Visher <tim.visher@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> On 07/23/2014 10:37 AM, Tim Visher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We're not in the business of competing,
>>>
>>> What business are you in then?
>>
>>
>> Freedom for software users.  Please see:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html
>
> 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? :)

I am not convinced of the awesomeness of the purportedly most
transparent U.S. administration in history.  It's not really a roaring
success in the "experience the freedom" department.

At any rate, I am distrustful of any argument relying on the catchiness
of buzzphrases.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Tom]

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> 
> We're not in the business of competing,
> 

Reddit discussion:
http://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/2bho80/emacs_maintainer_were_not_in_the_business_of/

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

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"?

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.

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).

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.

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.

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> 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

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:

 > > 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"?

Who cares?  It is indeed a buzzword, but there's nothing wrong with
buzzwords as such.  The problem is when buzzwords are used to conceal
a lack of content.  As I understand Tim's usage, the buzzword
represents the fact that Emacs provides a lot of advantages to its
users, and those features are often a criterion for selection of
applications.  (Do you disagree with those characterizations of Emacs
and of application selection?)  If Emacs satisfies more use cases, it
will attract more users (no?), and some of them will learn to value
software freedom for itself.  The logic turns out to be fallacious
(see below for the standard analysis of why it's not a good idea), but
it's not absent.

Now, Tim was in a hurry, so he created a buzzword that to him evokes a
certain feeling of wonder.  From introspection, I suppose he
experiences it from time to time when he realizes that Emacs is doing
something cool that he hadn't even known he wanted.  That's when I
experience something like "transparent awesomeness", anyway. :-)

Presumably some such value (to potential users or to existing users)
is why Stefan permitted the commit.  Tim just offered his opinion that
appealing to potential users as a vehicle to introduce them to free
software, and thus to software freedom, might be a good strategy.
We've heard that before, of course.

 > 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.

No, I claim that "free as in speech" is a buzzword.  The content of
that buzzword is hardly marginal -- it's the whole chimichanga, the
notion that software freedom, like freedom of speech, is a fundamental
right.  And that is one of the associations that "free as in speech"
is intended to evoke.


Calling something a buzzphrase, as if that defeats the argument all by
itself, is neither good logic nor good strategy, unless there really
is no content.  But in Tim's case, there is content, it just doesn't
work well in practice.  You should point out the practical problem,
rather than focusing on the buzzword.

 > 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.

Indeed.  And the Free Software Movement elevates software freedom to
that same level (ie, where assigning secondary value to software
freedom is unacceptable), arguing that no government exercising its
just powers would franchise patents or copyrights in software.  No?

 > Not every effective use of human psychology is a good thing solely
 > because it is effective.

I didn't say it was (nice try at invoking Godwin's Law, by the way).
I implied that an effective use of psychology to help spread the value
of software freedom (understood as a fundamental right) to more people
would be a good thing.  Do you disagree?

The problem with this kind of use of psychology[1] is that it's simply
not terribly effective, and can even be counterproductive.  Far too
often the result is that such users experience the benefit of free
software (in a particular application), but don't learn to associate
it with software freedom.  Many even become rather confused about the
relative importance of "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech".

It's also a nasty temptation to (some) advocates: it can evolve into a
deliberate strategy of avoiding reference to software freedom to get
more users (especially corporate users) to accept the software.
Indeed that has been advocated by (some) "open source" advocates, as
you point out.  So overall it's best that free software advocates
avoid that strategy completely.

So far the best known strategy avoids "psychology" entirely and goes
directly to talking about software freedom.  On the development side,
just develop the software that serves needs best as the developers
understand it, and encourage users to join in as they can.


Footnotes: 
[1]  Ie, trying to get people interested in software freedom by
providing them with "free samples" (which they can not only "try with
no obligation," but "keep with no obligation" as well) of free
software with attractive features.

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> I didn't say it was (nice try at invoking Godwin's Law, by the way).

I think that summarizes nicely why we are talking past each other.  It
is not necessary to look in the past for fascism, the ideology mixing an
overimportance of nationality, partially racially/religiously incited
superiority complexes, an appeal to fear and national security
interests, putting individual freedoms and civil rights behind
government interests creating an atmosphere of police and secret police
brutality and general unaccountability to the public.

You tend to identify things via their labels and rallying cries.  When
the CIA tortures a dark-skinned person of the wrong religious
affiliation to death for fun (the parts of the reports that surfaced
already state clearly that the information they were interested in was
generally already proferred before they dived in), I am pretty sure that
they will not shout "Heil Hitler".

But the lack of that particular rallying cry does not change what they
are doing and its fundamental incompatibility with what their
grandparents fought for in WWII, and the values their ancestors chose to
defend and explicate as their own in the 18th century.

The Free Software movement is not focused on providing the catchiest
rallying cry.  That's what the Open Source Movement considers important.
And if you want to argue that they got the better one, that might or
might not be the case.  But if you sell your horse in order to prettify
your cart, ultimately you will not be going anywhere but downhill.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

    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.

That was true in the case of Bruce Perens, who described "open source"
as a "marketing campaign for free software".  However, the other
founders of "open source" didn't care about freedom and regarded this
as an opportunity to dump ethics and justice entirely.

See http://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.

    The Free Software movement is not focused on providing the catchiest
    rallying cry.  That's what the Open Source Movement considers important.

Actually, we do look for catchy rallying cries provided the cause
they rally people to is our cause.  I've tried many of them over
the years.

What we avoid doing is weakening the cause in order to "gain support".

-- 
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.

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Barry OReilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 196 bytes --]

> BTW as language-specific modes have to compete with specialized
> editors, what about adopting a policy of continous-delivery here?

IIUC, the Emacs packaging system is already suited for this.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 241 bytes --]

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Stephen Leake]

Barry OReilly <gundaetiapo@gmail.com> writes:

>> BTW as language-specific modes have to compete with specialized
>> editors, what about adopting a policy of continous-delivery here?
>
> IIUC, the Emacs packaging system is already suited for this.

Yes, which is the main reason I moved Ada mode to ELPA. So far there
have been 6 releases in as many months (it's a new system; lots of minor
bugs). Much more satisfying to my customers!

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Tim Visher]

Since my terse statement earlier has already been explained quite well
by Stephen, I'll simply say that I agree with what he said. I think
the best way to gain support for the Free Software Movement is by
making Free Software the best software, a goal which, I believe (and I
would hope everyone here would agree), is actually _aided_ by the
software itself being Free.

So when I hear things like "We're not in the business of competing",
it translates in my head to "We're not in the business of showing
people why Free Software matters and how it can help them." It's no
skin off my back; I'll continue to use and love Emacs and other GNU
software. But it'll continue to make it harder to 'sell' it to my
friends, who think Sublime Text is _so_ much better because it comes
with saner defaults, more features (out of the box and visible to the
eye), and a prettier ui.

I have, however, made no real contributions to this community so I
understand if my voice is small, but I figured it's worth saying
nonetheless.

--

In Christ,

Timmy V.

http://blog.twonegatives.com/
http://five.sentenc.es/ -- Spend less time on mail

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[David Kastrup]

Tim Visher <tim.visher@gmail.com> writes:

> Since my terse statement earlier has already been explained quite well
> by Stephen, I'll simply say that I agree with what he said. I think
> the best way to gain support for the Free Software Movement is by
> making Free Software the best software,

You will not gain support for the Free Software Movement this way.  You
will get support for particular software that happens to be free.

> a goal which, I believe (and I would hope everyone here would agree),
> is actually _aided_ by the software itself being Free.

That's putting the cart before the horse.  It's like trying to get rich
in order to gain friends.  The problem is that your actual need for
friends will kick in when you are _not_ financially successful, and the
need for actual free software enthusiasts will kick in when the Free
Software is in sore need of improvement.

> So when I hear things like "We're not in the business of competing",
> it translates in my head to "We're not in the business of showing
> people why Free Software matters and how it can help them."

But you _exactly_ state that you do _not_ want to show people why Free
Software matters, instead trying to make it advertisable as "the best
software".

> It's no skin off my back; I'll continue to use and love Emacs and
> other GNU software. But it'll continue to make it harder to 'sell' it
> to my friends, who think Sublime Text is _so_ much better because it
> comes with saner defaults, more features (out of the box and visible
> to the eye), and a prettier ui.

If that is what your friends want and that is the only thing you
consider able to sell them, they are a lost cause for Free Software.

Naturally, we want to have sane defaults and useful features for Emacs
and its ilk.  But the reason is not to have more users who could not
care less about Software Freedom.  They'll move on when the software
they use has problems rather than try help with fixing the problems.

All else being equal, there is nothing wrong with having a larger number
of don't-really-care users.  But it's not the primary goal.  It's merely
a metric for doing something well that's nice to have.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: python.el changes in emacs-24

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

    I think
    the best way to gain support for the Free Software Movement is by
    making Free Software the best software, a goal which, I believe (and I
    would hope everyone here would agree), is actually _aided_ by the
    software itself being Free.

Presuming it does not require sacrificing the freedom we fight for, I
agree we should try to make our software the most convenient for
people to use.  It is only our limited resources that hold us back.

-- 
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.