From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs: Problems of the Scratch Buffer Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:07:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87ehrhui7m.fsf@gnuvola.org> References: <1bqkr.13803$mL3.9455@newsfe23.iad> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1335028198 3051 80.91.229.3 (21 Apr 2012 17:09:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:09:58 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 21 19:09:57 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdoo-0003eI-Of for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:09:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58848 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdoo-0006ge-1K for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:09:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33175) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdoh-0006gK-MK for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:09:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdof-0001nb-LC for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:09:47 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp206.alice.it ([82.57.200.102]:41064) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdof-0001ZD-Ao for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:09:45 -0400 Original-Received: from ambire (79.10.74.68) by smtp206.alice.it (8.6.023.02) id 4F1836AD0AFDCC3A for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:09:26 +0200 Original-Received: from ttn by ambire with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdmQ-00034B-4e for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:07:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Chiron's message of "Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:35:28 GMT") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 82.57.200.102 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:84578 Archived-At: () Chiron () Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:35:28 GMT If they had an incentive to make emacs appealing to the masses, they'd do it. Since they aren't doing it, I think it's clear that they don't have the incentive. I must admit, from where i sit, nothing is so clear. I was simply speaking of the motivation of the current maintainers to make changes to emacs. Unless the current maintainers are confused, they *already* have emacs pretty much the way they want it. Probably confusion and acceptance are independent. If not, the acceptably confusing trick is to determine which causes which. :-D But Group B is happy with things the way they are - so why should they go to the trouble to make the changes that Group A wants? Long-term, the biggest trouble arises from overly-rigid boundaries between groups. What is a liquid border but a f{r}ont of change?