From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: grischka Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: redisplay system of emacs Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:37:37 +0100 Message-ID: <4B6C6571.8090804@gmx.de> References: <4B633B7C.8030700@gmx.de> <873a1nvlki.fsf@gmail.com> <4B65B180.5010202@gmx.de> <87ock8pb21.fsf@xemacs.org> <874olzowzq.fsf@xemacs.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1265395160 4977 80.91.229.12 (5 Feb 2010 18:39:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , stephen@xemacs.org, paul.r.ml@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 05 19:39:16 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NdT54-0001eC-4B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:39:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49927 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NdT53-00012b-Gt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:39:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NdT4L-0000NL-Vy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:38:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57453 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NdT4L-0000Mj-E1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:38:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NdT4H-0005kl-P4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:38:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:40490) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NdT4G-0005jx-Gb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:38:13 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Feb 2010 18:38:08 -0000 Original-Received: from 1Cust226.tnt5.ber2.deu.da.uu.net (EHLO [149.225.86.226]) [149.225.86.226] by mail.gmx.net (mp061) with SMTP; 05 Feb 2010 19:38:08 +0100 X-Authenticated: #18588216 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+NKJYXr7aNLHbdGXpLjYBJ0RndFjwYgtKqF8qonM 2a0HzlTe/g9JJW User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.77000000000000002 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:120949 Archived-At: Richard Stallman wrote: > Then, it would be more reasonable to spend time and energy discussing > why or how do we try to make it more ethical, instead of alienating > people by confusing the terminology, which is both already in place, > and correct. > > To influence people we need to present arguments, and we do. We also > need to choose our words to frame the issues in the right way, and we > do that too. > > "Ecosystem" frames the issue according to an outlook that disagrees > with ours, so we don't use it. The fact that other people use it is > no reason we should. Perhaps they disagree with our basic outlook. > They have a right to their views, but it makes no sense for us to use > terms which promote their outlook. > You may have noticed that nowadays the term "ecosystem" covers very well the "ideas of ethical responsibility" as enumerated at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Ecosystem It is true however that we need to carefully avoid cheap biological and evolutionary analogies. In any case, it is a total mystery to me how you wanted to stop your fellow software people to extend their native thinking in terms of systems onto non-technical areas, eventually. If that is not your outlook, what is your outlook then? How do you suppose to promote freedom with software if not in terms of its nature, that is defining systems? --- grischka