From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:39:16 +0900 Message-ID: <871w0dcg6j.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> <87ljyv5gy5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818101802.GA2615@muc.de> <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818210927.GD2615@muc.de> <87wsidnxqp.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080819155221.GA11524@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219675907 27293 80.91.229.12 (25 Aug 2008 14:51:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:51:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 25 16:52:39 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 1KXdIn-00044s-OA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:44:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39942 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXdHF-0001dY-DI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:42:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXdDd-0004uA-Hv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:38:57 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXdDa-0004q7-R1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:38:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53060 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXdDa-0004pX-7L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:38:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:57808) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KXdDQ-0006jp-4V; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:38:44 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B8C8007; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:38:41 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E0E3E1A25C3; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:39:16 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <20080819155221.GA11524@muc.de> X-Mailer: VM ?bug? under XEmacs 21.5.21 (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:102937 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > What, exactly, are we getting so worked up about, then? Well, I've been perplexed by the "no dynamic loading" policy for about a decade now. I know that Richard is not going to give an answer except that he's fearful, uncertain, and doubtful about dynamic loading, and so has decided to avoid it. I was hoping you might provide some insight, but you're giving me the same line. I'm very frustrated by that. > Right. So do you agree the present issue is a matter of analysis and > judgement, weighing up risks and benefits? Of course I do. I see small benefits (measured in terms of freedom, as I understand it) and much smaller risks (ditto). That's precisely what I've been arguing all along, but you and Richard assert that *any* risk is too large. > > No. I understand your point. "Introducing a module loader could > > cause Emacs to become non-free." That's scary. > > Again, non-free "for whom?". If you'ld've made specific reference to > people who couldn't or wouldn't take action against non-free add ons > themselves, I'd accept you'd understood my point. I don't think there are *any* people who *couldn't* take action[1], and I don't understand why "wouldn't" is a problem in the context of freedom. There are two kinds of people who wouldn't, those who have considered the consequences and decided they don't care, and those who just don't care. Either way, why isn't it their place to decide, and our place to provide them with the information they need to make informed judgments? And I still don't see how they "lose" freedom or Emacs becomes unfree. In the first place, they *gain* capabilities that they did not have before. True, those capabilities do not come with the four freedoms attached, but what have they "lost"? In the second, Emacs itself is still free, the users have the four freedoms with respect to it. > > > and only allowing signed (by MS) Lisp libraries to be loaded. > > > Again, the technical difficulties of accomplishing this in GNU Emacs > > are enormous. > > Really? A few defadvices in the right (wrong?) place would do the trick. (ad-stop-advice) It really is not that easy. And yes, since it's supposed to be a security feature, you do have to deal with savvy users like me who would be able to handle a defadvice of ad-stop-advice. The whole thing would get blown out of the water with a million CERT reports. > > Remember, GNU Emacs's security features were designed by the guy who > > posted his password for somebody else's system in a public place. > > What was somebody saying about ad hominem attacks not all that long ago? It's not really an ad hominem. It's an *allusion*, to the fact that *by design* Emacs has no security features, except to protect itself from crashing, and a little bit for protecting passwords (but a couple of defadvices would defeat that, too). Footnotes: [1] At least, they have other, much more dire problems, as Richard has been at pains to point out to you. You *can* be free, you just don't want to badly enough.