What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

1. What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

2. What (do maintainers think) is very necessary to
   kickstart/bootstrap an auxiliary GNU project in this direction?

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 11:22:59 +0530
> 
> 
> 1. What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

Please describe its purpose, and how is it different from the existing
Emacs manuals.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stefan Monnier]

> 1. What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

It would be distributed under the GFDL, like all the other official
Emacs books (the elisp intro, the emacs manual, and the elisp manual).

> 2. What (do maintainers think) is very necessary to
>    kickstart/bootstrap an auxiliary GNU project in this direction?

A clear idea of what it should aim to do.  I think there is clearly room
for an "Emacs book" (e.g. something less intimidating/referency than the
Emacs manual, and which could cover packages not included in Emacs).


        Stefan

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Friday 08 May 2015 08:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> 1. What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?
> 
> It would be distributed under the GFDL, like all the other official
> Emacs books (the elisp intro, the emacs manual, and the elisp manual).

1. Should contributors to this Book do a copyright assignment?

2. (For the sake of argument) How about using contributions from
   Emacswiki.

   The Emacswiki footer reads thus:

   | This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General
   | Public License. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this
   | work under any other license that grants the right to use, copy,
   | modify, and/or distribute the work, as long as that license
   | imposes the restriction that derivative works have to grant the
   | same rights and impose the same restriction. For example, you may
   | choose to receive this work under the GNU Free Documentation
   | License, the CreativeCommons ShareAlike License, the XEmacs
   | manual license, or similar licenses.

>> 2. What (do maintainers think) is very necessary to
>>    kickstart/bootstrap an auxiliary GNU project in this direction?
> 
> A clear idea of what it should aim to do.

I welcome inputs.  I don't have any idea (at this point in time).

> I think there is clearly room for an "Emacs book" (e.g. something
> less intimidating/referency than the Emacs manual, and which could
> cover packages not included in Emacs).

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > 1. What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

Order it from fsf.org and see.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[chad]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

Have you seen:

Learning GNU Emacs: http://www.amazon.com/Learning-GNU-Emacs-Third-Edition/dp/0596006489 <http://www.amazon.com/Learning-GNU-Emacs-Third-Edition/dp/0596006489>
or
Writing GNU Emacs Extensions:  http://www.amazon.com/Writing-GNU-Emacs-Extensions-Glickstein/dp/1565922611 <http://www.amazon.com/Writing-GNU-Emacs-Extensions-Glickstein/dp/1565922611>
or
An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp: http://www.amazon.com/An-Introduction-Programming-Emacs-Lisp/dp/1882114027/ <http://www.amazon.com/An-Introduction-Programming-Emacs-Lisp/dp/1882114027/>

I’ve read the first two, albeit long ago. I don’t think that they were unpopular, but also I don’t think that they were especially popular.

~Chad

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1153 bytes --]

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> It would be distributed under the GFDL, like all the other official
>> Emacs books (the elisp intro, the emacs manual, and the elisp manual).
> 1. Should contributors to this Book do a copyright assignment?

If you want it to be "official" (e.g. you can buy a paper copy from
fsf.org), then probably, yes.


        Stefan

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Saturday 09 May 2015 03:46 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>>> It would be distributed under the GFDL, like all the other official
>>> >> Emacs books (the elisp intro, the emacs manual, and the elisp manual).

>> > 1. Should contributors to this Book do a copyright assignment?
> If you want it to be "official" (e.g. you can buy a paper copy from
> fsf.org), then probably, yes.


By "Official", I meant a book that is maintained and published by FSF
itself.

I "hope" to kickstart "The Emacs Book" initiative. If there are
developers who would like to share their notes with me to "seed" some
chapters, I would be happy to receive the draft notes, systematize it
and improve upon it.

I have never read a Emacs Book myself (and I have no idea how they are
typically structured).  I learnt Emacs using the tutorial.  These days
Info is my friend.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 14:59:04 +0530
> 
> I have never read a Emacs Book myself (and I have no idea how they are
> typically structured).  I learnt Emacs using the tutorial.  These days
> Info is my friend.

That "Info" _is_ the Emacs book we have.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

Learning GNU Emacs and Writing GNU Emacs Extensions are not ours;
I would guess that they are nonfree, but I don't know.  Can you check
what licenses their sources carry?  If they are free, we could recommend
them (but not via amazon.com).

Please do not cite an amazon.com page as a reference for a book.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-05-09, at 16:16, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> Please do not cite an amazon.com page as a reference for a book.

It is quite astonishing (for me) to agree with RMS, but I second that.
(Even though I /do/ buy at Amazon and have a Kindle.;-))

> Learning GNU Emacs and Writing GNU Emacs Extensions are not ours;
> I would guess that they are nonfree, but I don't know.  Can you check
> what licenses their sources carry?  If they are free, we could recommend
> them (but not via amazon.com).

How about recommending a dead-tree version?

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Saturday 09 May 2015 04:09 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 14:59:04 +0530
>>
>> I have never read a Emacs Book myself (and I have no idea how they are
>> typically structured).  I learnt Emacs using the tutorial.  These days
>> Info is my friend.
> 
> That "Info" _is_ the Emacs book we have.

The one that is in the FSF shop,

1. Is it just ./doc/emacs/emacs.pdf?
2. Does it include other Info manuals? If yes, what are these?

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 11:55:52 +0530
> 
> On Saturday 09 May 2015 04:09 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 14:59:04 +0530
> >>
> >> I have never read a Emacs Book myself (and I have no idea how they are
> >> typically structured).  I learnt Emacs using the tutorial.  These days
> >> Info is my friend.
> > 
> > That "Info" _is_ the Emacs book we have.
> 
> The one that is in the FSF shop,
> 
> 1. Is it just ./doc/emacs/emacs.pdf?

Basically.  There's also the Emacs Lisp manual.

> 2. Does it include other Info manuals? If yes, what are these?

See above.

But all that might be outdated knowledge, you were already advised by
Richard to check out what the FSF sells these days.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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 "hope" to kickstart "The Emacs Book" initiative.

In principle, we could do such a thing -- but what would this
book be _about_?

The FSF already has three books about Emacs.  If you propose
we make another, what subject matter do you propose?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > > Learning GNU Emacs and Writing GNU Emacs Extensions are not ours;
  > > I would guess that they are nonfree, but I don't know.  Can you check
  > > what licenses their sources carry?  If they are free, we could recommend
  > > them (but not via amazon.com).

  > How about recommending a dead-tree version?

Whether printed or digital, whether gratis or paid,
we should recommend only manuals that are free.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Sunday 10 May 2015 08:56 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ 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 "hope" to kickstart "The Emacs Book" initiative.
> 
> In principle, we could do such a thing -- but what would this
> book be _about_?

> The FSF already has three books about Emacs.  If you propose
> we make another, what subject matter do you propose?

I don't have concrete answers to your questions.

Without seeking to define the content of the book (for now), let us
just __name__ my effort "A Emacs Primer".

What I hope to do is:

1. Produce some sample draft (of narrow scope) that is agreeable to
   the maintainers.  The initial draft will set (or define) the future
   direction for this effort.

2. Lobby for an Official Git repo and discussion list for the project.

The blessings-from-FSF is something that I consider as non-negotiable.
The rest can be negotiated.

----------------------------------------------------------------

That said, I am offering a service.  Please make use of it.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>
writes:

> I don't have concrete answers to your questions.
>
> Without seeking to define the content of the book
> (for now), let us just __name__ my effort "A Emacs
> Primer".
>
> What I hope to do is:
>
> 1. Produce some sample draft (of narrow scope) that
> is agreeable to the maintainers. The initial draft
> will set (or define) the future direction for
> this effort.
>
> 2. Lobby for an Official Git repo and discussion
> list for the project.
>
> The blessings-from-FSF is something that I consider
> as non-negotiable. The rest can be negotiated.

Aren't you "doing" this the opposite way? First think
(decide) what you want to do. Then solve practical
issues with Git, a listbot, and so on.

If you don't know exactly what the book should be
about but you want to be active writing about Emacs,
why don't you start a blog with random articles of
things that appeal to you? Just add them one by one.

For example, I would write about Gnus, w3m,
interfaces, font lock, finger habits, typing, etc.,
much as I do often on gnu.emacs.help. After compiling
say 100 such pieces I would ask "is this material for
a book?" Probably it wouldn't be, but who knows?

That way you aren't blocked in your desire for
activity by trying to figure out things beforehand and
getting stuck on trying to solve practical measures to
support a project which you don't even know what
it is.

So instead, just start being active today, and see
where it takes you :)

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

If you contribute a book that helps people learn Emacs, better than
the Emacs Manual, we will appreciate it very much.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> If you contribute a book that helps people learn
> Emacs, better than the Emacs Manual, we will
> appreciate it very much.

Yeah... but you know that's impossible or extremely
unlikely to happen (the conventional way at least and
I don't know of any other).

I know no one wants to disencourage from activity but
it is equally important to be realistic and put the
human resources where it does good. Altruism that
isn't practical as well will dissolve - isn't
that right?

I have a better idea for an Emacs book, and that is
a "theme" or "essay" book. For every part of Emacs
there is a couple of guys that are very enthusiastic
about that particular part. So it would be
a collection of such essays written by those guys!
But the artistic/mundane form would not prevent the
book to be specific in terms of technology with inline
Elisp, screenshots, full terminology (with no
explanations), and so on.

Maybe the OP would like to be the editor of such
a book? If so, I can contribute one chapter.
Or three... *giggle*

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Monday 18 May 2015 03:25 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> If you contribute a book that helps people learn Emacs, better than
> the Emacs Manual, we will appreciate it very much.

Thanks for the kind words.

I am trying to get senior Emacs developers involved (early in the
cycle) to ensure that the Emacs Primer I am proposing is of comparable
quality to Emacs Manual.

I am new to the list.  So it is understandable that there is some
reluctance (even in principle) to lend me some help.

Let me see how far I can move my proposal forward.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Monday 18 May 2015 04:53 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> I can contribute one chapter.  Or three

You are welcome.

Any signed contributor (or a contributor who is open to signing an
assignment) is welcome to send me a draft.  I will look in to it.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>
writes:

> I am trying to get senior Emacs developers involved
> (early in the cycle) to ensure that the Emacs Primer
> I am proposing is of comparable quality to
> Emacs Manual.

If your supposed project is comparable to the Emacs
Manual it is much better you read the Emacs Manual and
see if you can improve it, put down you suggestions,
and submit them.

It is not a good idea to try to do the same thing
a second time with the hope it will be as good.
It won't - how can it? it's impossible as the Emacs
manual has been around for ages with tons of people
contributing and reporting bugs and submitting
suggestions how to improve it - but even more, it
doesn't make sense: even if it becomes as good, what
is the point of having two things that are the same?

If you like the Emacs Manual, work to improve it.

If you don't like it, or if you do like it but want to
do something different, which is sensible, then what
does the Emacs Manual or all the other things you
mention have to do with it?

> I am new to the list. So it is understandable that
> there is some reluctance (even in principle) to lend
> me some help.

The reason you don't get help is because you don't
offer a clear picture what you want to do. You talk
about Git, listbots, "senior Emacs developers", and
the Emacs Manual but you shouldn't talk about that,
you should say: "I want to do a book/program that
solves THIS problem like THIS for THIS reason..." If
you do that, many people will offer assistance.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Vaidheeswaran C writes:

 > Thanks for the kind words.
 > 
 > I am trying to get senior Emacs developers involved (early in the
 > cycle) to ensure that the Emacs Primer I am proposing is of
 > comparable quality to Emacs Manual.

You're going about it the wrong way.  They're busy people.  At best at
this stage you'll get kind words from them.  They need to see an
outline of the contents and some writing samples.  But remember the
itch-scratching principle: If it's important enough to you to do it,
it will get done.  The way you do it will give some people hives[1],
and they'll scratch their itches.  And so it goes.

 > I am new to the list.  So it is understandable that there is some
 > reluctance (even in principle) to lend me some help.

The Emacs developers are far more meritocratic than that.  A couple
are academics and have perhaps written introductory textbooks.  That
plus "is anybody interested?" might garner a bit more attention than
"hey, neat idea!", but not all that much.

But any senior developer who came up with the same idea who *hasn't*
written an introductory textbook in some field would get the same
treatment you're getting.  They'd be asked for a project plan and
writing samples (just like O'beep-beep or Abee-ee-eep would ask for if
you tried to get it published commercially).

 > Let me see how far I can move my proposal forward.

s/project/proposal/, and you've probably got a deal.  (I suck at
writing introductory material, but I'll be happy to cheer for you!)

Footnotes: 
[1]  An itchy disease, sometimes quite serious (drugs,
hospitalization, etc).

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Monday 18 May 2015 08:20 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> I'll be happy to cheer for you!

I'll be more happy if you help me by reviewing the drafts.  Is it Ok
if I Cc you?

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Vaidheeswaran C writes:
 > On Monday 18 May 2015 08:20 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > I'll be happy to cheer for you!
 > 
 > I'll be more happy if you help me by reviewing the drafts.  Is it Ok
 > if I Cc you?

No, please keep traffic on the list.  I've been on the 'net for almost
20 years at this address, my filters are pretty fierce.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Monday 18 May 2015 09:31 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Vaidheeswaran C writes:
>  > On Monday 18 May 2015 08:20 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > 
>  > > I'll be happy to cheer for you!
>  > 
>  > I'll be more happy if you help me by reviewing the drafts.  Is it Ok
>  > if I Cc you?
> 
> No, please keep traffic on the list.  I've been on the 'net for almost
> 20 years at this address, my filters are pretty fierce.

Let me share what I have learnt:

    "Never listen to people that are NOT helping you" :-P

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[David Engster]

Vaidheeswaran C. writes:
> On Monday 18 May 2015 03:25 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> If you contribute a book that helps people learn Emacs, better than
>> the Emacs Manual, we will appreciate it very much.
>
> Thanks for the kind words.
>
> I am trying to get senior Emacs developers involved (early in the
> cycle) to ensure that the Emacs Primer I am proposing is of comparable
> quality to Emacs Manual.
>
> I am new to the list.  So it is understandable that there is some
> reluctance (even in principle) to lend me some help.

Actually, what bothers me much more is that you posted several times
with Jambunathans K old mail address on the Org mailing list. Care to
explain?

-David

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 10:11:20 +0530
> 
> > No, please keep traffic on the list.  I've been on the 'net for almost
> > 20 years at this address, my filters are pretty fierce.
> 
> Let me share what I have learnt:
> 
>     "Never listen to people that are NOT helping you" :-P

That assumes that you can discern between those who are helping you
and those who aren't.  Not every yes-man is helping you, and not
everyone who says "no" isn't.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stefan Monnier]

> I am trying to get senior Emacs developers involved (early in the
> cycle) to ensure that the Emacs Primer I am proposing is of comparable
> quality to Emacs Manual.

I suggest you don't worry about that too much: "senior developers" are
likely already busy enough with Emacs stuff not to want to devote yet
more time to it in some other form.

Furthermore, senor Emacs developers might be rather disconnected from
the target audience of the book, so they might not give you the
best advice.

As I said already I do think there's room for another Emacs book, and it
would be great for it to be GFDL'd so we can recommend it and the FSF
could maybe even sell it.  So I'm all for it, but in terms of concrete
help, I probably can't do much (at least for now: I might give you
useful feedback once a draft is available).


        Stefan

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Filipp Gunbin]

On 17/05/2015 21:24 +0530, Vaidheeswaran C wrote:

>> In principle, we could do such a thing -- but what would this
>> book be _about_?
>
>> The FSF already has three books about Emacs.  If you propose
>> we make another, what subject matter do you propose?
>
> I don't have concrete answers to your questions.
>
> Without seeking to define the content of the book (for now), let us
> just __name__ my effort "A Emacs Primer".

You could start with something less ambitious and improve manuals of
different complex packages by adding more "Quick start" information
addressed to people who are new to the package.

Otherwise you should be prepared to deal with versioning - you don't
have the ability to attach the working sample code to the specific
version in version control system.  That's why I don't like books on
software which are too specific - there's always something that has
changed since the time of writing.

I remember that when starting to use some of the complex packages I
inevitably had to read half of the manual before getting something to
work...

A good example of this is the GNU Bash manual.  When I'm (re-)reading
it, I always have a feeling that I read C code translated into English.
Very precise and exact information, but not a good starting point.

Filipp

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Filipp Gunbin]

On 18/05/2015 19:53 +0300, Filipp Gunbin wrote:

> A good example of this is the GNU Bash manual.  When I'm (re-)reading
> it, I always have a feeling that I read C code translated into English.
> Very precise and exact information, but not a good starting point.

Of course, this does not relate to Emacs :)  But it was the first thing
which came to my mind.

Filipp

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Timur Aydin]

On 5/18/2015 7:41 AM, Vaidheeswaran C wrote:
> On Monday 18 May 2015 09:31 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>      "Never listen to people that are NOT helping you" :-P
>

Good luck getting *any* help from *anywhere* with that attitude.

-- 
Timur Aydin

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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 am trying to get senior Emacs developers involved (early in the
  > cycle) to ensure that the Emacs Primer I am proposing is of comparable
  > quality to Emacs Manual.

In order to start a project, you have to provide the vision and the
impetus.  Without those, you are only stating an idea and hoping
someone else will provide the vision and the impetus.  The thing is,
if nobody else happens to be ready with vision and impetus for a
manual, nobody will do that.

The starting challenge is, what sort of book would do a useful Emacs
job that the existing three books don't do well?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-05-18, at 06:41, Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday 18 May 2015 09:31 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Vaidheeswaran C writes:
>>  > On Monday 18 May 2015 08:20 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>  > 
>>  > > I'll be happy to cheer for you!
>>  > 
>>  > I'll be more happy if you help me by reviewing the drafts.  Is it Ok
>>  > if I Cc you?
>> 
>> No, please keep traffic on the list.  I've been on the 'net for almost
>> 20 years at this address, my filters are pretty fierce.
>
> Let me share what I have learnt:
>
>     "Never listen to people that are NOT helping you" :-P

Wow.

I do not understand how "please do not send the message to me twice,
especially that it might end up in the spam folder anyway" (as I see it,
this is more or less what Stephen wrote) is "not helping you".

Personally, I am rather skeptic of this project.  I do not really
believe in books written by multiple people, and similarly I do not
believe in a book that has completely independent chapters/sections
etc. (AFAIU, this is what you propose).  Aren't you just reinventing the
Web, or an encyclopaedia, or EmacsWiki?  (Especially EmacsWiki.  AFAIR,
it was reinvented at least once, and the project failed, btw.  But its
main proponent had the balls to admit it, and earned my very high
respect in this way.)  A /book/ is something that has a clear beginning
and a clear ending, some structure inbetween, and is read from the
beginning to the end (with a possible exception of skipping a chapter or
two, at the reader's sole risk).  I once read a book whose premise was
that you can read the chapters in any order; while it seems to be an
interesting idea at a first glance, it was in fact unbearable.

Still, how is someone taking some time to say "beware of this and that"
/not/ helping you?

I had a following experience a few days ago: I had a great idea for
a lecture I could prepare for my university.  Though it meant (as
I estimate) something like 90-120 hours of work (at least), I was full
of enthusiasm.  I talked to four friends, and three of them warned me
about various pitfalls of the project.  In the end, I decided to resign
and devote that time to something else.  You know what?  They helped me
a lot.

If you want to help the Emacs community, I would guess your time might
be spent better in many other ways.  Look at some people who help the
community a lot.  Mickey Petersen.  Sacha Chua.  Artur Malabarba.  Oleh
Krehel.  Just to name a few (and excluding "senior Emacs developers") -
please don't treat the list as comprehensive, it's not!  Only one of
these people actually wrote an introductory book on Emacs (and a very
good one, though it has a flow from the beginning to the end).  Maybe
a set of video tutorials might be better?  Answering Emacs.SE questions?
Blogging on Emacs?  Writing good packages?  Maybe editing EmacsWiki
would be useful?  if you insist on something book-like, maybe some work
on Gnus manual?  Also, some time ago I studied some parts of Org-mode
source code; while refactoring it might not bring you fame and fortune,
it would definitely be something a few people (me included) would
appreciate /a lot/.

BTW, speaking of Org-mode, David's question seems legitimate.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

I think the one official Emacs book that is missing is
the authorized - but non-propagandistic -
(techno-)autobiography of a certain person who posted
in this very thread...

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-05-10, at 17:27, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
>   > > Learning GNU Emacs and Writing GNU Emacs Extensions are not ours;
>   > > I would guess that they are nonfree, but I don't know.  Can you check
>   > > what licenses their sources carry?  If they are free, we could recommend
>   > > them (but not via amazon.com).
>
>   > How about recommending a dead-tree version?
>
> Whether printed or digital, whether gratis or paid,
> we should recommend only manuals that are free.

Interesting.  I know your opinion on free software, but books seem to be
a bit different.  For instance, you can't really have DRM on a book (a
printed one, I mean).  Also, while it is illegal to copy proprietary
software to a friend/relative, it is perfectly legal to lend them a book
(and I guess also photocopy, though I'm not sure about this).  All this
means that books are "more free" than software by default.

Of course, it is your and FSF's right to choose what to promote.  OTOH,
I personally would love to read more Emacs books, and I don't mind
buying them from a traditional publisher (or in an ebook form, even from
the Evil Ama..., sorry, Empire;-)).

Best regards,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> Interesting. I know your opinion on free software,
> but books seem to be a bit different. For instance,
> you can't really have DRM on a book (a printed one,
> I mean). Also, while it is illegal to copy
> proprietary software to a friend/relative, it is
> perfectly legal to lend them a book (and I guess
> also photocopy, though I'm not sure about this).

To multiply books that way has been done countless of
times but it is not legal. Read the legal note that is
often present in books - it tells you (in many words)
all the things that are illegal to do.

However for quoting purposes you can do quite a lot.

Nowadays "copying" of books is done by simply getting
a PDF on the Internet and then printing it. If you do
it on your school or office it is even more free.
Sometimes it is the original document, sometimes it is
the result of some person using a scanner.

> All this means that books are "more free" than
> software by default.

In general books are less free because of the presence
of the whole GNU/Linux world with so much software
readily available for free in all senses. For example,
the Debian repos which hold 40 000 packs. There is no
such counterculture in the books world, save for the
science fiction and punk-rock fanzines which are the
doings of a bunch of kids.

In practice, software which isn't free is also more
free than books that aren't free because of the
methods to multiply are much more difficult for
physical objects. Now with the PDFs and ebooks that
has changed, and will change even more.

As a side note, also remember the public libraries all
around the world which is an underused resource,
however it is also a capricious one as not all the
books you'd like are available.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

I'd like to mention two books I heard about.
Their titles ("Free Software Free Society" and
"Free as in Freedom") sounds more of politics than
technology, so it is not what I wished for in my other
posts, but that doesn't mean they are uninteresting,
of course.

These two books are PDFs which makes them ideal to
print (just use 'lrp -P PRINTER FILE'). We are allowed
to do that so it isn't even piracy. The first file,
tho named as a PDF, is according to file(1) 'gzip
compressed data, from Unix', but gunzip can be used,
either with the -S option or just a rename to a '.gz'
suffix - here, I don't know what's worse, the
incorrect suffix or gunzip caring about suffixes and
not working unless I account for that. But that
shouldn't stop anyone from reading the books.

    http://www.gnu.org/doc/fsfs-ii-2.pdf
    http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf

found on

    http://shop.fsf.org/product/book_bundle/

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Tuesday 19 May 2015 12:24 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> The starting challenge is, what sort of book would do a useful Emacs
> job that the existing three books don't do well?

Thanks for these questions.  I will think about these.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Monday 18 May 2015 10:23 PM, Filipp Gunbin wrote:

> You could start with something less ambitious and improve manuals of
> different complex packages by adding more "Quick start" information
> addressed to people who are new to the package.

"Emacs Primer" will include "Quick start information" on complex and
commonly used packages.  "The Emacs Primer" will borrow (or share)
introductory texts from existing .texi files and re-purpose it to it's
own ends.

> I remember that when starting to use some of the complex packages I
> inevitably had to read half of the manual before getting something to
> work...

You are not an exception when you say this.

> A good example of this is the GNU Bash manual.  When I'm (re-)reading
> it, I always have a feeling that I read C code translated into English.
> Very precise and exact information, but not a good starting point.

Words like "good" when UN-accompanied with a measuring scale are too
vague to be useful.  There can be various measures of "good" and GNU
Emacs Manuals are "good" when seen in terms of completeness,
pedagogical style etc.  "The Emacs Primer" will aspire to be "good"
for beginners.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Tuesday 19 May 2015 12:44 AM, Marcin Borkowski wrote:

> Look at some people who help the community a lot.  Mickey Petersen.
> Sacha Chua.  Artur Malabarba.  Oleh Krehel.

I am comfortable working with ONLY those people who are already active
on the Emacs list or the Git repo.

The folks you mention may not know about my proposal.  In such case,
you may want to point them to my proposal.  I happily welcome anyone
who wishes to contribute their content towards an __FSF-approved__
"Emacs Primer".

> Only one of these people actually wrote an introductory book on
> Emacs (and a very good one, though it has a flow from the beginning
> to the end).

Can you provide a link...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Permit me to overlook your advice, until such time as you contribute
some MATERIAL CONTENT (or NOTIONALLY SIGNIFICANT CONTENT) to "The
Emacs Primer".  I am soliciting allies (and JUST their advice).  At
this point in time, I can do well without any detractors or
nay-sayers.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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 one official Emacs book that is missing is
  > the authorized - but non-propagandistic -
  > (techno-)autobiography of a certain person who posted
  > in this very thread...

I guess you must mean me, and by "propagandistic" you must
be deprecating the goals of freedom which are the reason
for GNU, GNU Emacs, and all the rest.

I am not interested in writing a book that would focus on technical
details and omit what I think is really important.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

Please do not recommend nonfree manuals on this list.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-05-19, at 13:05, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> Please do not recommend nonfree manuals on this list.

Did I?

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > > Please do not recommend nonfree manuals on this list.

  > Did I?

Not yet any specific nonfree manuals, but it sounded like
you _might_ do so; thus, I figured it was good to state the rule.
If you weren't going to do this, that's good.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Richard.

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 03:44:27PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>   > > Please do not recommend nonfree manuals on this list.

>   > Did I?

> Not yet any specific nonfree manuals, but it sounded like
> you _might_ do so; thus, I figured it was good to state the rule.
> If you weren't going to do this, that's good.

May I suggest the following wording for future occurrences of this
situation: "Please be careful to avoid recommending nonfree manuals on
this list.".  This avoids the imputation that the sin has already been
committed.

> -- 
> Dr Richard Stallman

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-05-19, at 22:06, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> Hello, Richard.
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 03:44:27PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>   > > Please do not recommend nonfree manuals on this list.
>
>>   > Did I?
>
>> Not yet any specific nonfree manuals, but it sounded like
>> you _might_ do so; thus, I figured it was good to state the rule.
>> If you weren't going to do this, that's good.
>
> May I suggest the following wording for future occurrences of this
> situation: "Please be careful to avoid recommending nonfree manuals on
> this list.".  This avoids the imputation that the sin has already been
> committed.

I second that.  While I strongly disagree with that policy (as I have
written a few times), I do understand that it's not me who sets the
rules on this list, so indeed I was not going to mention any book by
name.  (Though the borderline between "recommending" and "expressing
opinion" can be of course rather vague.)

>> -- 
>> Dr Richard Stallman

Regards,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I guess you must mean me, and by "propagandistic"
> you must be deprecating the goals of freedom which
> are the reason for GNU, GNU Emacs, and all the rest.

I don't mean propagandistic in a negative way, but it
is my impression there are a lot of such material
available, so that book isn't missing.

On the "political" bookshelf I would think the most
important book missing (?) is the book about the
iPhone, Android, etc. hysteria which have turned
millions of would-be independent computer users into
mere consumers with no own activity or creativity
whatsoever to it. It is very painful to see because to
me it is the opposite of what makes computers fun,
which is it is virtually a half-empty bucket for you
to fill with your own initiatives and creativity, and
contrary to all other such activities you only need
a computer to do it, and it doesn't even have to be
expensive. And now they are taking that away with
those interfaces and pre-chewed "apps" that turn
people into zombies...

> I am not interested in writing a book that would
> focus on technical details and omit what I think is
> really important.

If you aren't interested of course you shouldn't do
it. But I'll explain what I mean. The technical
details don't need to be that technical. The Emacs and
Elisp manuals do that.

It would rather (it "won't" rather) be a book with
your attitude to technology, what is appealing and how
you approached it, and your whole experience with it.

I love anecdotal history, which is often more telling
than conventional wisdom. For example this book:

    @book{quarter-century-of-unix,
      title      = {A Quarter Century of UNIX},
      author     = {Peter Salus},
      publisher  = {Addison-Wesley},
      year       = 1994,
      ISBN       = 0201547775
    }

has many colorful stories, and the best is perhaps how
they did yacc which is hilarious (and probably true).
It is a book on technology insofar none non-computer
person would understand a single page, but it isn't
a listing of the options of GNU ls, either. (I take it
is OK to mention such books that do not compete with
free counterparts.)

I know many people would love to read a book from
"beyond GNU castle". It would be also be invaluable
for future generations if we talk altruism.
From a practical standpoint it would generate some
money, don't you think?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Vaidheeswaran C writes:

 >     "Never listen to people that are NOT helping you" :-P

'bye!

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Timur Aydin writes:
 > On 5/18/2015 7:41 AM, Vaidheeswaran C wrote:
 > > On Monday 18 May 2015 09:31 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > >      "Never listen to people that are NOT helping you" :-P

I didn't write that.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > May I suggest the following wording for future occurrences of this
  > situation: "Please be careful to avoid recommending nonfree manuals on
  > this list.".  This avoids the imputation that the sin has already been
  > committed.

I think that is a good suggestion.

I would like to say I will use that wording, but I can't promise,
simply because these events happen so infrequently that I am
not likely to be able to learn a habit about them.  But I will try
to remember it.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > On the "political" bookshelf I would think the most
  > important book missing (?) is the book about the
  > iPhone, Android, etc. hysteria which have turned
  > millions of would-be independent computer users into
  > mere consumers with no own activity or creativity
  > whatsoever to it.

I agree that is a good topic to write about.

It would be good to show how nonfree software is at the root of this
wrong.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > On the "political" bookshelf I would think the most
  > important book missing (?) is the book about the
  > iPhone, Android, etc. hysteria which have turned
  > millions of would-be independent computer users into
  > mere consumers with no own activity or creativity
  > whatsoever to it.

I agree that is a good topic to write about.

It would be good to show how nonfree software is at the root of this
wrong.

  > It would rather (it "won't" rather) be a book with
  > your attitude to technology, what is appealing and how
  > you approached it, and your whole experience with it.

To the extent I have something to say about that, I said it in the speech
I gave in Sweden in the late 80s.  A transcript of that was published.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 > > On the "political" bookshelf I would think the most important
 > > book missing (?) is the book about the iPhone, Android,
 > > etc. hysteria which have turned millions of would-be independent
 > > computer users into mere consumers with no own activity or
 > > creativity whatsoever to it.
 > 
 > I agree that is a good topic to write about.
 > 
 > It would be good to show how nonfree software is at the root of this
 > wrong.

No, it wouldn't, because it simply isn't true.  Those of us who care
have already rooted our phones, and the demand for freedom has forced
even Apple to back down from its original draconian restrictions on
programming languages for iOS.  (Just a small win, but it's real.)

But the "millions" (actually, nearly a billion) were *never* "would-be
independent computer users, they were consumers *before* they had
smartphones, and now they are consumers *with* smartphones."  That is
a pain I live with every working day, teaching in an "engineering"
school where most students think of software as a tool like a
soldering iron.  They have equal interest in producing the two kinds
of tool, except as forced to.  Having the software they work with be
"free" wouldn't help.  For my engineering economics students, though
Wikipedia is free, they don't contribute, though many of them have
something to contribute.  R is free, they don't even write R programs
for their research beyond what's necessary to access data and canned
routines.  But they love their smartphones, much as Emacs users love
their control keys (and with about as much concern for the insides,
unless they spill coffee on them)!

I really don't see how we can make progress if we don't accept the
fact that the vast majority of human beings are consumers of software
who gladly trade software freedom for the "freedom" to play Angry
Birds and listen to itunes for $1 each.  When I was a kid in 1969, a
vinyl "single" cost about $2 in current dollars; with inflation, it
would be $12.87 today -- iTunes is a very good deal if you ignore the
cost in freedom, and they do.  The RIAA, MPAA, and BSA are gnats
compared to that vast sea of indifference.  It is the sea of
indifference that enables the pressure groups to have the influence on
law that they do.

It is the existing indifference that enables non-free software.  It is
not that the non-free software creates the indifference.

 >   > It would rather (it "won't" rather) be a book with
 >   > your attitude to technology, what is appealing and how
 >   > you approached it, and your whole experience with it.
 > 
 > To the extent I have something to say about that, I said it in the
 > speech I gave in Sweden in the late 80s.  A transcript of that was
 > published.

You've written, improved, and instigated a lot of software and its
documentation, and at least advocated free hardware, in the 25 years
since that speech.  No?  It is a shame you have nothing to say about
those years.  Perhaps Emanuel could edit the book as a collection of
essays, organize your colleagues to contribute to it, and title it
"GNU-tiful Code" or "Just for the Freedom to Do It".

Both of these book proposals are important, and I'm disappointed that
you are so dismissive.  The original proposal matters because the
current crop of Emacs documentation is making no inroads into the sea
of indifference.  True, the Excel-tutorial-du-jour books suck, but we
can't afford to sink to that level because we can't depend on Emacs to
sell books.  We need to write books that will sell Emacs.  Difficult,
especially as we can't afford to hire the skills of a a Tracy Kidder
or Michael Lewis to ghostwrite) but if somebody volunteers to try, we
should support them.  (Yes, me too -- I said "'bye" because he's
acting like a selfish twit, but if he produces a manuscript or even a
proper proposal and posts an URL here, I *will* review it.  I just
don't have the time to be on yet another mailing list, and I do read
this list.  Daily.)

Emanuel's proposal matters even more, because the people who have
written about the joy of hacking aren't you.  The "Cathedral and
Bazaar" series, "Beautiful Code", "Just for Fun", even "The Mythical
Man-Month", all discuss it, often eloquently.  Surely you don't think
they represent software freedom's point of view!  Only you can decide
what deserves your time, but I think consideration of this book does,
even if you eventually decide not to do it.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Thursday 21 May 2015 08:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> (Yes, me too -- I said "'bye" because he's acting like a selfish
> twit, but if he produces a manuscript or even a proper proposal and
> posts an URL here, I *will* review it.  I just don't have the time
> to be on yet another mailing list, and I do read this list.  Daily.)

I am producing a manuscript[1] and I __know__ you will review it.

When I said,

    "Never listen to people that are NOT helping you"

I was __merely__ emphasizing a rule where solidarity is not merely
something that you stumble upon but instead (righteously) demand (from
your brothers).  If I encourage (and give in to) detractors, I only
declare my lack of faith in my own efforts.  In the years gone by, I
have embraced ghosts that sucked me thin (and these ghosts still
hanker after my fresh blood).  Now that I am wise, I ration my hugs
and am liberal with my stick.  All these are just means to secure what
is still good within me.

Our mails are of one taste, that of Solidarity!

You may "Bye" me but I am not "Buy"-ing it :-P

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  >  > It would be good to show how nonfree software is at the root of this
  >  > wrong.

  > No, it wouldn't, because it simply isn't true.

Of course it is true.  If the software in those devices were free, the
users could fix these problems.

  > Those of us who care
  > have already rooted our phones,

I suspect that only a fraction of those who care somewhat
have done this.  Many people choose an iThing because they are
ordered to, or swept into doing so, and if they start to care
about how it treats them, they find rooting it difficult.

Just rooting the device does not liberate all the programs on it, and
those that are nonfree will continue to deny users' freedom and in
many cases mistreat them.

  > and the demand for freedom has forced
  > even Apple to back down from its original draconian restrictions on
  > programming languages for iOS.  (Just a small win, but it's real.)

It may be an advance, but (according to what I've been told)
you can't write and run a program in any fashion on an iThing
unless you pay for a developer's license.

  > But the "millions" (actually, nearly a billion) were *never* "would-be
  > independent computer users, they were consumers *before* they had
  > smartphones, and now they are consumers *with* smartphones."

That is true, but I don't think it contradicts what I said.

  > I really don't see how we can make progress if we don't accept the
  > fact that the vast majority of human beings are consumers of software
  > who gladly trade software freedom for the "freedom" to play Angry
  > Birds and listen to itunes for $1 each.

We can accept the fact that many people do this when they have the set
of choices that businesses have arranged for them to have.  We can
accept as true the claim that many people value their immediate
convenience more than their freedom (though this is a result of their
cultural environment, and the same millions are choosing freedom over
their own safety on other issues such as handguns because they have
been taught it is important).

However, you seem to be suggesting that it is a "fact" that people
will always totally let companies dominate them.  

I don't see what "progress" _means_ if we accept that as a "fact".

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > You've written, improved, and instigated a lot of software and its
  > documentation, and at least advocated free hardware, in the 25 years
  > since that speech.  No?  It is a shame you have nothing to say about
  > those years.

It would be a shame, if I were instead doing nothing important.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[chad]

> On 21 May 2015, at 04:33, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> and the demand for freedom has forced
>> even Apple to back down from its original draconian restrictions on
>> programming languages for iOS.  (Just a small win, but it's real.)
> 
> It may be an advance, but (according to what I've been told)
> you can't write and run a program in any fashion on an iThing
> unless you pay for a developer's license.

This is not currently correct, but the practical hurdles are enough
to dissuade many end-users.

It is true that its harder to install software from other people
than it is to go through the Apple gatekeeper (which requires the
license), unless the user has rooted the device (and this is one
of the most common reasons for doing so).

As a practical matter, I think the majority of people who are
interested in doing this sort of work have self-selected themselves
away from iThings to the (vastly more widespread) Android devices.
Those are not entirely free either, but it is comparatively easy
to write, run, and distribute software for such without buying a
license or getting locked into bad licenses (assuming that youre
ok with Java and the Apache Software License, that is).

I hope that helps,
~Chad

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 >   >  > It would be good to show how nonfree software is at the root of this
 >   >  > wrong.
 > 
 >   > No, it wouldn't, because it simply isn't true.

And you reply:

 > Of course it is true.  If the software in those devices were free,
 > the users could fix these problems.

 >   > Those of us who care have already rooted our phones,

And you reply:

 > I suspect that only a fraction of those who care somewhat
 > have done this.

You really can't have it both ways.  The latter is precisely the point
I started with.  I didn't claim that non-free software is a good
thing, simply that the reason for people being consumers isn't the
non-free software.  It's that they don't care to do the things that
software freedom makes possible.

 >   > But the "millions" (actually, nearly a billion) were *never* "would-be
 >   > independent computer users, they were consumers *before* they had
 >   > smartphones, and now they are consumers *with* smartphones."
 > 
 > That is true, but I don't think it contradicts what I said.

Of course not.  I was contradicting what Emanuel said, when he claimed
they were "would-be independent computer users."

 >   > I really don't see how we can make progress if we don't accept the
 >   > fact that the vast majority of human beings are consumers of software
 >   > who gladly trade software freedom for the "freedom" to play Angry
 >   > Birds and listen to itunes for $1 each.
 > 
 > We can accept the fact that many people do this when they have the set
 > of choices that businesses have arranged for them to have.

Unfortunately for *that* theory, that's *not* the set of choices they
have today, thanks in large part to *you*.  They have GNU/Linux, and a
very large set of very useful software to use with it.  And they still
choose non-freedom.  Everybody I work with, everybody I teach, knows
about the existence of free software.  But they choose something else.

That's not because free software sucks, by the way.  It's because what
free software does superlatively well doesn't appeal to *them* the way
it does to *us*.  They don't write programs or use IRC or netnews,
they prefer text/html to text/plain, they don't administer web or mail
servers.  Those things are what *we* do -- nobody should be surprised
that the software we make is good at them ... and not so good at mind-
deadening games and providing channels for gossip (although our
software isn't so bad at that, everybody loves to talk).

 > We can accept as true the claim that many people value their
 > immediate convenience more than their freedom (though this is a
 > result of their cultural environment,

I rather doubt that it's a cultural artifact.  Guns are physical,
phallic objects.  I don't have trouble understanding the appeal of
"freedom" that is associated with guns, although I don't feel it
myself.  On the other hand, every kid in America gets their mouth
washed out with soap for exercising their First Amendment rights, but
somehow for most fighting for that freedom loses its appeal after they
reach their majority.  These more abstract freedoms often provide
individuals with no direct benefit, and they have to put up with the
annoyance of others exercising their freedom.

 > However, you seem to be suggesting that it is a "fact" that people
 > will always totally let companies dominate them.  

No, I don't have opinion on whether people will *always* or even
*frequently* "totally let companies dominate them", and didn't intend
to express one.  That's your nightmare, not mine.

I am suggesting that 99% of the hundreds of million of smartphone
users simply don't see any "domination" in the closed software that
runs their phones, because they have no intention of repairing or
improving their smartphones themselves (and don't have the ability to
do those things, anyway).

True, that self-centered point of view doesn't enhance freedom for
society as a whole, and thus leads to *you* being dominated by the
phone company, such that you end up refusing to have a smartphone at
all IIRC.  But that doesn't mean *they* are dominated, not in any
sense an ordinary person would understand.

 > I don't see what "progress" _means_ if we accept that as a "fact".

Same as it did for the folks who wrote the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.  Many of their neighbors didn't think it was worth
fighting a war for political and economic freedom, and despite the
mythology popular in U.S. high schools, it's pretty clear that
economic freedom weighed more on the minds of most of the Founding
Farmers (and businessmen).  Even James Madison (who actually penned
the Amendment) took almost a decade and the possibility of being
prosecuted under the Sedition Act of 1798 to fully realize the
importance of the reading of that Amendment we take for granted today.

In plain words, "progress" means that we get enough people to
understand that ensuring freedom for the few who actually do something
with it is good for society as a whole, just as free speech is, and
get some guarantees into law (or, given the current situation, we get
some restrictions on users removed from the law).

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 >   > You've written, improved, and instigated a lot of software and its
 >   > documentation, and at least advocated free hardware, in the 25 years
 >   > since that speech.  No?  It is a shame you have nothing to say about
 >   > those years.
 > 
 > It would be a shame, if I were instead doing nothing important.

I acknowledge that what you do is important.  But is it important that
*you* do it?  If it's essential that *you* do it, it's a shame that 30
years after the GNU Manifesto you believe that there is nobody who
could and would do those important things in your stead.  At least
long enough for you to write a book.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

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

> most students think of software as a tool like
> a soldering iron. They have equal interest in
> producing the two kinds of tool

I think of software as tools and every time I do no
matter how small a zsh function or Elisp defun it
feels like I add a new superpower to my Batman belt.
It is a good feeling and it is fun doing, and I wish
more people did it!

Reading your post I'm pleased you have understood the
essence of my suggestion, i.e. to tell
cool/cautionary/encouraging stories while conveying
a positive air of creativity and resourcefulness.
I don't like the word "crusade" as a metaphor for GNU,
but if it is it is as much a bunch of merry craftsmen
travelling alongside those grim warriors, and I think
that picture is both more appealing and more true.

> Perhaps Emanuel could edit the book as a collection
> of essays, organize your colleagues to contribute to
> it, and title it "GNU-tiful Code" or "Just for the
> Freedom to Do It".

Of course I'm not going to back down from my own
suggestion. I know enough LaTeX and I suspect the
essays would require almost no editing, so it would be
kill and yank mostly. And I would neither put my name
on the cover nor write a servile introduction boasting
how cool everyone else is.

No matter who is the editor such a book would be
awesome: one chapter vanilla Emacs, then Gnus,
Emacs-w3m, Dired...

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > > It may be an advance, but (according to what I've been told)
  > > you can't write and run a program in any fashion on an iThing
  > > unless you pay for a developer's license.

  > This is not currently correct, but the practical hurdles are enough
  > to dissuade many end-users.

I have confidence in the expert who told me it is not possible,
but if you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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 acknowledge that what you do is important.  But is it important that
  > *you* do it?

I don't know who else would and could do it.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

 >   > I acknowledge that what you do is important.  But is it important that
 >   > *you* do it?
 > 
 > I don't know who else would and could do it.

That's unfortunate, to say the least.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[chad]

> On 22 May 2015, at 14:31, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>>> It may be an advance, but (according to what I've been told)
>>> you can't write and run a program in any fashion on an iThing
>>> unless you pay for a developer's license.
> 
>> This is not currently correct, but the practical hurdles are enough
>> to dissuade many end-users.
> 
> I have confidence in the expert who told me it is not possible,
> but if you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

The specific steps are both non-trivial and a moving target, changing
with new versions of iOS and developer tools. A new version just
came out, so my experience is out of date, but with each version,
there is a way. If you would really like the specific details of
the current method, I can investigate that and get back to you. If
its enough to see a recent method, you can look here:

	http://iphonedevwiki.net/index.php/Xcode

I know you’re short on time and not overly fond of web-based resources
in general, but this one is readable in eww. I certainly did not
mean to imply that it was *easy*, but my understanding and (not
incredibly-old experience) is that it is possible. Certainly, the
vast majority of developers simply sign up for the license, at least
once. For most peoples intended use, its a practical requirement.

Hope that helps,
~Chad

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Emanuel Berg]

chad <yandros@gmail.com> writes:

> The specific steps are both non-trivial and a moving
> target, changing with new versions of iOS and
> developer tools. A new version just came out, so my
> experience is out of date, but with each version,
> there is a way. If you would really like the
> specific details of the current method, I can
> investigate that and get back to you. If its enough
> to see a recent method [...]
>
> I know you’re short on time and not overly fond of
> web-based resources in general, but this one is
> readable in eww. I certainly did not mean to imply
> that it was *easy*, but my understanding and (not
> incredibly-old experience) is that it is possible.
> Certainly, the vast majority of developers simply
> sign up for the license, at least once. For most
> peoples intended use, its a practical requirement.

How confident am I supposed to feel that I can develop
and maintain complex software if it takes this effort
just to get started, which is likely to change
as well?

The smartphones - if they are to earn their name -
should just be small computers like any other (only
smaller). You should just be able to bring over all
your software on an USB stick or whatever, recompile,
and that's it. Some of the executables might not run
due to the smallness of the hardware platform and many
other such details, but in essence, why should there
be a difference?

If I ever were to use such a device all time spent
would be on things that are non-issues on my normal
system, and doing stuff being aware of such a thing is
frustrating to put it mildly.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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 specific steps are both non-trivial and a moving target, changing
  > with new versions of iOS and developer tools. A new version just
  > came out, so my experience is out of date, but with each version,
  > there is a way.

Now I think you talking about jailbreaking.  That is a different issue.

I'm talking about the officially approved features of the iThings.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[chad]

> On 25 May 2015, at 08:29, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> [[[ 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 specific steps are both non-trivial and a moving target, changing
>> with new versions of iOS and developer tools. A new version just
>> came out, so my experience is out of date, but with each version,
>> there is a way.
> 
> Now I think you talking about jailbreaking.  That is a different issue.
> 
> I'm talking about the officially approved features of the iThings.

I did say explicitly in my message: unless the user has rooted the
device (and this is one of the most common reasons for doing so).
Nonetheless, jailbreaking is not required for this technique. The
reason the method changes is that the underlying tools shift over
time. The official methods hide these underlying changes behind a
stable UI which uses the Apple developer provisioning profile.

If jailbreaking is an option, then the application can be made
available via Cydia or an alternative, which is typically easier.
I dont have any personal experience with it, so I didnt suggest
that direction.

~Chad

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

You seem to be making a distinction between "jailbreaking" and
"rooting".  I am not an expert on this, but is there a difference, for
the iThings?  (Perhaps we should take this off the list.)

However, I am talking about authorized modes of use, not things that
users can do by exploiting bugs.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[chad]

> On 26 May 2015, at 04:54, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> [[[ 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. ]]]
> 
> You seem to be making a distinction between "jailbreaking" and
> "rooting".  I am not an expert on this, but is there a difference, for
> the iThings?  (Perhaps we should take this off the list.)

There is a difference for android devices, not really for iOS, but
it doesnt matter, since I’m not talking about either one.

~Chad

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > There is a difference for android devices, not really for iOS, but
  > it doesnt matter, since I’m not talking about either one.

I was talking about iThings specifically, so it looks like we
were talking about different things.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[chad]

> On 27 May 2015, at 07:25, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> [[[ 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. ]]]
> 
>> There is a difference for android devices, not really for iOS, but
>> it doesnt matter, since I’m not talking about either one.
> 
> I was talking about iThings specifically, so it looks like we
> were talking about different things.

We really, really arent.  The link I sent you describes how to
install software that you write on a non-jailbroken, non-rooted,
fresh-from-the-store iOS device without having ever purchased an
enrollment in the iOS Developer Program. Those specific instructions
are a little out of date, so I dont know if they would work on a
brand new iOS device purchased today, but they worked last year,
and a different set of instructions worked the year before that.

~Chad

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

  > We really, really arent.  The link I sent you describes how to
  > install software that you write on a non-jailbroken, non-rooted,
  > fresh-from-the-store iOS device without having ever purchased an
  > enrollment in the iOS Developer Program.

I still don't understand the distinctions you are making, but I get
the impression this is an exploit, not a designed feature.  Could you
tell me, straight out, whether that is so?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[chad]

> On 28 May 2015, at 05:31, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> We really, really arent.  The link I sent you describes how to
>> install software that you write on a non-jailbroken, non-rooted,
>> fresh-from-the-store iOS device without having ever purchased an
>> enrollment in the iOS Developer Program.
> 
> I still don't understand the distinctions you are making, but I get
> the impression this is an exploit, not a designed feature.  Could you
> tell me, straight out, whether that is so?

The software allows it. The UI does not enable it. Apple arguably
doesnt want people to do it, but does not make the software prevent
it (except temporarily, as a side effect of changing the implementation
details under their abstraction level). I dont know how to tell
whether or not you think that should not count in some way or other.

As I said from the beginning: It is absolutely possible, and has
been for a while, but the practical hurdles are real, and theyre
significant enough to persuade most people to just join the developer
program (which comes with over tradeoffs, of course). Effectively,
it works by signing the software yourself, and adding yourself as
a source that can sign software to the device. This technique is
common in modern internet infrastructure, where it is often confusing
and a frequent source of questions for new sysadmins, but de rigeur
for experienced ops.

If what you want to know is Does Apple *support* this operation?,
the answer is pretty clearly no, but they dont support installing
Debian on macbooks, either. If what you want to know is Does *Apple*
consider this to be an exploit?, as far as I know, youd have to ask
them.

~Chad

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Mark H Weaver]

chad <yandros@gmail.com> writes:

>> On 27 May 2015, at 07:25, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>> 
>> [[[ 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. ]]]
>> 
>>> There is a difference for android devices, not really for iOS, but
>>> it doesnt matter, since I’m not talking about either one.
>> 
>> I was talking about iThings specifically, so it looks like we
>> were talking about different things.
>
> We really, really arent.  The link I sent you describes how to
> install software that you write on a non-jailbroken, non-rooted,
> fresh-from-the-store iOS device without having ever purchased an
> enrollment in the iOS Developer Program.

No it doesn't.  The link[1] you sent explicitly says that the methods
described therein work _only_ on "jailbroken" devices:

  "To develop for the device, one should first obtain a provisioning
   profile by joining the iPhone Developer Program (which costs $99).
   However, some simple tricks can be used to make Xcode compile and
   debug on jailbroken devices without provisioning profiles." [1]

This immediately precedes method 1.  Method 2 references another
guide[2] whose requirements include "Jailbroken device".  Method 3
includes the requirement "Device needs to be jailbroken".  No more
methods are described.

       Mark

[1] http://iphonedevwiki.net/index.php/Xcode
[2] http://www.sysrage.net/guides/ios-programming/building-and-running-ios-applications-without-a-paid-developer-license

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Tuesday 19 May 2015 04:35 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> I am not interested in writing a book that would focus on technical
> details and omit what I think is really important.

Have you considered writing An Autobiography?

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[Rasmus]

Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> writes:

> Have you considered writing An Autobiography?

http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-as-in-freedom-2/

-- 
Sådan en god dansk lagereddike kan man slet ikke bruge mere

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[chad]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 543 bytes --]


> On 29 May 2015, at 19:44, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The link I sent you describes how to
>> install software that you write on a non-jailbroken, non-rooted,
>> fresh-from-the-store iOS device without having ever purchased an
>> enrollment in the iOS Developer Program.
> 
> No it doesn't.  

You are correct; my apologies to you both. It seems that the method
I used has since been closed, and I was mistaken about the requirements
in the second method.

Thanks for taking the time to correct me; I appreciate it.
~Chad


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2158 bytes --]

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

[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. ]]]

It's too bad you were not right.  But it would have been very surprising
if you had been right.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.