Meanness

Meanness

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, everybody.

There've been several posts recently on this mailing list that have been
mean.  Personally hurtful, just plain nasty.

We don't need this.  It will not attract new hackers to the project,
might even cause existing ones to give up, and certainly doesn't help
the next release.

Everybody here is adult enough to respect others' views on contentious
topics.  Let's do this.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Meanness

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Everybody here is adult enough to respect others' views on contentious
   topics.  Let's do this.

On cannot respect a view that concedes that doing something immoral
and unethical is right; non-free software is always the wrong way to
do things.

Re: Meanness

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Alfred!

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 07:49:27AM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    Everybody here is adult enough to respect others' views on contentious
>    topics.  Let's do this.

> On cannot respect a view that concedes that doing something immoral and
> unethical is right; non-free software is always the wrong way to do
> things.

There's remarkably little consensus about which things are immoral and
unethical.  It is entirely possible to respect a view with which one
strongly disagrees; such respect promotes fruitful discussion.

But my main point was that some posters had responded to things they
disagreed about by personal attack.  I don't think that has a place here.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Meanness

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >    Everybody here is adult enough to respect others' views on contentious
   >    topics.  Let's do this.

   > On cannot respect a view that concedes that doing something
   > immoral and unethical is right; non-free software is always the
   > wrong way to do things.

   There's remarkably little consensus about which things are immoral
   and unethical.  It is entirely possible to respect a view with
   which one strongly disagrees; such respect promotes fruitful
   discussion.

Making the world a worse place is something one should never respect.

   But my main point was that some posters had responded to things
   they disagreed about by personal attack.  I don't think that has a
   place here.

I did not see any personal attacks; but I agree with that sentiment.

Happy hacking.

Re: Meanness

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:49:27 -0400
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
>    Everybody here is adult enough to respect others' views on contentious
>    topics.  Let's do this.
> 
> On cannot respect a view that concedes that doing something immoral
> and unethical is right; non-free software is always the wrong way to
> do things.

You are exaggerating, and so are others who expressed similarly
extremist views in this dispute.  "Immoral" and "unethical" are very
strong terms that should be reserved for something that either
immediately harms life and happiness of people, or (if the effect is
not immediate) whose long-term harm can be proven or is recognized as
such by a majority.

The idea that a world where everyone has freedom to modify and
redistribute software is a better world, while I (and everyone who
reads this list) agree with it, does not satisfy these criteria.
Therefore, fighting holy wars on its behalf, and in particular
condemning people who use non-free software as unethical, will only
harm the Free Software movement by rejecting those who may for some
reason be unwilling or unable to embrace it 100%.

Let's assume that I have a spouse or an elderly parent who are asking
my help with their PC running a non-free OS: by the above reasoning, I
should divorce my spouse or renounce my parents, rather than helping
them, if for some reason they absolutely won't have me install a free
OS.  If someone thinks a world or a society where this is the norm is
more moral than the one we have now, then we probably have two very
different notions of what is moral.  If someone thinks I'm unethical
because helping people is more important for me than converting them
to my beliefs, then that someone's ethics is quite different from
mine.

We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.  Let's not put that goal
in jeopardy by emphasizing minor (yes, minor!) differences between us
on how soon and how completely should each private citizen switch to
using Free Software and Free Software alone.

Re: Meanness

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 17:16, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> You are exaggerating, and so are others who expressed similarly
> extremist views in this dispute.

[...]

> We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.  Let's not put that goal
> in jeopardy by emphasizing minor (yes, minor!) differences between us
> on how soon and how completely should each private citizen switch to
> using Free Software and Free Software alone.

100% agreement.

   Juanma

Re: Meanness

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Let's assume that I have a spouse or an elderly parent who are asking
> my help with their PC running a non-free OS: by the above reasoning, I
> should divorce my spouse or renounce my parents, rather than helping
> them, if for some reason they absolutely won't have me install a free
> OS.

Both my elderly parents are running GNU/Linux systems, and my father is
actually using Emacs.  Anyway, I don't need to divorce a spouse or
renounce a parent if they choose to use a system for which I am not
willing or able to do support.  It just means that they are on their own
with it, nothing more, nothing less.

And frankly, my abilities for support on a machine where I can't use ssh
for remote access would be quite limited, anyway.

> We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.

Emacs is not improved for me by Windows-only features.  And I am not
going to blow out US$200 and/or agree to a contract yielding Microsoft
total control over my computer just to use Emacs.  So if your goal is to
improve Emacs on Windows, I don't see that this is a goal you would have
in common with me.

> Let's not put that goal in jeopardy by emphasizing minor (yes, minor!)
> differences between us on how soon and how completely should each
> private citizen switch to using Free Software and Free Software alone.

That never was the issue.  The issue is more like what we have to gain
by having more and more software developers distracted by spending much
of their time working on supporting non-free platforms or dealing with
the consequences of such support.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Meanness

[David Kastrup]

"Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 17:16, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> You are exaggerating, and so are others who expressed similarly
>> extremist views in this dispute.
>
> [...]
>
>> We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.  Let's not put that goal
>> in jeopardy by emphasizing minor (yes, minor!) differences between us
>> on how soon and how completely should each private citizen switch to
>> using Free Software and Free Software alone.
>
> 100% agreement.

Agreement with strawmen is always easy.  The issue is not what software
other people should be using, but rather what software the GNU project
should be working on and support.  Improving "Emacs on Windows" is not
the same as improving Emacs because Emacs is targeted as a component of
the GNU system.  Supporting Emacs on Windows is at best orthogonal to
that goal.

I am tired of having all sorts of silly insinuations ascribed to me in
order to have people "win" their arguments.

We are in disagreement over the relative merit of having Emacs run on
Windows.  I don't see why this can only be considered tolerable when one
can prove me to be a blabbering idiot.

So feel free to disagree with me if you are so inclined, but please
refrain from putting nonsense in my mouth.  If you can't justify your
views before yourself and others without resorting to such measures,
this should make you think.

Thanks,

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Meanness

[Óscar Fuentes]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

[snip]

Well said, Eli.

I've told my experience on how having Emacs on Windows advertises Free
Software and pushes me towards GNU/Linux, and some people responds
ignoring the positive contribution to their cause that my message shows
and just wishes I loose my work because it is unethical. This is very
worrying, as is very similar to the behavior of those who profess
fanaticism, which is a real disgrace for Humanity. So I humbly propose
that before trying to fix the world, one should try to fix himself. And
this is my very personal stance, as I don't pretend to have moral
superiority.

More open hands and less finger pointing, please.

-- 
Oscar

Re: Meanness

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 17:51, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> I am tired of having all sorts of silly insinuations ascribed to me in
> order to have people "win" their arguments.
>
> We are in disagreement over the relative merit of having Emacs run on
> Windows.  I don't see why this can only be considered tolerable when one
> can prove me to be a blabbering idiot.
>
> So feel free to disagree with me if you are so inclined, but please
> refrain from putting nonsense in my mouth.  If you can't justify your
> views before yourself and others without resorting to such measures,
> this should make you think.

Color me puzzled. I agree with what Eli said in response to Alfred M.
Szmidt. I particularly agree with this bit I quoted:

> We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.  Let's not put that goal
> in jeopardy by emphasizing minor (yes, minor!) differences between us
> on how soon and how completely should each private citizen switch to
> using Free Software and Free Software alone.

I fail to see how that means that I try to "prove [you] a blabbering
idiot", that I "[put] nonsense in [your] mouth" or that I adscribe to
you "silly insinuations".

Honestly, we've had differences before, but this time I don't know
what you're talking about.

   Juanma

Re: Meanness

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.  

And the goal of Emacs is to improve the GNU operating system, and not
non-free operating systems.

Re: Meanness

[David Kastrup]

Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> Well said, Eli.
>
> I've told my experience on how having Emacs on Windows advertises Free
> Software and pushes me towards GNU/Linux, and some people responds
> ignoring the positive contribution to their cause that my message
> shows and just wishes I loose my work because it is unethical. This is
> very worrying, as is very similar to the behavior of those who profess
> fanaticism, which is a real disgrace for Humanity. So I humbly propose
> that before trying to fix the world, one should try to fix
> himself. And this is my very personal stance, as I don't pretend to
> have moral superiority.

In contrast to my pretensions.  You forgot to mention that I murder baby
seals.  Or is this already implied by me being a real disgrace for
humanity who should get himself fixed?

> More open hands and less finger pointing, please.

Do you _really_ need to stoop to that level because you can't accept
that my cost/benefit analysis comes to a different conclusion than
yours?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Meanness

[Chong Yidong]

We're just going in circles now.  Everyone has had their say; let's stop
wasting time and effort on this thread.

In other words: stop posting about this!

Re: Meanness

[David Kastrup]

"Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 17:51, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> I am tired of having all sorts of silly insinuations ascribed to me in
>> order to have people "win" their arguments.
>>
>> We are in disagreement over the relative merit of having Emacs run on
>> Windows.  I don't see why this can only be considered tolerable when one
>> can prove me to be a blabbering idiot.
>>
>> So feel free to disagree with me if you are so inclined, but please
>> refrain from putting nonsense in my mouth.  If you can't justify your
>> views before yourself and others without resorting to such measures,
>> this should make you think.
>
> Color me puzzled. I agree with what Eli said in response to Alfred M.
> Szmidt.

I am one of those "others who expressed similarly extremist views in
this dispute".

> I particularly agree with this bit I quoted:
>
>> We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.  Let's not put that goal
>> in jeopardy by emphasizing minor (yes, minor!) differences between us
>> on how soon and how completely should each private citizen switch to
>> using Free Software and Free Software alone.
>
> I fail to see how that means that I try to "prove [you] a blabbering
> idiot",

So why are you agreeing that my extremist views in this dispute try to
control "how soon and how completely should each private citizen switch
ti using Free Software and Free Software alone"?

> that I "[put] nonsense in [your] mouth" or that I adscribe to you
> "silly insinuations".
>
> Honestly, we've had differences before, but this time I don't know
> what you're talking about.

Then please identify the extremists that you think Eli is talking about,
and explain in which postings they try to mandate taking control over
private citizens' software use.

And I am not talking about buzzphrases from the peanut gallery (you can
get those a dime a dozen for every point of view).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Meanness

[David Kastrup]

Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:

> We're just going in circles now.  Everyone has had their say; let's
> stop wasting time and effort on this thread.
>
> In other words: stop posting about this!

That's what I have been proposing in my last six posts or so.  I just
have not been willing to have people twist the words around in what say
I have had.

But it would appear that I just have to live with that.  It would not
appear like I have a choice.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Meanness

[Eli Zaretskii]

> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:16:18 -0400
> 
>    We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.  
> 
> And the goal of Emacs is to improve the GNU operating system, and not
> non-free operating systems.

As long as Emacs is not sold to Microsoft nor bundled with it out of
the box, no one can claim that I'm improving non-free operating
systems.

Re: Meanness

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:30:10 +0200
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> I am one of those "others who expressed similarly extremist views in
> this dispute".

If you say so.  No one else did.

Re: Meanness

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:37:20 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> if [my parents or spouse] choose to use a system for which I am not
> willing or able to do support.  It just means that they are on their own
> with it, nothing more, nothing less.

Shouldn't you argue with them and condemn them as being unethical and
immoral?

If not, why won't you leave me and Juanma ``on our own''?

> And frankly, my abilities for support on a machine where I can't use ssh
> for remote access would be quite limited, anyway.

You can install ssh on Windows.  And Windows has its built-in ways of
remote access out of the box.  Though I can hardly believe that this
piece of technical knowledge will change your views, so I wonder why
you raise this issue at all.

> So if your goal is to improve Emacs on Windows

I said the goal is improving Emacs.  All the rest is your invention.

> > Let's not put that goal in jeopardy by emphasizing minor (yes, minor!)
> > differences between us on how soon and how completely should each
> > private citizen switch to using Free Software and Free Software alone.
> 
> That never was the issue.  The issue is more like what we have to gain
> by having more and more software developers distracted by spending much
> of their time working on supporting non-free platforms or dealing with
> the consequences of such support.

Please do yourself a favor and stop caring about how others spend
their time.  You have little if any control of that; in my experience
it's better to be grateful for whatever time they find to contribute
to goals that I consider worthy.

And while at that, how about spending all the effort and time taken by
responding to each and every article in this discussion on hacking
Emacs?

Re: Meanness

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 18:30, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> So why are you agreeing that my extremist views in this dispute try to
> control "how soon and how completely should each private citizen switch
> ti using Free Software and Free Software alone"?

No.

> Then please identify the extremists that you think Eli is talking about,
> and explain in which postings they try to mandate taking control over
> private citizens' software use.

I'm not going to put words in Eli's mouth.

But yes, I would call extremist to anyone who thinks that Eli, or
Jason, or Lennart, or myself, are unethical for using non-free
software, for working on non-free software environments, or for
"wasting" our time trying to help people to use free software on those
non-free environments. That is a pretty extreme worldview. If you
agree with that viewpoint (I think so, but I'm not sure and I don't
have the time right now to reread the whole thread, so excuse me if
I'm misinterpreting you) you're an extremist IMO. That's not the same
that thinking you're an idiot, blabbering or otherwise. I do not think
so.

  Juanma

Re: Meanness

[Óscar Fuentes]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

[snip]

> In contrast to my pretensions.  You forgot to mention that I murder baby
> seals.  Or is this already implied by me being a real disgrace for
> humanity who should get himself fixed?

Please stop this victimising nonsense. I'm talking about attitudes, not
actions.

>> More open hands and less finger pointing, please.
>
> Do you _really_ need to stoop to that level because you can't accept
> that my cost/benefit analysis comes to a different conclusion than
> yours?

The matter here is that you make difficult to discuss your analysis,
because you didn't show it clearly. There are only vagueness about Emacs
hackers being distracted by the Windows port (maybe they are free to
decide what they do with their time?) and NT Emacs being a deterrent for
going the GNU/Linux route (of course, if they were using Visual Studio
it would be much easier the transition to Emacs+Makefiles on GNU/Linux
<g>).

Seriously, what Richard said about NT Emacs being an inconvenient for
transitioning to GNU/Linux seems absurd to me, because my experience
(and my sometimes faulty logic) says the contrary. I don't dispute that
*some* shops may be comfortable enough on Windows thanks to Free
software, but I dispute that Windows ports of Free Software actually are
stopping GNU/Linux adoption on most cases.

Thanks to the plethora of quality Free software available on Windows,
the transition to GNU/Linux was almost a non-issue for me. Perhaps more
important, those tools demonstrate to Windows people that the FS
philosophy may produce good software. Being acquainted with the FS
philosophy itself is just a consequence of this perception. You want to
preach to the infidels, not to the choir, and GNU software on Windows is
preaching loud.

That you dispute this puzzles me to no end, so if you are so kind of
stating your counter-arguments or facts proving me wrong, I'll be glad
to listen.

-- 
Oscar

Re: Meanness

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Cc: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:51:11 +0200
> 
> The issue is not what software other people should be using, but
> rather what software the GNU project should be working on and
> support.

I am a volunteer working on several GNU projects on my own free time.
As long as the GNU Project is happy with my contributions, so am I.
But while I don't request any special gratitude for my contributions,
neither do I expect to be judged, morally or ethically, by those who
receive these contributions.  If the GNU Project wants my
contributions, it will have to accept the fact that I'm a package deal
(like everybody else): my contributions come together with my views
and with the platforms on which I work (which include GNU/Linux, btw).

> Improving "Emacs on Windows" is not the same as improving
> Emacs because Emacs is targeted as a component of the GNU system.

Most of my contributions improved Emacs on all platforms.

> Supporting Emacs on Windows is at best orthogonal to that goal.

No, it is but one way of improving Emacs, so it's more close to being
collinear than to orthogonal.

Re: Meanness

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>
>> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:16:18 -0400
>> 
>>    We have a common goal here: improving Emacs.  
>> 
>> And the goal of Emacs is to improve the GNU operating system, and not
>> non-free operating systems.
>
> As long as Emacs is not sold to Microsoft nor bundled with it out of
> the box, no one can claim that I'm improving non-free operating
> systems.

Does that mean that you would not work on supporting Bash on Windows
since a Bash port has been sold to Microsoft by Interix and is being
distributed by Microsoft as part of SFU (Services for Unix)?  The same
appears to hold for GNU file and text utilities, and certainly for the
"GNU SDK" including GCC.

But that's missing the point.  Of course free software will also get
used and employed on proprietary systems.  It is one consequence of
their freedom.  The question was whether we should make it _our_ focus,
the focus of the GNU project.  Opinions differ.  But whether this
warrants the Guy Fawkes festival of strawmen burning we have seen in
response, I doubt.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Meanness

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:

> As a component, one requirement is that it have excellent "fit"
> (aka "coupling") with other parts of a GNU system.   Making
> Emacs work really well on today's GNU/Linux systems is
> probably the best way to force improvements to its coupling.
>
> However:
>
> As a *component*, especially one of such central, low-level
> importance, Emacs should also have excellent "orthogonality and
> self-containment" (aka "cohesion").  It should fit well with a larger
> GNU system but it should, internally, be flexible, self-contained,
> based on good abstractions, etc.  It should fit GNU but it shouldn't
> be overly "intertwingled" with GNU.

Why?

> The best way to force improvements to cohesion is by "porting" and
> using the component in comparable but substantially different
> environments.  Windows is such.

No.  Windows is not comparable.  Various Unix variants are.  There is
nothing to be gained for Emacs on GNU/Linux by having to support file
systems which use backslashes instead of slashes and have drive letters.
Such things require creating artificial splicings of code and
pseudo-abstractions and APIs which make code less straightforward to
read and write.

That is a cost, not a benefit.

> Two simple examples: fonts and colors.  If the abstractions at the
> Emacs lisp level for fonts and colors are agnostic with respect to GNU
> vs. Windows and are effective on both, *that improves the quality of
> the Emacs component on GNU systems* by shaking out any needless
> intertwingling with X11 abstractions.

Uh no, it doesn't.  Gdk (and Gtk) provide efficient color map and image
handling.  Emacs doesn't.  It is quite worse, and that's exactly because
of being reduced to lowest denominator handling and corresponding
interfaces.  Gtk/Pango provides right-to-left typesetting and
internationalization.  Emacs doesn't.  The list goes on and on.

I am well aware that there are cost/benefit weighings involved.  That's
fine.  But declaring the costs to be benefits is not a basis for
planning.

> Doing it well, though, should improve emacs *on GNU* in ways that
> almost no other plausible activity can do.

My experience with Windows-too projects runs quite contrary.  The costs
are in _no_ relation whatsoever to the benefits for the non-Windows
parts (actually, their tend to be only costs for them, without
benefits).  And I don't see Emacs as an exception.  The benefit for a
Windows port lies in having a Windows port.  If there were tangible
other benefits, we could invent imaginary operating systems en gros and
spend our time porting to them.

Can we please _stop_ this silliness?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Meanness

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Cc: ams@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:01:11 +0200
> 
> > As long as Emacs is not sold to Microsoft nor bundled with it out of
> > the box, no one can claim that I'm improving non-free operating
> > systems.
> 
> Does that mean that you would not work on supporting Bash on Windows
> since a Bash port has been sold to Microsoft by Interix and is being
> distributed by Microsoft as part of SFU (Services for Unix)?  The same
> appears to hold for GNU file and text utilities, and certainly for the
> "GNU SDK" including GCC.

If working on these tools is okay for their GNU maintainers, it's
probably okay for me as well.

> But that's missing the point.  Of course free software will also get
> used and employed on proprietary systems.  It is one consequence of
> their freedom.  The question was whether we should make it _our_ focus,
> the focus of the GNU project.

You are missing the point.  _My_ focus is making _my_ life easier on
all the platforms on which I need to work.  Because I like others
benefit from what I'm doing, I contribute that to the GNU Project.  I
think that helps the GNU Project move forward, and I have numerous
proofs that GNU maintainers indeed think so, because some of them
actually told me so in person, even though they knew exactly what
platforms I work on.

No one said that the GNU Project should actively try to win the
Windows applications niche.  But there's a world of difference between
that and publicly bashing contributors who happen to work on Windows
or other non-free platforms most of their workdays.

Re: Meanness

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>,  Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:21:31 +0200
> 
> > The best way to force improvements to cohesion is by "porting" and
> > using the component in comparable but substantially different
> > environments.  Windows is such.
> 
> No.  Windows is not comparable.  Various Unix variants are.  There is
> nothing to be gained for Emacs on GNU/Linux by having to support file
> systems which use backslashes instead of slashes and have drive letters.

Wrong.  The gain is to have abstractions like IS_DIRECTORY_SEP and
IS_ABSOLUTE_FILE_NAME, instead of testing for literal characters.  The
gain is to realize that file names are not simple strings and cannot
be compared for equality with strcmp and its ilk.  Such abstractions
will serve us well when we get to supporting Unicode file names where
normalization prevents simple string comparison.

> Such things require creating artificial splicings of code and
> pseudo-abstractions and APIs which make code less straightforward to
> read and write.

Yeah, and C++ abstractions make code less straightforward to read and
write that C or assembly.  Get real!

> > Two simple examples: fonts and colors.  If the abstractions at the
> > Emacs lisp level for fonts and colors are agnostic with respect to GNU
> > vs. Windows and are effective on both, *that improves the quality of
> > the Emacs component on GNU systems* by shaking out any needless
> > intertwingling with X11 abstractions.
> 
> Uh no, it doesn't.  Gdk (and Gtk) provide efficient color map and image
> handling.  Emacs doesn't.  It is quite worse, and that's exactly because
> of being reduced to lowest denominator handling and corresponding
> interfaces.

Wrong again: Emacs has text terminal color support that was lifted
almost verbatim from the code written for the DOS port.  The DOS code
was written by implementing the abstract interface of Xlib.

> Gtk/Pango provides right-to-left typesetting and
> internationalization.  Emacs doesn't.

Irrelevant: Emacs cannot use Pango because it doesn't fit well the
Emacs display engine, which walks the buffer one character at a time.

> > Doing it well, though, should improve emacs *on GNU* in ways that
> > almost no other plausible activity can do.
> 
> My experience with Windows-too projects runs quite contrary.

That is your experience.  Mine is different.

> Can we please _stop_ this silliness?

Stop responding, if you want this to stop.

Re: Meanness

[Thomas Lord]

David Kastrup wrote:
>  Improving "Emacs on Windows" is not
> the same as improving Emacs because Emacs is targeted as a component of
> the GNU system.  Supporting Emacs on Windows is at best orthogonal to
> that goal.
>   

I dunno about that (about "at best orthogonal to that goal").

Emacs is supposed to be a *component*, I agree.

As a component, one requirement is that it have excellent "fit"
(aka "coupling") with other parts of a GNU system.   Making
Emacs work really well on today's GNU/Linux systems is
probably the best way to force improvements to its coupling.

However:

As a *component*, especially one of such central, low-level importance,
Emacs should also have excellent "orthogonality and self-containment"
(aka "cohesion").    It should fit well with a larger GNU system but
it should, internally, be flexible, self-contained, based on good 
abstractions,
etc.   It should fit GNU but it shouldn't be overly "intertwingled" with 
GNU.

The best way to force improvements to cohesion is by "porting" and using
the component in comparable but substantially different environments.
Windows is such.    There aren't a lot of others to pick from.   That so
many, including many who certainly do support free software can benefit
from Emacs on Windows is just icing on the cake.

Two simple examples: fonts and colors.   If the abstractions at the Emacs
lisp level for fonts and colors are agnostic with respect to GNU vs. Windows
and are effective on both, *that improves the quality of the Emacs component
on GNU systems* by shaking out any needless intertwingling with X11
abstractions.   That, in turn, makes it easier in the future (if need or 
desire
be) to try some other window system besides X11 on GNU.   It's easier
because programs like Emacs are already very clean *components*.

Don't get me wrong.   Maintaining the Windows port *poorly* can do
at least as much harm as good -- turning Emacs into a tangle of
new #ifdefs, turning Emacs lisp into a language that works differently
on different platforms, leading to *two* build systems instead of one, etc.

Doing it well, though, should improve emacs *on GNU* in ways that
almost no other plausible activity can do.

-t




>   

Re: Meanness

[Stefan Monnier]

> Everybody here is adult enough to respect others' views on contentious
> topics.  Let's do this.

Yes, please.  A good first step is to avoid discussing contentious issues
not directly related to Emacs.


        Stefan

Re: Meanness

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Stop responding, if you want this to stop.

Ok, I'm off.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Meanness

[Richard M Stallman]

    Let's assume that I have a spouse or an elderly parent who are asking
    my help with their PC running a non-free OS: by the above reasoning, I
    should divorce my spouse or renounce my parents, rather than helping
    them, if for some reason they absolutely won't have me install a free
    OS.

If you love people, you should refuse to help them use non-free
software, because using non-free software is wrong.  There is no
need to stop loving them.

Re: Meanness

[Richard M Stallman]

    So I humbly propose
    that before trying to fix the world, one should try to fix himself.

That seems to propose that only someone who is perfect should try to
end the world's injustices.  Since no one is perfect, no one will do
so.  It sounds wise, but really it is just quietism.

The people I admire didn't follow that advice.
GNU exists because I didn't either.

Re: Meanness

[Richard M Stallman]

    And the goal of Emacs is to improve the GNU operating system, and not
    non-free operating systems.

Exactly.  GNU Emacs is part of a larger project, the GNU system, whose
goal is to make software free.

Eli wrote:

    As long as Emacs is not sold to Microsoft nor bundled with it out of
    the box, no one can claim that I'm improving non-free operating
    systems.

In a very literal sense, no.  But it does make the non-free operating
system more usable, and that goes directly against the goal of making
GNU superior to Windows.

This is not the only factor in the decision, but it is a factor
that we must not forget.

David wrote:

    But that's missing the point.  Of course free software will also get
    used and employed on proprietary systems.  It is one consequence of
    their freedom.  The question was whether we should make it _our_ focus,
    the focus of the GNU project.

Exactly.  And our decision is that we don't.

Re: Meanness

[Daniel Colascione]

On Saturday 26 July 2008, David Kastrup wrote:
> My experience with Windows-too projects runs quite contrary.  The costs
> are in _no_ relation whatsoever to the benefits for the non-Windows
> parts (actually, their tend to be only costs for them, without
> benefits).  And I don't see Emacs as an exception.  The benefit for a
> Windows port lies in having a Windows port.  If there were tangible
> other benefits, we could invent imaginary operating systems en gros and
> spend our time porting to them.

I know several people who began using Free Software systems because they first 
used Emacs on Windows, moved to Cygwin, and eventually to entirely free 
operating systems.