Re: Is Emacs on Aqua crippleware or is it just broken?

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

bk_usenet@yahoo.co.uk (BK) writes:

> I had already explained my definition of crippleware and you will
> find that it is in no way offending.

Is "bk_usenet" an idiot or is he just trolling?

Note that "idiot" derives from the Greek ἴδιος and means "speaking
for himself" and that is my definition and you will find that it is
in no way offending.  Idiot.

> Apart from the need to get attention there is also the need to make
> the subject line short.

Well, "FUCK YOU!!!!!" would be even shorter.

> So instead of
> 
> "Emacs: Does the Aqua port have the following features left out
> because the developer didn't have time to do it yet or are there any
> fixes for the problems I have experienced?"
> 
> one writes
> 
> "Is Emacs on Aqua crippleware or is it just broken?"

If one is an idiot.  The problem is that you leave no third option,
like "I have overlooked something in its configuration and have not
read the documentation".  So you are just an idiot when making such
posts since others might not have the problem.

> This fulfills both requirements, getting attention and being short.

It may fail in getting compassion if you are just interested in being
an idiot.

> Besides, I posted this in gnu.emacs.help and not gnu.emacs.advocacy.

So much the worse for it.  The advocacy groups are the groups where
only flame wars reside.  Nobody would have particularly noticed you
there.

> Anybody who reads the actual post can see that there is no flaming
> no bashing, but a description of problems along with a question
> whether or not the problem described is intentional ("feature") or
> broken ("bug").

Or due to an idiot not reading the available documentation.  The
Emacs manual has an index entry "clipboard support (Mac OS)".  It
also has an index entry for clipboard support under X.

> This is important to know because if it is intentional then it would
> be a complete waste of time trying to find a fix.

> There is far too many posts on usenet where somebody reports a
> problem, is told that the software in question hasn't implemented
> such a feature, at least not yet, and then it goes on and on and on
> mocking about it. If it's not there then it's not there and
> consequently there is then no point trying to get "the bug fixed".

If you spent half the time reading the manual that you waste on
embarrassing yourself in public, you would look like less of an idiot.

> I am sorry if anyone who has been working on any of the various
> Emacs Mac ports feels offended by my pragmatism.

It is pragmatism not to read the documentation?

> In respect of the term "crippleware", again this is born out of
> pragmatism.

τὸ πρᾶγμα from whence "pragmatism" derives is the deed.  It would be
pragmatic to look into the manual instead of foaming at your mouth.

> You won't find me going on about it like "Look how crippled this
> software is", no, it means there are missing features which are
> present in other versions of the same software.

What other version of Emacs is there?

> Very often this is done for marketing reasons "cheaper or freeware
> version is crippled - full version costs more".

You have no clue just how offensive you are, right?

> However, it also applies to work in progress software if that work
> in progress is not explicitly denoted as "beta software", which is
> another way to describe missing features that haven't been included
> yet. However, if the developer doesn't call it "beta software" it
> would create more confusion then anything else if I was to call it
> "betaware", so I choose the alternative "crippleware".

And I choose to call you an idiot, and can cite the Greek dictionary
definition to support that, as opposed to you who have no authority to
back you up on your vocabulary abuse.  You just speak for yourself,
and your words are idiosyncratic: nobody else uses them in that
manner.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum