Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server

[Russell Adams <RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.Com>]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 01:08:47AM +0800, TEC wrote:
>
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
>
> > [LSP is a evil plot from microsoft]
>
> I can see that you're overly concerned about Microsoft being able to
> somehow exert control over this. It may assuage your concerns to see an
> example "technology stack" that Org-LSP could fit into.

REST API calls to a remote server as a core part of editing text in
your editor isn't concerning? How remote? How would you know? If they
use HTTPS could you even see what is sent?

> Microsoft has provided a /standard/ that a huge number of editors/IDEs
> have adopted with /independent implementations/. At this point there is
> /nothing/ M$ could do to interfere with how the above works.

Microsoft doesn't make standards that it can't corrupt or take
advantage of. See LDAP/AD, HTML extensions, programming language
extensions that makes their solutions incompatible with standards.

> You seem to be focusing on the term "server" in the name. This seems to
> be a red herring in this case. In LSP the server is analogous to "emacs
> --daemon" and the client to "emacsclient".

REST = web server. Using to make JSON requests over what you are
editing and your editor requiring the ability to send/receive to a
potential remote web server is a valid concern.

Emacs daemon is a local socket interface (by default) for
communication between processes on the same box.

> I appreciate your concerns Jean, and am aware of Microsoft's history,
> however I do not believe there is any factual basis for your conclusions
> in this instance.

Tainted, definitions quoted from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/tainted

 - To affect or associate with something undesirable or reprehensible:
    a reputation that was tainted by allegations of illegal activity.

 - An undesirable or corrupting influence or association: wanted to
    avoid the taint of an accounting scandal.

This is the point. Given Microsoft's shameful history, any project
they are supporting is *tainted* by their corrupting influence and
association. That LSP is pushed by MS makes it undesirable due to
their reputation. That Github is now owned by MS makes it tainted by
their reputation.

Companies, just like individuals should be judged by their actions.
Microsoft's well earned poor reputation is sufficient reason to
exclude them from any open source effort.

I must conclude that MS is supporting LSP because they believe it will
increase market share for their proprietary editors. This is due to
their reputation and historic behavior. Thus I have no desire to
support LSP and thus not support MS indirectly.

You might be tired of this kind of debate, but imagine how those of us
who have been in IT for 20 or 30 years are tired of being told that
the abuse we have repeatedly endured from MS is somehow no longer
relevant. That somehow we're wrong to point out we have suffered abuse
from a technology monopoly, and that we are weary and intolerant of
those enabling it (ie: govts, CIOs, end users with fancy toys).

------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com

PGP Key ID:     0x1160DCB3           http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/

Fingerprint:    1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F  66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3