Re: [ELPA] New package: kixtart-mode

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 23:18:26 -0500
> 
> Our general policy makes a subtle distinction between these two cases:
> 
> 1. If a nonfree program FOO is not well known, we don't even mention that
> it exists.  Because we don't want to promote using FOO.
> 
> 2. If a nonfree program FOO is well known and widely used, something to
> help and encourage FOO's users to use some GNU packages along with FOO
> is good.
> 
> 3. Anything that would encourage the existing users of some GNU packages
> to use FOO with them is bad.
> 
> Is SickStart the main scripting language for Windows now?

No.

> BUT, it is a bad thing if people use SickStart to write scripts
> that they could have written in a free scripting language.

There are no scripting languages for MS-Windows that are Free
Software, AFAIK.

> Is there anything we can do to urge people to use Perl or Python
> or Bash instead of SickStart?

These are not native Windows scripting languages, and so are either
unable to access advanced Windows features, or require a lot of
additional non-default setup for doing so (and even after that they
are unable to access some of those advanced features).

> Why would someone, on Windows, use SickStart rather than those other
> scripting packages?  Does it have some major advantage, for use on
> Windows?

Yes, it has many advantages.  (I don't use it, but I've skimmed the
manual.)

> Or is it that Microsoft is going to tell everyone that "SickStart is
> the scripting language for Windows!

KiXtart isn't a Microsoft product, AFAICT.

> Maybe we can come up with a way to encourage people to choose some
> free and portable scripting language, even when using Windows.

One would have to be written first.