From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is there any way to have a string literal that is read "raw" Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:49:24 +0300 Message-ID: References: <42CE8ADB.2000007@student.lu.se> <42CEFD45.2050107@student.lu.se> <42D00BF0.4050500@student.lu.se> <42D1930C.8040208@student.lu.se> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1121111616 18829 80.91.229.2 (11 Jul 2005 19:53:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:53:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 11 21:53:28 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ds4KQ-0000g3-RA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:52:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ds4M0-0005TO-ST for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:54:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ds4LG-0005DN-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:53:27 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ds4LA-0005BI-Kh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:53:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ds4LA-0005AD-GH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:53:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ds4Oq-00045C-F1; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:57:08 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-81-7.inter.net.il [80.230.81.7]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id BVC27488 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:49:24 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: (rms@gnu.org) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:40794 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:40794 > From: "Richard M. Stallman" > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:54:12 -0400 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > If a program would run only on Windows, we recommend that people not > write that program at all. If we were to distribute such a program, > that would put us in a hypocritical position. So we don't distribute > such programs Actually, we (i.e. the FSF and the GNU Project) do. When I worked on the GNU Software for MS-Windows and MS-DOS CDROM, you agreed to put 3 programs there that were written specifically for the users of Windows: the installer of the software, a clone of the Unix `man' command, and DJTAR, a utility that unpacks .tar.gz archives. I think the principle was: if the Windows-specific program helps people use GNU software, it is okay to write and distribute it. For the same reason, there are several Windows-specific programs that we maintain and distribute with Emacs (addpm, cmdproxy, ddeclient, etc.). So I think the ``Windows-specific equals BAD'' principle is too stringent; one needs instead to argue that the specific program or feature in question does not help the Free Software cause in any significant way. And whether this is true in the case in point is very hard to establish unequivocally, and thus open to opinions.