From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs vista build failures Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:11:10 +0200 Message-ID: <8563qs529d.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <4884CFEF.8040404@gmail.com> <48861A51.1090401@gmail.com> <20080724080727.GA3448@muc.de> <863alzd1mi.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <20080726080304.GA1419@muc.de> <85myk53u86.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <20080726102948.GD1419@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217070798 18986 80.91.229.12 (26 Jul 2008 11:13:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:13:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 26 13:14:07 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 1KMhiv-00005d-Kd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:14:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47966 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KMhi1-0005ea-Lv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:13:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KMhgL-0004k9-1K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:11:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KMhgK-0004jH-Es for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:11:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51898 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KMhgK-0004j7-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:11:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-12.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.52]:41851) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KMhg9-00084T-Az; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:11:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-08-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-08-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.20]) by mail-in-12.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C784C357; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:11:11 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-14.arcor-online.net (mail-in-14.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.54]) by mail-in-08-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A58021304C; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:11:11 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-019-167.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.19.167]) by mail-in-14.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCAB187A3C; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:11:10 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 790871C4CCF2; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:11:10 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20080726102948.GD1419@muc.de> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:29:48 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/7830/Sat Jul 26 11:50:26 2008 on mail-in-14.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:101518 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:50:01AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie writes: > >> > Morning, everybody! > >> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 05:20:16PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> >> > > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs >> >> > > and Firefox running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an >> >> > > unequivocal yes - people who hack on MS-Windows can thus >> >> > > do a better job. > >> > [David K:] >> >> > But their job does not in general benefit others. > >> > Hmm. What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users? > >> What of it? > > It refutes your contention "their job does not in general benefit > others". How so? What about "in general" has been unclear to you? If they write software that runs only on non-free system, what's the benefit for free software? >> > [David K:] >> >> > So we are creating better opportunities for work that does not >> >> > help the community. > >> > "The" community. That of Free Software is merely one of many >> > interlocking and interdependent communities. > >> It is the one the GNU project cares about. > > Along, hopefully, with the one that grows its food, the one that > generates and supplies its electricity, the one the designs and builds > cheap hardware, the ones that enable easy travel, the one that sends > in the sand bags when the Elba floods, ...... There is nothing to be gained by putting the cart before the horse and confusing the means to an end with the end itself, to the degree of abandoning the end in order to run after the means. >> > My view, already expressed, is that we have a moral imperative to >> > contribute towards the wellbeing of the world, not just our own >> > restricted subset of it. > >> It is not restricted. Anybody who cares can be a part of it. We are >> no longer in the situation that you have to run free software off >> unfree operating systems. We don't have a moral imperative to help >> those who refuse to be helped. That's a waste of resources. > > I disagree wholeheartedly with the semantic shift, the sentiment and > the characterisation. You are free to your disagreement, but that does not mean that I should be kept from uttering my opinion. >> > My impression is that a substantial minority, possibly even a >> > majority, of Emacs users run on this particular non-free OS, and >> > that the cost of supporting them is low by comparison. > >> The cost is that they don't care about using or improving free >> systems. > > Again, not true. Many Emacs users on MS-Windows use Emacs, submit bug > reports and some even hack elisp. Emacs is a free program, not a free system. And I doubt that people preferring to use Emacs on Windows do that because they want to use a free system, but rather because they want to use Emacs. > This will often be the case. Other times, Windows will be merely a > platform for developing portable software or embedded software. The > ethos of free software is that its creators do not constrain what its > users may do with it, even if that aim is writing non-free software. But the ethos is not that its creators need to applaud or help the users writing non-free software. So I don't see that you are doing anything for free software by attacking my opinion. > I believe that people are best persuaded to use free software by > seeing how good it is. That is the stance of the Open Source proponents. One can't see "how good" free software is if it does not yet exist or is technically inferior. The principal value of free software is not one of technical excellence, but that nobody can take it away from you against your will or capability. And if you take a look at the current Windows licenses, Microsoft explicitly reserves the right to remotely destroy your computer and software if they think it desirable for pressing DRM or other features. So even if you don't count in the problem of not being able to work against obsolescence of a platform (for a free operating system, you can still find people working on it), Microsoft is free to stop your copy of Emacs from working even on an existing system. > The only context an MS-Windows user is going to see free software in > is on MS-Windows. That's his problem. > Firefox and Emacs are prime examples. I don't believe people will > switch operating systems in order to use free application software - > they will switch after seeing how good free software is. I think you > are of the opposite opinion, and I can accept that. Please don't put words into my mouth. I am of the opinion that we leave people without a reason to switch to free operating systems if we let ourselves be distracted into spending all our efforts in making software run on non-free operating systems rather than improving them on free operating systems. I know that in the proprietary company I work, we abandoned supporting our software on Windows because the cost, in contrast to expectations, turned out to be prohibitely high. I am not convinced that the net payoff for Emacs on free systems is positive, and I don't see that browbeating me to claim otherwise is going to change the situation underlying my beliefs. So why bother? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum