* re: whither GNU
[not found] <E1KWOCH-0005Vu-Ec@mail.fsf.org>
@ 2008-08-22 4:47 ` Jonathan Yavner
2008-08-22 8:15 ` Jonathan Lange
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Yavner @ 2008-08-22 4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel
> Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> That was pretty evident in the way bzr did get "chosen" as future
> dVCS for Emacs.
> David Robinow wrote:
> Are there still problems? I don't know. I haven't used it yet. If
> you find any you should file a bug report.
I tried using it, but it was too slow, even for my small project (only
1200 commits of history, bzr takes many seconds just to show "info").
I haven't bothered to file a bug report because previous messages on
emacs-devel indicate that the bzr people are already quite aware of the
speed problem. I hope Emacs doesn't drop CVS until after bzr has been
improved considerably.
I also tried git and looked at mercurial, but I haven't yet found the
right dVCS for my application (central repository and working checkout
on server, copy of repository and checkout on laptop, push from laptop
to server updates server's checkout but only if no merge-conflicts
occur). For now I'm still using CVS even though it doesn't really do
the job. A familiar tool with problems (and known workarounds) is
better than an unfamiliar tool that still has problems but no known
workarounds!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: whither GNU
2008-08-22 4:47 ` whither GNU Jonathan Yavner
@ 2008-08-22 8:15 ` Jonathan Lange
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Lange @ 2008-08-22 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Yavner; +Cc: emacs-devel
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Jonathan Yavner <jyavner@member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> Juanma Barranquero wrote:
>> That was pretty evident in the way bzr did get "chosen" as future
>> dVCS for Emacs.
>
>> David Robinow wrote:
>> Are there still problems? I don't know. I haven't used it yet. If
>> you find any you should file a bug report.
>
> I tried using it, but it was too slow, even for my small project (only
> 1200 commits of history, bzr takes many seconds just to show "info").
> I haven't bothered to file a bug report because previous messages on
> emacs-devel indicate that the bzr people are already quite aware of the
> speed problem. I hope Emacs doesn't drop CVS until after bzr has been
> improved considerably.
Well, the Bazaar hackers always appreciate well-filed bugs —
particularly those that include profiling information. And since
pretty much every release includes performance improvements, it's
worth filing a bug so you get notified when we fix *that* speed
problem. (Like most other complex applications, Bazaar's got a few of
them.)
Also, your particular bug interests me. :)
jml
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
@ 2008-08-12 14:34 A Soare
2008-08-12 17:14 ` Alan Mackenzie
2008-08-16 12:05 ` joakim
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: A Soare @ 2008-08-12 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Emacs Dev [emacs-devel]
> A Soare wrote:
> >>> Quite so! Investing energy to develop it under Windows is (almost) loss of energy!
> >> Yes, I understood that this is what you meant. But in what way did you
> >> reach this conclusion?
> >
> > By induction. I do not use Windows, and in linux I use emacs for lots of purposes.
>
> So you mean that for you personal benefits there is no use in developing
> Emacs under Windows? ;-)
I do not say that for _my_benefit_. I say that in general almost nobody use emacs in windows. There are exceptions, quite so. But I have never seen exceptions.
>
> >>> I know a few cases of _good_ programmers at google, microsoft, etc that never thought to use emacs.
> >>>
> >>> The reason: Windows has nicer environments to write C++, Delphi, C# etc. (that is what they told me).
> >> Then how can it be good to develop Emacs under any operating system?
> >
> > In Emacs under Linux for Linux!
>
> Did you mention any reason that I did not notice?
Personally I always use emacs, and I need nothing else. I tell _exactly_ what I heard that the others say. For me it is not useful under windows, and I have never heard a windows user to use it.
> >>> Emacs and Linux is used just by peuple that wants to understand how things work.
> >> Do you say that there is no use for Emacs?
> >
> > In windows, yes, that is what I say. In Windows it is completely unuseful.
>
> Then why is there a use for it under Linux? It seems like you are saying
> that software under Linux is inferior to the corresponding software
> under Windows and because of this Emacs can be useful on Linux.
No, there is no contradiction in what I say.
I heard many programmers that they prefer use under GNU Linux others editors. The same reason: they want to gain money easy in my opinion.
What choose everybody depends only of his _education_. Of his values. If you tell soebody "Emacs is written profesionnaly and you can learn looking at its sources" does not have the same effect on every person. The majority of peuple will say (I quote a programmer from gooooogle ) : "Yes, emacs is nice, but I do not like emacs, because I want to gain money, and others programmers will copy-paste the open source projects, and they will steal me the projects" . And he never used emacs.
In linux there are others C/C++ development environments than emacs that can be used without effort.
This discution is enless: the best is to put a button on emacs' page and to ask peuple to vote if they need emacs under windows, and the reason why they do.
> If that is the case why is it Emacs we develop and not something better?
I heard many saying that there are better development. If you say "emacs is written in lisp, so it is very customisable" they will say "oui, mais je peux me passer d'emacs et me debrouiller facilement avec d'autres."
>
> >>> Windows is used by peuple that want to gain money and to arrive quiqkly at their purpose.
> >> Do you say that using Emacs makes it take long time to do things?
> >
> > It takes little time when you have already learned how to use it.
> > The first time when you did a thing, you will never choose something
> different.
> > Here is the point: the psychology. Peuple prefers never to make the
> first effort,
> > and they prefer to use something to arrive quickly at the point.
>
> Can we use that point to do something actively? Can we make Emacs better
> in a way that it satisfies those people's need? (Still not sacrifiying
> other things.)
This is like demanding to a cannibal "do you want to become a chretien"? Not taking into account a famous tribe of cannibals that died because they lost their native croyance in cannibalisme, the question whether the user want to use emacs does not depend on emacs. But on his values in which he is educated.
So my answer is: this is not a question for programmers, but for educators and family.
>
> >>> >From all my experience (all what I saw), windows interface for
> >>> > emacs is as important as the file ./etc/sex.6 in emacs' sources.
> >> Are you saying that this is the only part of Emacs that we should keep ;-)
> >
> > Yes, Emacs in Linux is nice.
>
> Why is the file etc/sex.6 so nice so that we should keep only that on
> Linux? ;-)
From my viewpoint, all the modules for windows are _not_ useful, i.e. they have the same usefulness as this file.
____________________________________________________
Avant de prendre le volant, repérez votre itinéraire et visualisez le trafic ! http://itineraire.voila.fr/itineraire.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-12 14:34 Release plans A Soare
@ 2008-08-12 17:14 ` Alan Mackenzie
2008-08-13 6:26 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-16 12:05 ` joakim
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-08-12 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: A Soare; +Cc: Lennart Borgman (gmail), Emacs Dev [emacs-devel]
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:34:49PM +0200, A Soare wrote:
> I say that in general almost nobody use emacs in windows. There are
> exceptions, quite so. But I have never seen exceptions.
In the field I work in (embedded systems), our targets are very often
Unix-like OSs (e.g. QNX), our host systems are (nearly) always Windows,
and development itself is done either on Windows or on a Unix server. In
this type of environment, cygwin is always installed, and Emacs on
Windows is popular, as is perl, bash, vi, .....;
It has been known for programmers enamoured of the Windows OS to complain
quite loudly at the lack of a "decent editor" in Unix. ;-)
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-12 17:14 ` Alan Mackenzie
@ 2008-08-13 6:26 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-13 9:20 ` Alan Mackenzie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2008-08-13 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: alinsoar, lennart.borgman, emacs-devel
In the field I work in (embedded systems), our targets are very often
Unix-like OSs (e.g. QNX), our host systems are (nearly) always Windows,
It is a shame to use Windows for that. Why not switch to GNU/Linux?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-13 6:26 ` Richard M. Stallman
@ 2008-08-13 9:20 ` Alan Mackenzie
2008-08-14 5:19 ` Richard M. Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-08-13 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard M. Stallman; +Cc: alinsoar, lennart.borgman, emacs-devel
Hi, Richard,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:26:36AM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> In the field I work in (embedded systems), our targets are very
> often Unix-like OSs (e.g. QNX), our host systems are (nearly)
> always Windows,
> It is a shame to use Windows for that. Why not switch to GNU/Linux?
It's a great shame. Why not switch? Because the host system is a
massive company Windows network, much more like a mainframe than a stand
alone PC. Things like Email and Word processing (with yucky formats) are
done on it. And backing up files. For such a company, software
development is merely one department, and not even the most important.
Switching to GNU is possible in principle, but it's difficult,
time-consuming and expensive. The city administration in Munich is doing
this, for example. Probably, some medium to large size compaies are,
too.
But yes, it's a great shame.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-13 9:20 ` Alan Mackenzie
@ 2008-08-14 5:19 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-14 8:38 ` Alan Mackenzie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2008-08-14 5:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: alinsoar, lennart.borgman, emacs-devel
Switching to GNU is possible in principle, but it's difficult,
time-consuming and expensive.
Doing things that are difficult and/or time-consuming and/or expensive
in order to escape from proprietary software is precisely the way
to show people that freedom matters. That is how you lead. Developing
GNU was also difficult and time-consuming, and some aspects have been
expensive.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-14 5:19 ` Richard M. Stallman
@ 2008-08-14 8:38 ` Alan Mackenzie
2008-08-14 9:33 ` Johannes Weiner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-08-14 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard M. Stallman; +Cc: emacs-devel
Hi, Richard!
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 01:19:22AM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> Switching to GNU is possible in principle, but it's difficult,
> time-consuming and expensive.
> Doing things that are difficult and/or time-consuming and/or expensive
> in order to escape from proprietary software is precisely the way to
> show people that freedom matters. That is how you lead. Developing
> GNU was also difficult and time-consuming, and some aspects have been
> expensive.
Hey, you snipped too much of the context, you rascal! The effort I was
talking about was that of a large company, with all the bureaucracy and
inertia that goes with it. These large companies aren't much concerned
about freedom, unless it is their own. They might not even be legally
permitted in some jurisdictions to bother much about freedom.
Other people and groups are advancing free software by emphasising free
software's high quality. Yet you don't recognise their efforts as
legitimate, even though they increase the use of free software, and hence
freedom itself. I find this puzzling, and I know I'm not alone.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-14 8:38 ` Alan Mackenzie
@ 2008-08-14 9:33 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-08-14 9:49 ` Alfred M. Szmidt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-08-14 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: Richard M. Stallman, emacs-devel
Hi,
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
> Hi, Richard!
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 01:19:22AM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
>> Switching to GNU is possible in principle, but it's difficult,
>> time-consuming and expensive.
>
>> Doing things that are difficult and/or time-consuming and/or expensive
>> in order to escape from proprietary software is precisely the way to
>> show people that freedom matters. That is how you lead. Developing
>> GNU was also difficult and time-consuming, and some aspects have been
>> expensive.
>
> Hey, you snipped too much of the context, you rascal! The effort I was
> talking about was that of a large company, with all the bureaucracy and
> inertia that goes with it. These large companies aren't much concerned
> about freedom, unless it is their own. They might not even be legally
> permitted in some jurisdictions to bother much about freedom.
>
> Other people and groups are advancing free software by emphasising free
> software's high quality. Yet you don't recognise their efforts as
> legitimate, even though they increase the use of free software, and hence
> freedom itself. I find this puzzling, and I know I'm not alone.
Freedom should never stand over software quality and usability. The
same way as security should never do that. If your security model is to
take the power off your machines you will have a worse solution that one
with higher risk.
Richard, if your argument is really that it is _good_ to have
time-consuming software in order to demonstrate by using it that you
care so much about freedom that you stop solving your problems
efficiently, then I am really sorry for you.
Primarily, software is problem-solving. If your software comes in a
flavor that doesn't restrict user's freedom, this is really nice.
If you cripple software for freedom's sake, you have driven the purpose
of software ad absurdum.
Hannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-14 9:33 ` Johannes Weiner
@ 2008-08-14 9:49 ` Alfred M. Szmidt
2008-08-14 10:04 ` Johannes Weiner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-08-14 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: acm, rms, emacs-devel
Freedom should never stand over software quality and usability.
Freedom must always stand over software quality and usability, without
it we cannot improve the software in question.
Primarily, software is problem-solving. If your software comes in
a flavor that doesn't restrict user's freedom, this is really nice.
It is a prerequisite that software is free to be able to solve
problems; if the software is not free, then you cannot solve anything.
If you cripple software for freedom's sake, you have driven the
purpose of software ad absurdum.
Nobody implied that one should cripple software for freedoms sake.
Nor did rms argue that it is good to have badly written free software.
But it is better to have badly written free software than having well
written non-free software. We can fix the former, but not the later.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-14 9:49 ` Alfred M. Szmidt
@ 2008-08-14 10:04 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-08-15 3:41 ` Richard M. Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-08-14 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ams; +Cc: acm, rms, emacs-devel
Hi,
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
> Freedom should never stand over software quality and usability.
>
> Freedom must always stand over software quality and usability, without
> it we cannot improve the software in question.
Not when your definition of freedom forbids certain improvements.
> Primarily, software is problem-solving. If your software comes in
> a flavor that doesn't restrict user's freedom, this is really nice.
>
> It is a prerequisite that software is free to be able to solve
> problems; if the software is not free, then you cannot solve anything.
This is flat out wrong. Software is written for a purpose. Windows
does its job, whether it does it good or bad and whether you like the
philosophy or not. It is not free and it solves the problem it was
written for.
> If you cripple software for freedom's sake, you have driven the
> purpose of software ad absurdum.
>
> Nobody implied that one should cripple software for freedoms sake.
> Nor did rms argue that it is good to have badly written free software.
> But it is better to have badly written free software than having well
> written non-free software. We can fix the former, but not the later.
We can fix the former if our definition of freedom allows us to. This
was the whole point of my previous email, in fact.
Emacs has still no support to load shared libraries during runtime and
IIRC it was rejected back then due to political reasons. I call this
crippling.
Hannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-14 10:04 ` Johannes Weiner
@ 2008-08-15 3:41 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-15 17:20 ` Thomas Lord
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2008-08-15 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: acm, ams, emacs-devel
Emacs has still no support to load shared libraries during runtime and
IIRC it was rejected back then due to political reasons. I call this
crippling.
"Crippling" would imply making Emacs unusable, which it clearly isn't.
The reason for my decision is to make sure that extension to Emacs are
free. The aim is to maximize what users can do while remaining free.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-15 3:41 ` Richard M. Stallman
@ 2008-08-15 17:20 ` Thomas Lord
2008-08-16 10:39 ` Richard M. Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-08-15 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: acm, ams, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel
Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> Emacs has still no support to load shared libraries during runtime and
> IIRC it was rejected back then due to political reasons. I call this
> crippling.
>
> "Crippling" would imply making Emacs unusable, which it clearly isn't.
>
> The reason for my decision is to make sure that extension to Emacs are
> free. The aim is to maximize what users can do while remaining free.
>
How does not providing dynamic loading maximize what users can
do while remaining free?
If they could dynamically load free libraries, surely their capabilities
would be increased.
I think you mean that your goal is to help GNU Emacs loyalists
remain free even if it means you taking a blunt instrument to
what users can do with their freedom.
-t
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-16 10:39 ` Richard M. Stallman
(?)
@ 2008-08-16 12:05 ` joakim
2008-08-17 7:16 ` Richard M. Stallman
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: joakim @ 2008-08-16 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: acm, Thomas Lord, emacs-devel, ams, hannes
"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> How does not providing dynamic loading maximize what users can
> do while remaining free?
>
> It protects against the danger of non-free C-level add-ons to Emacs.
> It's the same principle as the GPL itself.
>
What about implementing an interface in dynamically loadable modules
that that Emacs can use to determine if the module is GPL compliant?
Free libraries could easily add the interface, proprietary vendors would
highly unlikely add it. I think Linux kernel modules has something
similar.
I'm personally more interested in out-of-process interfaces for Emacs,
like Xembed, Corba etc, but I recognize that dynamic linking of modules
in Emacs would be useful for many tasks.
--
Joakim Verona
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-16 12:05 ` joakim
@ 2008-08-17 7:16 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-17 9:32 ` joakim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2008-08-17 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: joakim; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, ams, hannes
Free libraries could easily add the interface, proprietary vendors would
highly unlikely add it. I think Linux kernel modules has something
similar.
The fact that non-free Linux modules continue to be distributed shows
that this method is not adequate to prevent them. It also shows that
the danger is not imaginary.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-17 7:16 ` Richard M. Stallman
@ 2008-08-17 9:32 ` joakim
2008-08-18 6:14 ` Richard M. Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: joakim @ 2008-08-17 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, hannes, ams, emacs-devel
"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Free libraries could easily add the interface, proprietary vendors would
> highly unlikely add it. I think Linux kernel modules has something
> similar.
>
> The fact that non-free Linux modules continue to be distributed shows
> that this method is not adequate to prevent them.
The Linux kernel doesn't refuse to boot when it recognizes a non GPL
module being loaded. It justs informs you its "tainted".
Emacs should of course just refuse to use functions in modules that are
not GPL compliant, not just inform the user that the moral integrity of
Emacs has been corrupted.
> It also shows that the danger is not imaginary.
I agree completely.
If this mechanism is implemented, though, I cant see this resulting in any
additional risk of running non-free software. It could, in fact, be a
model of how to eliminate risks of running non-free software.
--
Joakim Verona
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-17 9:32 ` joakim
@ 2008-08-18 6:14 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-18 17:13 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2008-08-18 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: joakim; +Cc: acm, lord, hannes, ams, emacs-devel
The Linux kernel doesn't refuse to boot when it recognizes a non GPL
module being loaded. It justs informs you its "tainted".
Emacs should of course just refuse to use functions in modules that are
not GPL compliant, not just inform the user that the moral integrity of
Emacs has been corrupted.
I don't think this is a solution, because it would be easy to patch out
the code that enforces that restriction.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-18 6:14 ` Richard M. Stallman
@ 2008-08-18 17:13 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2008-08-19 12:21 ` Richard M. Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-08-18 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: lord, hannes, joakim, emacs-devel, ams, acm
Richard M. Stallman writes:
> The Linux kernel doesn't refuse to boot when it recognizes a non GPL
> module being loaded. It justs informs you its "tainted".
>
> Emacs should of course just refuse to use functions in modules that are
> not GPL compliant, not just inform the user that the moral integrity of
> Emacs has been corrupted.
>
> I don't think this is a solution, because it would be easy to patch out
> the code that enforces that restriction.
I will remind you that that was good enough for XEmacs and Qt in your
opinion. Circumstances may be different, but you should explain how.
If it's distributed only as a patch, who cares? The patch that allows
dynamic loading is already available and quite self-contained IIRC,
we're in the same place already.
If it's a separate distribution with the patch preapplied and maybe
Emacs prebuilt, that is a fork. The whole world knows what you think
of forks of Emacs, and how you treat the forkers. I think that's
sufficient deterrent, and if it isn't enough, we can assume there's a
lot of value in the dynamic loader that people want pretty badly --
specifically, enough to overcome the inconvenience of patching in the
loader feature.
I really don't get this. You are basically taking the open source
route here. "People don't like to be free, so let's not tell them
about freedom -- let's make it relatively inconvenient to use
proprietary code." Why not wait for the non-free modules, and then
publish a boycott list of such modules, give them a public dressing-
down, and in that way draw attention to the issue of freedom?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-18 17:13 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
@ 2008-08-19 12:21 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-20 0:01 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2008-08-19 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen J. Turnbull; +Cc: lord, hannes, joakim, emacs-devel, ams, acm
I will remind you that that was good enough for XEmacs and Qt in your
opinion.
What opinion are you talking about? I do not in general approve of
the decisions of the XEmacs developers, and they don't wait on my
approval any more than I wait on yours.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-19 12:21 ` Richard M. Stallman
@ 2008-08-20 0:01 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2008-08-21 23:09 ` Richard M. Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-08-20 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: lord, hannes, joakim, emacs-devel, ams, acm
Richard M. Stallman writes:
> I will remind you that that was good enough for XEmacs and Qt in your
> opinion.
>
> What opinion are you talking about?
About 4 years ago I asked you about whether it was compatible with the
GPL to distribute an XEmacs with a Qt interface, given that (a) the
X11 version of Qt had been relicensed to GPL, but (b) the Windows
version was still under a non-free license.
You replied that it was compatible if the build system provided no
support for linking Qt on the Windows system, and configure (for
Cygwin) warned that Qt is a nonfree library and therefore not
supported on Windows.
> I do not in general approve of the decisions of the XEmacs
> developers, and they don't wait on my approval any more than I wait
> on yours.
We are unwilling to be dominated by your authority. We do consider
your opinions and expertise, however, and of course the FSF is the
largest rightsholder in XEmacs (my estimate, by lines of code).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Release plans
2008-08-20 0:01 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
@ 2008-08-21 23:09 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-22 0:34 ` whither GNU Thomas Lord
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2008-08-21 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen J. Turnbull; +Cc: lord, hannes, joakim, emacs-devel, ams, acm
About 4 years ago I asked you about whether it was compatible with the
GPL to distribute an XEmacs with a Qt interface, given that (a) the
X11 version of Qt had been relicensed to GPL, but (b) the Windows
version was still under a non-free license.
You replied that it was compatible if the build system provided no
support for linking Qt on the Windows system, and configure (for
Cygwin) warned that Qt is a nonfree library and therefore not
supported on Windows.
That sounds right, but it is a different issue.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* whither GNU
2008-08-21 23:09 ` Richard M. Stallman
@ 2008-08-22 0:34 ` Thomas Lord
2008-08-22 0:17 ` Juanma Barranquero
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-08-22 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: hannes, joakim, emacs-devel, ams, acm, Stephen J. Turnbull
It's interesting how this discussion has laid something bare:
The take away message from RMS' intransigence seems to be
that if you want to make a priority of exercising software freedom
so as to maximize the utility of available free software, you should
not subject yourself to GNU project leadership. That seems
ironic but it shouldn't be a surprise:
The GNU projects, especially central ones like Emacs, do
double duty as "messages" and their role as messages takes
priority over technical quality.
I'm pretty sure that isn't what I signed up for when I
decided that software freedom is the Right Thing but
I guess other people's mileage may vary.
-t
Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> About 4 years ago I asked you about whether it was compatible with the
> GPL to distribute an XEmacs with a Qt interface, given that (a) the
> X11 version of Qt had been relicensed to GPL, but (b) the Windows
> version was still under a non-free license.
>
> You replied that it was compatible if the build system provided no
> support for linking Qt on the Windows system, and configure (for
> Cygwin) warned that Qt is a nonfree library and therefore not
> supported on Windows.
>
> That sounds right, but it is a different issue.
>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: whither GNU
2008-08-22 0:34 ` whither GNU Thomas Lord
@ 2008-08-22 0:17 ` Juanma Barranquero
2008-08-22 3:40 ` David Robinow
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Juanma Barranquero @ 2008-08-22 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Lord
Cc: rms, hannes, joakim, emacs-devel, ams, acm, Stephen J. Turnbull
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 02:34, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> wrote:
> The GNU projects, especially central ones like Emacs, do
> double duty as "messages" and their role as messages takes
> priority over technical quality.
That was pretty evident in the way bzr did get "chosen" as future dVCS
for Emacs.
Juanma
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: whither GNU
2008-08-22 0:17 ` Juanma Barranquero
@ 2008-08-22 3:40 ` David Robinow
2008-08-22 7:36 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-08-22 10:21 ` Juanma Barranquero
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: David Robinow @ 2008-08-22 3:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 02:34, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> wrote:
>> The GNU projects, especially central ones like Emacs, do
>> double duty as "messages" and their role as messages takes
>> priority over technical quality.
>
> That was pretty evident in the way bzr did get "chosen" as future dVCS
> for Emacs.
No, that's a separate issue. Thomas is referring to the (unnecessary)
war against non-free software having preference over the improvement
of free software.
The choice of bzr was perfectly reasonable. Emacs and bzr are part of
the GNU community. The choice has increased the "market share" of bzr
and has already led to improvements.
Are there still problems? I don't know. I haven't used it yet. If you
find any you should file a bug report.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: whither GNU
2008-08-22 3:40 ` David Robinow
@ 2008-08-22 7:36 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-08-23 5:09 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-22 10:21 ` Juanma Barranquero
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-08-22 7:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Robinow; +Cc: emacs-devel
Hi,
"David Robinow" <drobinow@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 02:34, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> wrote:
>>> The GNU projects, especially central ones like Emacs, do
>>> double duty as "messages" and their role as messages takes
>>> priority over technical quality.
>>
>> That was pretty evident in the way bzr did get "chosen" as future dVCS
>> for Emacs.
> No, that's a separate issue. Thomas is referring to the (unnecessary)
> war against non-free software having preference over the improvement
> of free software.
> The choice of bzr was perfectly reasonable. Emacs and bzr are part of
> the GNU community. The choice has increased the "market share" of bzr
> and has already led to improvements.
> Are there still problems? I don't know. I haven't used it yet. If you
> find any you should file a bug report.
Perhaps the devs might not be quite sure about calling it a bug, but
does it count when I say I have never ever checked out the bzr
repository because I just aborted the operation when it still said `I am
working' after almost 15 minutes?
Btw, there is no point for me in filing a bug report. There is a free
program that works way better for me and I am not interested in using
something inferior. I would ponder if the other one was non-free but
this way it's just ridiculous.
Hannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: whither GNU
2008-08-22 3:40 ` David Robinow
2008-08-22 7:36 ` Johannes Weiner
@ 2008-08-22 10:21 ` Juanma Barranquero
2008-08-22 21:31 ` Thomas Lord
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Juanma Barranquero @ 2008-08-22 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Robinow; +Cc: emacs-devel
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 05:40, David Robinow <drobinow@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, that's a separate issue.
I don't think so. I was answering to that specific point: that some
GNU projects do double duty. bzr was chosen as a political statement,
so its role as message took priority over technical quality (its
technical quality, and those of the alternatives).
> Thomas is referring to the (unnecessary)
> war against non-free software having preference over the improvement
> of free software.
I've been reading the thread.
> The choice of bzr was perfectly reasonable. Emacs and bzr are part of
> the GNU community. The choice has increased the "market share" of bzr
> and has already led to improvements.
You're agreeing with Tom: the choice of bzr was "perfectly reasonable"
for political, not technical, reasons.
> Are there still problems? I don't know. I haven't used it yet. If you
> find any you should file a bug report.
I have used it. Perhaps that's why it's a bit more difficult for me to
consider it a perfectly reasonable choice.
(I'm not trying to restart that debate, though; I'm just agreeing with
Tom on a very specific point of his very interesting thoughts).
Juanma
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: whither GNU
2008-08-22 10:21 ` Juanma Barranquero
@ 2008-08-22 21:31 ` Thomas Lord
[not found] ` <858wuoad0u.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-08-22 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juanma Barranquero; +Cc: emacs-devel, David Robinow
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> (I'm not trying to restart that debate, though; I'm just agreeing with
> Tom on a very specific point of his very interesting thoughts).
>
It's "off topic" no matter where you bring it up (which is itself
an interesting fact) but ... yeah ... I have trouble cottoning to
any purported free software movement leadership that comes up
with some theory to explain why and demand that we do our
jobs as software engineers less well, on purpose.
Something is wrong with your political calculus if you manage
to come to that conclusion, in my opinion.
I can imagine doing deliberately less well is the Right Thing
if someone is holding a gun to your head, in some imaginable
circumstances, but as an overall GNU policy? Think harder, RMS.
-t
> Juanma
>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-08-23 5:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <E1KWOCH-0005Vu-Ec@mail.fsf.org>
2008-08-22 4:47 ` whither GNU Jonathan Yavner
2008-08-22 8:15 ` Jonathan Lange
2008-08-12 14:34 Release plans A Soare
2008-08-12 17:14 ` Alan Mackenzie
2008-08-13 6:26 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-13 9:20 ` Alan Mackenzie
2008-08-14 5:19 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-14 8:38 ` Alan Mackenzie
2008-08-14 9:33 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-08-14 9:49 ` Alfred M. Szmidt
2008-08-14 10:04 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-08-15 3:41 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-15 17:20 ` Thomas Lord
2008-08-16 10:39 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-16 12:05 ` joakim
2008-08-17 7:16 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-17 9:32 ` joakim
2008-08-18 6:14 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-18 17:13 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2008-08-19 12:21 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-20 0:01 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2008-08-21 23:09 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-22 0:34 ` whither GNU Thomas Lord
2008-08-22 0:17 ` Juanma Barranquero
2008-08-22 3:40 ` David Robinow
2008-08-22 7:36 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-08-23 5:09 ` Richard M. Stallman
2008-08-22 10:21 ` Juanma Barranquero
2008-08-22 21:31 ` Thomas Lord
[not found] ` <858wuoad0u.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
2008-08-23 4:56 ` Thomas Lord
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.