Re: basic question: going back to dired

[Xiao-Yong Jin <xj2106@columbia.edu>]

I'm a normal emacs user who has been using it for 4 years.
And I really don't like this whole "modernization" idea.  I
believe those terms we use in emacs has a long history, as
well as those key bindings and others.  Saying changes is
like driving everybody who has already adopt these
terminologies nuts.  Customization is what emacs is.
Enforcing some kind of customization, which certain people
feels comfortable for themselves, is not what emacs should
be.  What makes it worse is that certain people actually
think that their customization is far superior then everyone
else' and even want to call it "modernization".  I think
most of the old users felt really intrusive when they found
that the transient-mark-mode was turned on by default.

Of course the emacs community welcomes new functionality.
There is already cua-mode.  Personally, I will never use
it.  But it is there for those people who want those so
called "modernized" behavior.  I believe emacs is such a
thing that if you believe your "modernized-mode" is good,
you can release it as a elisp package and put it on the
wiki.  You can advertise it here but there is absolutely no
point to debate about what kind of customization is good on
this mailing list/news group.  

Back to the terminologies.  I believe most of the people who
read English can understand those by reading info.
Introducing new terms, or so called "modernized" terms to
old emacs concepts is rather like shooting on your own foot.
And most importantly, we really don't want to cause any more
misunderstandings by using different terms to refer to same
thing.

Here is my opinion.  People can have their own customization
or their own languages.  But enforcing these personalized
thing on other people is simply nonsense.


Cheers,
Xiao-Yong
-- 
    c/*    __o/*
    <\     * (__
    */\      <