Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com>]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
| In principle, because they are centralized services, therefore single
| points of failure, or worse, of control (spying, censuring).

 I can accept that they are single points of failure.

 The point about spying could be applied to any forum, e.g., this very
 newsgroup: any agency could be monitoring it.  Did I misread the last
 point?
 
| Also, they're not present a unique (or a small number of) interfaces,
| but each web site has it's own interfaces (user interface or API).
| Therefore they are very hard to use, compared to NNTP API to which
| each user can apply consitenly the user interface he chooses.
|
| Also, sociologically, the fact that it's easy to find error messages
| or other help on Google/SX makes system authors LESS motivated to
| provide working and documented systems in the first place.
|
| This is not a good thing.

 I can accept both of these as well.
 
| Notably, it only works for popular systems.  And error messages are
| not discriminating of the various situations: often I have an error
| message and find on SX ten different situations where it was issued,
| and none matching mine.  In the end, I still have to debug by myself.

 I have faced this many times, too.

| Google/SX, it's the blind leading the blinds.

 Now, given that Emacs has (fine) manuals, comes with sources, has a
 community spread over many newsgroups and mailing lists, has the Emacs
 Wiki, and has a presence on IRC, how then is the announcement to be
 viewed?  Positively, negatively, or neutrally?

-- 
Udyant Wig
GitHub:    https://github.com/udyant
Poetry:    http://www.writing.com/main/profile/biography/frosthrone