From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 07:31:24 +0000 Message-ID: <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> References: <20080814083817.GA2593@muc.de> <877iak7xfp.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <873al79akr.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <48A5BAD7.8030302@emf.net> <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1218959763 24305 80.91.229.12 (17 Aug 2008 07:56:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 07:56:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Thomas Lord , hannes@saeurebad.de, ams@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 17 09:56:54 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KUd87-0000xY-KY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:56:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46326 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUd7A-0006II-R4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:55:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUd6x-0006GV-TH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:55:39 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUd6w-0006GB-Qq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:55:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46161 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUd6w-0006G8-JE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:4355 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KUd6v-0006Ih-S3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 51917 invoked by uid 3782); 17 Aug 2008 07:28:55 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E52859.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.40.89]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:28:53 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 2117 invoked by uid 1000); 17 Aug 2008 07:31:24 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 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:102545 Archived-At: Hi, Stephen! On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:43:03AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Alan Mackenzie writes: > > My opinion on allowing binary libraries into Emacs is that its > > dangers would be greater than the benefits it would allow. I'm > > willing to be persuaded I'm mistaken. > > You should address this, instead of evading it as you have done up > > to now. > No, those of you who *assert without a shred of evidence* that there > are significant dangers should address that lack. That's a category error. I wasn't talking about a scientific process for which evidence can be weighed up. I am rather asserting the credible existence of a mechanism by which Emacs could become essentially un-free. The exercise of freedom of choice by the gormless masses is an essential component of that mechanism. Nasty deviousness. Richard is a master of nasty deviousness, so the fact that he sees a problem is reason in itself to take it seriously. ;-) The essential point is that if an un-free Emacs became established through the mechanism of loading binary libraries, we could not easily reverse it. > XEmacs, as well as many GNU applications, allow loadable modules. > SXEmacs takes it a step further: it provides a generic foreign > function interface. So if there's a danger, you should be able to > quote us the products we can buy at Circuit City or download from > www.DownWithFreedom.com. No. The fact that nothing has yet happened is not by itself evidence of lack of danger. I think you said recently that there's an obscure patch around which allows binaries to be loaded into XEmacs (and maybe Emacs), rather than the facility being built in to the official XEmacs. (Forgive me if I've misremembered here.) That's very different from something being a core feature, encouraged by the prime maintainers. > Where's the beef, for heaven's sake? I don't accept that that, by itself, is a valid way to proceed. We need to forsee and analyse things which haven't happened but could happen. To emphasise, I'm not convinced that allowing binaries to be loaded into Emacs would cause danger. I'm not convinced it's safe, either. But I am convinced the move would be irreversible. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).