* Re: Emacs vista build failures
@ 2008-07-21 5:14 christophe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread
From: christophe @ 2008-07-21 5:14 UTC (permalink / raw
To: hannes; +Cc: lord, rms, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, miles
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:22:08 +0200
> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
> Subject: Re: Emacs vista build failures
> To: rms@gnu.org
> Cc: acm@muc.de, lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org,
> Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
> Message-ID: <87ej5oz4pb.fsf@saeurebad.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> > That is good news, but the general problem remains
>> > as far as I know. Has there been a general move towards
>> > supporting the GNU configure and build specs?
>>
>> As far as I know (I don't hack on X, I just read the mailing list), the
>> entire build infrastructure was replaced, and you can now do
>> "./configure ...; make" etc., and things work in the normal GNU
>> style.
>>
>> We are miscommunicating. As regards X itself, I took for granted that
>> that is what you meant.
>>
>> My question concerns looking beyond X to the free software community
>> as a whole. Has there been a broader move towords supporting the GNU
>> configure and build specs?
>
> Maybe you heard the term `autohell' once? People tend to forget about
> political issues when they are just frustrated with the software.
>
> Hannes
Conversely, it is difficult to spread our philosophy and reach out to
new communities with tools not originally designed for them; it seems
especially the case when they're unfortunately centred around
technical issues rather than social change. There is a lot of emacs
users in rails community; it would be nice if they could come here and
thereby help the free software movement...
I noted this last year with sadness on this blog post:
http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/rails_is_a_ghetto.html
«... Any experienced developer knows that autoconf configure files are
a PAIN IN THE ASS to recreate. They almost always require special
reconfigure calls, special m4 macros, or just time. You usually get
them right, generate them once, and then leave them in your repository
for all to use. To make it worse, Kevin actually wrote a supposed
alternative to autoconf, and yet he doesn't know the most basic thing
about autoconf...».
christophe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <36366a980807091202rd3b6521jc9fa45d321bc9d37@mail.gmail.com>]
* Emacs vista build failures [not found] <36366a980807091202rd3b6521jc9fa45d321bc9d37@mail.gmail.com> @ 2008-07-11 0:02 ` Eric Hanchrow 2008-07-11 16:49 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eric Hanchrow @ 2008-07-11 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 734 bytes --] I tried building a very recent version of emacs from CVS (actually from the git mirror at git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs.git) on Vista, and it fails as you can see in the attachment. The very same commit builds and runs fine on XP. Any idea what's wrong? I started with a very clean directory, by which I mean: I ran "git-clean -dxf", which deletes all files that aren't known to git; and I ran "git status" to ensure that all of the remaining files were identical to their versions in the repository. The executive summary is: Compiling gnus/nnvirtual.el In toplevel form: gnus/nnvirtual.el:34:1:Error: Symbol's value as variable is void: \300\214\300\214 ... and many similar mysterious errors during byte-compilation. [-- Attachment #2: build-failures.gz --] [-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 28681 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 0:02 ` Eric Hanchrow @ 2008-07-11 16:49 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-11 19:05 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 19:17 ` David Robinow 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-11 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eric Hanchrow; +Cc: emacs-devel I tried building a very recent version of emacs from CVS (actually from the git mirror at git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs.git) on Vista, My condolences. See BadVista.org. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 16:49 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-11 19:05 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 23:33 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-11 19:17 ` David Robinow 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Robinow @ 2008-07-11 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > I tried building a very recent version of emacs from CVS (actually > from the git mirror at git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs.git) on Vista, > > My condolences. See BadVista.org. This comment is not helpful. I build emacs on Vista frequently. I use cygwin cvs and Mingw gcc. Perhaps there's a problem with git? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 19:05 ` David Robinow @ 2008-07-11 23:33 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 7:57 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-11 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Robinow; +Cc: emacs-devel > My condolences. See BadVista.org. This comment is not helpful. On the contrary, steering some people away from Vista could potentially be of tremendous help to them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 23:33 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-12 7:57 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-12 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel, David Robinow Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > My condolences. See BadVista.org. > This comment is not helpful. > > On the contrary, steering some people away from Vista > could potentially be of tremendous help to them. An Emacs that does not compile will not steer people away from Vista since it fails to give them the taste of freedom. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 7:57 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 17:21 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-12 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: emacs-devel, drobinow > On the contrary, steering some people away from Vista > could potentially be of tremendous help to them. An Emacs that does not compile will not steer people away from Vista since it fails to give them the taste of freedom. The question was whether my message was helpful, not whether the bug in Emacs is helpful. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-12 17:21 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-13 9:35 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-12 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel, drobinow Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > On the contrary, steering some people away from Vista > > could potentially be of tremendous help to them. > > An Emacs that does not compile will not steer people away from > Vista since it fails to give them the taste of freedom. > > The question was whether my message was helpful, > not whether the bug in Emacs is helpful. I should think the kind of people desirous of being steered rarely ends up at our doorstep. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 17:21 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-13 9:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-13 9:46 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-13 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: emacs-devel, drobinow I should think the kind of people desirous of being steered rarely ends up at our doorstep. I doubt there is anyone so firm of will and so sure of his views that he is never influenced by the views he hears presented by others. Our words always tend to influence people, by what they take for granted as well as what they say. That is why we should not take for granted that people use non-free software, or that they should. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 9:35 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-13 9:46 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-14 11:05 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-13 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel, drobinow Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > I should think the kind of people desirous of being steered rarely ends > up at our doorstep. > > I doubt there is anyone so firm of will and so sure of his views > that he is never influenced by the views he hears presented by others. > Our words always tend to influence people, by what they > take for granted as well as what they say. That is why we > should not take for granted that people use non-free software, > or that they should. I think you are missing my point. Those people likely to be on our side are probably not best recruited by pontification and patronization. They can have that where they are coming from. We have something to offer them, not something to take from them. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 9:46 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-14 11:05 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-14 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: emacs-devel, drobinow I think you are missing my point. Those people likely to be on our side are probably not best recruited by pontification and patronization. Aside from your namecalling, you have missed my point. If we talk about using Windows as if to take for granted that it's ok, we influence people by our silence. We can even influence ourselves that way. Every so often it is necessary to recall this, so as to prevent that negative influence. Mentioning this issue can also be useful to educate people who use Emacs for practical reasons only, and are not in the habit of thinking about the issue of their own freedom as software users. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 16:49 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-11 19:05 ` David Robinow @ 2008-07-11 19:17 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 20:39 ` Miles Bader 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Robinow @ 2008-07-11 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > I tried building a very recent version of emacs from CVS (actually > from the git mirror at git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs.git) on Vista, > > My condolences. See BadVista.org. This comment is not helpful. I build emacs on Vista frequently. I use cygwin cvs and Mingw gcc. Perhaps there's a problem with git? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 19:17 ` David Robinow @ 2008-07-11 20:39 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-11 20:45 ` David Robinow 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-11 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Robinow; +Cc: emacs-devel "David Robinow" <drobinow@gmail.com> writes: >> My condolences. See BadVista.org. > > This comment is not helpful. It would be helpful (for both you and the world at large) if it caused you to abandon vista and give MS the boot once and for all -- and who knows ... -Miles -- We have met the enemy, and he is us. -- Pogo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 20:39 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-11 20:45 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 20:57 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Robinow @ 2008-07-11 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw To: Miles Bader; +Cc: emacs-devel On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote: > "David Robinow" <drobinow@gmail.com> writes: >>> My condolences. See BadVista.org. >> >> This comment is not helpful. > > It would be helpful (for both you and the world at large) if it caused > you to abandon vista and give MS the boot once and for all -- and who > knows ... > > -Miles I've tried several linux distributions. I've never managed to get an internet connection. I prefer a solution that works. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 20:45 ` David Robinow @ 2008-07-11 20:57 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 10:49 ` Bastien Guerry 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-11 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Robinow; +Cc: emacs-devel, Miles Bader David Robinow wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote: >> "David Robinow" <drobinow@gmail.com> writes: >>>> My condolences. See BadVista.org. >>> This comment is not helpful. >> It would be helpful (for both you and the world at large) if it caused >> you to abandon vista and give MS the boot once and for all -- and who >> knows ... >> >> -Miles > I've tried several linux distributions. I've never managed to get an > internet connection. > I prefer a solution that works. My impression is that GNU/Linux has improved very much, maybe escpecially with the birth of the Ubuntu distribution. I do not run it myself, but will as soon as I find time. The crucial point IMO is letting go of the "we are best" attitude. I know of a try 20 years ago where a site at a rather big company really did its best to try out unix on the desktops. Several contacts were made with the unix vendors. They all responded "we are best and will win the market". I think if they had listened and understood the problems faced by potential customers the situation might have been totally different today. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 20:57 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 19:46 ` Bastien Guerry 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-12 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: miles, emacs-devel, drobinow The crucial point IMO is letting go of the "we are best" attitude. We don't claim to be "best" in a technical sense, because that is a side issue anyway. What we claim to be is _ethical_, in contrast to the evil of proprietary software. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-12 19:46 ` Bastien Guerry 2008-07-12 20:17 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Bastien Guerry @ 2008-07-12 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > The crucial point IMO is letting go of the "we are best" attitude. > > We don't claim to be "best" in a technical sense, because that is a > side issue anyway. What we claim to be is _ethical_, in contrast to > the evil of proprietary software. I think Lennart was referring to the "unix vendors". I can believe they claim to be "the best" in a technical sense. -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 19:46 ` Bastien Guerry @ 2008-07-12 20:17 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-12 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw To: Bastien Guerry; +Cc: emacs-devel Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org> writes: > Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > >> The crucial point IMO is letting go of the "we are best" attitude. >> >> We don't claim to be "best" in a technical sense, because that is a >> side issue anyway. What we claim to be is _ethical_, in contrast to >> the evil of proprietary software. > > I think Lennart was referring to the "unix vendors". I can believe > they claim to be "the best" in a technical sense. When comparing themselves to Windows? Isn't that like using a beauty pageant for picking the opponent for a fight with Jabba the Hutt? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 20:45 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 20:57 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-12 10:49 ` Bastien Guerry 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Bastien Guerry @ 2008-07-12 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Robinow; +Cc: emacs-devel, Miles Bader "David Robinow" <drobinow@gmail.com> writes: > I've tried several linux distributions. I've never managed to get an > internet connection. Don't stay alone. Ask for help around you. I doubt GNU/Linux experts will leave you with a non-working GNU/Linux distro. > I prefer a solution that works. Machines are like people: some don't like to work. But you can make people make machines work. Don't stay alone! -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-11 20:45 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 20:57 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-12 10:49 ` Bastien Guerry @ 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 20:40 ` David Robinow 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-12 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Robinow; +Cc: emacs-devel, miles I've tried several linux distributions. I've never managed to get an internet connection. If what you tried was just Linux, you couldn't manage to type a shell command. So they were probably GNU/Linux distributions. Since GNU/Linux works for so many others, I suspect there was a problem in installation. The best way to solve them is to ask an expert to do it for you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-12 20:40 ` David Robinow 2008-07-12 22:47 ` Bastien ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Robinow @ 2008-07-12 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > I've tried several linux distributions. I've never managed to get an > internet connection. > > If what you tried was just Linux, you couldn't manage to type a shell > command. So they were probably GNU/Linux distributions. I'm well aware of the contributions of the GNU projectTo the extent that you personally have been responsible thank you. I am also aware of your preference for the term GNU/Linux. I may be mistaken but my feeling was that GNU is not to blame for my problems so I deliberately omitted such mention. In any case, I intended only to point out my situation. > > Since GNU/Linux works for so many others, I suspect there was a > problem in installation. The best way to solve them is to ask an > expert to do it for you. I didn't need an expert for Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro, or Vista. I spent 30 years as a computer programmer with a fair amount of unix experience. I think I should be able to do a simple install. I think my issue may be with my ISP but I don't really care to pursue the issue. Life is short. I live 20 miles east of Dayton, Ohio. If anybody would like to come over to help, feel free. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 20:40 ` David Robinow @ 2008-07-12 22:47 ` Bastien 2008-07-13 19:10 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-13 20:46 ` Chong Yidong 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2008-07-12 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel "David Robinow" <drobinow@gmail.com> writes: > I think my issue may be with my ISP but I don't really care to pursue > the issue. Life is short. Let's speed things up a bit. What is your ISP? What is the distro you have at hand? (I'm happy to provide help off-list since this is now OT.) > I live 20 miles east of Dayton, Ohio. If anybody would like to come > over to help, feel free. I live in France and I received your message instantly. Maybe the web can help helping people without considering distance! However short it is, life's great, and sharing experience with GNU/Linux users makes it even greater! -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 20:40 ` David Robinow 2008-07-12 22:47 ` Bastien @ 2008-07-13 19:10 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-13 20:44 ` Claus 2008-07-13 20:46 ` Chong Yidong 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-13 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Robinow; +Cc: emacs-devel I didn't need an expert for Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro, or Vista. It's an unfortunate fact that hardware developers cooperate with Microsoft more than they cooperate with us. I suspect that your experience is the consequence of that. What conclusion to derive from that depends on one's values. If you care strongly about freedom, you could get angry at them for aiding a company that does not respect our freedom, and you could resolve not to let them push you into giving up your freedom. On the other hand, if freedom is far down your list of priorities, you could do whatever is easiest in the short term, even if that means giving Microsoft total power over your computer. In effect, you would be letting Microsoft herd you wherever it wants. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 19:10 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-13 20:44 ` Claus [not found] ` <87tzet8c3i.fsf@offby1.atm01.sea.blarg.net> 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Claus @ 2008-07-13 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw To: Emacs Devel FWIW, I'm using Emacs-GIT under Windows Vista as well and as of today it builds and runs fine. Let me add to the ongoing Linux vs. Windows discussion that I prefer GNU/Linux myself and use it at home. Unfortunately, I'm forced to use Windows at work but that shoudn't keep me from using Emacs. Freedom of choice, right? Claus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <87tzet8c3i.fsf@offby1.atm01.sea.blarg.net>]
* Re: Emacs vista build failures [not found] ` <87tzet8c3i.fsf@offby1.atm01.sea.blarg.net> @ 2008-07-14 8:43 ` Claus 2008-07-15 3:06 ` Eric Hanchrow 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Claus @ 2008-07-14 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eric Hanchrow; +Cc: Emacs Devel Eric, I'm typing this message under "GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.0.2195) of 2008-07-13 on CJK-MOBILE". My latest commit is: commit 43fe74b7f942596608bcf81e814447f92cd5d5bb Author: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de> Date: Sun Jul 13 15:12:58 2008 +0000 [...] However, I doubt this is were your problem is. It's more likely some parts of the toolchain under Windows (Vista) cause problems. I have a full (incl. make, gcc, ...) Cygwin installation, but for Emacs-building Cygwin is pushed as last in my execution path. That is, I'm using MSys/MingGW for the build process. So, things to check in your build process are: 1. Is your MSys/MingGW installation complete? 2. Is MSys/MingGW first (before Cygwin) in your path? 3. For programs that MSys/MingGW doesn't provide, is there a fallback (Cygwin)? 4. Is your working directory clean? 5. Are your build-flags sane? 6. Are you using mingw32-make? 7. Before building, do you run "clean" and "bootstrap-clean"? 8. Do you bootstrap? Looking at your log, most of the above steps seem OK and you get pretty far in the build process. I had similar errors in the past and the reason everytime was one of the below: 1. I had skipped some build step (configure/bootstrapping) 2. I haven't cleaned up thourougly enough 3. I had missed a MingGW/MSys-package that was needed 4. My Cygwin-installation under Vista was borked (due to Vista's paranoid security settings). I have included my build-script below - it works realiably for me since months; perhaps it gives you some pointers. HTH, Claus ############## #!/bin/bash # # Build script to automate preparing, configuring, cleaning, compiling and installing emacs-CVS from source. # v0.3 Claus Klingberg <cjk@pobox.com> 29.03.2008 # echo 'Removing gruft from build-directory...' rm -f ../lisp/calendar/cal-loaddefs.el ../nt/makefile ../src/makefile ../lisp/mh-e/mh-loaddefs.el ../lisp/loaddefs.el ../lisp/finder-inf.el ../lib-src/makefile ../admin/unidata/makefile ../admin/unidata/unidata-gen.elc ../admin/unidata/unidata.txt ../doc/emacs/makefile ../doc/misc/makefile ../leim/leim-list.el~ ../leim/leim-list.el ../leim/makefile ../lisp/cus-load.el ../lisp/makefile ../src/config.h ../src/epaths.h ../doc/lispintro/makefile ../doc/lispref/makefile ../lib-src/makefile ../lisp/loaddefs.el ../lisp/mh-e/mh-loaddefs.el ../lisp/subdirs.el ../nt/config.log ../lisp/calendar/diary-loaddefs.el ../lisp/calendar/hol-loaddefs.el ../lisp/eshell/esh-groups.el ../lisp/finder-inf.el~ ../lisp/loaddefs.el~ ../leim/quail/4Corner.el ../leim/quail/ARRAY30.el ../leim/quail/CCDOSPY.el ../leim/quail/CTLau-b5.el ../leim/quail/CTLau.el ../leim/quail/ECDICT.el ../leim/quail/ETZY.el ../leim/quail/PY-b5.el ../leim/quail/PY.el ../leim/quail/Punct-b5.el ../leim/quail/Punct.el ../leim/quail/QJ-b5.el ../leim/quail/QJ.el ../leim/quail/SW.el ../leim/quail/TONEPY.el ../leim/quail/ZIRANMA.el ../leim/quail/ZOZY.el ../leim/quail/quick-b5.el ../leim/quail/quick-cns.el ../leim/quail/tsang-b5.el ../leim/quail/tsang-cns.el ../lib-src/DOC ../lib-src/ctags.c ../lib-src/getopt.h ../lisp/cus-load.el~ # Prepare path environment: need to put Cygwin back in favour of MingGW Windows since we use mingw32-make to build emacs: export PATH='/cygdrive/c/Windows/system32:/cygdrive/c/Windows:/cygdrive/c/Windows/System32/Wbem:/cygdrive/c/prg/MinGW/libexec/gcc/mingw32/3.4.5:/cygdrive/c/MinGW/bin:/cygdrive/c/prg/MSys/bin:/cygdrive/c/prg/libxml:/cygdrive/c/prg/aspell-60.3/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin' echo 'Done preparing build.' echo 'Running configure...' if ./configure.bat --no-opt --with-gcc --without-jpeg --without-tiff --without-gif --cflags -Ic:/work/cjk/src/gnuwin32 then echo 'Configuring successful!' else echo -e "Error $0: Configure failed!" exit 1 fi echo 'Cleaning up...' if mingw32-make clean && mingw32-make bootstrap-clean then echo 'Cleanup successful!' else echo -e "Error $0: Cleanup failed!" exit 1 fi echo 'Bootstrapping...' if mingw32-make bootstrap then echo 'Bootstrap successful!' else echo -e "Error $0: Bootstrap failed!" exit 1 fi echo 'Running make...' if mingw32-make then echo 'Make successful!' else echo -e "Error $0: Make failed!" exit 1 fi # Currently building info pages fails: # mingw32-make info echo 'Running Make install...' if mingw32-make install then echo 'Make install successful!' else echo -e "Error $0: Make install failed!" exit 1 fi ############## On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Eric Hanchrow <offby1@blarg.net> wrote: >>>>>> "Claus" == Claus <claus.klingberg@gmail.com> writes: > > Claus> FWIW, I'm using Emacs-GIT under Windows Vista as well and as > Claus> of today it builds and runs fine. > > Interesting. Could you give me the commit ID of something that works > for you, and also tell me what compiler toolchain you're using? (I'm > using a current Cygwin, plus "make" from msys (for some reason, Cygwin's > "make" doesn't work with emacs)) > > -- > [T]he best strip of the last decade is "Dilbert", and it > sure isn't because of the drawing. > -- Garry Trudeau > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 8:43 ` Claus @ 2008-07-15 3:06 ` Eric Hanchrow 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eric Hanchrow @ 2008-07-15 3:06 UTC (permalink / raw To: Claus; +Cc: Emacs Devel >>>>> "Claus" == Claus <claus.klingberg@gmail.com> writes: Claus> I have a full (incl. make, gcc, ...) Cygwin installation, Claus> but for Emacs-building Cygwin is pushed as last in my Claus> execution path. That is, I'm using MSys/MingGW for the build Claus> process. Same here :-| And I keep my Cygwin reasonably current. Claus> So, things to check in your build process are: Claus> 1. Is your MSys/MingGW installation complete? As far as I know. It used to work fine -- in fact, it _still_ works fine if I build the commit that corresponds to the 22.2 release. Claus> 2. Is MSys/MingGW first (before Cygwin) in your path? No, it's not on my PATH at all -- I just invoke c:/msys/1.0/bin/make "by hand". That's always worked in the past. Claus> 3. For programs that MSys/MingGW doesn't provide, is there a Claus> fallback (Cygwin)? Yes. Claus> 4. Is your working directory clean? Yes. I _always_ "git-clean -dxf" before attempting to build. Claus> 5. Are your build-flags sane? I believe so. Claus> 6. Are you using mingw32-make? Yes. Claus> 7. Before building, do you run "clean" and Claus> "bootstrap-clean"? Effectively, via "git-clean -dxf". Claus> 8. Do you bootstrap? Yes. Claus> I have included my build-script below - it works realiably Claus> for me since months; perhaps it gives you some pointers. Thanks very much. -- The reason Florence is famous is that in 1450, it was New York. -- Paul Graham ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 20:44 ` Claus [not found] ` <87tzet8c3i.fsf@offby1.atm01.sea.blarg.net> @ 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-14 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw To: Claus; +Cc: emacs-devel Unfortunately, I'm forced to use Windows at work but that shoudn't keep me from using Emacs. Being able to run Emacs on your machine at work is a good thing, but don't give up on pressuring against running Windows there. They are doing something very foolish, and they need to keep hearing that. Also, when you find a job that makes better use of your skills, tell everyone that is why you left. I saw an article recently saying that in France there is a demand for people with skills in logiciel libre. Maybe you can move there and find work. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-12 20:40 ` David Robinow 2008-07-12 22:47 ` Bastien 2008-07-13 19:10 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-13 20:46 ` Chong Yidong 2008-07-13 21:46 ` Alan Mackenzie 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Chong Yidong @ 2008-07-13 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Robinow; +Cc: rms, emacs-devel "David Robinow" <drobinow@gmail.com> writes: >> Since GNU/Linux works for so many others, I suspect there was a >> problem in installation. The best way to solve them is to ask an >> expert to do it for you. > I didn't need an expert for Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro, or Vista. > I spent 30 years as a computer programmer with a fair amount of unix > experience. I think I should be able to do a simple install. As mentioned, GNU/Linux works for so many others that it's probably an easily solvable problem. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 20:46 ` Chong Yidong @ 2008-07-13 21:46 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 21:40 ` Alfred M. Szmidt ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-13 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: Chong Yidong; +Cc: emacs-devel, rms, David Robinow Hi, everybody! On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 04:46:10PM -0400, Chong Yidong wrote: > "David Robinow" <drobinow@gmail.com> writes: > >> Since GNU/Linux works for so many others, I suspect there was a > >> problem in installation. The best way to solve them is to ask an > >> expert to do it for you. > > I didn't need an expert for Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro, or Vista. > > I spent 30 years as a computer programmer with a fair amount of unix > > experience. I think I should be able to do a simple install. > As mentioned, GNU/Linux works for so many others that it's probably an > easily solvable problem. GNU/Linux _works_ fantastically, but that's not what's under discussion. _GETTING_ a G/L system working is the issue, and that's best described as a slog, or a nightmare. There are any number of blogs which describe how "you just insert the DVD, and 2 hours later you've got a complete working system". I've never met anybody in real life who's had that experience. Most people I know who've tried to install GNU/Linux have spent, perhaps, a solid weekend at it then given up for lack of time and energy. It took me about a month elapsed time (~20 days work (when I didn't have a day job)) to get Debian Sarge working reasonably after my old PC died. Richard, you're perhaps the brightest guy around, here. How long did it take you to get your first GNU/Linux installation installed and _fully_ working (i.e. all peripherals, networking, X-Windows, email, web-browsing, .... all satisfactory)? For example, it took more than a day to get printing working (a standard Linux-supported Samsung Laser printer on the parallel port). It involved delving into the printing-HOWTO, and the kernel documentation, enabling the port support, rebuilding the kernel, struggling through the undocumented garbage that is (?was) CUPS, discarding that for a documented printing system, selecting a printing (formatting) driver by trial and error, ..... This was typical of most things - a long hard slog, fixing problem after problem after problem, a typical problem taking between 2 and 6 hours to resolve. And yes, at the end of that month GNU/Linux did indeed work fantastically. By contrast, I could have bought and installed Microsoft Windows XP, and I would have had that working within a day. However, MS Windows doesn't work fantastically, ever. I have heard that installing G/L has become easier in the last few years. But my advice to anybody who asks is still "don't install G/L yourself unless you're _sure_ you really want it, and you've got the stamina and stubbornness to see the installation through to the end". -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 21:46 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-13 21:40 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-13 22:53 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 21:48 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-13 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: cyd, drobinow, rms, emacs-devel > >> Since GNU/Linux works for so many others, I suspect there was > >> a problem in installation. The best way to solve them is to > >> ask an expert to do it for you. > > I didn't need an expert for Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro, or > > Vista. I spent 30 years as a computer programmer with a fair > > amount of unix experience. I think I should be able to do a > > simple install. > As mentioned, GNU/Linux works for so many others that it's > probably an easily solvable problem. GNU/Linux _works_ fantastically, but that's not what's under discussion. _GETTING_ a G/L system working is the issue, and that's best described as a slog, or a nightmare. There are any number of blogs which describe how "you just insert the DVD, and 2 hours later you've got a complete working system". I've never met anybody in real life who's had that experience. Sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about. I know of no GNU/Linux system that takes 2 hours to install and then 2 days or more to get usable... I recently reinstalled gNewSense and the installation took me about 5 minutes, excluding the time it takes to copy data from a CD-ROM to a HDD. But I know that it does take over a full day to install Windows XP, it is something I sadly do once every other week. Getting a printer working was trivial as well, I did not even need to specify the driver. What you say was true some 10 years ago, I still recall having to hand edit /etc/printcap, write my own filtering rules! and write four different floppies just to be able to boot a GNU/Linux system that didn't even have a compiler included. But this has not been the case for the past 5+ years, or even close. GNU/Linux these days is _far_ easier to install than Windows XP or Vista... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 21:40 ` Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-13 22:53 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 22:53 ` David Kastrup ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-13 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alfred M. Szmidt; +Cc: cyd, emacs-devel, rms, drobinow Hi, Alfred! On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 05:40:58PM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > >> Since GNU/Linux works for so many others, I suspect there was > > >> a problem in installation. The best way to solve them is to > > >> ask an expert to do it for you. > > > I didn't need an expert for Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro, or > > > Vista. I spent 30 years as a computer programmer with a fair > > > amount of unix experience. I think I should be able to do a > > > simple install. > > As mentioned, GNU/Linux works for so many others that it's > > probably an easily solvable problem. > GNU/Linux _works_ fantastically, but that's not what's under > discussion. > _GETTING_ a G/L system working is the issue, and that's best > described as a slog, or a nightmare. There are any number of blogs > which describe how "you just insert the DVD, and 2 hours later > you've got a complete working system". I've never met anybody in > real life who's had that experience. > Sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about. Translation: "You're a liar or an idiot". Please, there's no need for that sort of riposte. How about "I didn't have that amount of hassle" instead? > I know of no GNU/Linux system that takes 2 hours to install and then 2 > days or more to get usable... No, of course not. With enough accumulated expertise, any G/L system can be installed and configured in a few hours. > I recently reinstalled gNewSense and the installation took me about 5 > minutes, excluding the time it takes to copy data from a CD-ROM to a > HDD. But I know that it does take over a full day to install Windows > XP, it is something I sadly do once every other week. :-) OK, but clearly since you do it every other week, the process takes much less than 20 days. > Getting a printer working was trivial as well, I did not even need to > specify the driver. Good for you! It just worked. You had a magic spell in your distribution. They either work 100% or totally fail. In the latter case, they give you NO information to help you diagnose things. They say, in effect "don't worry your pretty little head about this, leave everything to me". When they fail, and they always have failed for me, it takes some experience to realise that the fault is with the magic spell, not the person invoking it. I detest this. > What you say was true some 10 years ago, I still recall having to hand > edit /etc/printcap, write my own filtering rules! and write four > different floppies just to be able to boot a GNU/Linux system that > didn't even have a compiler included. But this has not been the case > for the past 5+ years, or even close. Well, I've described what it took me. Maybe Debian Sarge was particularly troublesome. Maybe I'm just stupid, maybe the original poster here is just as stupid, and maybe my friend who talked me through configuring my ethernet card over many days, he earlier having taken just as long, is also stupid. But I have illusions of being of around or above average capability in installing OSs. > GNU/Linux these days is _far_ easier to install than Windows XP or > Vista... The original poster said he couldn't get his Linux connected to the internet. I can empathise with that completely. Network configuration under Linux (I think it comes from BSD Unix) is brain-damaged - it is fragmented into many (not merely several) midget sized configuration files, for which there is no coherent documentation - no network-config HOWTO, nothing. Just the man pages for each such file. And when your network doesn't work, you're left having to examine the entrails on /var/log/messages and friends. You don't get error messages on stderr. I could strangle the arrogant cretin that created the error message "no route to foo.bar" when he could so easily have announced "can't open /etc/route" (or whatever the file actually is). I challenge you to write a recipe, suitable for a newbie without an internet connection, how to get a GNU/Linux system connected to the internet, on the assumption that any magic spells supplied by the distribution have failed. Point out where he can find the necessary info, and how he could discover that that is where he has to look. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 22:53 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-13 22:53 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-13 23:46 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-14 10:27 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-14 10:45 ` Miles Bader 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-13 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: Alfred M. Szmidt, drobinow, cyd, rms, emacs-devel Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > Well, I've described what it took me. Maybe Debian Sarge was > particularly troublesome. Yes. > I challenge you to write a recipe, suitable for a newbie without an > internet connection, how to get a GNU/Linux system connected to the > internet, on the assumption that any magic spells supplied by the > distribution have failed. Point out where he can find the necessary > info, and how he could discover that that is where he has to look. Alfred talked about gNewSense (or whatever it is spelled), an Ubuntu derivative. Basically this boils down to clicking the obvious icons or possibly menu points in the obvious places and specifying the obvious information. _IF_ things don't work right away anyway. The exception may be WLAN which might not work without non-free components (and gNewSense does not include them). If that sounds hopelessly optimistic, just try it. I certainly have had my share of having configured Unix systems for networking, even before Linux existed. Things really have become quite convenient to a point where one does not ever need a text editor for getting things to run, unless things are really utterly unexpectedly broken. Most popular Linux distributions nowadays are in that ballpark, with the notable exceptions of Debian proper and Slackware. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 22:53 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-13 23:46 ` Miles Bader 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-13 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup Cc: rms, drobinow, cyd, emacs-devel, Alfred M. Szmidt, Alan Mackenzie David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes: > Most popular Linux distributions nowadays are in that ballpark, with the > notable exceptions of Debian proper and Slackware. Last time I installed Debian, it most certainly was "in that ballpark"... -Miles -- Carefully crafted initial estimates reward you not only with reduced computational effort, but also with understanding and increased self-esteem. -- Numerical methods in C, Chapter 9. "Root Finding and Nonlinear Sets of Equations" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 22:53 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 22:53 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-14 10:27 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-14 11:58 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-14 10:45 ` Miles Bader 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-14 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: cyd, emacs-devel, rms, drobinow > I recently reinstalled gNewSense and the installation took me > about 5 minutes, excluding the time it takes to copy data from a > CD-ROM to a HDD. But I know that it does take over a full day to > install Windows XP, it is something I sadly do once every other > week. :-) OK, but clearly since you do it every other week, the process takes much less than 20 days. It is done in parallel. I challenge you to write a recipe, suitable for a newbie without an internet connection, how to get a GNU/Linux system connected to the internet, on the assumption that any magic spells supplied by the distribution have failed. Point out where he can find the necessary info, and how he could discover that that is where he has to look. http://www.gnewsense.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 10:27 ` Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-14 11:58 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-14 17:39 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-14 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alfred M. Szmidt; +Cc: emacs-devel, rms, drobinow Good day, Alfred, On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 06:27:57AM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > I challenge you to write a recipe, suitable for a newbie without an > internet connection, how to get a GNU/Linux system connected to the > internet, on the assumption that any magic spells supplied by the > distribution have failed. Point out where he can find the > necessary info, and how he could discover that that is where he has > to look. > http://www.gnewsense.org/ A sarcastic patronising non-answer. I'm sure the original poster, without an internet connection, is just going to thank you for that, head off to that site, say "WOW! How could I have missed this?" and have his internet connection working within half an hour. If only. What really gets up my nose in this whole thread is the attitude that if somebody can't get G/L installed, the fault lies with that person, not with the software developers/packagers. Even more so, that the said person who, quite understandibly, baulks at the unbounded time and tedium it takes to complete an installation gets sneered at for not "placing a high value on freedom". And Richard, in particular, if somebody feeds the name of their system through cut -d/ -f2 would you PLEASE not get sarcastic at them. It makes you look like a jerk, and it makes me feel embarrassed at being on the same mailing list. Surely you can ask people courteously to say "GNU/Linux". It happens often enough that you could put pertinent boilerplate onto a key sequence. So far in this thread, I think exactly one person has offered the OP friendly help in setting up a free system. The said poster seems to have dropped out of the thread. I can't blame him. furrfu! -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 11:58 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-14 17:39 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-14 19:33 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-14 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: ams, emacs-devel, drobinow And Richard, in particular, if somebody feeds the name of their system through cut -d/ -f2 would you PLEASE not get sarcastic at them. I don't know how to use the cut program, and I don't know what that command does. But since you are talking about the name of the system, I will make the guess that this has to do with the mistake of calling the system "Linux". I explain that error a few times every day, and I have lots of practice in doing it. I do it in a courtious and straightfoward tone, and never with sarcasm. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 17:39 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-14 19:33 ` Alan Mackenzie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-14 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw To: Richard M Stallman; +Cc: ams, emacs-devel, drobinow 'evening, Richard! On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:39:05PM -0400, Richard M Stallman wrote: > And Richard, in particular, if somebody feeds the name of their system > through cut -d/ -f2 would you PLEASE not get sarcastic at them. > I don't know how to use the cut program, and I don't know what that > command does. It prints slice(s) out of a line of text, either by column numbers or (as here) by field numbers, given a separator. Spend 5 minutes browsing the man page or GNU text utilities manual. It's one of these things that somehow comes in handy quite a lot, but not _quite_ enough to remember its details. For example, this gets the CVS version number of a local file: grep cc-mode.el CVS/Entries | cut -d/ -f3 > But since you are talking about the name of the system, I will make > the guess that this has to do with the mistake of calling the system > "Linux". Yes. > I explain that error a few times every day, and I have lots of > practice in doing it. I do it in a courtious and straightfoward tone, > and never with sarcasm. Ah, OK, that's all right then. ;-) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 11:58 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-14 17:39 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-15 20:29 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-15 21:02 ` Chong Yidong 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-15 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: emacs-devel, rms, drobinow Maybe if you stopped with your condescending tone then people might be more willing to help you. If you expect me to be friendly to you after calling me a liar, patronising, and what not, then you are quite mistaken. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-15 20:29 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-15 21:02 ` Chong Yidong 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-15 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alfred M. Szmidt; +Cc: emacs-devel Hi, Alfred, On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:04:06PM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Maybe if you stopped with your condescending tone then people might be > more willing to help you. If you expect me to be friendly to you > after calling me a liar, patronising, and what not, then you are quite > mistaken. If I've called you a liar, it was by accident and I'm sorry about it. It's not the sort of thing I do. I didn't call you patronising - merely one of your replies; this one: > I challenge you to write a recipe, suitable for a newbie without an > internet connection, how to get a GNU/Linux system connected to the > internet, on the assumption that any magic spells supplied by the > distribution have failed. Point out where he can find the necessary > info, and how he could discover that that is where he has to look. > http://www.gnewsense.org/ In fact I found it somewhat offensive, much as you have found some of my posts offensive. I don't think I fully understand what you were trying to say, and apologise for going directly into such a high temperature mode. I was in a somewhat turbulent state when I read your reply. I had a look at the gnewsense website when I got your Email, and there was no configuration help there for the OP who couldn't configure his internet connection. At the time I read your one-line reply as saying to him "you've been a bit of an idiot spending so much time on such a duff distribution; you'll never manage to get it set up, so you might as well give up now, chuck it all away and start again from scratch with a better distro which is sure to work by magic". Which if you had said, would have justified me taking offence. I think you actually meant something more gentle. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-15 20:29 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-15 21:02 ` Chong Yidong 2008-07-15 23:42 ` Thomas Lord 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Chong Yidong @ 2008-07-15 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Please take the discussion of GNU/Linux system installation off-list. There are many mailing lists dedicated to this topic; this is not one of them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 21:02 ` Chong Yidong @ 2008-07-15 23:42 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-16 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-15 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw To: Chong Yidong; +Cc: emacs-devel Chong Yidong wrote: > Please take the discussion of GNU/Linux system installation off-list. > There are many mailing lists dedicated to this topic; this is not one of > them. > At the same time, this is perhaps the only mailing list where the GNU project, per se, is a topic of interest to more than a few. So, I agree about "take it elsewhere" but I wonder if it isn't time to make a list, forked from here, to talk about the GNU project, per se. May we briefly, here, consider that question? -t > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 23:42 ` Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-16 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-16 1:58 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-16 4:43 ` Thomas Lord 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-16 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw To: Thomas Lord; +Cc: Chong Yidong, emacs-devel > May we briefly, here, consider that question? No, please don't. There's gnu.discuss already. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-16 1:58 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-16 2:43 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-16 4:43 ` Thomas Lord 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-16 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: Thomas Lord, Chong Yidong, emacs-devel Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >> May we briefly, here, consider that question? > > No, please don't. There's gnu.discuss already. gnu.misc.discuss? It'd be interesting to have some content there other than endless stupid troll wars... -Miles -- The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds. -- Will Durant ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 1:58 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-16 2:43 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-16 3:01 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-16 4:44 ` Thomas Lord 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-16 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw To: Miles Bader; +Cc: Thomas Lord, Chong Yidong, emacs-devel >>> May we briefly, here, consider that question? >> No, please don't. There's gnu.discuss already. > gnu.misc.discuss? It'd be interesting to have some content there other > than endless stupid troll wars... Isn't that exactly what Tom was asking for? Stefan "still not sure if I'm joking or not" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 2:43 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-16 3:01 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-16 4:44 ` Thomas Lord 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-16 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: Thomas Lord, Chong Yidong, emacs-devel Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >>> No, please don't. There's gnu.discuss already. >> gnu.misc.discuss? It'd be interesting to have some content there other >> than endless stupid troll wars... > > Isn't that exactly what Tom was asking for? Hmm, well at least a higher level. The existing trolls can barely remember to breath between grunts... -Miles -- `Suppose Korea goes to the World Cup final against Japan and wins,' Moon said. `All the past could be forgiven.' [NYT] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 2:43 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-16 3:01 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-16 4:44 ` Thomas Lord 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-16 4:44 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: Chong Yidong, emacs-devel, Miles Bader [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 318 bytes --] Stefan Monnier wrote: >> gnu.misc.discuss? It'd be interesting to have some content there other >> than endless stupid troll wars... >> > > Isn't that exactly what Tom was asking for? > > > Stefan "still not sure if I'm joking or not" > Joking or not I'm sure I've been pointlessly insulted. -t [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 729 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-16 1:58 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-16 4:43 ` Thomas Lord 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-16 4:43 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: Chong Yidong, emacs-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 208 bytes --] Stefan Monnier wrote: >> May we briefly, here, consider that question? >> > > No, please don't. There's gnu.discuss already. > Fine. GNU is dead. Long live GNU. -t > > Stefan > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 746 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 22:53 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 22:53 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-14 10:27 ` Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-14 10:45 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-14 12:24 ` Alan Mackenzie 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-14 10:45 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: Alfred M. Szmidt, drobinow, cyd, rms, emacs-devel Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >> Getting a printer working was trivial as well, I did not even need to >> specify the driver. > > Good for you! It just worked. You had a magic spell in your > distribution. They either work 100% or totally fail. In the latter > case, they give you NO information to help you diagnose things. They > say, in effect "don't worry your pretty little head about this, leave > everything to me". Of course, that's how _everything_ on windows works. If it doesn't do the right thing, well, you're fucked, go buy a new computer. -Miles -- Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 10:45 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-14 12:24 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-14 12:20 ` joakim 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-14 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: Miles Bader; +Cc: Alfred M. Szmidt, emacs-devel, rms, drobinow Hi, Miles, On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 07:45:10PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > >> Getting a printer working was trivial as well, I did not even need > >> to specify the driver. > > Good for you! It just worked. You had a magic spell in your > > distribution. They either work 100% or totally fail. In the latter > > case, they give you NO information to help you diagnose things. > > They say, in effect "don't worry your pretty little head about this, > > leave everything to me". > Of course, that's how _everything_ on windows works. If it doesn't do > the right thing, well, you're fucked, go buy a new computer. The point is that installing MS-Windows _works_. Most of the time, pretty painlessly. I've done it for a friend a few times. There was no need for me to crawl through HOWTOs or search out kernel documentation to make it work. That has not been my experience of GNU/Linux, in particular Debian Sarge and some older versions of SuSE. I accept that others have had better experiences installing G/L. Please don't construe this as me advocating MS-Windows. I'm not. It's just that reality doesn't go away when you shut your eyes. > -Miles -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 12:24 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-14 12:20 ` joakim 2008-07-14 12:32 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: joakim @ 2008-07-14 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: Alfred M. Szmidt, emacs-devel, drobinow, rms, Miles Bader Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > > The point is that installing MS-Windows _works_. Most of the time, > pretty painlessly. I've done it for a friend a few times. There was no > need for me to crawl through HOWTOs or search out kernel documentation > to make it work. As a data-point, I've quite often failed to install MS-Windows, and then flawlessly installed a Fedora GNU/Linux on the same machine. No magic-incantations, even. > > That has not been my experience of GNU/Linux, in particular Debian > Sarge and some older versions of SuSE. I accept that others have had > better experiences installing G/L. > > Please don't construe this as me advocating MS-Windows. I'm not. It's > just that reality doesn't go away when you shut your eyes. > >> -Miles -- Joakim Verona ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 12:20 ` joakim @ 2008-07-14 12:32 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-14 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw To: joakim Cc: rms, drobinow, emacs-devel, Alfred M. Szmidt, Alan Mackenzie, Miles Bader joakim@verona.se writes: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > >> >> The point is that installing MS-Windows _works_. Most of the time, >> pretty painlessly. I've done it for a friend a few times. There was >> no need for me to crawl through HOWTOs or search out kernel >> documentation to make it work. > > As a data-point, I've quite often failed to install MS-Windows, and > then flawlessly installed a Fedora GNU/Linux on the same machine. No > magic-incantations, even. As another data point: I had several laptops die on me (botched BIOS update, cup of tea). Both were dual-boot systems with Windows (98 or 2000, I forgot which). I think the first had been a RedHat system, the second had been Ubuntu. I transferred the disk to a new system. The Linux partition (generic kernel) noted the change of hardware and came up pretty much without a hitch. The Windows partition... well the first already barfed upon the disk geometry (different BIOS, different geometry spoofing). Either had a wagonload of trouble with drivers and hardware before I could get it to work again. Took weeks each time around to make most of it work (even though Internet access was not a topic due to lack of virus updates). Now nowadays things have become easier with Windows XP. More drivers are built in, and it won't help you, because XP refuses to come up on a previously unregistered system. Last laptop I bought I went into the shop and tried my disk, and the shop assistant said that it would not work. It worked, and the reason was that it was not Windows. So if you cherish your work environment and your data, don't tie yourself down to Windows. You can't move on in a sane way. Even disregarding all other aspects of non-freedom, it will stop working together with the hardware. And that's a chance one should not be taking. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 12:24 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-14 12:20 ` joakim @ 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-15 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: drobinow, emacs-devel, rms, miles > Of course, that's how _everything_ on windows works. If it > doesn't do the right thing, well, you're fucked, go buy a new > computer. The point is that installing MS-Windows _works_. And so does gNewSense. Please try it; it is quite nice. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 21:46 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 21:40 ` Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-13 21:48 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-13 23:26 ` Alan Mackenzie ` (2 more replies) 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-13 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: Chong Yidong, David Robinow, rms, emacs-devel Alan Mackenzie wrote: > For example, it took more than a day to get printing working (a standard > Linux-supported Samsung Laser printer on the parallel port). It involved > delving into the printing-HOWTO, and the kernel documentation, enabling > the port support, rebuilding the kernel, struggling through the > undocumented garbage that is (?was) CUPS, discarding that for a > documented printing system, selecting a printing (formatting) driver by > trial and error, ..... > > This was typical of most things - a long hard slog, fixing problem after > problem after problem, a typical problem taking between 2 and 6 hours to > resolve. > > And yes, at the end of that month GNU/Linux did indeed work > fantastically. From what you and others have written it looks like the weak point when installing GNU/Linux is the hardware. I wonder if this still is the case with Ubuntu? In that case, should not investigating hardware be something that is done as earlier as possible in the installation process - with a possibility for the user to just back off if the installation process finds hardware it does not recognize. I think that such a scheme could make GNU/Linux reputation in this regard much better. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 21:48 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-13 23:26 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 23:22 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-14 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-13 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Chong Yidong, David Robinow, rms, emacs-devel Hi, Lennart! On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:48:43PM +0200, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >For example, it took more than a day to get printing working (a > >standard Linux-supported Samsung Laser printer on the parallel port). > >It involved delving into the printing-HOWTO, and the kernel > >documentation, enabling the port support, rebuilding the kernel, > >struggling through the undocumented garbage that is (?was) CUPS, > >discarding that for a documented printing system, selecting a printing > >(formatting) driver by trial and error, ..... > >This was typical of most things - a long hard slog, fixing problem > >after problem after problem, a typical problem taking between 2 and 6 > >hours to resolve. > >And yes, at the end of that month GNU/Linux did indeed work > >fantastically. > From what you and others have written it looks like the weak point when > installing GNU/Linux is the hardware. Partly. Partly it's the fragmentation of documentation. Partly free software authors are a long way behind proprietary companies in making installation low-pain. Very little free software is documented anywhere near as well as Emacs. > I wonder if this still is the case with Ubuntu? I tried Ubuntu. It's an arrogant and patronising distribution - they try to pretend that there's no such thing as the root user, and they try to stop you finding out. They have their own idiosyncratic init program with a fragmented, undocumented configuration system. The response of my request for this documentation was "hey, why don't _you_ contribute it?". Still, if you can cope with that sort of attitude, Ubuntu seems to work relatively well. However, it was business as usual (2 - 6 hours per issue) when I got to installing framebuffer on my Ubuntu. It took me ~2 hours to get my Emacs to find my site-start.el - Debian (and thus Ubuntu too) puts a content-free site-start.el somewhere in /etc which blocks out your own real one. I keep meaning to complain about this. > In that case, should not investigating hardware be something that is > done as earlier as possible in the installation process - with a > possibility for the user to just back off if the installation process > finds hardware it does not recognize. Yes. I think a bigger problem is that each distribution tries to "encapsulate" the problem in its own way, but they end up just wrapping the problem in yet one more layer of undocumented complexity. Sometimes I think it would be better if the instructions just said "fill in these configuration files as follows, using your favourite text editor" rather than obfuscating the process with layers of scripts and GUI "friendliness". > I think that such a scheme could make GNU/Linux reputation in this > regard much better. Perhaps. Maybe the problem is intractable, due to the intrinsic complexity of GNU/Linux. Maybe Alfred's distribution is OK. It's something I'd far rather not have to bother about - I'd much rather just hack Emacs! -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 23:26 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-13 23:22 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-14 20:42 ` Don Armstrong 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-13 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie Cc: Chong Yidong, emacs-devel, Lennart Borgman (gmail), rms, David Robinow Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > Hi, Lennart! > >> I wonder if this still is the case with Ubuntu? > > I tried Ubuntu. It's an arrogant and patronising distribution - they > try to pretend that there's no such thing as the root user, and they > try to stop you finding out. They have their own idiosyncratic init > program with a fragmented, undocumented configuration system. The > response of my request for this documentation was "hey, why don't > _you_ contribute it?". > > Still, if you can cope with that sort of attitude, Ubuntu seems to > work relatively well. However, it was business as usual (2 - 6 hours > per issue) when I got to installing framebuffer on my Ubuntu. It took > me ~2 hours to get my Emacs to find my site-start.el - Debian (and > thus Ubuntu too) puts a content-free site-start.el somewhere in /etc > which blocks out your own real one. I keep meaning to complain about > this. Forget about Debian and Emacs. They use a clever system for sharing package code between different Emacs versions (which you can install at the same time) and XEmacs, so clever that nobody understands it. Not even Emacs or XEmacs itself (just try M-x list-load-path-shadows RET and shudder). Just compile and configure your own Emacs from scratch. I know of _no_ upstream Emacs or XEmacs developer who claims to understand or get along with the Debian setup. > Yes. I think a bigger problem is that each distribution tries to > "encapsulate" the problem in its own way, but they end up just > wrapping the problem in yet one more layer of undocumented complexity. > Sometimes I think it would be better if the instructions just said > "fill in these configuration files as follows, using your favourite > text editor" rather than obfuscating the process with layers of > scripts and GUI "friendliness". There are situations, but they get pretty rare. Nowadays I rarely need to resort to "look away now and don't ask what I did" when configuring the computer of somebody else. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 23:22 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-14 20:42 ` Don Armstrong 2008-07-14 21:05 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Don Armstrong @ 2008-07-14 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, David Kastrup wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > > It took me ~2 hours to get my Emacs to find my site-start.el - > > Debian (and thus Ubuntu too) puts a content-free site-start.el > > somewhere in /etc which blocks out your own real one. Just edit /etc/emacs/site-start.el if you want it emacs wide, or shove stuff into /etc/emacs<flavor>/site-start.d/; it's pretty trivial. [Though frankly, most things that people think they should shove into site-start.el doesn't belong there: it belongs in ~/.emacs.] > Forget about Debian and Emacs. They use a clever system for sharing > package code between different Emacs versions (which you can install > at the same time) and XEmacs, so clever that nobody understands it. Lots of us understand it; it's pretty trivial. Thanks to that system, installing packaged emacs add-ons is absolutely trivial. If you're lost, see http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/debian-emacs-policy > I know of _no_ upstream Emacs or XEmacs developer who claims to > understand or get along with the Debian setup. There's no need for upstream developers to bother, since it's all handled for them by Debian Developers. Don Armstrong -- We cast this message into the cosmos. [...] We are trying to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope some day, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of Galactic Civilizations. This record represents our hope and our determination and our goodwill in a vast and awesome universe. -- Jimmy Carter on the Voyager Golden Record http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 20:42 ` Don Armstrong @ 2008-07-14 21:05 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-16 14:36 ` Manoj Srivastava 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-14 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, David Kastrup wrote: > >> I know of _no_ upstream Emacs or XEmacs developer who claims to >> understand or get along with the Debian setup. > > There's no need for upstream developers to bother, since it's all > handled for them by Debian Developers. Uh, upstream developers need to compile and test their work, too. And it is not feasible to, say, arrange your own package in front of the load-path somewhere in /usr/local/ since the Debian policy puts .el files and .elc files in completely different directory hierarchies (and different places in the load-path order), so things tend to get mixed up if they are more than once in the load-path. As one consequence, the diagnostic tool M-x list-load-path-shadows RET pretty much goes crazy on Debian. The only sane way out is to compile and manage your own Emacs and packages. And that's what _all_ Emacs and XEmacs developers I know who are not simultaneously Debian maintainers do. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 21:05 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-16 14:36 ` Manoj Srivastava 2008-07-16 15:20 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-16 21:23 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Manoj Srivastava @ 2008-07-16 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:05:16 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said: > Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes: >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> I know of _no_ upstream Emacs or XEmacs developer who claims to >>> understand or get along with the Debian setup. >> >> There's no need for upstream developers to bother, since it's all >> handled for them by Debian Developers. > Uh, upstream developers need to compile and test their work, too. And > it is not feasible to, say, arrange your own package in front of the > load-path somewhere in /usr/local/ since the Debian policy puts .el > files and .elc files in completely different directory hierarchies > (and different places in the load-path order), so things tend to get > mixed up if they are more than once in the load-path. Why does that matter for you in /usr/local? You can put all the .el and .elc files in the same directory. As an emacs developer, surely you can put a path in front of the system load path? I mean, a dumb-as-doornails Debian person like me can manage to add my elisp directories ahead of system paths, so surely an intelligent emacs developer can do so as well, unless they wanted to appear unable for the sake of a debating point. > As one consequence, the diagnostic tool M-x list-load-path-shadows RET > pretty much goes crazy on Debian. It is: A. /usr/share/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding /usr/share/emacs B. /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ Frankly, I don't call that going "pretty much crazy". but it does make a nice sound bite in a flamewar. > The only sane way out is to compile and manage your own Emacs and > packages. And that's what _all_ Emacs and XEmacs developers I know > who are not simultaneously Debian maintainers do. I think this is not the case, since a trivial work around is available (add your dir to the head of the path). manoj -- A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. Groucho Marx Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 14:36 ` Manoj Srivastava @ 2008-07-16 15:20 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-16 22:04 ` Manoj Srivastava 2008-07-16 21:23 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-16 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@ieee.org> writes: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:05:16 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said: > >> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes: >>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>>> I know of _no_ upstream Emacs or XEmacs developer who claims to >>>> understand or get along with the Debian setup. >>> >>> There's no need for upstream developers to bother, since it's all >>> handled for them by Debian Developers. > >> Uh, upstream developers need to compile and test their work, too. And >> it is not feasible to, say, arrange your own package in front of the >> load-path somewhere in /usr/local/ since the Debian policy puts .el >> files and .elc files in completely different directory hierarchies >> (and different places in the load-path order), so things tend to get >> mixed up if they are more than once in the load-path. > > Why does that matter for you in /usr/local? You can put all the > .el and .elc files in the same directory. As an emacs developer, surely > you can put a path in front of the system load path? I mean, a > dumb-as-doornails Debian person like me can manage to add my elisp > directories ahead of system paths, so surely an intelligent emacs > developer can do so as well, unless they wanted to appear unable for > the sake of a debating point. I am not an intelligent Emacs developer. And it would appear that there are pretty few of either them or intelligent XEmacs developers around. Again: I know of no upstream Emacs or XEmacs developer that is able to work with the Debian setup. Yes, we are all stupid. But since the intelligent ones are rare, it might be worth adapting the policies to deal with the real world. >> As one consequence, the diagnostic tool M-x list-load-path-shadows RET >> pretty much goes crazy on Debian. > > It is: > A. /usr/share/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding /usr/share/emacs > B. /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ > > Frankly, I don't call that going "pretty much crazy". but it > does make a nice sound bite in a flamewar. Install a few add-on Elisp packages from Debian, then try again. >> The only sane way out is to compile and manage your own Emacs and >> packages. And that's what _all_ Emacs and XEmacs developers I know >> who are not simultaneously Debian maintainers do. > > I think this is not the case, since a trivial work around is > available (add your dir to the head of the path). First you would have to find a file which actually gets loaded instead of bypassed be the Debian scheme. Anyway, we are on the Emacs developer list. So if I am talking nonsense about Emacs developers, you'd expect to hear a correction. And the same discussion has been on the XEmacs developer list. Feel free to conduct a survey if you don't believe me. I am not interested in being proven stupid and incapable. I am perfectly willing to accept that evaluation. But I know that I am not alone, and at some point of time Debian should face reality and figure out how to make use of all the stupid and incapable people who are seemingly able to get work done elsewhere. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 15:20 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-16 22:04 ` Manoj Srivastava 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Manoj Srivastava @ 2008-07-16 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:20:03 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said: > Yes, we are all stupid. But since the intelligent ones are rare, it > might be worth adapting the policies to deal with the real world. The most common target user does not care to override Emacs packages for one of their own. And these are the users that Debian caters to well. But please don't construe that to mean that Debian does not cater to Developers, we try to. >>> As one consequence, the diagnostic tool M-x list-load-path-shadows >>> RET pretty much goes crazy on Debian. >> >> It is: >> A. /usr/share/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding /usr/share/emacs >> B. /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding >> /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ >> >> Frankly, I don't call that going "pretty much crazy". but it does >> make a nice sound bite in a flamewar. > Install a few add-on Elisp packages from Debian, then try again. I have. I have quite a few installed, and still, the two directory shadows cover everything on my machine. (cedet, gnus, vm, ...) >>> The only sane way out is to compile and manage your own Emacs and >>> packages. And that's what _all_ Emacs and XEmacs developers I know >>> who are not simultaneously Debian maintainers do. >> >> I think this is not the case, since a trivial work around is >> available (add your dir to the head of the path). > First you would have to find a file which actually gets loaded instead > of bypassed be the Debian scheme. My .emacs has never been bypassed. That is where I add my directories to the loadpath. > Feel free to conduct a survey if you don't believe me. I am not > interested in being proven stupid and incapable. I am perfectly > willing to accept that evaluation. But I know that I am not alone, > and at some point of time Debian should face reality and figure out > how to make use of all the stupid and incapable people who are > seemingly able to get work done elsewhere. Hmm. I just added org-mode to /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp/org-mode, and boom, it overrides the org-mode built into my emacs-snapshot package. I did absolutely nothing to my Debian setup to make that happen. Also, anything dumped into my personal lisp directorieas also seems to take precedence, and this is the code I use to add them (in my .emacs): --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (defvar manoj-lisp-subdirs (list "config" "functions" "bbdb" "lisp" "mail" "modes" "x-support" "debian" "news" (format "emacs%d/gnus" (emacs-major-version)) (format "emacs%d/w3" (emacs-major-version)) ) "*The list of subdirtectories we want in the path.") ;;; Add the subdirs to the load path (let ((subdirs (mapcar (function (lambda (x) (expand-file-name (concat my-emacs-config-dir "/" x)))) manoj-lisp-subdirs))) (while subdirs (let ((subdir (car subdirs))) (if (not (member subdir load-path)) (setq load-path (cons subdir load-path)))) (setq subdirs (cdr subdirs)))) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- So, really, unless I can reproduce the problem you claim to have, I can't file bug reports, not can I figure out a scheme to fix them. From where I sit, at least my bog standard Debian unstable distribution does not get in my way when trying to maintain my emacs lisp packages. I am sorry your mileage has varied. manoj -- Biz is better. Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 14:36 ` Manoj Srivastava 2008-07-16 15:20 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-16 21:23 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-16 22:17 ` Manoj Srivastava 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-16 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: Manoj Srivastava; +Cc: emacs-devel Manoj Srivastava writes: > > As one consequence, the diagnostic tool M-x list-load-path-shadows RET > > pretty much goes crazy on Debian. > > It is: > A. /usr/share/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding /usr/share/emacs > B. /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ Is that "local" a typo? If not, I consider it a bug. IMO Debian should never install anything (except maybe the standard list of subdirectories) into /usr/local; that's *mine*. > Frankly, I don't call that going "pretty much crazy". but it > does make a nice sound bite in a flamewar. Well, I can infer that you just don't care about shadows, because that means that essentially all libraries have shadows. That *is* crazy, and definitely hinders diagnosing bugs which are due to a mismatch between version expected and version provided by the shadowing library. Developers and beta testers will typically have a few shadows, but in a standard installation to have *any* *is a bug*. This should be fixable by (1) linking /usr/share/emacs's .el files into the emacs-FLAVOR hierarchies, then (2) removing /usr/share/emacs from load-path. Ditto for site-lisp. > > The only sane way out is to compile and manage your own Emacs and > > packages. And that's what _all_ Emacs and XEmacs developers I know > > who are not simultaneously Debian maintainers do. > > I think this is not the case, since a trivial work around is > available (add your dir to the head of the path). This simply isn't sufficient, except for the case of a person maintaining one or a few Lisp packages. Don't bother asking for details; that's the product of experience with many small confusing problems, and if I *could* characterize the many confusingly small problems anything like that simply, I would have tried to fix those confusingly many small problems (all alike ;-), and probably I'd still be using Debianized Emacsen. The best I've heard of is Miles's hack, but he apparently uses a non-Debianized Emacsen and a .emacs hack which adds /usr/share/emacs to his load-path (and I bet it's not at the head). In other words, you're making the same mistake that Alan did. Because the set of people who actively participate in Emacs (and XEmacs) development on a day-to-day basis does not AFAICT include the Debian Emacsen maintainers and especially those who maintain the Debian Emacs Policy, there is nobody who can speak authoritatively about how the DEP and Emacs development practice could be better integrated. Nevertheless, you and Joe extrapolate from personal experience and assume that since you don't run into problems, a little discipline would solve them for the developers, too. That's just as wrong as Alan assuming that with a little more care the DEP could be adjusted so that he could use a Debianized Emacs in his usual way. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 21:23 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-16 22:17 ` Manoj Srivastava 2008-07-17 8:31 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Manoj Srivastava @ 2008-07-16 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:23:56 +0900, Stephen J Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> said: > Manoj Srivastava writes: >> > As one consequence, the diagnostic tool M-x list-load-path-shadows >> > RET pretty much goes crazy on Debian. >> >> It is: >> A. /usr/share/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding /usr/share/emacs >> B. /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp/<current-emacs-flavour> hiding >> /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ > Is that "local" a typo? If not, I consider it a bug. IMO Debian > should never install anything (except maybe the standard list of > subdirectories) into /usr/local; that's *mine*. I do not think it is a typo. Debian installs an empty directory there, and never removes it; it is so that you can drop stuff in there to override the vendor installed stuff. I consider that a feature. >> Frankly, I don't call that going "pretty much crazy". but it does >> make a nice sound bite in a flamewar. > Well, I can infer that you just don't care about shadows, because that > means that essentially all libraries have shadows. > That *is* crazy, and definitely hinders diagnosing bugs which are due > to a mismatch between version expected and version provided by the > shadowing library. Developers and beta testers will typically have a > few shadows, but in a standard installation to have *any* *is a bug*. > This should be fixable by (1) linking /usr/share/emacs's .el files > into the emacs-FLAVOR hierarchies, then (2) removing /usr/share/emacs > from load-path. Ditto for site-lisp. Hmm. You mean for every flavour of emacs, symlink the files from /usr/share/emacs/ hierarchy into /usr/share/<flavour> hierachy, and then drop the former? >> > The only sane way out is to compile and manage your own Emacs and >> > packages. And that's what _all_ Emacs and XEmacs developers I know >> > who are not simultaneously Debian maintainers do. >> >> I think this is not the case, since a trivial work around is >> available (add your dir to the head of the path). > This simply isn't sufficient, except for the case of a person > maintaining one or a few Lisp packages. Don't bother asking for > details; that's the product of experience with many small confusing > problems, and if I *could* characterize the many confusingly small > problems anything like that simply, I would have tried to fix those > confusingly many small problems (all alike ;-), and probably I'd still > be using Debianized Emacsen. The best I've heard of is Miles's hack, > but he apparently uses a non-Debianized Emacsen and a .emacs hack > which adds /usr/share/emacs to his load-path (and I bet it's not at > the head). I have in the past maintained Gnus, and still maintain VM, and I use CVS versions of org-mode, Emacs, DVC, and a couple of other minoir emacs packages. While I might not add much of my code to htese packages, I do routinely do git pull's and compiles and use them in my almost nihtly recompiles of CVS emacs. But hey, perhaps all the problems are indeed far above my head. It is just odd that they do not seem to impede my playing with custom lisp code and development versions of Emacs. > In other words, you're making the same mistake that Alan did. Because > the set of people who actively participate in Emacs (and XEmacs) > development on a day-to-day basis does not AFAICT include the Debian > Emacsen maintainers and especially those who maintain the Debian Emacs > Policy, there is nobody who can speak authoritatively about how the > DEP and Emacs development practice could be better integrated. I am one of the people responsible for Debian policies. ANd while I am not currently active in Debian Emacs policy, I was one of the people involved in crafting it way back when. > Nevertheless, you and Joe extrapolate from personal experience and > assume that since you don't run into problems, a little discipline > would solve them for the developers, too. That's just as wrong as > Alan assuming that with a little more care the DEP could be adjusted > so that he could use a Debianized Emacs in his usual way. Since I am actually doing all this, I can see how I can slip into the mistake of assuming it can be done. Anyway, if you do not want to engage into why normal Debian was of using Debianized emacsen do not work for you, and you are happy with your current set up, that's no skin off my nose either. manoj -- A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. Ramsey Clark Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-16 22:17 ` Manoj Srivastava @ 2008-07-17 8:31 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-17 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw To: Manoj Srivastava; +Cc: emacs-devel Manoj Srivastava writes: > I do not think it is a typo. Debian installs an empty directory > there, and never removes it; it is so that you can drop stuff in there > to override the vendor installed stuff. I consider that a feature. I guess it makes sense that /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp is on the load-path when $prefix = /usr, but it causes me cognitive dissonance. Rationale must be something like you can't go proliferating local directories (that the admin can populate as she likes) like site-lisp just because an application thinks that it's obviously for the use of the admin. As long as it's just the directory, yes, it's feature. More than a convenience, it tells you that it's Debian policy that you can put stuff there and you can expect its contents to be found via load-path (XEmacs at least prunes some directories with nothing loadable, so you might not see it on load-path at first). > > That *is* crazy, and definitely hinders diagnosing bugs which are due > > to a mismatch between version expected and version provided by the > > shadowing library. Developers and beta testers will typically have a > > few shadows, but in a standard installation to have *any* *is a bug*. > > > This should be fixable by (1) linking /usr/share/emacs's .el files > > into the emacs-FLAVOR hierarchies, then (2) removing /usr/share/emacs > > from load-path. Ditto for site-lisp. > > Hmm. You mean for every flavour of emacs, symlink the files from > /usr/share/emacs/ hierarchy into /usr/share/<flavour> hierachy, and > then drop the former? From load-path, yes. Conceptually that's like a source tree, not runnable libraries. > > This simply isn't sufficient, except for the case of a person > > maintaining one or a few Lisp packages. [...] > I have in the past maintained Gnus, and still maintain VM, and I > use CVS versions of org-mode, Emacs, DVC, and a couple of other minoir > emacs packages. While I might not add much of my code to htese > packages, I do routinely do git pull's and compiles and use them in my > almost nihtly recompiles of CVS emacs. Which is what I said pushing one or more directories would be good for. > But hey, perhaps all the problems are indeed far above my > head. It is just odd that they do not seem to impede my playing with > custom lisp code and development versions of Emacs. I think you might have more problems with XEmacs since all XEmacsen are expected to share the package hierarchy. The other factor is that the problems may be beneath your notice; they may be minor issues that a Debian maintainer deals with by not doing stupid things (in the context of maintaining a Debian installation). For example, Joe's point about what should and shouldn't go into site-lisp. > I am one of the people responsible for Debian policies. ANd > while I am not currently active in Debian Emacs policy, I was one of > the people involved in crafting it way back when. And your authoritative suggestions for better integration might be? :-) > Anyway, if you do not want to engage into why normal Debian was > of using Debianized emacsen do not work for you, Actually, I may just be about to do just that. But for now, I'm just trying to point out that the experiences of the two sides of this discussion are pretty much disjoint. Until somebody's both been deeply involved in Debian maintenance (of an Emacs as well as some packages) and in core Emacs development, we all have to be careful about understanding that people with different opinions are probably basing them on different history and skills. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 21:48 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-13 23:26 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-14 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-14 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Excuse me, but could you move this discussion elsewhere? Discussing the relative ethics of Windows and GNU/Linux might be borderline, but discussing which one is technically better or easier to install is clearly off topic. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 21:48 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-13 23:26 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-14 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-14 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: acm, cyd, drobinow, emacs-devel In that case, should not investigating hardware be something that is done as earlier as possible in the installation process - with a possibility for the user to just back off if the installation process finds hardware it does not recognize. The best time to investigate hardware is before you buy it. So we have fsf.org/resource/hw. (Or maybe it is fsf.org/resources/hw; I can't check from here.) However, your idea seems like a good one. I don't know whether distros have already done this or not, but if they have not, it would be good to suggest this to maintainers. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-13 21:46 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 21:40 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-13 21:48 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-14 19:56 ` Alan Mackenzie 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-14 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: cyd, emacs-devel, drobinow Richard, you're perhaps the brightest guy around, here. How long did it take you to get your first GNU/Linux installation installed and _fully_ working (i.e. all peripherals, networking, X-Windows, email, web-browsing, .... all satisfactory)? I have never done this myself. Perhaps that's why I am the brightest guy around ;-). Actually, what's best to do depends on your goals. If your wish is to get a machine running ASAP, ask (or even pay) an expert to do it. If your wish is to learn more about GNU/Linux system administration, installing it yourself is a good way to learn. foryou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-14 19:56 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-15 8:28 ` Thomas Lord 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-14 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw To: Richard M Stallman; +Cc: emacs-devel, drobinow 'Evening, Richard! On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0400, Richard M Stallman wrote: > Richard, you're perhaps the brightest guy around, here. How long > did it take you to get your first GNU/Linux installation installed > and _fully_ working (i.e. all peripherals, networking, X-Windows, > email, web-browsing, .... all satisfactory)? > I have never done this myself. Perhaps that's why I am the brightest > guy around ;-). That's wonderful! :-) > Actually, what's best to do depends on your goals. If your wish is to > get a machine running ASAP, ask (or even pay) an expert to do it. If > your wish is to learn more about GNU/Linux system administration, > installing it yourself is a good way to learn. > foryou I suppose it never really occurred to me to get help. Hey, I'm a hacker, an expert, I can do anything!!!! But, I can get bored to tears as easily as the next man. You know, Richard, if by some accident of history you had somehow come to write a Texinfo manual for GNU/Linux network configuration, the free software world would now be a much happier place. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-14 19:56 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-15 8:28 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-15 7:54 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-15 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: drobinow, Richard M Stallman, emacs-devel re much discussion around the general theme of: Alan Mackenzie wrote: > 'Evening, Richard! > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0400, Richard M Stallman wrote: > >> Richard, you're perhaps the brightest guy around, here. How long >> did it take you to get your first GNU/Linux installation installed >> and _fully_ working (i.e. all peripherals, networking, X-Windows, >> email, web-browsing, .... all satisfactory)? All of user-space needs to be done over. The root problem with install difficulties, network config difficulties, and divergent opinions about how to lay out an emacs install is simply that unix user space and unix "best" practices for source management haven't much improved for almost two decades. People are using tools closely related to those meant to manage *one* or *fifteen* of 100,000 unix installs (way back when) to now manage 100s of millions of installs, often enough 10s of millions at a time. Nobody has successfully bothered to revisit the fundamentals. The GNU project as originally conceived by some close to it involved fairly radical surgery to rationalize the "complete system" source tree and to rationalize user-space by homogenizing around a lispish approach. For example, what should a default "load path" be? Well, that's not just an Emacs question -- it's generic for many apps (e.g., a C compiler). It merits a generic solution which is then adopted as a coding / configuration / & source management standard. It is a failure of the GNU project and of the free software movement that there is so much emphasis on monolithic distributions and binary package distributions. It is a failure of the GNU project and the free software movement that one so often encounters distros that offer to not install source trees and even offer to not install development environments. These developments systematically and by design deprive users of incentive to actually *exercise* their software freedom as individuals. These developments encourage a *de facto* (even if not licensing-based) ceding of software freedom to distribution projects like Debian or any of the commercial distros. It is a failure of the GNU project and the free software movement that there is such a large technical gap between "upstream" projects and installed systems that massive "distribution projects" (commercial or Debian) need to exist in between. *Vetting services* should exist between upstream and end-users -- not "distribution vendors". Vetting services should be in the business of publishing links to source and checksums, not binaries. The most important thing in such a large effort as a complete system is the standards: standards for coding, for documentation, for source code management, for configuration, build, install, patching and rebuild/reinstall, and uninstall. Have you noticed that these are exactly the weak areas that cause nearly all of the friction people are kvetching about in this thread? (Some HW vendors keep secrets and that amplifies the problem -- but they are not the root of the problem.) Yes, some binaries are needed to bootstrap from a raw box running a (hopefully free) BIOS but those should be minimal -- not the state we see today where you pick your distro. *My* mentor, 20 years ago, was having fun debating with his peers whether the number of programs a set of bootstrap binaries required for a complete unix was closer 10 or closer to 20. Let's see, you'd want /bin/sh, for sure. and /usr/bin/cc. There's "awk" and "make" but maybe there's a sweeter spot that slices that a bit differently..... And in that view a "package" was a version controlled source bundle with facilities for patching and a very clean, flexible, configure/build/install procedure that was *standardized*. Not at the anemic level of the "GNU Coding Standards" -- but, rather, usefully standardized. Where today we have factional camps around RPM and other package systems -- those shouldn't be afterthought. Where we have "autoconf" and friends -- those should be central, not the obscure, resented power-grab of a few. Instead, we neglected all that grunt work and thus gave rise to Debian and all of the commercial vendors and all of the problems those "mid-stream" players create as they dominate the entire economics of our efforts to create software freedom. So, now, as a result: we've "succeeded" to the extent that most GNU/Linux users don't possess most of the source for what they run; can't rebuild from source; are "locked in" to one distribution vendor or another -- like RMS hisself, apparently. And all needlessly so because we failed to put forward good standards for source code management for a couple of decades. It's amazing, pathetic, and embarrassing to be associated with. -t ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 8:28 ` Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-15 7:54 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-15 8:52 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-15 8:57 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-17 22:54 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-15 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw To: Thomas Lord; +Cc: Alan Mackenzie, emacs-devel, Richard M Stallman, drobinow Thomas Lord wrote: > The most important thing in such a large effort as a complete system > is the standards: standards for coding, for documentation, for > source code management, for configuration, build, install, patching and > rebuild/reinstall, and uninstall. Yes, standards is the key to success. There are probably other areas for standards that could be mentioned too. One could for example think about OpenOffice and the struggle to implement an open standard for word processors. I find it hard to imagine that GNU/Linux will not be dominating when there are (in a bright future) adequate standards. Before that time I find it hard to believe that GNU/Linux can dominate. This is because standards makes it much easier to build on the work of others - and the idea of doing that is at the bottom of GNU/Linux IMO. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 7:54 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-15 8:52 ` Thomas Lord 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-15 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail) Cc: Alan Mackenzie, drobinow, Richard M Stallman, emacs-devel Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > Thomas Lord wrote: >> The most important thing in such a large effort as a complete system >> is the standards: standards for coding, for documentation, for >> source code management, for configuration, build, install, patching and >> rebuild/reinstall, and uninstall. > > Yes, standards is the key to success. > > There are probably other areas for standards that could be mentioned > too. One could for example think about OpenOffice and the struggle to > implement an open standard for word processors. Thanks. Layering matters there, in my view: Getting source code management, configure, build, install standards right makes application level (e.g. functionality at the level of OpenOffice) easier to standardize on -- because you can then publish working, useful, reference implementation *components* to deal with those app-level standards. > > I find it hard to imagine that GNU/Linux will not be dominating when > there are (in a bright future) adequate standards. Before that time I > find it hard to believe that GNU/Linux can dominate. > > This is because standards makes it much easier to build on the work of > others - and the idea of doing that is at the bottom of GNU/Linux IMO. > Right. "Composability" (of source components) is the thing to optimize. From there, things can grow without giving over freedom (via licensing or more subtle controls) to intermediaries. The GNU project, per say, has failed and needs a reboot. -t ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 8:28 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-15 7:54 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-15 8:57 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-15 17:14 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-17 22:54 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-15 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: Thomas Lord; +Cc: Alan Mackenzie, emacs-devel, Richard M Stallman, drobinow Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes: > re much discussion around the general theme of: > > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> 'Evening, Richard! >> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0400, Richard M Stallman wrote: >> >>> Richard, you're perhaps the brightest guy around, here. How long >>> did it take you to get your first GNU/Linux installation installed >>> and _fully_ working (i.e. all peripherals, networking, X-Windows, >>> email, web-browsing, .... all satisfactory)? > > > All of user-space needs to be done over. > > The root problem with install difficulties, network config difficulties, > and divergent opinions about how to lay out an emacs install is simply > that unix user space and unix "best" practices for source management > haven't much improved for almost two decades. Having worked with Unix and Unix-like installations for more than two decades, I can only say that you are utterly wrong. And in fact, it is mostly the driving force of the _free_ Unix variants that has brought forward most advances in source management, package management, and network configurations. If you want to get nostalgic at least over configuration, try Slackware one of these days. I think it is still pretty much old-spirit. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 8:57 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-15 17:14 ` Thomas Lord 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-15 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Alan Mackenzie, emacs-devel, Richard M Stallman, drobinow [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6537 bytes --] David Kastrup wrote: >> The root problem with install difficulties, network config difficulties, >> and divergent opinions about how to lay out an emacs install is simply >> that unix user space and unix "best" practices for source management >> haven't much improved for almost two decades. >> > > Having worked with Unix and Unix-like installations for more than two > decades, I can only say that you are utterly wrong. > More than two decades, eh? Like me, then, you probably cut your teeth on BSD, BSD-based SunOS, later HP-UX, AIX, Ultrix, Irix, Solaris, NextStep and eventually, GNU/Linux. We could trade war stories, no doubt. It's interesting, for example, the way that the proliferation of gratuitously different flavors of unix led to the perceived need and then deployment of Autoconf in the GNU project and how that in turn influenced coding practices. Again and again we erect new structures over rotten foundations rather than fixing the foundations. Sometimes the solution is not *more* code but rather less code and better. In any event, the "make" paradigm and same-but-different tools comes from slightly before both our times. The various "/etc" (and other location) system configuration files come from before our time; networking configuration from around our earliest days. The way that $PATH and later $LD_LIBRARY_PATH works is from early in yours and my experience and, with those (and older traditions) came the gist of contemporary directory layouts for system files. Common version naming and numbering practices go back to then. "patch" goes back to then. The absence of any systematic, automated way to build dependency management in to the development framework stems from that era. Though not as standardized as even all those bits, the first attempts to add automated package management and dependency management go back to that era as well -- I seem to recall a fair number of Usenix papers reporting on new variations and experience. The GNU/Linux world has most recently spent about a decade recapitulating that experience -- poorly. It was a dead end then and that hasn't changed. > And in fact, it is mostly the driving force of the _free_ Unix variants > that has brought forward most advances in source management, package > management, and network configurations. > And those advances have been and will continue to be purely incremental, hard-won, and perpetually (perhaps even increasingly) fragile. And there *still* is no successful, comprehensive system for on-line documentation and an expectation that every new serious package *uses it*. There are still essentially as many config file syntaxes as there are config files (only now there are more config files). There is still, therefore, no robust, systematic way to write higher-level, user friendly system configuration tools. There is, therefore, no robust, systematic way to write model-checking tools to sanity check and diagnose configurations. There is still no way to write robust, systematic, transactional and version control management tools for configs (the oft repeated "just stick /etc under CVS/SVN/whatever" is neither transactional or well version controlled). The problems of system configuration were well recognized by proprietary unix vendors and large systems shops those 20-some years ago -- that was the state when we arrived. Little has changed, often not clearly for the better, and only at substantial expense in volunteer labor and user frustration (as evidenced in these threads). The proprietary vendors were constrained by demand for (approximate, at best) upwards compatibility. The GNU project at least had a broad intent to, sure - bootstrap via unix, keep a unix kernel, and unix compatibility BUT - to also move on and build a new kind of user space, homogenized around a lisp-based, systematically customizable, extensible, and self-documenting architecture. And, on top of that ambition, some of us at least recognized that it was equally important to well-modularize and standardize the management of aggregated collections of separately developed source packages, their build and installation, their installed configuration, their dependencies, their auditing and so forth. The *only* way to solve those latter problems is with coding and packaging standards that are stronger, more thought out, yet at least as easy to follow as the GNU standards -- with tools to help with that. > If you want to get nostalgic at least over configuration, try Slackware > one of these days. I think it is still pretty much old-spirit. > I use a distribution with an excellent reputation for being one of the best of the breed in terms of ease of configuration, etc., and I find it to be very much in (the worst aspects of) the "old-spirit" -- with lots of junk layered over the old stuff to make it even worse than the worst of the old. It is fragile, ill-documented, sprawling and ad hoc. That is unsurprising when you try to layer a simulacrum of higher-level package management on a rotten, 30 year old foundation that was never intended in the first place to hold up a structure of this scale. Before all these recent "improvements" a unix admin had the problem of grokking lots of different system configuration files and keeping them in order. Now, with these improvements, an admin has two problems: dealing with those files *and* not breaking any of the layered (dog-piled) modern tools that supposedly assist in managing these files. The early GNU/Linux vendors set out to lead the free software hackers of the world to build a substitute for 1990s Solaris and that's exactly what then happened only the substitute is pluralized by competing GNU/Linux distros and in many ways none of them are as good as 1990s Solaris. Just like the proprietary vendors as they were wrapping up serious unix development we've wound up with some "pretty good" servers with user applications as an afterthought, requiring serious admin talent to keep running well, and the orginal GNU vision nowhere in sight. Give me 10 stout hackers. Job #1 is to make a minimal (really minimal) system for bootstrapping and then re-build user space "from scratch" (of course, not neglecting to repurpose millions of lines of existing code -- just not accepting a constraint of sacrificing robustness, quality, and scalability in favor of going too fast or being gratuitously compatible with traditions that have never and will never really work. -t [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7670 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-15 8:28 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-15 7:54 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-15 8:57 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-17 22:54 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-17 23:48 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-18 0:05 ` Thomas Lord 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-17 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw To: Thomas Lord; +Cc: acm, drobinow, emacs-devel It is a failure of the GNU project and of the free software movement that there is so much emphasis on monolithic distributions and binary package distributions. It is a failure of the GNU project and the free software movement that one so often encounters distros that offer to not install source trees and even offer to not install development environments. The words "it is a failure of" are ambiguous. They could literally mean "it is a goal we have not achieved", but they also suggest placing the blame for this on us. Certainly these are goals we have not achieved, but if others do not follow our recommendations, that's their decision, not ours. When I designed the GNU specs for configuring and building source packages, I hoped that free software developers generally would adopt them, but they did not. I tried at one point to convince XFree86 to support the GNU configuration spec. I even found a volunteer to implement that as a wrapper around their existing configuration mechanism. But they did not consider such compatibility very important, and I don't think they installed this wrapper. To convince free software projects generally to adopt this spec would require more pressure from the community in general. It is easy to call names (such as calling the GNU Coding Standards "anemic"), but given that many programs' developers won't even implement those, I doubt we would obtain much compliance for stricter ones. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-17 22:54 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-17 23:48 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-19 17:06 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-18 0:05 ` Thomas Lord 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-17 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, Thomas Lord, emacs-devel, drobinow Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > I tried at one point to convince XFree86 to support the GNU > configuration spec. I even found a volunteer to implement that as a > wrapper around their existing configuration mechanism. But they did > not consider such compatibility very important, and I don't think they > installed this wrapper. Note that the current standard X distribution, Xorg, now uses gnu auto* tools for configuration. -Miles -- Apologize, v. To lay the foundation for a future offense. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-17 23:48 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-19 17:06 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 4:08 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-20 6:35 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-19 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw To: Miles Bader; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, drobinow > I tried at one point to convince XFree86 to support the GNU > configuration spec. I even found a volunteer to implement that as a > wrapper around their existing configuration mechanism. But they did > not consider such compatibility very important, and I don't think they > installed this wrapper. Note that the current standard X distribution, Xorg, now uses gnu auto* tools for configuration. That is good news, but the general problem remains as far as I know. Has there been a general move towards supporting the GNU configure and build specs? That would make it much easier to build a whole system from source. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-19 17:06 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-20 4:08 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-20 17:21 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 6:35 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-20 4:08 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Note that the current standard X distribution, Xorg, now uses gnu auto* > tools for configuration. > > That is good news, but the general problem remains > as far as I know. Has there been a general move towards > supporting the GNU configure and build specs? As far as I know (I don't hack on X, I just read the mailing list), the entire build infrastructure was replaced, and you can now do "./configure ...; make" etc., and things work in the normal GNU style. [X was also modularized so it's not just one huge tree anymore, but rather a bunch of smaller packages.] -Miles -- Alliance, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-20 4:08 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-20 17:21 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 20:22 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-20 20:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-20 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: Miles Bader; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel > That is good news, but the general problem remains > as far as I know. Has there been a general move towards > supporting the GNU configure and build specs? As far as I know (I don't hack on X, I just read the mailing list), the entire build infrastructure was replaced, and you can now do "./configure ...; make" etc., and things work in the normal GNU style. We are miscommunicating. As regards X itself, I took for granted that that is what you meant. My question concerns looking beyond X to the free software community as a whole. Has there been a broader move towords supporting the GNU configure and build specs? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-20 17:21 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-20 20:22 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 20:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-20 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, Miles Bader Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > That is good news, but the general problem remains > > as far as I know. Has there been a general move towards > > supporting the GNU configure and build specs? > > As far as I know (I don't hack on X, I just read the mailing list), the > entire build infrastructure was replaced, and you can now do > "./configure ...; make" etc., and things work in the normal GNU > style. > > We are miscommunicating. As regards X itself, I took for granted that > that is what you meant. > > My question concerns looking beyond X to the free software community > as a whole. Has there been a broader move towords supporting the GNU > configure and build specs? Maybe you heard the term `autohell' once? People tend to forget about political issues when they are just frustrated with the software. Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-20 20:22 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 11:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 13:55 ` Miles Bader 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-21 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, miles > My question concerns looking beyond X to the free software community > as a whole. Has there been a broader move towords supporting the GNU > configure and build specs? Maybe you heard the term `autohell' once? Actually no. It seems to be a criticism of something. Perhaps Autoconf, or perhaps not -- I have no way to tell. If you are talking about Autoconf, then you've misunderstood what this issue is about. It is not about using Autoconf. It is about implementing the interface specified in the GNU Coding Standards. Let's please stick to the topic. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-21 11:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 13:59 ` Miles Bader ` (2 more replies) 2008-07-21 13:55 ` Miles Bader 1 sibling, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, miles Hi, Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > My question concerns looking beyond X to the free software community > > as a whole. Has there been a broader move towords supporting the GNU > > configure and build specs? > > Maybe you heard the term `autohell' once? > > Actually no. It seems to be a criticism of something. > Perhaps Autoconf, or perhaps not -- I have no way to tell. autoconf, automake, and so on. Actually, I heard people referring to the whole generation of configure scripts and Makefiles as `autohell'. Yes, it's ovbiously a criticism. > If you are talking about Autoconf, then you've misunderstood what this > issue is about. It is not about using Autoconf. It is about > implementing the interface specified in the GNU Coding Standards. > Let's please stick to the topic. Which means using the auto tools, be realistic. Who writes configure scripts manually? I have no interest in discussing theory when we have so much reality going on. People are not only moving away from the interface itself but also from the default tools to generate them, because they are still too complex to use. The interface difference is worked around by the package maintainers, they are prepared to support different building mechanisms. Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 11:29 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 13:59 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-21 17:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 16:48 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-22 2:48 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-21 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, rms, drobinow Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes: > Which means using the auto tools, be realistic. Who writes configure > scripts manually? I certainly have. It's not a difficult interface to implement. Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, it should often be fairly straight-forward to use that tool with a thin layer on top to implement the GNU configure interface. AFAICS, it's more a failure of imagination than a technical issue. -Miles -- Carefully crafted initial estimates reward you not only with reduced computational effort, but also with understanding and increased self-esteem. -- Numerical methods in C, Chapter 9. "Root Finding and Nonlinear Sets of Equations" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 13:59 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-21 17:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 18:05 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw To: Miles Bader; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, rms, drobinow Hi, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes: > Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes: >> Which means using the auto tools, be realistic. Who writes configure >> scripts manually? > > I certainly have. > > It's not a difficult interface to implement. > > Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly > hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, > it should often be fairly straight-forward to use that tool with a thin > layer on top to implement the GNU configure interface. It would be cool to have shell libraries you could use for whipping your own configure. I.e. no m4 macros but powerful shell functions you can just call. That way you would install the `GNU build libs' (or whatever you would like to call them) and upstream distributors ship a 20-liner of a configure script that utilizes these libraries instead of having heaps of source trees that ship a 12k lines configure script. > AFAICS, it's more a failure of imagination than a technical issue. Richard was right with me mixing up the coding standard with the autotools. I am sorry. The problem seems to be that people, including me, associate common GNU configuration/building mechanism with the autotools. So if they get pissed while using them (which is not unlikely, as we already know now), they probably tend to use something completely different, just because there is something else that promises working out of the box. So the more realistic case is that people chose scons or something instead of dropping autotools and writing their own configure script. I build a lot of software myself and this is based on half-assed observation, I might be wrong. Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 17:55 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 18:05 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 18:37 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: lord, rms, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, Miles Bader Johannes Weiner wrote: >> Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly >> hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, >> it should often be fairly straight-forward to use that tool with a thin >> layer on top to implement the GNU configure interface. > > It would be cool to have shell libraries you could use for whipping your > own configure. I.e. no m4 macros but powerful shell functions you can > just call. And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might stop people from using it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 18:05 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 18:37 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 18:49 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 22:47 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail) Cc: lord, rms, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, Miles Bader Hi, "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > Johannes Weiner wrote: >>> Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly >>> hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, >>> it should often be fairly straight-forward to use that tool with a thin >>> layer on top to implement the GNU configure interface. >> >> It would be cool to have shell libraries you could use for whipping your >> own configure. I.e. no m4 macros but powerful shell functions you can >> just call. > > > And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might stop > people from using it. To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 18:37 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 18:49 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 19:30 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 22:47 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: lord, rms, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, Miles Bader Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hi, > > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > >> Johannes Weiner wrote: >>>> Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly >>>> hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, >>>> it should often be fairly straight-forward to use that tool with a thin >>>> layer on top to implement the GNU configure interface. >>> It would be cool to have shell libraries you could use for whipping your >>> own configure. I.e. no m4 macros but powerful shell functions you can >>> just call. >> >> And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might stop >> people from using it. > > To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of > crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues > left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. I not sure why you tell me that. I see no reason why I should be interested in your opinion about it. I am interested in getting the free software movement forward and "I know best" attitudes will not help. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 18:49 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 19:30 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 19:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail) Cc: lord, rms, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, Miles Bader Hi, "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > Johannes Weiner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Johannes Weiner wrote: >>>>> Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly >>>>> hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, >>>>> it should often be fairly straight-forward to use that tool with a thin >>>>> layer on top to implement the GNU configure interface. >>>> It would be cool to have shell libraries you could use for whipping your >>>> own configure. I.e. no m4 macros but powerful shell functions you can >>>> just call. >>> >>> And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might stop >>> people from using it. >> >> To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of >> crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues >> left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. > > > I not sure why you tell me that. I see no reason why I should be > interested in your opinion about it. > > I am interested in getting the free software movement forward and "I > know best" attitudes will not help. No offence. You suggested it should work on Windows in a reply to me. So I stated my opinion about it. I am also interested in getting the free software movement forward. I just don't have any idea how that relates to Windows. Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 19:30 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 19:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 22:54 ` Evans Winner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: lord, rms, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, Miles Bader Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hi, > > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > >> Johannes Weiner wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Johannes Weiner wrote: >>>>>> Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly >>>>>> hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, >>>>>> it should often be fairly straight-forward to use that tool with a thin >>>>>> layer on top to implement the GNU configure interface. >>>>> It would be cool to have shell libraries you could use for whipping your >>>>> own configure. I.e. no m4 macros but powerful shell functions you can >>>>> just call. >>>> And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might stop >>>> people from using it. >>> To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of >>> crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues >>> left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. >> >> I not sure why you tell me that. I see no reason why I should be >> interested in your opinion about it. >> >> I am interested in getting the free software movement forward and "I >> know best" attitudes will not help. > > No offence. You suggested it should work on Windows in a reply to me. > So I stated my opinion about it. > > I am also interested in getting the free software movement forward. I > just don't have any idea how that relates to Windows. Thanks Hannes! Let us keep up the good work. I presented (in this thread I believe) some of my arguments about why to care about w32 too in my reply to RMS about a portable mini-bash. I might be wrong, my arguments might be bad, but I tried to give some arguments. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 19:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 22:54 ` Evans Winner 2008-07-22 6:47 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 8:16 ` Jason Rumney 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Evans Winner @ 2008-07-21 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: I presented (in this thread I believe) some of my arguments about why to care about w32 too in my reply to RMS about a portable mini-bash. I might be wrong, my arguments might be bad, but I tried to give some arguments. I don't know much about it, but isn't that what MinGW is supposed to provide? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 22:54 ` Evans Winner @ 2008-07-22 6:47 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 8:16 ` Jason Rumney 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: Evans Winner; +Cc: emacs-devel Evans Winner <thorne@timbral.net> writes: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > writes: > > I presented (in this thread I believe) some of my > arguments about why to care about w32 too in my reply to > RMS about a portable mini-bash. I might be wrong, my > arguments might be bad, but I tried to give some > arguments. > > I don't know much about it, but isn't that what MinGW is > supposed to provide? Uh, "portable" is not the same as "runs on Windows". There are other platforms too, you know. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 22:54 ` Evans Winner 2008-07-22 6:47 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 8:16 ` Jason Rumney 2008-07-22 8:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Jason Rumney @ 2008-07-22 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw To: Evans Winner; +Cc: emacs-devel Evans Winner wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > writes: > > I presented (in this thread I believe) some of my > arguments about why to care about w32 too in my reply to > RMS about a portable mini-bash. I might be wrong, my > arguments might be bad, but I tried to give some > arguments. > > I don't know much about it, but isn't that what MinGW is > supposed to provide? I think Lennart's suggestion is about a having a small POSIX shell that can be bundled with Emacs (and other programs) to use on systems that do not have a POSIX shell by default. MinGW/MSYS is an external dependency which means an extra thing to go wrong for users. I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has been built by a bootstrap. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 8:16 ` Jason Rumney @ 2008-07-22 8:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 13:46 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 20:06 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: Jason Rumney; +Cc: Evans Winner, emacs-devel Jason Rumney wrote: > Evans Winner wrote: >> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> writes: >> >> I presented (in this thread I believe) some of my >> arguments about why to care about w32 too in my reply to >> RMS about a portable mini-bash. I might be wrong, my >> arguments might be bad, but I tried to give some >> arguments. >> >> I don't know much about it, but isn't that what MinGW is >> supposed to provide? > > I think Lennart's suggestion is about a having a small POSIX shell that > can be bundled with Emacs (and other programs) to use on systems that do > not have a POSIX shell by default. MinGW/MSYS is an external dependency > which means an extra thing to go wrong for users. Yes. > I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the > shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has > been built by a bootstrap. Yes, but that can be worked around by saying there is an extra step needed. Either downloading a binary or using a platform dependent way of building that mini-bash. (Most users will probably download it.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 8:16 ` Jason Rumney 2008-07-22 8:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 13:46 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 13:58 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) ` (2 more replies) 2008-07-22 20:06 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: Jason Rumney; +Cc: thorne, emacs-devel > From: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the > shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has > been built by a bootstrap. The shell could be built before running the configure. Unfortunately, I think Lennart's idea is not practical: a typical configure script exercises many advanced shell features, and so crafting a shell that could run it will need to implement most of the features we have in Bash. Such a shell will be neither small nor portable, because a Posix shell needs quite a few Posix features. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:46 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 13:58 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 14:34 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 17:22 ` James Cloos 2008-07-22 20:11 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: thorne, emacs-devel, Jason Rumney Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the >> shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has >> been built by a bootstrap. > > The shell could be built before running the configure. > > Unfortunately, I think Lennart's idea is not practical: a typical > configure script exercises many advanced shell features, and so > crafting a shell that could run it will need to implement most of the > features we have in Bash. Such a shell will be neither small nor > portable, because a Posix shell needs quite a few Posix features. You might have told me before, but what advanced features are you thinking of? Perhaps "portable" is much more important than "small". "Interactive" features might not be that important. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:58 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 14:34 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: thorne, emacs-devel, jasonr > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:58:47 +0200 > From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > CC: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>, thorne@timbral.net, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Unfortunately, I think Lennart's idea is not practical: a typical > > configure script exercises many advanced shell features, and so > > crafting a shell that could run it will need to implement most of the > > features we have in Bash. Such a shell will be neither small nor > > portable, because a Posix shell needs quite a few Posix features. > > You might have told me before, but what advanced features are you > thinking of? `fork', for starters. > Perhaps "portable" is much more important than "small". If it is not "small", it will be a large job to write it. Better invest that effort into making a native port of Bash, instead of inventing another wheel. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:46 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 13:58 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 17:22 ` James Cloos 2008-07-22 17:31 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 20:11 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: James Cloos @ 2008-07-22 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel; +Cc: thorne, Eli Zaretskii, Jason Rumney >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: Eli> a typical configure script exercises many advanced shell features, Eli> and so crafting a shell that could run it will need to implement Eli> most of the features we have in Bash. Such a shell will be neither Eli> small nor portable, because a Posix shell needs quite a few Posix Eli> features. I thought the whole point of auto-tools was to work with any POSIX shell. So dash ought to be enough for that. When it comes down to it though, given what else is required, I suspect busybox may be the answer. It should cover everything needed to run a configure script. And is GPL, too. -JimC -- James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 17:22 ` James Cloos @ 2008-07-22 17:31 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw To: James Cloos; +Cc: thorne, Eli Zaretskii, Jason Rumney, emacs-devel James Cloos wrote: > When it comes down to it though, given what else is required, I suspect > busybox may be the answer. It should cover everything needed to run a > configure script. And is GPL, too. The busybox site says "While the current code is fairly Linux specific, it should be fairly easy to port the majority of the code to support, say, FreeBSD or Solaris, or Mac OS X, or even Windows ..." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:46 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 13:58 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 17:22 ` James Cloos @ 2008-07-22 20:11 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-22 20:19 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 22:14 ` Eli Zaretskii 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-22 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: thorne, emacs-devel, jasonr > I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the > shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has > been built by a bootstrap. The shell could be built before running the configure. And how would that work for every other platform? Really, why not have a shell (say bash) that can be easily installed on Windows (a .exe that you can put somewhere), and whatever other platform. It could be distributed on ftp.gnu.org, like the emacs binaries for windows and other such unfriendly platforms. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 20:11 ` Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-22 20:19 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 22:14 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw To: ams; +Cc: thorne, Eli Zaretskii, jasonr, emacs-devel "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes: > > I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the > > shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has > > been built by a bootstrap. > > The shell could be built before running the configure. > > And how would that work for every other platform? By using a subset of C and the respective libraries that is supported everywhere. The Lua interpreter is written in that way IIRC. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 20:11 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-22 20:19 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 22:14 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 22:23 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-23 6:35 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw To: ams; +Cc: emacs-devel > CC: jasonr@gnu.org, thorne@timbral.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Reply-to: ams@gnu.org > From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:11:56 -0400 > > > I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the > > shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has > > been built by a bootstrap. > > The shell could be built before running the configure. > > And how would that work for every other platform? We were not talking about every other platform, just about w32. Posix platforms don't need to build a shell, they already have it. > Really, why not have a shell (say bash) that can be easily installed > on Windows (a .exe that you can put somewhere), and whatever other > platform. It could be distributed on ftp.gnu.org, like the emacs > binaries for windows and other such unfriendly platforms. That'd be the best, but unfortunately there's no native Windows port of a Posix shell that is bug-free and powerful enough to run a typical configure script. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 22:14 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 22:23 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-23 6:59 ` Stephen Leake 2008-07-23 6:35 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: ams, emacs-devel > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:14:29 -0400 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> > > unfortunately there's no native Windows port of a Posix shell that > is bug-free and powerful enough to run a typical configure script. At least to my best knowledge, that is. If someone knows about such a beast, please tell where to find it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 22:23 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-23 6:59 ` Stephen Leake 2008-07-23 8:20 ` Jason Rumney 2008-07-23 8:45 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2008-07-23 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:14:29 -0400 >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> >> >> unfortunately there's no native Windows port of a Posix shell that >> is bug-free and powerful enough to run a typical configure script. > > At least to my best knowledge, that is. If someone knows about such a > beast, please tell where to find it. Cygwin provides precisely that. Some might say "it's not 'native'; it relies on the cygwin.dll". I think that's a quibble; it's easy to install, it provides sufficient power to run typical configures; that satisfies the stated requirements. No software is completely "bug-free", but Cygwin bash is as good as any other port of Gnu bash, in my experience. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 6:59 ` Stephen Leake @ 2008-07-23 8:20 ` Jason Rumney 2008-07-23 12:49 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-23 8:45 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Jason Rumney @ 2008-07-23 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stephen Leake; +Cc: emacs-devel Stephen Leake wrote: > Some might say "it's not 'native'; it relies on the cygwin.dll". That is not a real criticism, many Windows programs depend on their own shared libraries. A real criticism is that it does not interact well with native Windows programs, which causes lots of ugly workarounds to be needed in shell scripts and makefiles. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 8:20 ` Jason Rumney @ 2008-07-23 12:49 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-23 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw To: Jason Rumney; +Cc: stephen_leake, emacs-devel > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:20:29 +0100 > From: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Stephen Leake wrote: > > > Some might say "it's not 'native'; it relies on the cygwin.dll". > > That is not a real criticism, many Windows programs depend on their own > shared libraries. > > A real criticism is that it does not interact well with native Windows > programs, which causes lots of ugly workarounds to be needed in shell > scripts and makefiles. Yes, exactly. The /cygdrive stuff, the incompatible command-line quoting, text/binary mounts of filesystems, reliance on Bash when `system' is called, signals that only work between Cygwin programs, etc. etc., -- all this makes Cygwin a perfect environment if, but only if you confine yourself to running Cygwin programs and nothing else. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 6:59 ` Stephen Leake 2008-07-23 8:20 ` Jason Rumney @ 2008-07-23 8:45 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-23 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stephen Leake; +Cc: emacs-devel Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@member.fsf.org> writes: > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > >>> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> >>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:14:29 -0400 >>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >>> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> >>> >>> unfortunately there's no native Windows port of a Posix shell that >>> is bug-free and powerful enough to run a typical configure script. >> >> At least to my best knowledge, that is. If someone knows about such a >> beast, please tell where to find it. > > Cygwin provides precisely that. No, it doesn't. > Some might say "it's not 'native'; it relies on the cygwin.dll". I > think that's a quibble; it's easy to install, But you can't use it without installing it. And installing it tampers with the registry. And it can't be done in a batch job without user interaction. And if you do some_command `pwd` in it, only Cygwin programs will be able to properly interpret the output of pwd. > No software is completely "bug-free", but Cygwin bash is as good as > any other port of Gnu bash, in my experience. It is useless as an installation helper since it requires you to interactively install and configure the whole of Cygwin and there is no easy way to get rid of it again and there is no reasonable way to entertain more than one installation of Cygwin on a single system since it tampers with the registry. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 22:14 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 22:23 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-23 6:35 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-23 6:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: ams, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> CC: jasonr@gnu.org, thorne@timbral.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Reply-to: ams@gnu.org >> From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:11:56 -0400 >> >> > I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the >> > shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has >> > been built by a bootstrap. >> >> The shell could be built before running the configure. >> >> And how would that work for every other platform? > > We were not talking about every other platform, just about w32. Posix > platforms don't need to build a shell, they already have it. I recommend reading (info "(autoconf) Limitations of builtins") It would be marvellous if somebody managed to heed _all_ of the incompatibilities by chance first time round for non-trivial scripts. And that's just the shell: the autoconf setup requires quite a larger set of utilities. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 8:16 ` Jason Rumney 2008-07-22 8:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 13:46 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 20:06 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-22 20:24 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-22 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw To: Jason Rumney; +Cc: thorne, emacs-devel > I presented (in this thread I believe) some of my > arguments about why to care about w32 too in my reply to > RMS about a portable mini-bash. I might be wrong, my > arguments might be bad, but I tried to give some > arguments. > > I don't know much about it, but isn't that what MinGW is > supposed to provide? I think Lennart's suggestion is about a having a small POSIX shell that can be bundled with Emacs (and other programs) to use on systems that do not have a POSIX shell by default. MinGW/MSYS is an external dependency which means an extra thing to go wrong for users. I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - the shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until it has been built by a bootstrap. Exactly, wouldn't it be just easier to request the user to install whatever POSIX shell that is required in INSTALL or similar? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 20:06 ` Alfred M. Szmidt @ 2008-07-22 20:24 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 20:31 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: ams; +Cc: thorne, emacs-devel, Jason Rumney Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > I presented (in this thread I believe) some of my > > arguments about why to care about w32 too in my reply to > > RMS about a portable mini-bash. I might be wrong, my > > arguments might be bad, but I tried to give some > > arguments. > > > > I don't know much about it, but isn't that what MinGW is > > supposed to provide? > > I think Lennart's suggestion is about a having a small POSIX shell > that can be bundled with Emacs (and other programs) to use on > systems that do not have a POSIX shell by default. MinGW/MSYS is an > external dependency which means an extra thing to go wrong for > users. > > I do think this idea presents a chicken and egg problem though - > the shell is needed by configure, but will not be available until > it has been built by a bootstrap. > > Exactly, wouldn't it be just easier to request the user to install > whatever POSIX shell that is required in INSTALL or similar? There is a POSIX shell for w32, but I do not think that interact well with normal w32 command line programs. Is there anyone who knows something about that? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 20:24 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 20:31 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 20:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 22:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: thorne, ams, Jason Rumney, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > >> Exactly, wouldn't it be just easier to request the user to install >> whatever POSIX shell that is required in INSTALL or similar? > > There is a POSIX shell for w32, but I do not think that interact well > with normal w32 command line programs. Is there anyone who knows > something about that? MSYS is basically a boxed set of everything you'll likely need for autoconf (modulo compilers). We recommend using it with AUCTeX. It turns out that it still makes a formidable chore for most people to install all that and call autoconf, configure, make and so on. It also happens to be frustratingly hard to write shell, m4 and Makefile code that is immune to backslashes, spaces in file and directory names and similar. And since a typical installation target is "C:\Documents and Settings\dak\My Programs", you get hit with a lot of madness by default that could theoretically also occur under Posix-like systems but usually doesn't (of course, with the advent of MacOSX and GNOME and other GUI stuff, people tend to become less worried about using weird characters nowadays, so it's just a matter of time). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 20:31 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 20:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 20:59 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 22:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: thorne, ams, Jason Rumney, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: > MSYS is basically a boxed set of everything you'll likely need for > autoconf (modulo compilers). We recommend using it with AUCTeX. It > turns out that it still makes a formidable chore for most people to > install all that and call autoconf, configure, make and so on. Have you recently looked into the possibility of compiling Emacs using MSYS bash? I tried, but that was a while ago: http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/w32-build-emacs.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 20:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 20:59 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 21:03 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: thorne, ams, Jason Rumney, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> MSYS is basically a boxed set of everything you'll likely need for >> autoconf (modulo compilers). We recommend using it with AUCTeX. It >> turns out that it still makes a formidable chore for most people to >> install all that and call autoconf, configure, make and so on. > > Have you recently looked into the possibility of compiling Emacs using > MSYS bash? Neither recently nor ever. However, we had AUCTeX developers compile Emacs for distribution with AUCTeX frequently for a while, so if you need pointers, it might be an idea to ask on auctex-devel@gnu.org. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 20:59 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 21:03 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: thorne, ams, Jason Rumney, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: >> Have you recently looked into the possibility of compiling Emacs using >> MSYS bash? > > Neither recently nor ever. However, we had AUCTeX developers compile > Emacs for distribution with AUCTeX frequently for a while, so if you > need pointers, it might be an idea to ask on auctex-devel@gnu.org. Thanks, I sent a question. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 20:31 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 20:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 22:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: thorne, ams, emacs-devel, lennart.borgman, jasonr > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:31:58 +0200 > Cc: thorne@timbral.net, ams@gnu.org, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > > > Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > > >> Exactly, wouldn't it be just easier to request the user to install > >> whatever POSIX shell that is required in INSTALL or similar? > > > > There is a POSIX shell for w32, but I do not think that interact well > > with normal w32 command line programs. Is there anyone who knows > > something about that? > > MSYS is basically a boxed set of everything you'll likely need for > autoconf (modulo compilers). We recommend using it with AUCTeX. It > turns out that it still makes a formidable chore for most people to > install all that and call autoconf, configure, make and so on. MSYS is not a reliable solution, although with enough tinkering it is possible to tweak it into doing a useful job. It mangles command-line quoting, for starters, and also requires one to have a completely separate set of build tools, just for MSYS's use, in addition to native ports you use outside of the MSYS shell. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 18:37 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 18:49 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 22:47 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-21 23:11 ` David Kastrup ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-21 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> > Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:37:17 +0200 > Cc: lord@emf.net, rms@gnu.org, drobinow@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > acm@muc.de, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> > > To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of > crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues > left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. Such arrogant nonsense can only be forgiven if it's spoken out of utter ignorance. Last time you took a good look at a Windows system was probably in 1998. Wake up! a lot has changed since then. Nowadays, w32 systems don't fall short of Gnu/Linux in any aspect: stability, usability, user-friendliness, etc. And the current trend in Gnu/Linux systems to mimic the Windows UI, feel, and touch bring more and more the worst parts of Windows to Gnu/Linux systems, to the degree that in a very near future they will be indistinguishable, anyway. And if you are interested in OS architectural design, then Linux is simply boring: a huge monolithic kernel that came straight out of the dinosaur 70-s. Whereas modern Windows systems are in this respect everything the Hurd wanted to be: microkernel with many services running in user space. Too bad it is under-documented (but then who has ever heard about, let alone seen, good internals documentation in the Free Software world?). Posix is only one way to go, it is not the only way. Saying I don't care for anything but Posix is like sticking to a single programming language: you will be a poorer programmer, because some paradigms evade you completely. But I'm quickly getting off topic (not that this prolonged discussion was on it, btw). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 22:47 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-21 23:11 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 13:13 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 23:55 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-22 3:41 ` Johannes Weiner 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-21 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> >> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:37:17 +0200 >> Cc: lord@emf.net, rms@gnu.org, drobinow@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, >> acm@muc.de, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> >> >> To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of >> crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues >> left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. > > Such arrogant nonsense can only be forgiven if it's spoken out of > utter ignorance. Last time you took a good look at a Windows system > was probably in 1998. Wake up! a lot has changed since then. > Nowadays, w32 systems don't fall short of Gnu/Linux in any aspect: > stability, usability, user-friendliness, etc. There is no reliable way to quote stuff you want to pass into a "system" call. In fact, it is not even guaranteed that calling "exec" will not mesh up arguments or add or remove quoting. For a programmer, this is a situation nothing short of ridiculous. > And the current trend in Gnu/Linux systems to mimic the Windows UI, > feel, and touch bring more and more the worst parts of Windows to > Gnu/Linux systems, to the degree that in a very near future they will > be indistinguishable, anyway. The UI is one thing: at least this has been through usability labs. But the misbegotten programming APIs have not had the same blessing. And the degree to which they are messed up at times is utterly amazing to the unprepared observer. There are consequences: for example, call-process and its ilk don't work reliably. You can't expect the arguments given to them to actually make it unmolested to the argc/argv of the called program's "main". And that is not good. In my book, there is hardly an excuse for such misbehavior. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 23:11 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 13:13 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 13:24 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: hannes, emacs-devel > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:11:26 +0200 > > There is no reliable way to quote stuff you want to pass into a "system" > call. Of course, there is. Assuming you know what shell will interpret the arguments, that is. > In fact, it is not even guaranteed that calling "exec" will not > mesh up arguments or add or remove quoting. `exec' is not a Windows system call. Squeezing one OS into emulation of another should be expected to be problematic. > There are consequences: for example, call-process and its ilk don't work > reliably. You can't expect the arguments given to them to actually make > it unmolested to the argc/argv of the called program's "main". Only because the surrounding code expects a Posix-compliant set of functions and syscalls. It was not written with portability in mind from the ground up. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:13 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 13:24 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 13:51 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 13:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: hannes, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> >> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:11:26 +0200 >> >> There is no reliable way to quote stuff you want to pass into a "system" >> call. > > Of course, there is. Assuming you know what shell will interpret the > arguments, that is. Yes, since COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE behave quite differently, and also differently on different versions of Windows. So tell me: How to you quote the word (written as Lisp string) "\"goof\" " to the typical Windows shell? >> In fact, it is not even guaranteed that calling "exec" will not mesh >> up arguments or add or remove quoting. > > `exec' is not a Windows system call. Squeezing one OS into emulation > of another should be expected to be problematic. > >> There are consequences: for example, call-process and its ilk don't work >> reliably. You can't expect the arguments given to them to actually make >> it unmolested to the argc/argv of the called program's "main". > > Only because the surrounding code expects a Posix-compliant set of > functions and syscalls. It was not written with portability in mind > from the ground up. I often doubt it was written with anything in mind. As it stands, it is a half-baked pseudo-Posix wrappery about CP/M calling conventions. When looking at design and implementation of first DOS and later Windows, I often had the feeling "this is so stupid and braindead that I can hardly believe it". With UNIX, the feeling was more often "I wish I would have thought of that". -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:24 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 13:51 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 13:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, hannes, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: > When looking at design and implementation of first DOS and later > Windows, I often had the feeling "this is so stupid and braindead that I > can hardly believe it". With UNIX, the feeling was more often "I wish I > would have thought of that". Did not that change quite a lot when MS brought in important people from Digital Equipment Corp? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:24 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 13:51 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 13:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 14:34 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: hannes, emacs-devel > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200 > > Yes, since COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE behave quite differently, and also > differently on different versions of Windows. And zsh behaves differently from Bash which behaves differently from the Borne shell. > So tell me: How to you quote the word (written as Lisp string) > "\"goof\" " to the typical Windows shell? See the Emacs makefiles for Windows. > >> There are consequences: for example, call-process and its ilk don't work > >> reliably. You can't expect the arguments given to them to actually make > >> it unmolested to the argc/argv of the called program's "main". > > > > Only because the surrounding code expects a Posix-compliant set of > > functions and syscalls. It was not written with portability in mind > > from the ground up. > > I often doubt it was written with anything in mind. As it stands, it is > a half-baked pseudo-Posix wrappery about CP/M calling conventions. I was talking about Emacs code that implements call-process and its subroutines. > When looking at design and implementation of first DOS and later > Windows, I often had the feeling "this is so stupid and braindead that I > can hardly believe it". With UNIX, the feeling was more often "I wish I > would have thought of that". Are you sure you know the design and implementation of DOS and Windows well enough to say this? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:57 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 14:34 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 15:12 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: hannes, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> >> Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200 >> >> Yes, since COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE behave quite differently, and also >> differently on different versions of Windows. > > And zsh behaves differently from Bash which behaves differently from > the Borne shell. Not in the basic Bourne shell features. There _are_ buggy Bourne shells around. But they still don't show that sort of variety that Microsoft manages in its own product line. >> So tell me: How to you quote the word (written as Lisp string) >> "\"goof\" " to the typical Windows shell? > > See the Emacs makefiles for Windows. They don't quote such words. So care to enlighted me? >> When looking at design and implementation of first DOS and later >> Windows, I often had the feeling "this is so stupid and braindead >> that I can hardly believe it". With UNIX, the feeling was more often >> "I wish I would have thought of that". > > Are you sure you know the design and implementation of DOS and Windows > well enough to say this? I have worked with DOS beginning with version 1.0 when they were still mainly working with FCBs rather than file descriptors, and I have worked with CP/M, and I have worked with UNIX on various processors and OS/2. I have done quite a bit of assembly and system programming in all of those systems (many of that for pay), so I know a lot of the inheritage, memory and system layouts, and I know a lot of the implementations, and what system calls were done with what sort of data structures when what sort of features were implemented imitating features from elsewhere. So yes, I am sure that I know design and implementation of DOS and Windows well enough to say what feelings I have. And actually, I think that I should not require all too much of a qualification to be allowed to state my feelings. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:34 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 15:12 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 15:21 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: hannes, emacs-devel > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:34:58 +0200 > Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > > >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > >> Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200 > >> > >> Yes, since COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE behave quite differently, and also > >> differently on different versions of Windows. > > > > And zsh behaves differently from Bash which behaves differently from > > the Borne shell. > > Not in the basic Bourne shell features. And COMMAND.COM behaves like CMD.EXE ``in the basic DOS shell features''. This can go on forever, you know. Your bias and lack of objective comparison are obvious. No need to continue. > >> So tell me: How to you quote the word (written as Lisp string) > >> "\"goof\" " to the typical Windows shell? > > > > See the Emacs makefiles for Windows. > > They don't quote such words. Yes, they do, see for example `check-declare' in lisp/makefile.w32-in. > I have worked with DOS beginning with version 1.0 when they were still > mainly working with FCBs rather than file descriptors, and I have worked > with CP/M, and I have worked with UNIX on various processors and OS/2. > I have done quite a bit of assembly and system programming in all of > those systems (many of that for pay), so I know a lot of the inheritage, > memory and system layouts, and I know a lot of the implementations, and > what system calls were done with what sort of data structures when what > sort of features were implemented imitating features from elsewhere. Sorry, I'm not interested in a pissing contest. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 15:12 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 15:21 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: hannes, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:34:58 +0200 >> Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> >> >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> >> >> Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200 >> >> >> >> Yes, since COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE behave quite differently, and also >> >> differently on different versions of Windows. >> > >> > And zsh behaves differently from Bash which behaves differently from >> > the Borne shell. >> >> Not in the basic Bourne shell features. > > And COMMAND.COM behaves like CMD.EXE ``in the basic DOS shell > features''. The % quoting is different. Particularly when you get into loops. Command line parameters are different. There are other things. > This can go on forever, you know. Your bias and lack of objective > comparison are obvious. No need to continue. Sure, I get to different results than you after having worked with everything. Naturally that makes me biased. >> >> So tell me: How to you quote the word (written as Lisp string) >> >> "\"goof\" " to the typical Windows shell? >> > >> > See the Emacs makefiles for Windows. >> >> They don't quote such words. > > Yes, they do, see for example `check-declare' in lisp/makefile.w32-in. So why don't you just tell me? You are the expert on Windows, having tested it thoroughly and found it easy to use. Just tell me how to pass the string "\"goof\" " from the command line to a Windows batch file so that it assigns it to a single positional parameter, including the quotes and the trailing spaces? >> I have worked with DOS beginning with version 1.0 when they were >> still mainly working with FCBs rather than file descriptors, and I >> have worked with CP/M, and I have worked with UNIX on various >> processors and OS/2. I have done quite a bit of assembly and system >> programming in all of those systems (many of that for pay), so I know >> a lot of the inheritage, memory and system layouts, and I know a lot >> of the implementations, and what system calls were done with what >> sort of data structures when what sort of features were implemented >> imitating features from elsewhere. > > Sorry, I'm not interested in a pissing contest. Don't question my qualifications if you don't want to hear them. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 23:11 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 13:13 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-22 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: eliz, hannes, emacs-devel Given that Windows is proprietary software, its technical shortcomings (or absence of them) is a side issue. If people want to discuss that, would you please take it somewhere else? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 22:47 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-21 23:11 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-21 23:55 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-22 3:41 ` Johannes Weiner 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-21 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii writes: > running in user space. Too bad it is under-documented (but then who > has ever heard about, let alone seen, good internals documentation in > the Free Software world?). I have heard of it, of course; the XEmacs Project aspires to it. IMO, I've seen (some); YMMV, of course. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 22:47 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-21 23:11 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-21 23:55 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-22 3:41 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-22 13:28 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-23 2:26 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-22 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel Hi, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> >> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:37:17 +0200 >> Cc: lord@emf.net, rms@gnu.org, drobinow@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, >> acm@muc.de, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> >> >> To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of >> crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues >> left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. > > Such arrogant nonsense can only be forgiven if it's spoken out of > utter ignorance. Last time you took a good look at a Windows system > was probably in 1998. Wake up! a lot has changed since then. > > Nowadays, w32 systems don't fall short of Gnu/Linux in any aspect: > stability, usability, user-friendliness, etc. And the current trend > in Gnu/Linux systems to mimic the Windows UI, feel, and touch bring > more and more the worst parts of Windows to Gnu/Linux systems, to the > degree that in a very near future they will be indistinguishable, > anyway. I can use a stripped-down version of GNU/Linux. I neither use KDE nor Gnome for example. A lot of the time I chose to a bare screen session on a VT without running X at all. But I could start a full-blown desktop environment at an instant, if I want to. This modularity I have not seen in Windows so far and I doubt it will get there soon. On top of all this modularity, people now start to put blocks on top of it that make it look like Windows or OS X, maybe. But I can still chose which blocks I want to use. If people like using a complete desktop GNU/Linux distribution that mimics Windows' look and feel, that's their choice. And it's only ONE FLAVOR of the possibilities you have. > And if you are interested in OS architectural design, then Linux is > simply boring: a huge monolithic kernel that came straight out of the > dinosaur 70-s. Whereas modern Windows systems are in this respect > everything the Hurd wanted to be: microkernel with many services > running in user space. Linux is a fully-functioning, widely tested and bleeding-edge technology operating system I can study the source code of. What is your point? Advertising a blackblox by telling me what cool stuff it contains (you just have to believe!)? > Too bad it is under-documented (but then who has ever heard about, let > alone seen, good internals documentation in the Free Software world?). > > Posix is only one way to go, it is not the only way. Saying I don't > care for anything but Posix is like sticking to a single programming > language: you will be a poorer programmer, because some paradigms > evade you completely. That is certainly true. And I wouldn't mind seeing other good approaches to operating system design. Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 3:41 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-22 13:28 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 14:04 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 14:37 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-23 2:26 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:41:39 +0200 > > What is your point? That if you put politics aside, there's nothing left to make GNU/Linux be much better than Windows. Politics is what makes it stand out. You said: > To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of > crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues > left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. I'm saying that if you put all political issues aside, you are left with no arguments in comparing these two systems. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:28 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 14:04 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 14:11 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 14:42 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 14:37 ` Johannes Weiner 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:41:39 +0200 >> >> What is your point? > > That if you put politics aside, there's nothing left to make GNU/Linux > be much better than Windows. Politics is what makes it stand out. I've programmed both extensively. And Windows really is a time sink with its wagonload of inconsistencies. The company I am currently working with is rather Windows-centric. After about half a year of offering our main product on Windows as well, we abandoned the effort. The level of inconsistencies and problems when doing, say, batch file programming is really staggering, and we were continually getting tripped up by further little niceties and problems. Just a small example (stripped to the part of interest): REM Get current directory set targetdir=%CD% REM %targetdir% has to be postprocessed since if it is a root directory, REM it will end in a backslash which escapes a double quote when calling REM Java. So we append a single dot in that case. for %%l in (%targetdir%) do if "%%~pnl" == "\" (set targetdir=%targetdir%.) call ant.bat -Dinstaller.path="%targetdir%" Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of cmd.exe, and might break on another. Bourne shell programming is _much_ more consistent, regular, and simple. Quite fewer commands, quite more uniform constructs, quite more power, quite fewer exceptions and bad surprises. And that's when I am talking about seventies level Bourne shell programming. Of course, Windows bashing has become a popular sport. But it is not all politics and arbitrary. There are reasons, technical reasons (not "just" that it is unfree) that Windows gets bashed and loathed. After all, there _are_ non-free Unix versions a dime (or was that a million?) a dozen. And it is not just a _different_ design that is getting the heat, but pretty much the absence of much of a design and stupidity and awkwardness that is hobbling productivity in utterly staggering ways. This list certainly is not the place to discuss the presence or absence of merits in Windows. But if we get a bit more Emacs-specific and you take a look at conditional code being used when under all sort of UNIX systems and code being used when under w32, then take a good look at what code is more complex and awkward. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:04 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 14:11 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 14:39 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 14:42 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: > Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling > workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of > cmd.exe, and might break on another. Why don't you use perl for example instead? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:11 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 14:39 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 14:47 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling >> workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of >> cmd.exe, and might break on another. > > Why don't you use perl for example instead? Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:39 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 14:47 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 14:52 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 18:52 ` Sven Joachim 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >>> Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling >>> workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of >>> cmd.exe, and might break on another. >> Why don't you use perl for example instead? > > Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that possibility there any more? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:47 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 14:52 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 15:00 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 18:52 ` Sven Joachim 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> David Kastrup wrote: >>>> Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling >>>> workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of >>>> cmd.exe, and might break on another. >>> Why don't you use perl for example instead? >> >> Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. > > But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that > possibility there any more? It means pulling in a lot of external technology for just a simple scripting job. Why should we do that if what is present in Windows is so great? -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:52 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 15:00 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 15:13 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: >>>> Why don't you use perl for example instead? >>> Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. >> But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that >> possibility there any more? > > It means pulling in a lot of external technology for just a simple > scripting job. Why should we do that if what is present in Windows is > so great? I guess you know perl, of course. I might misunderstand what you are actually doing. There is vbs too and different installation software. But let us drop this, I just wanted to give a suggestion. I agree this is a weak and disturbing point on w32, escpecially when you are used to have powerful scripting languages available. This is however not what w32 programmers use. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 15:00 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 15:13 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 15:18 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >>>>> Why don't you use perl for example instead? >>>> Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. >>> But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that >>> possibility there any more? We needed a single executable for making installations and upgrades as simple as possible for customers (they'll break everything otherwise). A self-extracting batch file is doable reasonably well (once unzip.exe has been installed). Appending an archive to a .exe file is not as feasible, in contrast. >> It means pulling in a lot of external technology for just a simple >> scripting job. Why should we do that if what is present in Windows >> is so great? > > I guess you know perl, of course. I might misunderstand what you are > actually doing. There is vbs too and different installation > software. But let us drop this, I just wanted to give a suggestion. The main point is that we needed something we can support and that does not deviate too much in functionality from our existing supported code. Pulling in entirely different external technology just for installation was not an option when "everything is there". > I agree this is a weak and disturbing point on w32, escpecially when >you are used to have powerful scripting languages available. This is >however not what w32 programmers use. Whatever. After wasting in the order of manyears on this endeavor, we have reverted to GNU/Linux installs. People insisting on Windows get a virtual machine. I don't think I know of any multi-platform free software project where the Windows port is not responsible for the most hair-tearing and frustration. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 15:13 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 15:18 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 15:20 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 15:22 ` Eli Zaretskii 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: >>>> But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that >>>> possibility there any more? > > We needed a single executable for making installations and upgrades as > simple as possible for customers (they'll break everything otherwise). > A self-extracting batch file is doable reasonably well (once unzip.exe > has been installed). Appending an archive to a .exe file is not as > feasible, in contrast. The perl script exectutable could perhaps be zipped together with any needed archives. > I don't think I know of any multi-platform free software project where > the Windows port is not responsible for the most hair-tearing and > frustration. When I started looking at Emacs I noticed there were cross platform installers emerging that could do quite a bit. (But do not ask me about the names of them now.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 15:13 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 15:18 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 15:20 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 15:22 ` Eli Zaretskii 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: lennart.borgman, hannes, emacs-devel > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, > UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.0 > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:13:39 +0200 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >>>>> Why don't you use perl for example instead? > >>>> Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. > >>> But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that > >>> possibility there any more? > > We needed a single executable for making installations and upgrades as > simple as possible for customers (they'll break everything otherwise). > A self-extracting batch file is doable reasonably well (once unzip.exe > has been installed). Appending an archive to a .exe file is not as > feasible, in contrast. > > >> It means pulling in a lot of external technology for just a simple > >> scripting job. Why should we do that if what is present in Windows > >> is so great? > > > > I guess you know perl, of course. I might misunderstand what you are > > actually doing. There is vbs too and different installation > > software. But let us drop this, I just wanted to give a suggestion. > > The main point is that we needed something we can support and that does > not deviate too much in functionality from our existing supported code. > Pulling in entirely different external technology just for installation > was not an option when "everything is there". > > > I agree this is a weak and disturbing point on w32, escpecially when > >you are used to have powerful scripting languages available. This is > >however not what w32 programmers use. > > Whatever. After wasting in the order of manyears on this endeavor, we > have reverted to GNU/Linux installs. People insisting on Windows get a > virtual machine. > > I don't think I know of any multi-platform free software project where > the Windows port is not responsible for the most hair-tearing and > frustration. > > -- > David Kastrup > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 15:13 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 15:18 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 15:20 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 15:22 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 15:26 ` David Kastrup 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: lennart.borgman, hannes, emacs-devel > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:13:39 +0200 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I don't think I know of any multi-platform free software project where > the Windows port is not responsible for the most hair-tearing and > frustration. I do. We have such a project in the software shop where I get my paycheck. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 15:22 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 15:26 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 22:11 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: lennart.borgman, hannes, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:13:39 +0200 >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, >> emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> I don't think I know of any multi-platform free software project where >> the Windows port is not responsible for the most hair-tearing and >> frustration. > > I do. We have such a project in the software shop where I get my > paycheck. If it is free software, it should be reasonably easy to get a hold of a copy. Where can I take a look? -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 15:26 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 22:11 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-23 6:32 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: lennart.borgman, hannes, emacs-devel > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:26:23 +0200 > Cc: lennart.borgman@gmail.com, hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > > >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:13:39 +0200 > >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, > >> emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> > >> I don't think I know of any multi-platform free software project where > >> the Windows port is not responsible for the most hair-tearing and > >> frustration. > > > > I do. We have such a project in the software shop where I get my > > paycheck. > > If it is free software, it should be reasonably easy to get a hold of a > copy. Where can I take a look? It is not free software, but I don't see why should that be relevant in this context. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 22:11 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-23 6:32 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-23 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: lennart.borgman, hannes, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:26:23 +0200 >> Cc: lennart.borgman@gmail.com, hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> >> >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> >> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:13:39 +0200 >> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, >> >> emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> >> >> I don't think I know of any multi-platform free software project where >> >> the Windows port is not responsible for the most hair-tearing and >> >> frustration. >> > >> > I do. We have such a project in the software shop where I get my >> > paycheck. >> >> If it is free software, it should be reasonably easy to get a hold of a >> copy. Where can I take a look? > > It is not free software, but I don't see why should that be relevant > in this context. Because you claimed "I do" above when I said "I don't think I know of any multi-platform free software project ...". It is clear that our use of language is sufficiently different to make a discussion worthless. Even if it were not off-topic. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:47 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 14:52 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 18:52 ` Sven Joachim 2008-07-22 19:12 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Sven Joachim @ 2008-07-22 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel On 2008-07-22 16:47 +0200, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > David Kastrup wrote: >> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> David Kastrup wrote: >>>> Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling >>>> workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of >>>> cmd.exe, and might break on another. >>> Why don't you use perl for example instead? >> >> Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. > > But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that > possibility there any more? If you're referring to perlcc, that was indeed removed from Perl 5.10. Sven ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 18:52 ` Sven Joachim @ 2008-07-22 19:12 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 19:33 ` Sean O'Rourke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw To: Sven Joachim; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Johannes Weiner, emacs-devel Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2008-07-22 16:47 +0200, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> David Kastrup wrote: >>>>> Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling >>>>> workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of >>>>> cmd.exe, and might break on another. >>>> Why don't you use perl for example instead? >>> Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. >> But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that >> possibility there any more? > > If you're referring to perlcc, that was indeed removed from Perl 5.10. I believe there are still a commercial alternative for it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 19:12 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 19:33 ` Sean O'Rourke 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Sean O'Rourke @ 2008-07-22 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2008-07-22 16:47 +0200, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: >> >>> David Kastrup wrote: >>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> David Kastrup wrote: >>>>>> Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling >>>>>> workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of >>>>>> cmd.exe, and might break on another. >>>>> Why don't you use perl for example instead? >>>> Chicken and egg. Installation scripts have to rely on what is there. >>> But you can build exectutable from perl scripts, or is not that >>> possibility there any more? >> >> If you're referring to perlcc, that was indeed removed from Perl 5.10. > > I believe there are still a commercial alternative for it. PAR's pp[1] utility does this, I believe, and is free. Sean [1] http://search.cpan.org/~smueller/PAR-Packer-0.980/lib/pp.pm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:04 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 14:11 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 14:42 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 14:57 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: hannes, emacs-devel > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:04:03 +0200 > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > REM Get current directory > set targetdir=%CD% > > REM %targetdir% has to be postprocessed since if it is a root directory, > REM it will end in a backslash which escapes a double quote when calling > REM Java. So we append a single dot in that case. > for %%l in (%targetdir%) do if "%%~pnl" == "\" (set targetdir=%targetdir%.) > > call ant.bat -Dinstaller.path="%targetdir%" > > > Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling > workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of > cmd.exe, and might break on another. > > Bourne shell programming is _much_ more consistent, regular, and simple. Again, you are approaching a non-Posix platforms with Posix-centric perspective. Shell programming is a Posix idea. If you want a program, write it in a programming language, not in shell. > This list certainly is not the place to discuss the presence or absence > of merits in Windows. But if we get a bit more Emacs-specific and you > take a look at conditional code being used when under all sort of UNIX > systems and code being used when under w32, then take a good look at > what code is more complex and awkward. I already explained why: the original code was designed with Posix functionality in mind, that's why it doesn't port easily to anything else. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 14:42 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-22 14:57 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: hannes, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:04:03 +0200 >> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> REM Get current directory >> set targetdir=%CD% >> >> REM %targetdir% has to be postprocessed since if it is a root directory, >> REM it will end in a backslash which escapes a double quote when calling >> REM Java. So we append a single dot in that case. >> for %%l in (%targetdir%) do if "%%~pnl" == "\" (set targetdir=%targetdir%.) >> >> call ant.bat -Dinstaller.path="%targetdir%" >> >> >> Can you imagine how many mandays get wasted on utterly appalling >> workarounds like that? And of course, this just works on one version of >> cmd.exe, and might break on another. >> >> Bourne shell programming is _much_ more consistent, regular, and simple. > > Again, you are approaching a non-Posix platforms with Posix-centric > perspective. Shell programming is a Posix idea. If you want a > program, write it in a programming language, not in shell. So what programming languages does Windows come with? Or are we not actually talking about Windows after all? "Windows is great, because you can get something else to work around its shortcomings."? >> This list certainly is not the place to discuss the presence or >> absence of merits in Windows. But if we get a bit more >> Emacs-specific and you take a look at conditional code being used >> when under all sort of UNIX systems and code being used when under >> w32, then take a good look at what code is more complex and awkward. > > I already explained why: the original code was designed with Posix > functionality in mind, that's why it doesn't port easily to anything > else. Whatever. It is clear that you will not be fazed from your claims. So it is rather pointless to continue this charade. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 13:28 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 14:04 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 14:37 ` Johannes Weiner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-22 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel Hi, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:41:39 +0200 >> >> What is your point? > > That if you put politics aside, there's nothing left to make GNU/Linux > be much better than Windows. Politics is what makes it stand out. > > You said: > >> To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of >> crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues >> left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software. > > I'm saying that if you put all political issues aside, you are left > with no arguments in comparing these two systems. ROTFL. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 3:41 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-22 13:28 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-23 2:26 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-23 3:40 ` Johannes Weiner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-23 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: eliz, emacs-devel Linux is a fully-functioning, widely tested and bleeding-edge technology operating system I can study the source code of. Linux is a kernel. If you're thinking about a fully-functioning operating system, you must mean GNU+Linux. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 2:26 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-23 3:40 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-23 3:45 ` Miles Bader ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-23 3:40 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: eliz, emacs-devel Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Linux is a fully-functioning, widely tested and bleeding-edge technology > operating system I can study the source code of. > > Linux is a kernel. If you're thinking about a fully-functioning > operating system, you must mean GNU+Linux. > See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html. You might want to throttle your auto-responder that triggers whenever someone refers to `Linux' without the GNU/ prefix. I really MEANT the kernel. Quoting wikipedia: An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is the software component of a computer system that is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer. The operating system acts as a host for application programs that are run on the machine. So when I said `fully-functioning operating system' I did not mention userspace at all. If that nomenclature is wrong I would be glad if you could adjust the Wikipedia article. I hope it makes you happy when I say that I also use, study, improve (where possible) and propagate GNU software that I use in combination with the Linux kernel :) Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 3:40 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-23 3:45 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-24 2:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 2:44 ` Stefan Monnier 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-23 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: eliz, rms, emacs-devel Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes: > So when I said `fully-functioning operating system' I did not mention > userspace at all. > > If that nomenclature is wrong I would be glad if you could adjust the > Wikipedia article. For whatever reason, it's a huge hot-button stupid flamewar frantic slapfest topic. I shudder to think what happens on the wikipedia article... -Miles -- Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time. -- Steven Wright ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 3:40 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-23 3:45 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-24 2:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 3:34 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-24 2:44 ` Stefan Monnier 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-24 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: eliz, emacs-devel You might want to throttle your auto-responder that triggers whenever someone refers to `Linux' without the GNU/ prefix. That is an insulting thing to say. I thought about how to respond to your message, as I always do. I really MEANT the kernel. In that case, you could have made your meaning unambiguous by saying "kernel". Since we were talking about Windows, which is a complete operating system (not a kernel), it was entirely reasonable for me to think you too meant a complete system. Quoting wikipedia: An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is the software component of a computer system that is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer. The operating system acts as a host for application programs that are run on the machine. That is one of the two customary meanings of operating system. The other customary meaning refers to the whole system. Wikipedia ought to mention both, but I cannot fight them over this. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 2:24 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-24 3:34 ` Johannes Weiner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-24 3:34 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: eliz, emacs-devel Hi, Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > You might want to throttle your auto-responder that triggers whenever > someone refers to `Linux' without the GNU/ prefix. > > That is an insulting thing to say. I thought about how to respond > to your message, as I always do. My term was ambiguous to you. You chose to respond as if I have been factually wrong rather than having said something debatable. So I felt insulted too. > I really MEANT the kernel. > > In that case, you could have made your meaning unambiguous by saying > "kernel". Since we were talking about Windows, which is a complete > operating system (not a kernel), it was entirely reasonable for me to > think you too meant a complete system. > > Quoting wikipedia: > > An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is the software > component of a computer system that is responsible for the management > and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the > computer. The operating system acts as a host for application programs > that are run on the machine. > > That is one of the two customary meanings of operating system. > The other customary meaning refers to the whole system. > > Wikipedia ought to mention both, but I cannot fight them > over this. Is there a `them' in Wikipedia? :-) Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 3:40 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-23 3:45 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-24 2:24 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-24 2:44 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-24 3:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-24 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: eliz, rms, emacs-devel > Quoting wikipedia: > An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is the software > component of a computer system that is responsible for the management > and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the > computer. The operating system acts as a host for application programs > that are run on the machine. That's sufficiently vague to mean either a kernel or a whole OS. E.g. X11 would probably fall into this description, as would a DNS caching proxy, the /sbin/init program, or even gdm, network-manager, gnome-power-manager, nfsd, ... > So when I said `fully-functioning operating system' I did not mention > userspace at all. In most circumstances, nowadays, a kernel is a very far cry from a "fully functioning operating system". The Linux kernel is no exception here. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 2:44 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-24 3:29 ` Johannes Weiner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-24 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: eliz, rms, emacs-devel Hi, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >> Quoting wikipedia: > >> An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is the software >> component of a computer system that is responsible for the management >> and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the >> computer. The operating system acts as a host for application programs >> that are run on the machine. > > That's sufficiently vague to mean either a kernel or a whole OS. > E.g. X11 would probably fall into this description, as would a DNS > caching proxy, the /sbin/init program, or even gdm, network-manager, > gnome-power-manager, nfsd, ... Well, the most fundamental resource-manager and application host on a computer is the kernel. I am sorry if that was unclear. >> So when I said `fully-functioning operating system' I did not mention >> userspace at all. > > In most circumstances, nowadays, a kernel is a very far cry from > a "fully functioning operating system". The Linux kernel is no > exception here. I don't know how I respond to that as you said you wouldn't understand the term `operating system' being a kernel only. If you meant it as being a whole system including userspace, than it's surely not a complete operating system. If you meant it as being a kernel, then what's missing? Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 18:05 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 18:37 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-22 17:35 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-22 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: lord, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might stop people from using it. We must reject any presumption that free programs should work on Windows. It is ok to cooperate with users who want to add such support, but we must not make it part of the expected goals of a free software project. I think the GNU maintainer conventions file talks about this. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-22 17:35 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 18:40 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-23 16:56 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: lord, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles Richard M Stallman wrote: > And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might stop > people from using it. > > We must reject any presumption that free programs should work on > Windows. Yes, but that is a different thing. IF making free programs working on windows helps promote GNU/Linux (or Herd) is not that good? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 17:35 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 18:40 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 11:06 ` Bastien 2008-07-23 16:56 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail) Cc: lord, rms, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > Richard M Stallman wrote: >> And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might >> stop people from using it. >> >> We must reject any presumption that free programs should work on >> Windows. > > Yes, but that is a different thing. IF making free programs working on > windows helps promote GNU/Linux (or Herd) is not that good? Our first goal is to have a free operating system. This benefits everybody since anybody is free to use that as long as his hardware supports it. So if people work on Windows software who would otherwise work on improving a free system, everybody loses, while only the users of the non-free operating system gain. If people who work only on proprietary systems otherwise make free software work on those systems, nobody loses. In short, we should not lose our focus. Winning people to free software through Emacs on Windows can't work if the free systems become worse because of the redirection of effort. If we want to win them over to free systems, we should make the free systems as good as we can, not the unfree ones. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 18:40 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 11:06 ` Bastien 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2008-07-26 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > >> Richard M Stallman wrote: >>> And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might >>> stop people from using it. >>> >>> We must reject any presumption that free programs should work on >>> Windows. >> >> Yes, but that is a different thing. IF making free programs working on >> windows helps promote GNU/Linux (or Herd) is not that good? > > Our first goal is to have a free operating system. This benefits > everybody since anybody is free to use that as long as his hardware > supports it. So if people work on Windows software who would otherwise > work on improving a free system, everybody loses, while only the users > of the non-free operating system gain. > > If people who work only on proprietary systems otherwise make free > software work on those systems, nobody loses. > > In short, we should not lose our focus. Winning people to free software > through Emacs on Windows can't work if the free systems become worse > because of the redirection of effort. If we want to win them over to > free systems, we should make the free systems as good as we can, not the > unfree ones. Very well said. But proprietary systems are not only tools, they are also a media: while running on such platforms, free softwares do advertize the free software movement beyond free systems. While it's that true you cannot invest too much in communication, it's also important to recognize that running free software on a proprietary system is also useful - otherwise you will just strenghten a feeling of guilt in people working for that purpose! Of course, the fact that a computer is both a tool and a media tends to limit the scope of this argument, but maybe it comes close to Lennart's (and others') point. -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 17:35 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 18:40 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-23 16:56 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-23 17:42 ` Johannes Weiner ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-23 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: lord, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles IF making free programs working on windows helps promote GNU/Linux (or Herd) is not that good? Yes, but we can't assume in general that that is the case. For a few programs, such as OpenOffice and Firefox, the fact that they run on Windows seems to be a signficant aid to migration to GNU/Linux. But I don't see that this is true for other free programs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 16:56 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-23 17:42 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-24 0:06 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-24 8:07 ` Alan Mackenzie 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-23 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: lord, drobinow, Lennart Borgman (gmail), emacs-devel, acm, miles Hi, Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > IF making free programs working on > windows helps promote GNU/Linux (or Herd) is not that good? > > Yes, but we can't assume in general that that is the case. For a few > programs, such as OpenOffice and Firefox, the fact that they run on > Windows seems to be a signficant aid to migration to GNU/Linux. Are they really? I wonder how many users would have migrated if they'd still have to use Internet Explorer :-) Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 16:56 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-23 17:42 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-24 0:06 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-24 5:25 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-24 22:04 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 8:07 ` Alan Mackenzie 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-24 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: lord, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles Richard M Stallman wrote: > IF making free programs working on > windows helps promote GNU/Linux (or Herd) is not that good? > > Yes, but we can't assume in general that that is the case. For a few > programs, such as OpenOffice and Firefox, the fact that they run on > Windows seems to be a signficant aid to migration to GNU/Linux. But I > don't see that this is true for other free programs. The programs you mention are end user programs. That they are (or seem to be) an aid is perhaps rather easy to detect since the effect is rather immediate. Developers programs might not have an immediate effect, but I believe the long time aid might be much larger. This effect is more difficult to detect since it is a long time effect. And even so since a lot of things must cooperate before user sees the effect. It looks to me that the Mozilla people have drawn a similar conclusion since they offer their own portable platform for development (XUL). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 0:06 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-24 5:25 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-24 22:04 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-24 5:25 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail) Cc: lord, rms, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > Richard M Stallman wrote: >> IF making free programs working on windows helps promote >> GNU/Linux (or Herd) is not that good? >> >> Yes, but we can't assume in general that that is the case. For a few >> programs, such as OpenOffice and Firefox, the fact that they run on >> Windows seems to be a signficant aid to migration to GNU/Linux. But I >> don't see that this is true for other free programs. > > The programs you mention are end user programs. That they are (or seem > to be) an aid is perhaps rather easy to detect since the effect is > rather immediate. > > Developers programs might not have an immediate effect, but I believe > the long time aid might be much larger. Why? It makes it easier to stay on proprietary platforms. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 0:06 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-24 5:25 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-24 22:04 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 22:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) ` (3 more replies) 1 sibling, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-24 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: lord, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles Developers programs might not have an immediate effect, but I believe the long time aid might be much larger. I see no reason to think such an effect exists. Meanwhile, people have told me that the fact that Emacs runs on Windows undercut their ability to insist on running GNU/Linux at work. Without some sort of demonstration I decline to believe that this helps us. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 22:04 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-24 22:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-24 23:15 ` Nick Roberts 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 23:12 ` Óscar Fuentes ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-24 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: lord, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles Richard M Stallman wrote: > Developers programs might not have an immediate effect, but I believe > the long time aid might be much larger. > > I see no reason to think such an effect exists. Meanwhile, people > have told me that the fact that Emacs runs on Windows undercut their > ability to insist on running GNU/Linux at work. That is a bad effect of course, but I wonder how much impact it really has. > Without some sort of demonstration I decline to believe that this > helps us. It might be difficult to demonstrate but what I am thinking is that if more people knows the tools for developing software on/for free system they can contribute on their free time. (And in many cases bring experience with them from non-free systems.) One way to look into this question is perhaps to ask people developing software that runs on free systems where they have learned it and if it has been any help to them that these tools also runs on non-free systems. At the same time one can ask whether they have got any valuable ideas for development when meeting both free and non-free system/software. Because such encounters will be more frequent if free software tools also runs on non-free systems. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 22:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-24 23:15 ` Nick Roberts 2008-07-24 23:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2008-07-24 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: emacs-devel > One way to look into this question is perhaps to ask people developing > software that runs on free systems where they have learned it and if it > has been any help to them that these tools also runs on non-free systems. It's only worth asking these questions if a negative conclusion would mean that people are going to stop working on/distributing Emacs on non-free systems. Since they are probably not going to do that, it's probably best to just have tolerance for one another. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 23:15 ` Nick Roberts @ 2008-07-24 23:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-24 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: Nick Roberts; +Cc: emacs-devel Nick Roberts wrote: > > One way to look into this question is perhaps to ask people developing > > software that runs on free systems where they have learned it and if it > > has been any help to them that these tools also runs on non-free systems. > > It's only worth asking these questions if a negative conclusion would mean that > people are going to stop working on/distributing Emacs on non-free systems. > Since they are probably not going to do that, it's probably best to just > have tolerance for one another. Don't you when you write this already assume that it is negative to work for free software development tools on Windows? Is not your conclusion already done then? I would say that if these questions are asked one might come to the conclusion that better support on non-free systems may promote free systems. I for one has found it quite irritating having to spend so much time trying to fix problems with Emacs on w32 instead of raising the level of Emacs in different areas. But it is difficult, or rather impossible, to draw final conclusions. You have to take into account many things. What one can hope for is that looking into the questions gives input for strategies to use. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 23:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: nickrob, emacs-devel I for one has found it quite irritating having to spend so much time trying to fix problems with Emacs on w32 instead of raising the level of Emacs in different areas. You could install GNU/Linux on a machine, and do your Emacs development there. Then not only your editor, but all the rest of your system, will not subjugate you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 22:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-24 23:15 ` Nick Roberts @ 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: lord, drobinow, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles It might be difficult to demonstrate but what I am thinking is that if more people knows the tools for developing software on/for free system they can contribute on their free time. (And in many cases bring experience with them from non-free systems.) In principle, they can. But do they contribute to things that are generally useful, or only to porting to their systems? One way to look into this question is perhaps to ask people developing software that runs on free systems where they have learned it and if it has been any help to them that these tools also runs on non-free systems. That would be an interesting question to ask in a survey. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 22:04 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 22:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-24 23:12 ` Óscar Fuentes 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 3:20 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-25 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2008-07-24 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Developers programs might not have an immediate effect, but I believe > the long time aid might be much larger. > > I see no reason to think such an effect exists. Meanwhile, people > have told me that the fact that Emacs runs on Windows undercut their > ability to insist on running GNU/Linux at work. I was a Windows-only closed-source developer. NTEmacs introduced me to Free Software. So good was the experience that started to use MinGW and Cygwin. Inevitably this lead me to GNU/Linux. Today, all my software is cross-platform and my customers can use it on GNU/Linux, if they wish. I'm still a Windows closed-source developer. Changing this would mean the end of my career as computer programmer. None of my customers chose GNU/Linux, and I all can say is that this is well justified in almost all cases. However, I still keep my software "GNU/Linux-ready". NTEmacs is not slowing down my transition to GNU/Linux, because I can't (fully) go that route. NTEmacs is the responsible of me being a Free Software advocate... when Free Software makes sense. So far, the Free Software philosophy is a success when the software is targeted at hackers (Emacs, gcc, GNU/Linux servers...) and clearly inferior when targeted at "common" users. IMO, the reason is obvious: hackers does not understand the needs of common users. And when I say "inferior" or "needs" I don't mean "user experience" or "features" or "quality", I mean economics. But you need to think as a businessman to understand this. -- Oscar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 23:12 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 6:23 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-26 6:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: emacs-devel I'm still a Windows [proprietary software] developer. Changing this would mean the end of my career as computer programmer. You didn't say whether "your software" is free software, and I suspect it isn't. If your career as a computer programmer consists of developing proprietary software, I hope that career ends soon. NTEmacs is the responsible of me being a Free Software advocate... when Free Software makes sense. To say that there might be times when Free software doesn't "make sense" is, in effect, to grant ethical legitimacy. So you're not really a free software advocate at all. You only appreciate using some free software. So far, the Free Software philosophy is a success when the software is targeted at hackers (Emacs, gcc, GNU/Linux servers...) and clearly inferior when targeted at "common" users. I think you're mistaken, but that's a side issue. Your statements show the clearly that you don't care about freedom for computer users. Since you don't share our goals, we should not listen to your advice. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 6:23 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-26 6:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-26 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: ofv, emacs-devel > From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:23:55 -0400 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I'm still a Windows [proprietary software] developer. Changing > this would mean the end of my career as computer programmer. > > You didn't say whether "your software" is free software, and I suspect > it isn't. If your career as a computer programmer consists of > developing proprietary software, I hope that career ends soon. Perhaps we should conduct a survey on this list, to see how many people here should have their career "end soon". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 6:23 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-26 6:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 7:07 ` Stefan Monnier 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: Óscar Fuentes, emacs-devel Richard M Stallman wrote: > If your career as a computer programmer consists of > developing proprietary software, I hope that career ends soon. I would like to believe that you speak as a free software advocate when you write this and that there is no personal feelings in your words, but I am unable to understand your thinking here. If you consider the sum of all the consequences that Óscar looses his job, why do you think this is beneficial for free software? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 6:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 7:07 ` Stefan Monnier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-26 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Óscar Fuentes, rms, emacs-devel > If you consider the sum of all the consequences that Óscar looses his job, > why do you think this is beneficial for free software? Obviously, Richard's intention is not to say that Oscar should lose his job, but that he should switch to a job where he's paid to write Free Software. Stefan "What does this have to do with Emacs, again?" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 22:04 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 22:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-24 23:12 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2008-07-25 3:20 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-25 3:20 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: lord, drobinow, Lennart Borgman (gmail), hannes, emacs-devel, acm Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > I see no reason to think such an effect exists. Meanwhile, people > have told me that the fact that Emacs runs on Windows undercut their > ability to insist on running GNU/Linux at work. This seems pretty surprising ... the sort of people that say "just use windows" are also the sort to say "just use visual studio / notepad / ...". In my _personal_ experience, emacs on windows has been something of a nice tool to introduce people to the free software world. There are other free apps like firefox that can do this too, but there's something fairly unique about emacs -- it's not just "a better browser" or even just "a better editor". -miles -- Alone, adj. In bad company. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 3:20 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: Miles Bader; +Cc: lord, drobinow, lennart.borgman, hannes, emacs-devel, acm > I see no reason to think such an effect exists. Meanwhile, people > have told me that the fact that Emacs runs on Windows undercut their > ability to insist on running GNU/Linux at work. This seems pretty surprising ... the sort of people that say "just use windows" are also the sort to say "just use visual studio / notepad / ...". They said they used to tell the boss, "I have to run GNU/Linux so I can run Emacs; otherwise I can't be productive." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 22:04 ` Richard M Stallman ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2008-07-25 3:20 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-25 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-25 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:04:40 -0400 > Cc: lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > acm@muc.de, miles@gnu.org > > Developers programs might not have an immediate effect, but I believe > the long time aid might be much larger. > > I see no reason to think such an effect exists. Meanwhile, people > have told me that the fact that Emacs runs on Windows undercut their > ability to insist on running GNU/Linux at work. > > Without some sort of demonstration I decline to believe that this > helps us. Why do you believe the former claims more than you believe the latter? Let those who claim the former "demonstrate" it first. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 6:21 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel > I see no reason to think such an effect exists. Meanwhile, people > have told me that the fact that Emacs runs on Windows undercut their > ability to insist on running GNU/Linux at work. > > Without some sort of demonstration I decline to believe that this > helps us. Why do you believe the former claims more than you believe the latter? Because those people were telling me about what had happened to them personally. So far nobody has reported seeing that supporting Emacs on Windows helps us; it is just speculation. Let those who claim the former "demonstrate" it first. I think their testimony is sufficient proof that it happened to them. However, I do not know how often this happens. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 6:21 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-26 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:24:16 -0400 > > > I see no reason to think such an effect exists. Meanwhile, people > > have told me that the fact that Emacs runs on Windows undercut their > > ability to insist on running GNU/Linux at work. > > > > Without some sort of demonstration I decline to believe that this > > helps us. > > Why do you believe the former claims more than you believe the latter? > > Because those people were telling me about what had happened to them > personally. So far nobody has reported seeing that supporting Emacs > on Windows helps us; it is just speculation. Someone already posted an opposite experience. And I've heard similar evidence from quite a few others. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 16:56 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-23 17:42 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-24 0:06 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-24 8:07 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-24 10:20 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 5:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-24 8:07 UTC (permalink / raw To: Richard M Stallman Cc: lord, drobinow, Lennart Borgman (gmail), hannes, emacs-devel, miles Hi, Richard! On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:56:12PM -0400, Richard M Stallman wrote: > IF making free programs working on windows helps promote GNU/Linux > (or Herd) is not that good? > Yes, but we can't assume in general that that is the case. For a few > programs, such as OpenOffice and Firefox, the fact that they run on > Windows seems to be a signficant aid to migration to GNU/Linux. But I > don't see that this is true for other free programs. This is rather fundamental: Why do we write free software? My personal motivation is to make the world a better place. I think for you, by contrast, the propagation of free software is an end in itself, so your answers to the following questions might well be different from mine. When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. Therefore it is worthwhile spending effort making Emacs work on this (and other proprietary) systems. Could the availability of free software on non-free OSs remove an incentive for people to convert to completely free systems? It could in theory, but I don't think it does in practice. In most of the places I've worked, there's a massive network of MS-Windows PCs, and sometimes there's a Unix network too. Converting to GNU or BSD isn't an option in these places. Getting people to use Emacs is, though. All of the people I've introduced to Emacs have taken it up because I've shown them what it can do and they've liked it. This even includes a project manager, who liked Hi Lock Mode. None of them were bothered at all about it being free software, beyond the welcome lack of licensing hassles. The availability of free software on proprietary OSs might well cause the newly enlightened to explore free software further and possibly to start hacking it. A lack of free software on these OSs most surely will not. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 8:07 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-24 10:20 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-24 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 5:35 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-24 10:20 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie Cc: lord, Richard M Stallman, drobinow, Lennart Borgman (gmail), hannes, emacs-devel, miles Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > Hi, Richard! > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:56:12PM -0400, Richard M Stallman wrote: >> IF making free programs working on windows helps promote GNU/Linux >> (or Herd) is not that good? > >> Yes, but we can't assume in general that that is the case. For a few >> programs, such as OpenOffice and Firefox, the fact that they run on >> Windows seems to be a signficant aid to migration to GNU/Linux. But I >> don't see that this is true for other free programs. > > This is rather fundamental: Why do we write free software? My personal > motivation is to make the world a better place. But the world is large. If one can bundle resources by just making one place that is accessible to everyone better, one can achieve quite more. And this place are free operating systems. When there were not any, the GNU project still worked on making the world better in a lot of hostile places. But there is no point to distribute efforts still to places where nobody really needs to be. > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. But their job does not in general benefit others. So we are creating better opportunities for work that does not help the community. > The availability of free software on proprietary OSs might well cause > the newly enlightened to explore free software further and possibly to > start hacking it. A lack of free software on these OSs most surely > will not. But diluting our resources to proprietary dead ends that will not benefit users of free systems is not a good idea. If somebody who otherwise would not do anything else does it, the free software world does not get reduced. But that's not the case in general. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 10:20 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-24 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-24 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup Cc: lord, drobinow, lennart.borgman, hannes, emacs-devel, acm, miles If one can bundle resources by just making one place that is accessible to everyone better, one can achieve quite more. And this place are free operating systems. When there were not any, the GNU project still worked on making the world better in a lot of hostile places. But there is no point to distribute efforts still to places where nobody really needs to be. Very well said. > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. But their job does not in general benefit others. So we are creating better opportunities for work that does not help the community. I agree. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-25 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-25 14:51 ` David Kastrup ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-25 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:28 -0400 > Cc: lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, > hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, miles@gnu.org > > > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox > > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - > > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. > > But their job does not in general benefit others. So we are creating > better opportunities for work that does not help the community. > > I agree. Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit others, including Emacs on other platforms? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-25 14:51 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 15:08 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) ` (2 more replies) 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 8:03 ` Alan Mackenzie 2 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-25 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: rms, emacs-devel Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> >> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:28 -0400 >> Cc: lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, >> hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, miles@gnu.org >> >> > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox >> > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - >> > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. >> >> But their job does not in general benefit others. So we are creating >> better opportunities for work that does not help the community. >> >> I agree. > > Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit > others, including Emacs on other platforms? You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform, right? Now it is, of course, your choice what to spend your developer time on, like it is everybody other's choice, too. In the mean time, the only workable solutions to enter right-to-left texts remain proprietary ones, like Unipad under Windows. And there are a lot of other tasks that remain to be done in order to arrive at freely available solutions for everyone and every task, whereas "every operating system including proprietary ones" is not really crucial. Keeping the focus on free platforms helps to cut down on distractions. Of course it is everybody's own choice to set his own priorities. And doing something at all is preferable to just mouthing off like I mostly do. But it is a good idea to reevaluate one's priorities from time to time and ask oneself about the net benefits. And "can people do freely now what they could not before?" is a more important question for the GNU project than "can people do on a proprietary platform now what they could only do on a free one before?". -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 14:51 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-25 15:08 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 15:38 ` David Kastrup ` (2 more replies) 2008-07-25 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-26 6:03 ` Eli Zaretskii 2 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-25 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > >>> From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> >>> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:28 -0400 >>> Cc: lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, >>> hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, miles@gnu.org >>> >>> > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox >>> > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - >>> > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. >>> >>> But their job does not in general benefit others. So we are creating >>> better opportunities for work that does not help the community. >>> >>> I agree. >> Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit >> others, including Emacs on other platforms? > > You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform, > right? Now it is, of course, your choice what to spend your developer > time on, like it is everybody other's choice, too. Maybe the easiest way to give Eli more time for that is give good support for needed tools on w32? At least a lot of my time has been spent working around different deficiencys in GNU tools and other things needed on w32. I do not know the reasons for these deficiences, but the deficiences are there. And they take a lot of time to get around sometimes. (We have currently been discussing the build/distribution problem for example.) I can guess two main reasons for the deficiencies: 1) Lack of knowledge. It is not very common that someone knows both the GNU/Linux API and the w32 API in depth. A problem of this kind was the network problem with Emacs client on w32 (which took Juanma quite a while to solve). Like most other people I would assume that this kind of problems should be worked around with libraries when possible. Something ios maybe wrong when this does not work? 2) The other reason I guess is important is attitude. If a lot of people with good reputation says that working on w32 is not that important then those with a more admiring mind might agree without really diving into the subject. That shows up in code quality later. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 15:08 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-25 15:38 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 15:55 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 15:40 ` Juanma Barranquero 2008-07-26 20:31 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-25 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> >>>> From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> >>>> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:28 -0400 >>>> Cc: lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, >>>> hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, miles@gnu.org >>>> >>>> > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox >>>> > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - >>>> > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. >>>> >>>> But their job does not in general benefit others. So we are creating >>>> better opportunities for work that does not help the community. >>>> >>>> I agree. >>> Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit >>> others, including Emacs on other platforms? >> >> You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform, >> right? Now it is, of course, your choice what to spend your developer >> time on, like it is everybody other's choice, too. > > Maybe the easiest way to give Eli more time for that is give good > support for needed tools on w32? That sounds suspiciously like "throwing good time after bad time", to borrow a management term. It really sounds like a bottomless pit: you can throw more and more time that way, and the results will be more and more tasks. > At least a lot of my time has been spent working around different > deficiencys in GNU tools and other things needed on w32. You are not exactly making a shining case for w32 support being not a major side track for GNU project contributors. > I do not know the reasons for these deficiences, but the deficiences > are there. In the company I am earning my money in, we have been cutting our losses on Windows recently and now offer only a solution based on Ubuntu packages. If you need to run it on Windows, you use a virtual machine. And that is a proprietary product with industrial customers, and basically a batch processing product. So the difficulties were mostly related to setup and installation and configuration and file paths, nowhere near as complicated as for something like Emacs. Go figure. > I can guess two main reasons for the deficiencies: > > 1) Lack of knowledge. It is not very common that someone knows both > the GNU/Linux API and the w32 API in depth. A problem of this kind was > the network problem with Emacs client on w32 (which took Juanma quite > a while to solve). > > Like most other people I would assume that this kind of problems > should be worked around with libraries when possible. Something ios > maybe wrong when this does not work? > > 2) The other reason I guess is important is attitude. If a lot of > people with good reputation says that working on w32 is not that > important then those with a more admiring mind might agree without > really diving into the subject. That shows up in code quality later. I don't see a problem. If people spend the time on other things than w32 support, then it is likely better invested. I know that I have spent an inordinary amount of time on support Emacs, XEmacs, various Unices and Windows for AUCTeX. In particular making the AUCTeX installation work with MSYS has been a major pain in the ***. And keeping XEmacs compatibility means tying oneself to abstractions, APIs and core functionality of Emacs 20.4 or something. Keeping this compatibility in mind means aiming for abstractions and modularization and APIs which generate whole new subsystems and lots of independent fragilities. At each particular point of coding, the compatibility costs may be tolerable. But they add up. If Emacs image and font and display code just took Gdk, Gtk, Pango, Xft and other subsystems for granted and used _their_ interfaces indiscriminately, the code would be likely more transparent, maintainable and obvious. Having to abstract to a level that makes it possible to use w32 rendering, MacOSX rendering, legacy X11 rendering and so on comes at a cost. A high cost. We have slow image rendering, complex loaders, weird code paths and hard to understand data flow. And we are getting there with text rendering, too. So in addition to the time sink for the proprietary system developers themselves, our compatibility layers add cruft complicating things for everyone. I am not convinced that this offsets the advantages. Again: I am mostly talk and little work, and so I am hardly in a position to admonish anybody. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 15:38 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-25 15:55 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 16:08 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-25 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: >>>> Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit >>>> others, including Emacs on other platforms? >>> You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform, >>> right? Now it is, of course, your choice what to spend your developer >>> time on, like it is everybody other's choice, too. >> Maybe the easiest way to give Eli more time for that is give good >> support for needed tools on w32? > > That sounds suspiciously like "throwing good time after bad time", to > borrow a management term. It really sounds like a bottomless pit: you > can throw more and more time that way, and the results will be more and > more tasks. I am surprised, David. Where are your arguments? >> At least a lot of my time has been spent working around different >> deficiencys in GNU tools and other things needed on w32. >> I do not know the reasons for these deficiences, but the deficiences >> are there. >> I can guess two main reasons for the deficiencies: >> >> 1) Lack of knowledge. It is not very common that someone knows both >> the GNU/Linux API and the w32 API in depth. A problem of this kind was >> the network problem with Emacs client on w32 (which took Juanma quite >> a while to solve). >> >> Like most other people I would assume that this kind of problems >> should be worked around with libraries when possible. Something ios >> maybe wrong when this does not work? >> >> 2) The other reason I guess is important is attitude. If a lot of >> people with good reputation says that working on w32 is not that >> important then those with a more admiring mind might agree without >> really diving into the subject. That shows up in code quality later. > > I don't see a problem. If people spend the time on other things than > w32 support, then it is likely better invested. Why are you just guessing? > Keeping this compatibility in mind means aiming for abstractions and > modularization and APIs which generate whole new subsystems and lots of > independent fragilities. At each particular point of coding, the > compatibility costs may be tolerable. But they add up. The Mozilla folks have done it. > So in addition to the time sink for the proprietary system developers > themselves, our compatibility layers add cruft complicating things for > everyone. I am not convinced that this offsets the advantages. It is exactly this attitude I think is a problem. There is not only costs there are also benefits. As long as you do not consider the benefits your arguments are valid - and you will win the debate. But that victory has a cost. What would it take to convince you? > Again: I am mostly talk and little work, and so I am hardly in a > position to admonish anybody. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 15:55 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-25 16:08 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 16:19 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-25 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >>>>> Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit >>>>> others, including Emacs on other platforms? >>>> You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform, >>>> right? Now it is, of course, your choice what to spend your developer >>>> time on, like it is everybody other's choice, too. >>> Maybe the easiest way to give Eli more time for that is give good >>> support for needed tools on w32? >> >> That sounds suspiciously like "throwing good time after bad time", to >> borrow a management term. It really sounds like a bottomless pit: you >> can throw more and more time that way, and the results will be more and >> more tasks. > > I am surprised, David. Where are your arguments? Huh? Your proposal is that "maybe the easiest way" to give developers diverted by w32 more time is by diverting more developers to w32 on more general tasks. And then probably those will get more time by diverting even more developers on even broader w32 tasks. That's not an argument. It is an observation. You suggest the easiest way to invest less time on w32 is to invest more time. And I don't buy it. That's all. Whether you think this is an argument or not is not important to me. >>> 2) The other reason I guess is important is attitude. If a lot of >>> people with good reputation says that working on w32 is not that >>> important then those with a more admiring mind might agree without >>> really diving into the subject. That shows up in code quality later. >> >> I don't see a problem. If people spend the time on other things than >> w32 support, then it is likely better invested. > > Why are you just guessing? You wrote "I guess", not me. >> Keeping this compatibility in mind means aiming for abstractions and >> modularization and APIs which generate whole new subsystems and lots >> of independent fragilities. At each particular point of coding, the >> compatibility costs may be tolerable. But they add up. > > The Mozilla folks have done it. And there has been no cost doing it? >> So in addition to the time sink for the proprietary system developers >> themselves, our compatibility layers add cruft complicating things >> for everyone. I am not convinced that this offsets the advantages. > > It is exactly this attitude I think is a problem. There is not only > costs there are also benefits. What about "offsets the advantages" did you not understand, except that I got it backwards, namely that it should read "I am not convinced that the advantages offset the complications"? > As long as you do not consider the benefits your arguments are valid - > and you will win the debate. But that victory has a cost. Huh? This is not a competition. It is also not an election or decision forming process. If arguments of mine are valid, there is neither a necessity to shoot them down, nor is there one to shoot others down. We are not in a process of choosing which direction we want to put blinders on. > What would it take to convince you? There is nothing to be gained by convincing me. In particular since: >> Again: I am mostly talk and little work, and so I am hardly in a >> position to admonish anybody. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 16:08 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-25 16:19 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-25 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >>>>>> Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit >>>>>> others, including Emacs on other platforms? >>>>> You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform, >>>>> right? Now it is, of course, your choice what to spend your developer >>>>> time on, like it is everybody other's choice, too. >>>> Maybe the easiest way to give Eli more time for that is give good >>>> support for needed tools on w32? >>> That sounds suspiciously like "throwing good time after bad time", to >>> borrow a management term. It really sounds like a bottomless pit: you >>> can throw more and more time that way, and the results will be more and >>> more tasks. >> I am surprised, David. Where are your arguments? > > Huh? Your proposal is that "maybe the easiest way" to give developers > diverted by w32 more time is by diverting more developers to w32 on more > general tasks. I am suggesting that this might save time. I have given the arguments for that earlier. >>>> 2) The other reason I guess is important is attitude. If a lot of >>>> people with good reputation says that working on w32 is not that >>>> important then those with a more admiring mind might agree without >>>> really diving into the subject. That shows up in code quality later. >>> I don't see a problem. If people spend the time on other things than >>> w32 support, then it is likely better invested. >> Why are you just guessing? > > You wrote "I guess", not me. Yes, but you did not. But it looks to me you are guessing. What I mean is that I think it is better to write "I am guessing" or "this is my opinion" instead of stating once own believes as true facts. (Not that I always remember to do that.) >>> Keeping this compatibility in mind means aiming for abstractions and >>> modularization and APIs which generate whole new subsystems and lots >>> of independent fragilities. At each particular point of coding, the >>> compatibility costs may be tolerable. But they add up. >> The Mozilla folks have done it. > > And there has been no cost doing it? Of course there has been. But they would not at all be that big that they are now if they did not invest that effort. >>> So in addition to the time sink for the proprietary system developers >>> themselves, our compatibility layers add cruft complicating things >>> for everyone. I am not convinced that this offsets the advantages. >> It is exactly this attitude I think is a problem. There is not only >> costs there are also benefits. > > What about "offsets the advantages" did you not understand, except that > I got it backwards, namely that it should read "I am not convinced that > the advantages offset the complications"? Sorry, I do not understand. >> As long as you do not consider the benefits your arguments are valid - >> and you will win the debate. But that victory has a cost. > > Huh? This is not a competition. It is also not an election or decision > forming process. If arguments of mine are valid, there is neither a > necessity to shoot them down, nor is there one to shoot others down. Is it not more like a competition if you do not listen to and try to further also the argument that you do not like from the beginning? > We are not in a process of choosing which direction we want to put > blinders on. > >> What would it take to convince you? > > There is nothing to be gained by convincing me. In particular since: Ah, I think there is something to win by convincing you. I have read many good posts from you. >>> Again: I am mostly talk and little work, and so I am hardly in a >>> position to admonish anybody. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 15:08 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 15:38 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-25 15:40 ` Juanma Barranquero 2008-07-25 15:56 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 20:31 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Juanma Barranquero @ 2008-07-25 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 17:08, Lennart Borgman (gmail) <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> wrote: > A problem of this kind was the > network problem with Emacs client on w32 (which took Juanma quite a while to > solve). Not sure what problem are you talking about; the implementation of TCP sockets on emacsclient was stalled for a while because of a long-standing bug in the Windows port related to server sockets, which was solved by Kim, not me: 2006-07-14 Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> * w32.c (pfn_WSACreateEvent, pfn_WSACloseEvent): New func ptrs. (init_winsock): Load them. Use ws2_32.dll. (sys_listen): Undo last change. Just set FILE_LISTEN flag. (sys_accept): Undo last change. Instead, set child status to STATUS_READ_ACKNOWLEDGED and reset char_avail event so next sys_select will wakeup the reader thread. (_sys_wait_accept): New function used by reader thread to wait for an incoming connection on a server socket. * w32.h (_sys_read_ahead, _sys_wait_accept): Add prototypes. * w32proc.c (reader_thread): Use _sys_wait_accept to wait on a server socket (FILE_LISTEN flag). 2006-07-14 Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> * w32.c: Fix high cpu load for server sockets. (pfn_WSAEventSelect): New function ptr. (init_winsock): Load it. (sys_listen): Set FILE_LISTEN flag. Set event mask for socket's char_avail event object to FD_ACCEPT. (sys_accept): Check FILE_LISTEN flag. Set event mask on new socket's char_avail event object to FD_READ|FD_CLOSE. * w32.h (FILE_LISTEN): New filedesc flag value. Juanma ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 15:40 ` Juanma Barranquero @ 2008-07-25 15:56 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-25 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw To: Juanma Barranquero; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel Juanma Barranquero wrote: > Not sure what problem are you talking about; the implementation of TCP > sockets on emacsclient was stalled for a while because of a > long-standing bug in the Windows port related to server sockets, which > was solved by Kim, not me: Pardon, my memory. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 15:08 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 15:38 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 15:40 ` Juanma Barranquero @ 2008-07-26 20:31 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 20:56 ` Stefan Monnier 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: eliz, dak, emacs-devel > You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform, > right? Now it is, of course, your choice what to spend your developer > time on, like it is everybody other's choice, too. Maybe the easiest way to give Eli more time for that is give good support for needed tools on w32? You mean, ask other people to devote themselves to a side issue in the hope that then Eli will stop doing so? That would set the wrong priorities for the whole project. I'd rather send Eli another computer that runs GNU/Linux so he can do his editing there. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 20:31 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 20:56 ` Stefan Monnier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-26 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: eliz, dak, Lennart Borgman (gmail), emacs-devel Can we *PLEASE* stop this discussion (and all other alike)? No matter what will be said in those endless threads, I will not remove support for the w32 platform anytime soon, and neither will I devote more time to that platform. So, one last time, please stop it before I have to moderate the list. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 14:51 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 15:08 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-25 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-26 6:03 ` Eli Zaretskii 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-25 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Hi guys! Could we get back to Emacs hacking? Please? Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 14:51 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 15:08 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2008-07-26 6:03 ` Eli Zaretskii 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: rms, emacs-devel > From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:51:05 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > > >> From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > >> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:28 -0400 > >> Cc: lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, > >> hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, miles@gnu.org > >> > >> > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox > >> > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - > >> > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. > >> > >> But their job does not in general benefit others. So we are creating > >> better opportunities for work that does not help the community. > >> > >> I agree. > > > > Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit > > others, including Emacs on other platforms? > > You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform, > right? Irrelevant: Emacs-Bidi cannot be done one hour at a time. > And there are a lot of other tasks that remain to be done in order > to arrive at freely available solutions for everyone Like what? > But it is a good idea to reevaluate one's priorities from time to time > and ask oneself about the net benefits. And "can people do freely now > what they could not before?" is a more important question for the GNU > project than "can people do on a proprietary platform now what they > could only do on a free one before?". True, but not at all related to my original question above. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-25 14:51 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 6:19 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-26 8:03 ` Alan Mackenzie 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit others, including Emacs on other platforms? If you make platform-independent improvements then they are a benefit. I don't know how much of that you do, these days. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 6:19 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-07-26 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:24:15 -0400 > > Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit > others, including Emacs on other platforms? > > If you make platform-independent improvements then they are a benefit. > I don't know how much of that you do, these days. There are ChangeLog files for that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-25 14:51 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 8:03 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-26 8:50 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 21:34 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-26 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: rms, emacs-devel Morning, everybody! On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 05:20:16PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:28 -0400 > > Cc: lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, > > hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, miles@gnu.org > > > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox > > > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - > > > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. [David K:] > > But their job does not in general benefit others. Hmm. What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users? Let's see, users of mobile telephones, users of automotive control systems (which reduce pollution), Emacs itself (there is at least one Emacs developer with his Emacs hosted on w32), ....... [David K:] > > So we are creating better opportunities for work that does not > > help the community. "The" community. That of Free Software is merely one of many interlocking and interdependent communities. My view, already expressed, is that we have a moral imperative to contribute towards the wellbeing of the world, not just our own restricted subset of it. [Eli Z:] > Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit > others, including Emacs on other platforms? I'll say it benefits an enormous number of people. It certainly benefitted me back in the days of 20.n. Without it, my day job would have been much more frustrating, and I wouldn't have ended up contributing to Emacs. My impression is that a substantial minority, possibly even a majority, of Emacs users run on this particular non-free OS, and that the cost of supporting them is low by comparison. Carry on doing it, Eli! Again, what is the purpose of free software? Is it an end in itself, it's final goal being its exclusive use by everybody, or is it to improve the world? If the former, I hope the goal is never scored, because then free software would by stymied, with nowhere to go. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 8:03 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-26 8:50 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 9:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 10:29 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-26 21:34 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > Morning, everybody! > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 05:20:16PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> >> > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:28 -0400 >> > Cc: lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, >> > hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, miles@gnu.org > >> > > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox >> > > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - >> > > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. > > [David K:] >> > But their job does not in general benefit others. > > Hmm. What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users? What of it? Excel, Microsoft Word, Windows Vista and other proprietary software satisfy far more users than free software does. And more Chinese citizens are satisfied with their government than European citizens. Does that mean that we should take our standards for human rights from China? Do the ends justify the means? This is not what free software is about. > Let's see, users of mobile telephones, users of automotive control > systems (which reduce pollution), Emacs itself (there is at least one > Emacs developer with his Emacs hosted on w32), ....... > > [David K:] >> > So we are creating better opportunities for work that does not >> > help the community. > > "The" community. That of Free Software is merely one of many > interlocking and interdependent communities. It is the one the GNU project cares about. > My view, already expressed, is that we have a moral imperative to > contribute towards the wellbeing of the world, not just our own > restricted subset of it. It is not restricted. Anybody who cares can be a part of it. We are no longer in the situation that you have to run free software off unfree operating systems. We don't have a moral imperative to help those who refuse to be helped. That's a waste of resources. > My impression is that a substantial minority, possibly even a > majority, of Emacs users run on this particular non-free OS, and that > the cost of supporting them is low by comparison. The cost is that they don't care about using or improving free systems. > Carry on doing it, Eli! > > Again, what is the purpose of free software? Is it an end in itself, > it's final goal being its exclusive use by everybody, or is it to > improve the world? If the former, I hope the goal is never scored, > because then free software would by stymied, with nowhere to go. It is to improve the world, and the world is not improved by locking people into Windows. A developer using Emacs for developing Windows software will lock his users into Windows. There is enough other software that has this effect. It is not a particularly interesting goal to make Emacs do the same. The idea of free software is not to provide a comfortable place for people willing to give up their rights. Like with democracy, given the choice many people will be perfectly happy to take choices compromising their freedoms. It is not an objective for free software to make it easier for them. It is a sideeffect. Freedom rarely comes without the choice or ability to foresake it again. It is fragile, and only letting people keep that in mind gives it strength. It appears that we are not exactly doing a good job. Emacs is one-of-a-kind, and so there are not really any technically equivalent alternatives, free or non-free. Should we treat this as a strength or as a weakness? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 8:50 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 9:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 9:50 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 10:29 ` Alan Mackenzie 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Alan Mackenzie, Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: >> My impression is that a substantial minority, possibly even a >> majority, of Emacs users run on this particular non-free OS, and that >> the cost of supporting them is low by comparison. > > The cost is that they don't care about using or improving free systems. I think there is a good bit of psychology involved there because I believe you can not generally come to that conclusion without a certain view of how people decide what to do. Different people make their decisions in different ways. There are people who in some situations when pressured take a decision in the direction towards which they are pressured. That is well known. Milgram's experiment is an extreme example of that. What is propably less well know is that psychological experiments and thinking points to that people who are what they call authoritarian in their view of other people more often believe that pressure is the (only) way to get people to do things. Perhaps it is easy to be lead to the conclusion that pressure is necessary. For some actions it is but are the actions and thinking we want really of this type? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 9:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 9:50 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 9:55 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Alan Mackenzie, Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >>> My impression is that a substantial minority, possibly even a >>> majority, of Emacs users run on this particular non-free OS, and >>> that the cost of supporting them is low by comparison. >> >> The cost is that they don't care about using or improving free >> systems. > > I think there is a good bit of psychology involved there because I > believe you can not generally come to that conclusion without a > certain view of how people decide what to do. I am not interested in applying psychology to feel comfortable with an undesirable situation. That may be fine as long as the situation can't be changed. > What is propably less well know is that psychological experiments and > thinking points to that people who are what they call authoritarian in > their view of other people more often believe that pressure is the > (only) way to get people to do things. > > Perhaps it is easy to be lead to the conclusion that pressure is > necessary. For some actions it is but are the actions and thinking we > want really of this type? If you consider it as _pressure_ if I voice my opinion, and want to silence me, then you might want to think about your priorities. Either you consider me a babbling idiot who does not make sense, in which case there is no necessity to change my opinion. Or you don't, and there may be sense to what I say. And if there is, this sense will not go away if you make me go away. So we might as well stop. The world will become neither simpler nor more complex by us agreeing or disagreeing. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 9:50 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 9:55 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 10:15 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Alan Mackenzie, Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: >> I think there is a good bit of psychology involved there because I >> believe you can not generally come to that conclusion without a >> certain view of how people decide what to do. > > I am not interested in applying psychology to feel comfortable with an > undesirable situation. That may be fine as long as the situation can't > be changed. I can't understand why you are not. Don't you think it can help to make things better? >> What is propably less well know is that psychological experiments and >> thinking points to that people who are what they call authoritarian in >> their view of other people more often believe that pressure is the >> (only) way to get people to do things. >> >> Perhaps it is easy to be lead to the conclusion that pressure is >> necessary. For some actions it is but are the actions and thinking we >> want really of this type? > > If you consider it as _pressure_ if I voice my opinion, and want to > silence me, I do not think so. I wonder why you get that impression. Can you please tell me? > So we might as well stop. The world will become neither simpler nor > more complex by us agreeing or disagreeing. Yes, but I would be glad if you answered the question above (either here or private). I am interested in your answers because I think they matters. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 9:55 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 10:15 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 10:32 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: Alan Mackenzie, Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >>> I think there is a good bit of psychology involved there because I >>> believe you can not generally come to that conclusion without a >>> certain view of how people decide what to do. >> >> I am not interested in applying psychology to feel comfortable with an >> undesirable situation. That may be fine as long as the situation can't >> be changed. > > I can't understand why you are not. Don't you think it can help to > make things better? No, I don't think applying psychology to feel comfortable with an undesirable situation will help to make things better. There may be situations where temporarily scaling down the size of a problem prevents capitulation and paralysis. But there is a difference between "I won't be able to finish this on my own, but I'll just start anyway" and "I won't be able to finish this on my own, so I'll pretend it is not worth doing". -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 10:15 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 10:32 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Alan Mackenzie, Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel David Kastrup wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >>>> I think there is a good bit of psychology involved there because I >>>> believe you can not generally come to that conclusion without a >>>> certain view of how people decide what to do. >>> I am not interested in applying psychology to feel comfortable with an >>> undesirable situation. That may be fine as long as the situation can't >>> be changed. >> I can't understand why you are not. Don't you think it can help to >> make things better? > > No, I don't think applying psychology to feel comfortable with an > undesirable situation will help to make things better. Sorry for beeing unclear. I did not mean "applying psychology to feel comfortable". I wanted to point to away of thinking about the situation. A way to broaden the thinking. Any conclusions from that way of looking upon the situation must still be your own, of course. Thanks for the answer. > There may be situations where temporarily scaling down the size of a > problem prevents capitulation and paralysis. But there is a difference > between "I won't be able to finish this on my own, but I'll just start > anyway" and "I won't be able to finish this on my own, so I'll pretend > it is not worth doing". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 8:50 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 9:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-26 10:29 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-26 11:11 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-26 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel 'Morning, David, On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:50:01AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > > Morning, everybody! > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 05:20:16PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> > > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox > >> > > running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - > >> > > people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. > > [David K:] > >> > But their job does not in general benefit others. > > Hmm. What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users? > What of it? It refutes your contention "their job does not in general benefit others". > > [David K:] > >> > So we are creating better opportunities for work that does not > >> > help the community. > > "The" community. That of Free Software is merely one of many > > interlocking and interdependent communities. > It is the one the GNU project cares about. Along, hopefully, with the one that grows its food, the one that generates and supplies its electricity, the one the designs and builds cheap hardware, the ones that enable easy travel, the one that sends in the sand bags when the Elba floods, ...... > > My view, already expressed, is that we have a moral imperative to > > contribute towards the wellbeing of the world, not just our own > > restricted subset of it. > It is not restricted. Anybody who cares can be a part of it. We are > no longer in the situation that you have to run free software off > unfree operating systems. We don't have a moral imperative to help > those who refuse to be helped. That's a waste of resources. I disagree wholeheartedly with the semantic shift, the sentiment and the characterisation. > > My impression is that a substantial minority, possibly even a > > majority, of Emacs users run on this particular non-free OS, and that > > the cost of supporting them is low by comparison. > The cost is that they don't care about using or improving free systems. Again, not true. Many Emacs users on MS-Windows use Emacs, submit bug reports and some even hack elisp. > > Carry on doing it, Eli! > > Again, what is the purpose of free software? Is it an end in itself, > > it's final goal being its exclusive use by everybody, or is it to > > improve the world? If the former, I hope the goal is never scored, > > because then free software would by stymied, with nowhere to go. > It is to improve the world, and the world is not improved by locking > people into Windows. A developer using Emacs for developing Windows > software will lock his users into Windows. This will often be the case. Other times, Windows will be merely a platform for developing portable software or embedded software. The ethos of free software is that its creators do not constrain what its users may do with it, even if that aim is writing non-free software. I believe that people are best persuaded to use free software by seeing how good it is. The only context an MS-Windows user is going to see free software in is on MS-Windows. Firefox and Emacs are prime examples. I don't believe people will switch operating systems in order to use free application software - they will switch after seeing how good free software is. I think you are of the opposite opinion, and I can accept that. > There is enough other software that has this effect. It is not a > particularly interesting goal to make Emacs do the same. The idea of > free software is not to provide a comfortable place for people willing > to give up their rights. Like with democracy, given the choice many > people will be perfectly happy to take choices compromising their > freedoms. > It is not an objective for free software to make it easier for them. It > is a sideeffect. Freedom rarely comes without the choice or ability to > foresake it again. It is fragile, and only letting people keep that in > mind gives it strength. Here I agree with you. Freedom cannot happen until people grasp what it is. The FSF, especially Richard, have been doing a splendid job here, but the job is not yet done. > It appears that we are not exactly doing a good job. Emacs is > one-of-a-kind, and so there are not really any technically equivalent > alternatives, free or non-free. Should we treat this as a strength or > as a weakness? No, we shouldn't. We should improve Emacs. > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 10:29 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-26 11:11 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 12:33 ` Alan Mackenzie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:50:01AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > >> > Morning, everybody! > >> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 05:20:16PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> >> > > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs >> >> > > and Firefox running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an >> >> > > unequivocal yes - people who hack on MS-Windows can thus >> >> > > do a better job. > >> > [David K:] >> >> > But their job does not in general benefit others. > >> > Hmm. What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users? > >> What of it? > > It refutes your contention "their job does not in general benefit > others". How so? What about "in general" has been unclear to you? If they write software that runs only on non-free system, what's the benefit for free software? >> > [David K:] >> >> > So we are creating better opportunities for work that does not >> >> > help the community. > >> > "The" community. That of Free Software is merely one of many >> > interlocking and interdependent communities. > >> It is the one the GNU project cares about. > > Along, hopefully, with the one that grows its food, the one that > generates and supplies its electricity, the one the designs and builds > cheap hardware, the ones that enable easy travel, the one that sends > in the sand bags when the Elba floods, ...... There is nothing to be gained by putting the cart before the horse and confusing the means to an end with the end itself, to the degree of abandoning the end in order to run after the means. >> > My view, already expressed, is that we have a moral imperative to >> > contribute towards the wellbeing of the world, not just our own >> > restricted subset of it. > >> It is not restricted. Anybody who cares can be a part of it. We are >> no longer in the situation that you have to run free software off >> unfree operating systems. We don't have a moral imperative to help >> those who refuse to be helped. That's a waste of resources. > > I disagree wholeheartedly with the semantic shift, the sentiment and > the characterisation. You are free to your disagreement, but that does not mean that I should be kept from uttering my opinion. >> > My impression is that a substantial minority, possibly even a >> > majority, of Emacs users run on this particular non-free OS, and >> > that the cost of supporting them is low by comparison. > >> The cost is that they don't care about using or improving free >> systems. > > Again, not true. Many Emacs users on MS-Windows use Emacs, submit bug > reports and some even hack elisp. Emacs is a free program, not a free system. And I doubt that people preferring to use Emacs on Windows do that because they want to use a free system, but rather because they want to use Emacs. > This will often be the case. Other times, Windows will be merely a > platform for developing portable software or embedded software. The > ethos of free software is that its creators do not constrain what its > users may do with it, even if that aim is writing non-free software. But the ethos is not that its creators need to applaud or help the users writing non-free software. So I don't see that you are doing anything for free software by attacking my opinion. > I believe that people are best persuaded to use free software by > seeing how good it is. That is the stance of the Open Source proponents. One can't see "how good" free software is if it does not yet exist or is technically inferior. The principal value of free software is not one of technical excellence, but that nobody can take it away from you against your will or capability. And if you take a look at the current Windows licenses, Microsoft explicitly reserves the right to remotely destroy your computer and software if they think it desirable for pressing DRM or other features. So even if you don't count in the problem of not being able to work against obsolescence of a platform (for a free operating system, you can still find people working on it), Microsoft is free to stop your copy of Emacs from working even on an existing system. > The only context an MS-Windows user is going to see free software in > is on MS-Windows. That's his problem. > Firefox and Emacs are prime examples. I don't believe people will > switch operating systems in order to use free application software - > they will switch after seeing how good free software is. I think you > are of the opposite opinion, and I can accept that. Please don't put words into my mouth. I am of the opinion that we leave people without a reason to switch to free operating systems if we let ourselves be distracted into spending all our efforts in making software run on non-free operating systems rather than improving them on free operating systems. I know that in the proprietary company I work, we abandoned supporting our software on Windows because the cost, in contrast to expectations, turned out to be prohibitely high. I am not convinced that the net payoff for Emacs on free systems is positive, and I don't see that browbeating me to claim otherwise is going to change the situation underlying my beliefs. So why bother? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 11:11 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 12:33 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-26 14:26 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-26 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel Hi, David! On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 01:11:10PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:50:01AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > >> > Morning, everybody! > >> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 05:20:16PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> >> > > When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs > >> >> > > and Firefox running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is > >> >> > > an unequivocal yes - people who hack on MS-Windows can > >> >> > > thus do a better job. > >> > [David K:] > >> >> > But their job does not in general benefit others. > >> > Hmm. What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users? > >> What of it? > > It refutes your contention "their job does not in general benefit > > others". > How so? What about "in general" has been unclear to you? The fact that it's a weasel word, which can mean anything, everything, or nothing. ;-) > If they write software that runs only on non-free system, what's the > benefit for free software? Indirect, if any. But the benefit you were talking about was to "others" (which means other people), not to free software. People who hack software on MS-Windows do provide benefit to other people; their employers/customers and their own families, for example. > >> It is the one [community] the GNU project cares about. > > Along, hopefully, with the one that grows its food, the one that > > generates and supplies its electricity, the one the designs and > > builds cheap hardware, the ones that enable easy travel, the one that > > sends in the sand bags when the Elba floods, ...... > There is nothing to be gained by putting the cart before the horse and > confusing the means to an end with the end itself, to the degree of > abandoning the end in order to run after the means. The central point. As I said before, I think for Richard (and possibly for you), free software is an end in itself. For me it's a tool towards a better world. I suspect that's the essential difference between us which is fuelling this discussion. [ .... ] > You are free to your disagreement, but that does not mean that I should > be kept from uttering my opinion. Of course not! > >> The cost is that they don't care about using or improving free > >> systems. > > Again, not true. Many Emacs users on MS-Windows use Emacs, submit bug > > reports and some even hack elisp. > Emacs is a free program, not a free system. And I doubt that people > preferring to use Emacs on Windows do that because they want to use a > free system, but rather because they want to use Emacs. Yes, I think that's true. A lot of them do want to use a free system but can't, because their employers' setups won't let them. > > This will often be the case. Other times, Windows will be merely a > > platform for developing portable software or embedded software. The > > ethos of free software is that its creators do not constrain what its > > users may do with it, even if that aim is writing non-free software. > But the ethos is not that its creators need to applaud or help the users > writing non-free software. > So I don't see that you are doing anything for free software by > attacking my opinion. Maybe promoting deeper understanding of the issues for both of us? > > I believe that people are best persuaded to use free software by > > seeing how good it is. > That is the stance of the Open Source proponents. One can't see "how > good" free software is if it does not yet exist or is technically > inferior. The principal value of free software is not one of technical > excellence, but that nobody can take it away from you against your will > or capability. And if you take a look at the current Windows licenses, > Microsoft explicitly reserves the right to remotely destroy your > computer and software if they think it desirable for pressing DRM or > other features. So even if you don't count in the problem of not being > able to work against obsolescence of a platform (for a free operating > system, you can still find people working on it), Microsoft is free to > stop your copy of Emacs from working even on an existing system. I agree with all that, and none of it contradicts what I've said. I would just add that the fact that software is free tends to promote its technical excellence, Emacs and Linux being two good examples. > > The only context an MS-Windows user is going to see free software in > > is on MS-Windows. > That's his problem. :-) But we can help him. > > Firefox and Emacs are prime examples. I don't believe people will > > switch operating systems in order to use free application software - > > they will switch after seeing how good free software is. I think you > > are of the opposite opinion, and I can accept that. > Please don't put words into my mouth. I am of the opinion that we > leave people without a reason to switch to free operating systems if we > let ourselves be distracted into spending all our efforts in making > software run on non-free operating systems rather than improving them > on free operating systems. Maybe, but we're talking about a small amount of effort, not all of it. I think that effort is worth it, particularly when somebody (Eli) is willing to do it. > I know that in the proprietary company I work, we abandoned supporting > our software on Windows because the cost, in contrast to expectations, > turned out to be prohibitely high. Interesting, but not too surprising, I suppose. > I am not convinced that the net payoff for Emacs on free systems is > positive, .... OK. I think it is. > .... and I don't see that browbeating me to claim otherwise is going to > change the situation underlying my beliefs. Browbeating? We're having a polite discussion. > So why bother? I might learn something. (I have done.) You might learn something. > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 12:33 ` Alan Mackenzie @ 2008-07-26 14:26 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, rms, emacs-devel Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > Hi, David! > >> There is nothing to be gained by putting the cart before the horse and >> confusing the means to an end with the end itself, to the degree of >> abandoning the end in order to run after the means. > > The central point. As I said before, I think for Richard (and > possibly for you), free software is an end in itself. It most certainly isn't. But if the software or its platform is unfree, it is _utterly_ out of your control whether or not a user might benefit from it, and whether he has to pay through his nose to be allowed to reap the benefits of _your_ work. > For me it's a tool towards a better world. I suspect that's the > essential difference between us which is fuelling this discussion. No, the essential difference is that you consider proprietary corporations and business models suitable and responsible caretakers for a better world. If that were the case, there would have been nothing wrong with letting the market sort out the problem of software availability. But the market will do whatever people let it get away with. Read a current Windows license: people are comfortable with signing away their privacy, their security, and their system contents and control over it to Microsoft and think that that's what they deserve. The problem with the notion that it is ok to water down free software is that free software does not fall from the trees. You have to _create_ it before you can start with watering it down. And that is what the GNU project is about. The watering down is not what needs our help. It will happen anyway. >> Emacs is a free program, not a free system. And I doubt that people >> preferring to use Emacs on Windows do that because they want to use a >> free system, but rather because they want to use Emacs. > > Yes, I think that's true. A lot of them do want to use a free system > but can't, because their employers' setups won't let them. So should we go out of our way to make it _comfortable_ for them to stay with unfree systems? There is nothing to be gained except more work and more demands and fewer free systems and fewer people working on them. >> > This will often be the case. Other times, Windows will be merely a >> > platform for developing portable software or embedded software. >> > The ethos of free software is that its creators do not constrain >> > what its users may do with it, even if that aim is writing non-free >> > software. > >> But the ethos is not that its creators need to applaud or help the >> users writing non-free software. > >> So I don't see that you are doing anything for free software by >> attacking my opinion. > > Maybe promoting deeper understanding of the issues for both of us? You are presuming that I don't understand what I am talking about, and there is a point to your arguments that I am not able to comprehend. Do you really think I (or Richard) have never been where you are? Do you think that the marvels of unfree platforms are so rare that only chosen people like yourself get to see them? > I agree with all that, and none of it contradicts what I've said. I > would just add that the fact that software is free tends to promote > its technical excellence, Emacs and Linux being two good examples. Two rather bad examples since they never were non-free to start with, so you can't say whether the freedom promoted the excellence or not. Both projects have certainly much more been impacted by the personality and the technical decisions of their original creators. And Linux (by which you presumably mean the kernel) would have stayed a fringe product without GNU to run on it. If you take a look at the development cycles and feature growth of free software products, you'll find that more often than not they are dwarfed by proprietary products. And Emacs is certainly an example for slow development. But the freedom means that the software stays around and retains its breathing space. And software that keeps getting developed for 30 years _will_ gather some usefulness over the time. But the quality attained through longevity is an indirect consequence of the freedom. If you start a free and a closed-shop project with equal developer power at the same time, there is no reason that the free one should become better. That does not mean that it's a bad idea to bank on the free project: that way, every one is a winner. >> > The only context an MS-Windows user is going to see free software >> > in is on MS-Windows. > >> That's his problem. > > :-) But we can help him. Taking pity on someone who fails to shoot himself in the foot and loading his gun for him... -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 8:03 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-26 8:50 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-26 21:34 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 23:52 ` Barry Fishman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie; +Cc: eliz, emacs-devel Hmm. What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users? Our mission is not "satisfying users", it is establishing freedom. There are users who do not think their freedom is very important, and they may feel satisfied using proprietary software. (It isn't ALL badly written.) But that doesn't make the proprietary software a good thing. Freedom is important even if some people don't understand this, and taking away people's freedom is bad even if they are foolish enough not to care. We do not judge right and wrong by their standards. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 21:34 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-26 23:52 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-27 17:14 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-26 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Hmm. What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users? > > Our mission is not "satisfying users", it is establishing freedom. > > There are users who do not think their freedom is very important, and > they may feel satisfied using proprietary software. (It isn't ALL > badly written.) But that doesn't make the proprietary software a good > thing. > > Freedom is important even if some people don't understand this, and > taking away people's freedom is bad even if they are foolish enough > not to care. We do not judge right and wrong by their standards. I think you may be loosing sight of some things by still focusing just on gaining freedom. A GNU system now exists that people can use reliably and productively. Many of us prefer it over the proprietary alternatives, even if they were free. Isn't that real freedom. For many of us you have already won. The FSF seems to behave as if this wasn't true. So much effort still seems to be put into porting prorietary garbage like .NET to GNU, and producing a Gnome windowing environment which has all the faults of MS-Windows. Why not concentrate on producing something better. Emacs is far nicer to work with than GNOME. So why the interest in making Emacs fit in to this inferior MS-Windows like environment. Why not make GNOME work more like Emacs. Whats the point of a C based GTK it you don't use it through a Lisp like layer? Why is so much of my Gnome configuration buried in zillions of directories filled with ugly XML files. Why can't I query it with simple REPL? I don't have problems with porting Emacs to Vista. My problem is with this strong desire to port Vista to GNU. -- Barry Fishman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-26 23:52 ` Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-27 17:14 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-28 0:05 ` Barry Fishman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-27 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw To: Barry Fishman; +Cc: emacs-devel I think you may be loosing sight of some things by still focusing just on gaining freedom. A GNU system now exists that people can use reliably and productively. Many of us prefer it over the proprietary alternatives, even if they were free. Isn't that real freedom. For many of us you have already won. Not very many. Less than 10% of computer users use GNU/Linux, and nearly all of them run non-free software on or in it. The people who have fully rejected nonfree software are few. The FSF seems to behave as if this wasn't true. So much effort still seems to be put into porting prorietary garbage like .NET to GNU, and producing a Gnome windowing environment which has all the faults of MS-Windows. That's what we need in order to enable large numbers of users to escape from freedom-denying proprietary software. Why not make GNOME work more like Emacs. Whats the point of a C based GTK it you don't use it through a Lisp like layer? Why is so much of my Gnome configuration buried in zillions of directories filled with ugly XML files. Why can't I query it with simple REPL? I agree with you there. The sad thing is that GNOME was initially based on Scheme, and it was possible to do these things. They do not listen to me much, so I save my efforts with them for the issues that are essential to our campaign for freedom. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-27 17:14 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-28 0:05 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-28 21:47 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-28 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Barry Fishman writes: >> I think you may be loosing sight of some things by still focusing just >> on gaining freedom. A GNU system now exists that people can use >> reliably and productively. Many of us prefer it over the proprietary >> alternatives, even if they were free. Isn't that real freedom. For >> many of us you have already won. > > Not very many. Less than 10% of computer users use GNU/Linux, > and nearly all of them run non-free software on or in it. > The people who have fully rejected nonfree software are few. I think there are two issues here. First it is very difficult to get people, even those who are politically concerned, to understand the importance of the issues involved with free software. This does require constant educational effort. I'm not arguing against that. But one needs a platform that is worth using. Not just a cheap Vista clone. The Japanese started out by making cheap copies of American autos. It took them only so far. They really gained sales by using the quality control methods that US corporations rejected, and started making better products. Now American auto companies try to copy the Japanese. >> Why not make GNOME work more like Emacs. Whats the point of a C >> based GTK it you don't use it through a Lisp like layer? Why is so >> much of my Gnome configuration buried in zillions of directories >> filled with ugly XML files. Why can't I query it with simple REPL? > > I agree with you there. The sad thing is that GNOME was initially > based on Scheme, and it was possible to do these things. They do not > listen to me much, so I save my efforts with them for the issues > that are essential to our campaign for freedom. This whole thread has been about changing the direction of Emacs, dropping the support for non-free platforms, and integrating it better within GNU. My initial concern was that this seemed to mean that Emacs might loose its identity which made the time my job required me to spend on proprietary environments much less horrible. However, its been quite a few years since this has occurred. But if Emacs is going to be integrated within GNU, I just hope it involves more time shaping the direction of GTK, making improvements in ELisp/Guile, and making a better framework on which things like Gnome can be built. For example, one should ultimately be able to do things like have GnuCash use Emacs/TTY code to display in text windows. -- Barry Fishman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-28 0:05 ` Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-28 21:47 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-29 1:00 ` Barry Fishman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-28 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: Barry Fishman; +Cc: emacs-devel For example, one should ultimately be able to do things like have GnuCash use Emacs/TTY code to display in text windows. It is a useful goal. Do you want to work on trying to design a way to do this? Preferably it should not involve linking parts of Emacs with GNUcash. Too unmodular. Better to have them communicate somehow. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-28 21:47 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-29 1:00 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-29 6:21 ` tomas 2008-07-30 3:47 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-29 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > For example, one should ultimately be able to do things like have > GnuCash use Emacs/TTY code to display in text windows. > > It is a useful goal. Do you want to work on trying to design a way to > do this? Preferably it should not involve linking parts of Emacs with > GNUcash. Too unmodular. Better to have them communicate somehow. It is a matter of where you draw the module boundaries. Right now GNUcash uses Guile, GTK, and some application specific lisp and lower level C code. Emacs uses (I guess) its own ELisp, buffers, GTK (among other possibilities) under Emacs's rendering code and application specific Lisp and lower level C code. From what I understand, Emacs will be moving to Guile (or at least a Guile updated to meet its needs). If GTK is integrated and updated in a way that supports frames and buffers, and allow for a similar objects for TTY frames and buffers, a merge of GNUcash and Emacs becomes more like a bit of a lisp based connective code, to let GNUcash use TTY frames/windows instead of GTK ones. Does integration of Emacs into the GNU Desktop mean that Emacs just starts picking up Gnome and dbus facilities, and dropping portability concerns, or does it becomes a source of components and ideas that can be used in other applications. Otherwise I am afraid that the "make GNU look like Windows" people will bury us in the sort of fragile C++ monoliths like Firefox, that leave most everyone out. I think freedom is not just having source, and the permission to make changes and distribute them. Its also about it being straightforward to actually modify applications in ways that are useful. Emacs is excellent at this. I must have thousands of lines of elisp code, of probably no interest to anyone else, that I have written to tune simple Emacs features. One can easily make changes where the authors did not allow for them (without maintaining patches to the original sources): ;; FQDN patch - Force smtpmail to use mail-host-address (autoload 'smtpmail-fqdn "smtpmail" nil nil) (defadvice smtpmail-fqdn (around change-smtpmail-fqdn activate) "Supply a domain which is meaningful but wrong" (setq ad-return-value mail-host-address)) (setq message-user-fqdn mail-host-address) -- Barry Fishman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-29 1:00 ` Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-29 6:21 ` tomas 2008-07-29 15:21 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-30 3:47 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-30 3:47 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: tomas @ 2008-07-29 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: Barry Fishman; +Cc: rms, emacs-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:00:19PM -0400, Barry Fishman wrote: > Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > For example, one should ultimately be able to do things like have > > GnuCash use Emacs/TTY code to display in text windows. > > > > It is a useful goal. Do you want to work on trying to design a way to > > do this? Preferably it should not involve linking parts of Emacs with > > GNUcash. Too unmodular. Better to have them communicate somehow. > > It is a matter of where you draw the module boundaries [...] > Does integration of Emacs into the GNU Desktop mean that Emacs just > starts picking up Gnome and dbus facilities, and dropping portability > concerns, or does it becomes a source of components and ideas that can > be used in other applications. Otherwise I am afraid that the "make GNU > look like Windows" people will bury us in the sort of fragile C++ > monoliths like Firefox, that leave most everyone out. Note that the basic architecture of Firefox is very much parallel to that of Emacs: a C[++] core and a scripting layer on top to write most of the user functionality in (Javascript + XML). Not that I am a big fan of Javascript (even less of XML), I'd take Lisp over it any day, and the sheer bloatyness of Firefox gives me the feeping creeps, but just to point that out. > I think freedom is not just having source, and the permission to make > changes and distribute them. Its also about it being straightforward to > actually modify applications [...] Amen. Also called the "low hacktivation energy". Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIjrbxBcgs9XrR2kYRAkwDAJ9rr2op2wtYDg8DjyCWUs57Fbe4yACdGgSl L9tR2yZ9smuDSON7LhjOXq0= =wjKk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-29 6:21 ` tomas @ 2008-07-29 15:21 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-30 3:46 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-30 3:47 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-29 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: tomas; +Cc: rms, emacs-devel tomas@tuxteam.de writes: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:00:19PM -0400, Barry Fishman wrote: >> Otherwise I am afraid that the "make GNU >> look like Windows" people will bury us in the sort of fragile C++ >> monoliths like Firefox, that leave most everyone out. > > Note that the basic architecture of Firefox is very much parallel to > that of Emacs: a C[++] core and a scripting layer on top to write most > of the user functionality in (Javascript + XML). Not that I am a big fan > of Javascript (even less of XML), I'd take Lisp over it any day, and the > sheer bloatyness of Firefox gives me the feeping creeps, but just to > point that out. I may be just repeating wrong information, but doesn't Windows (at least historically) use Basic and assorted data files as its extension facility. I assume Vista is moving toward .NET. As far as Firefox is concerned, I see things like: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Building_an_Extension It seems to be more a patchwork of extendable areas, rather that what is going on in Emacs. I think of Emacs as a lisp program which uses C components to improve performance and connect to OS facilities. I think Python has done the best job of doing Emacs style things. It is even developing Pyrex, a typed python subset to C translator, to avoid some of the fragile C macro hacks used in Emacs, Guile, and other C based Lisps. It is even REPL based. But it doesn't have the extendability and flexibility of Lisp. Unlike programing in Lisp, Python has the feel that you are talking down to a small child rather than a peer (child or adult). >> From what I understand, Emacs will be moving to Guile (or at least a >> Guile updated to meet its needs). Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes: > This was sort of a vague goal a decade or more ago, but seems pretty > unlikely to actually happen. Scheme is going though a painful growth spurt (via R6RS), and its probably not stable enough to consider at the moment. Common Lisp has been excluded by RMS, although some people are going ahead via CL-EMACS. I assume he feels that its complexity would reduce the hacking community working on it. I think there is a continuum from "limited but simple" to "powerful but complex". Commercial applications can flourish working at the extremes, limited but simple for the user, powerful but complex for the internal developers. I think free projects really need to provide access to the middle of the spectrum where hacking can be a incremental process. The ideal would probably be to support the large numbers of people satisfied with the simple but limited area, but with support for more productive levels of "powerful but more complex" to keep a large development community happy. To me this requires the ability to dynamically build clean application specific sub-languages in the way only Lisp can do. My point is maybe some effort needs to be put on how Emacs ideas and shareable code can be used in a more general framework for building GNU applications. Guile, GDK/GTK seem to be steps in the right direction, but only if they could at least theoretically be used to build an Emacs that runs at least as fast as it runs now. But the Gnome juggernaut seems to be pulling in a different direction. One where Microsoft is leading the way. I just don't want it to overpower Emacs! I don't want my frame layouts to be saved in dozens of "~/.gconf/apps/emacs/**/%gconfg.xml" files! My own ~/.emacs file based setup has a growing "forward into the past" section where I roll back new default features that I find better living without. Please don't make it the bulk of my code. -- Barry Fishman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-29 15:21 ` Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-30 3:46 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-30 3:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: Barry Fishman; +Cc: tomas, emacs-devel The reasons I reject CL support in Emacs include incompatibility and the fact that CL is so complex that documenting it in the Emacs Lisp Ref Manual would be prohibitive. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-29 6:21 ` tomas 2008-07-29 15:21 ` Barry Fishman @ 2008-07-30 3:47 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-30 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: tomas; +Cc: emacs-devel, barry_fishman > I think freedom is not just having source, and the permission to make > changes and distribute them. Its also about it being straightforward to > actually modify applications [...] Amen. Also called the "low hacktivation energy". We must never lump together injustice with mere imperfection. This is a fundamental confusion. The former we can condemn, and perhaps stamp out. The latter we can only work to reduce. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-29 1:00 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-29 6:21 ` tomas @ 2008-07-30 3:47 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-30 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: Barry Fishman; +Cc: emacs-devel >From what I understand, Emacs will be moving to Guile (or at least a Guile updated to meet its needs). That is a long-term possibility, but nowhere near reality. We would have to make Guile coexist well with Emacs Lisp, and until we try it we won't know if it really can work. Does integration of Emacs into the GNU Desktop mean that Emacs just starts picking up Gnome and dbus facilities, Why not? (It already does dbus.) and dropping portability concerns, Certainly not! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 8:07 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-24 10:20 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-25 5:35 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-25 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: Alan Mackenzie Cc: lord, drobinow, lennart.borgman, hannes, emacs-devel, miles When I ask myself, is the world better for having Emacs and Firefox running on Microsoft Windows, the answer is an unequivocal yes - people who hack on MS-Windows can thus do a better job. Our goal is to replace and eliminate proprietary operating systems, not help people use them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 17:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 18:05 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-22 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, drobinow, miles So the more realistic case is that people chose scons or something instead of dropping autotools and writing their own configure script. If we are ever to be able to build whole systems from source in a simple way, our community will have to overcome that erroneous practice. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 11:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 13:59 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-21 16:48 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-22 2:48 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-21 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: miles, acm, emacs-devel, rms, drobinow Just a quick note: Johannes Weiner wrote: > autoconf, automake, and so on. Actually, I heard people referring to > the whole generation of configure scripts and Makefiles as `autohell'. > > Yes, it's ovbiously a criticism. > There are some very well known problems with that suite of tools, for some users. A few that come to mind: 1) Sometimes, after downloading this or that source package, perhaps making some changes, it is necessary simply to regenerate the configure script. Yet, from time to time, the script can not be regenerated using the auto* suite already installed, the user must install alternate versions as well. A very frustrating experience occurs when building a program that requires, say, 3 separate libraries from various sources to be built first, each library using autoconf, ultimately requiring a total of four separate versions of autoconf to get the job done. This doesn't happen (in my experience) often, but often enough that it has left me with a bad feeling about the autoconf suite. 2) The autoconf suite has grown over the years and is now quite complicated both internally, and in use. On the one hand, this reflects a needed accumulation of capabilities to be able to handle a very wide range of requirements from all the programs that use this suite. On the other hand, it is "nervous making" to have something so fundamental to a project as its build process rely on such complicated tools that only a handful of people really understand well. 3) As Johannes mentioned, a special problem occurs if, in spite of its large number of features, a programmer needs to write a new macro or otherwise customize autoconf to do something new. It can be very hard to pull together enough documentation and examples to be able to do this at all. It is very hard to be confident, even when one gets something "working", that it works properly. I think that those are *part* of the reason that in recent years more and more people have written new configure/build systems, either general purpose or targeted to a specific scripting language or other "closed universe" system. Another reason (as far as I can tell) that scripting languages (and Java) often use language-specific configure/build systems is because they want additional functionality that deals with concepts not found in the autoconf suite. Most commonly, configure/build/install is integrated with a *package system* by which I mean a system for bundling and naming source in standard ways, managing version numbering in standard ways, and creating "one step" tools that find a desired package on the net, download it, recursively find and download all prerequisite packages needed, then configure, build, and install all of those. The autoconf suite doesn't try to help with that. It is easier to build systems which do that for a single-language "closed universe", and so several such systems exist. Of course, finally, scripting languages often use their own package / configure / build / install systems because writing such a thing is a way to show-off the scripting language. E.g., since you've already installed Ruby core, now here is a nice package system written in Ruby (nevermind this /bin/sh, m4 stuff) that is easy to use. When I (as I said, probably in a few weeks after we move) put forward straw-man recommendations, I do intend to implicitly address the problems described above. That is: Yes, package management and prerequisite management should be built-in to the GNU conventions; other concepts such as validation (checksum and signature checking) and auditing of trees on disk are also important; conventions for handling multiple installed versions of packages cleanly are needed; and, yes, the tools supporting these things do need to be simpler (yet without sacrificing a short "bootstrapping path" to get them working -- the build tools have to have relatively few dependencies on other packages). -t ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 11:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 13:59 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-21 16:48 ` Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-22 2:48 ` Richard M Stallman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-22 2:48 UTC (permalink / raw To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, miles > Actually no. It seems to be a criticism of something. > Perhaps Autoconf, or perhaps not -- I have no way to tell. autoconf, automake, and so on. Actually, I heard people referring to the whole generation of configure scripts and Makefiles as `autohell'. Yes, it's ovbiously a criticism. Then it is a vague and nonconstructive one. Please stick to constructive comments if you want to be helpful. > If you are talking about Autoconf, then you've misunderstood what this > issue is about. It is not about using Autoconf. It is about > implementing the interface specified in the GNU Coding Standards. > Let's please stick to the topic. Which means using the auto tools, be realistic. Who writes configure scripts manually? It is easy to write a configure script that is just a wrapper for some other configuration mechanism. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 11:29 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-21 13:55 ` Miles Bader 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2008-07-21 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, Johannes Weiner, drobinow Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > If you are talking about Autoconf, then you've misunderstood what this > issue is about. It is not about using Autoconf. It is about > implementing the interface specified in the GNU Coding Standards. This seems to be something of a problem in general actually -- even though the GNU coding standards specify an interface which can be implemented in many ways, people often seem to mentally conflate them with using the auto* tools, and if they decide to use some other build system/tool, they don't even consider trying to follow that interface (even though it's often rather simple to do so in many cases). -Miles -- Joy, n. An emotion variously excited, but in its highest degree arising from the contemplation of grief in another. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-20 17:21 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 20:22 ` Johannes Weiner @ 2008-07-20 20:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-20 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, Miles Bader Richard M Stallman wrote: > > That is good news, but the general problem remains > > as far as I know. Has there been a general move towards > > supporting the GNU configure and build specs? > > As far as I know (I don't hack on X, I just read the mailing list), the > entire build infrastructure was replaced, and you can now do > "./configure ...; make" etc., and things work in the normal GNU > style. > > We are miscommunicating. As regards X itself, I took for granted that > that is what you meant. > > My question concerns looking beyond X to the free software community > as a whole. Has there been a broader move towords supporting the GNU > configure and build specs? I can't help but thinking about the problems with building Emacs itself on w32. Is not one of the problems there the lack of a sh/bash or whatever that can easily be used when building Emacs? Something like a portable mini-bash (with more limited capabilities) that runs also on w32 and could be used together with w32 programs would perhaps make this better. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-20 20:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 6:14 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-21 9:04 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-21 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, miles Something like a portable mini-bash (with more limited capabilities) that runs also on w32 and could be used together with w32 programs would perhaps make this better. It would be a shame for people that care about free software to spend time implementing free software specifically to run on Windows. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-21 6:14 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-21 9:04 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-21 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: lord, drobinow, Lennart Borgman (gmail), emacs-devel, acm, miles Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Something like a portable mini-bash (with more limited > capabilities) that runs also on w32 and could be used together > with w32 programs would perhaps make this better. > > It would be a shame for people that care about free software to spend > time implementing free software specifically to run on Windows. It does not get better if time is spent multiply times for porting efforts. If the total of window porting efforts can be reduced by dedicated efforts, that's not the worst thing. Anyway, the proposal does not seem to encompass just Windows, but pretty much every platform, free or not. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 6:14 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-21 9:04 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 2:48 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-21 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, miles Richard M Stallman wrote: > Something like a portable mini-bash (with more limited capabilities) > that runs also on w32 and could be used together with w32 programs would > perhaps make this better. > > It would be a shame for people that care about free software to spend > time implementing free software specifically to run on Windows. Are you sure? What are your arguments? Why can't this be a benefit for free software? As David pointed out this would not be specific to w32. It would rather be a tool that we could rely on that we could use everywhere. IMO relevant tools that are cross-platform can help free software. One reason is that we can rely on that they work. Another reason is that we can more easily find people who understand those tools. The last argument is important since most programmers are forced to work on w32 in their daily work. If we can give them tools they can use there then they can more easily contribute to free software during their free time. I also believe that cross platform knowledge creates new ideas that can be really good for free software. It looks to me there are not that many people who both know w32 and GNU/Linux in depth. Cross platform tools will help those who wants to get such knowledge. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 9:04 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) @ 2008-07-22 2:48 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-22 2:48 UTC (permalink / raw To: Lennart Borgman (gmail); +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, miles As David pointed out this would not be specific to w32. It would rather be a tool that we could rely on that we could use everywhere. If it is for use on multiple platforms, maybe it is a good thing. On the other hand, maybe it is better to migrate to using Scons, and make simple wrappers to implement the GNU configuration spec and make spec. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-19 17:06 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 4:08 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-20 6:35 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-20 6:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, drobinow, Miles Bader Richard M Stallman writes: > > I tried at one point to convince XFree86 to support the GNU > > configuration spec. I even found a volunteer to implement that as a > > wrapper around their existing configuration mechanism. But they did > > not consider such compatibility very important, and I don't think they > > installed this wrapper. > > Note that the current standard X distribution, Xorg, now uses gnu auto* > tools for configuration. > > That is good news, but the general problem remains > as far as I know. Has there been a general move towards > supporting the GNU configure and build specs? That would make > it much easier to build a whole system from source. It depends on what you mean by "general move" and "whole system". For example, the 'BSDs continue to use their traditional hierarchy of Make include files. Presumbly you mean to exclude those systems from "general", however. Regarding the "system", among the programs I use that are written in C for the GNU system, almost all use the autotools for configuration and make to run the build. But dissatisfaction with autotools and even make runs throughout the "open source" community (ie, the community that uses free software licenses for whatever reason, not limited to principled support for freedom).[1] While I don't know off hand of any C programs that use other build control tools, few of the scripting languages and web frameworks do. Python has its setup.py and dist-tools, I believe Ruby and Perl have similar build systems, Haskell has its Cabal, and there are a number of more general rivals to the autotools such as Scons which are attracting attention. These days more and more important software is written in languages like Python (eg, bzr, Emacs's recently anointed distributed version control system) and Perl (eg, debbugs, Emacs's recently anointed bug tracking system). I don't know about bzr offhand, but debbugs includes separate Perl scripts "build", "clean", and "debian/debbugsconfig", as well as the Makefile which seems to be used only to install the package. Not to mention that every package management system has its own standards, usually supported by utilities like Debian's debhelper. If in "system" you intend to include such applications, then I would have to guess that programs that don't conform to GNU standards for configuration and build are proliferating rapidly. I also know of several free software programs for Mac OS X which presumably could be ported to GNUStep, but AFAIK are dependent on Apple's proprietary Xcode tool (a build manager like Scons, or maybe even an IDE comparable to Eclipse without the extensibility). Thus they might require substantial extra effort in porting. BTW, I haven't used Scons, but every time XEmacs has a build issue somebody brings it up. The Scons blurb says: What is SCons? SCons is an Open Source software construction tool---that is, a next-generation build tool. Think of SCons as an improved, cross-platform substitute for the classic Make utility with integrated functionality similar to autoconf/automake and compiler caches such as ccache. In short, SCons is an easier, more reliable and faster way to build software. There seem to be a fair number who have drunk of the Scons Kool-Aid and say it lives up to its advertising. Footnotes: [1] In case it's not clear, I mention the open source community not to identify it with the free software community, but because not all useful free software originates within the free software community, and where such software is useful but nonconformant to GNU standards, you may need to spend effort adapting it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-20 6:35 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-20 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stephen J. Turnbull; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, drobinow, miles While I don't know off hand of any C programs that use other build control tools, few of the scripting languages and web frameworks do. That has two directly opposite meanings. Few of the scripting languages use other build control tools? Few of the scripting languages use the GNU build control tools? However, the issue I'm concerned with is about interfaces, not implementation. Python has its setup.py and dist-tools, I believe Ruby and Perl have similar build systems, Haskell has its Cabal, and there are a number of more general rivals to the autotools such as Scons which are attracting attention. Would it be possible to put wrappers around these other methods so as to implement the GNU configure and build specs around those other methods? If in "system" you intend to include such applications, then I would have to guess that programs that don't conform to GNU standards for configuration and build are proliferating rapidly. Is this because people are using those other languages in which people tend not to support our specs, or are C programs also increasingly ignoring our specs? I also know of several free software programs for Mac OS X which presumably could be ported to GNUStep, but AFAIK are dependent on Apple's proprietary Xcode tool That is very bad. What are the names of these programs? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-20 6:35 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 0:43 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-20 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stephen J. Turnbull; +Cc: acm, lord, emacs-devel, drobinow, miles [1] In case it's not clear, I mention the open source community not to identify it with the free software community, but because not all useful free software originates within the free software community, There is no such thing as the "the open source community". Our community includes activists for free software and supporters of open source, but it was built by the free software movement, so it is the free software community. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-21 0:43 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-21 14:37 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-21 0:43 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: miles, acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel Richard M Stallman writes: > There is no such thing as the "the open source community". Of course, there is. I feel sorry for you that you feel a need to deny it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 0:43 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-21 14:37 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 14:51 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 8:02 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-21 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stephen J. Turnbull; +Cc: miles, acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel > There is no such thing as the "the open source community". Of course, there is. I feel sorry for you that you feel a need to deny it. I am sorry that you seek to rename the free software commnuity so as to deny that the free software movement built it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 14:37 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-21 14:51 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 2:49 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-22 8:02 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-21 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, Stephen J. Turnbull, miles Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > There is no such thing as the "the open source community". > > Of course, there is. I feel sorry for you that you feel a need to > deny it. > > I am sorry that you seek to rename the free software commnuity > so as to deny that the free software movement built it. A group that rejects the ideological base of works they continue to build upon can't reasonably be a priori identified as part of the original community. Even though it is a rather popular outside stance towards today's inhabitants of Germany. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 14:51 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 2:49 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-22 12:46 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-22 2:49 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, stephen, miles A group that rejects the ideological base of works they continue to build upon can't reasonably be a priori identified as part of the original community. Not at all. It's normal for a community to contain people with different views; just because people adopt a different set of politics does not make them a separate community. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 2:49 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-22 12:46 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-23 2:27 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, stephen, miles Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > A group that rejects the ideological base of works they continue to > build upon can't reasonably be a priori identified as part of the > original community. > > Not at all. It's normal for a community to contain people > with different views; just because people adopt a different set > of politics does not make them a separate community. Then it would appear that we are part of the preexisting UNIX community, and the "free software community" is a myth. -- David Kastrup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 12:46 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-23 2:27 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-23 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw To: David Kastrup; +Cc: lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, acm, stephen, miles > Not at all. It's normal for a community to contain people > with different views; just because people adopt a different set > of politics does not make them a separate community. Then it would appear that we are part of the preexisting UNIX community, and the "free software community" is a myth. That's a nonsequitur if I ever saw one. Free software and open source stand for political views, but in our commuity people with various views often work together developing the same program. That's why we are all part of one community. GNU and Unix are different systems developed by different groups that cannot work together. It's no accident that GNU's Not Unix; that was a necessary requirement to achieve the goal. We made a clean break. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-21 14:37 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 14:51 ` David Kastrup @ 2008-07-22 8:02 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-22 16:31 ` Thomas Lord 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-22 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel, miles Richard M Stallman writes: > > There is no such thing as the "the open source community". > > Of course, there is. I feel sorry for you that you feel a need to > deny it. > > I am sorry that you seek to rename the free software commnuity > so as to deny that the free software movement built it. OK, Richard, I concede; you rule here. So I'll take my leave. I gather you have no need of my opinions about why large portions of the soi-disant free software community could care less about "GNU standards", and what you might want to do about that. I'm certain I'm no longer interested in having that conversation with you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-22 8:02 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-07-22 16:31 ` Thomas Lord 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-22 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw To: Stephen J. Turnbull; +Cc: acm, drobinow, emacs-devel, rms, miles Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Richard M Stallman writes: > > > There is no such thing as the "the open source community". > > > > Of course, there is. I feel sorry for you that you feel a need to > > deny it. > > > > I am sorry that you seek to rename the free software commnuity > > so as to deny that the free software movement built it. > > OK, Richard, I concede; you rule here. So I'll take my leave. I > gather you have no need of my opinions about why large portions of the > soi-disant free software community could care less about "GNU > standards", and what you might want to do about that. I'm certain I'm > no longer interested in having that conversation with you. > I hope, Stephen, that you will please stick around for (off-list) discussion of build / configure / install / audit / package / validate tools. Your earlier comments on the topic were very helpful. You seem to have a broad perspective on the matter. On the disagreement about naming the "community": I think the original error is to try to use the word "community" in any but the vaguest sense of the word and, when used that way, there is hardly any point to either qualifier ("free software" or "open source"). The problem is that "community", used other than vaguely, is a highly contentious and loaded word. To some, it implies little more than a set of people with some common interest (e.g., the radio-controlled airplane community). To others, it implies a group bound together by a set of social norms and expectations which create systems of mutual support and social cohesion (e.g., the immigrant community in Little OldWorldistan District of the city). In many contexts, a more precise noun clause is available. Sometimes one means "the free software movement," other times, "programmers who develop free software." Sometimes one means "people enthusiastic about OSI-approved licenses". Sometimes one means "people enthusiastic about the commercial impact of the Open Source Definition". Those more precise phrases are also (relatively more) objective, so there is less to argue over. A person decides to join the free software movement or doesn't. A person develops free software or doesn't. A person is or is not enthusiastic about the OSI license list. One person can be any two out of three of those or all three. There is no "ownership" of the crowd to be contended - no branded "community" - and no (wishful thinking) positing of a shared set of norms and expectations. The issue of "credit where credit is due" is unaffected by those vocabulary recommendations, except that with those other words, the credit debate is easier to speak of more precisely. For example, what do we make of a hypothetical programmer (though I'm certain many real examples of this exist) who writes a new C program, announces it to his GNU hacker friends, but also who chooses a BSD license and explains that, ethically, he feels it is right to permit proprietary derivatives of the new program. It goes without saying what GNU hackers might say *to* that hacker but that isn't the question -- the question is how we *describe* this hacker in terms of "credit" for the conditions that gave rise to that choice. The free software movement probably gets credit for creating a general level of interest in libre licensing. The free software movement gets credit for having produced most of the development tools that programmer will use. The Regents of the University of California and their agents get credit for the introduction of the BSD license. The Open Source Iniative and its allies get credit for spreading that idea (right or wrong, it's not the question here) that going out of ones way to permit proprietary derivatives of a program might be ethically good, or at least neutral. In contrast, if we're forced to debate whether or not that programmer is part of the "free software community" or the "open source community" or both or neither I guess I'd want to start asking questions like "Who will he help in a barn raising? Whose celebrations will he participate in? Whose defeats will he make sacrifices to mitigate?" -- that kind of thing. The most accurate answer might turn out to be "He is not part of either community. As a programmer, he is mainly part of the hobbyist community at Springfield High School, a group which is quite agnostic about software freedom." -t > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-17 22:54 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-17 23:48 ` Miles Bader @ 2008-07-18 0:05 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-19 17:05 ` Richard M Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-18 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, drobinow, emacs-devel Richard M Stallman wrote: > It is a failure of the GNU project and of the free software movement > that there is so much emphasis on monolithic distributions and binary > package distributions. It is a failure of the GNU project and the free > software movement that one so often encounters distros that offer to > not install source trees and even offer to not install development > environments. > > The words "it is a failure of" are ambiguous. They could literally > mean "it is a goal we have not achieved", but they also suggest > placing the blame for this on us. > You're a better speaker than me, I think. It's not blame. It's an attempt to egg on in a direction for which I wish to advocate. > Certainly these are goals we have not achieved, but if others do not > follow our recommendations, that's their decision, not ours. When I > designed the GNU specs for configuring and building source packages, I > hoped that free software developers generally would adopt them, but > they did not. > A heck of a lot of them did. That isn't the problem. In my view the problem is that the specs were short-sighted in some key ways -- too much pain and not enough benefit. I'd be happy to take discussion of this view off-list though I'm reluctant to go into it here, given Stefan's recent feedback. > I tried at one point to convince XFree86 to support the GNU > configuration spec. I even found a volunteer to implement that as a > wrapper around their existing configuration mechanism. But they did > not consider such compatibility very important, and I don't think they > installed this wrapper. > The GNU standards buy a little but not a lot and there are better ways to do it. We should talk. > To convince free software projects generally to adopt this spec > would require more pressure from the community in general. > No. A lot of the reason people *do* more or less use GNU standards is personal convenience -- autoconf / GNU make / etc. make it easier than many alternatives. Better standards and better (and simpler) tools could amplify that effect and have nicer side effects. To be fair, you folks were solving a different problem, in the moment, way back then. A complete GNU system was quite a ways off and, as a good tactic, the most immediate need was producing packages that were not hard to build and install on a diverse range of proprietary Unix systems. That problem got solved pretty well but at a strategic cost of being under-prepared for the "scale up" problems of managing source for a complete system (imo). > It is easy to call names (such as calling the GNU Coding Standards > "anemic"), but given that many programs' developers won't even > implement those, I doubt we would obtain much compliance for stricter > ones. > If you ever think I'm "calling names" except in the case of geopolitical polemics about fascists and such then please first, instead, think: "This is an area where I can help Tom improve his writing," since I almost certainly did not mean to "call names." I do mean "anemic" in the sense of "vulnerable" or "slightly feeble". It took and takes a lot of code to support those standards and the pay-off fails to address many of the needs of a complete, portable system. Stricter standards, better thought out, with simpler tools that realize them might (plausibly would) find stepped up adoption. So, I guess now I have to echo Stefan to me and say, to be clear, that I assure you I intended no insult. -t > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-18 0:05 ` Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-19 17:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-19 21:34 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-23 18:17 ` Karl Berry 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-19 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw To: Thomas Lord; +Cc: acm, karl, drobinow, emacs-devel I'm interested in seeing what ideas you have for improving our build and installation specs, etc. I have cc'd Karl Berry hoping that in a few days he will set up another list where we can discuss that. And thanks for explaining that the harsh-sounding words were not meant that way. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-19 17:05 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-19 21:34 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-23 18:17 ` Karl Berry 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-19 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, karl, drobinow, emacs-devel Richard M Stallman wrote: > I'm interested in seeing what ideas you have for improving our > build and installation specs, etc. I have cc'd Karl Berry > hoping that in a few days he will set up another list where we can > discuss that. > Thank you. I hope that will develop into a productive conversation rather than a dud. I should caution that between now and a few days into August I will be very busy because we're in the middle of a household move. I have lots of packing to do, shelves to build, etc. So I will have to get off to a slow start in that discussion. (This is probably helpful, as a side effect: I can better collect and organize my thoughts that way.) I trust that Karl will ping us when the mailing list is ready. > And thanks for explaining that the harsh-sounding words were not meant > that way. > > I am consistently surprised at the different measures I find among people I know about what is or is not harsh, insulting, etc. This is both in reaction to things I say and in reaction to things others say. -t ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-19 17:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-19 21:34 ` Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-23 18:17 ` Karl Berry 2008-07-23 20:18 ` Thomas Lord 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Karl Berry @ 2008-07-23 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: acm, lord, drobinow, emacs-devel I'm interested in seeing what ideas you have for improving our build and installation specs, etc. I have cc'd Karl Berry hoping that in a few days he will set up another list where we can discuss that. I've set up a new list, emacs-build@gnu.org, and subscribed these addresses (you should have received welcome msgs): acm@muc.de cyd@stupidchicken.com drobinow@gmail.com lord@emf.net monnier@iro.umontreal.ca rms@gnu.org Anyone else who wants to join can do so via http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-build. By the way, any administrator of the Emacs project at savannah can create (or remove) emacs-* mailing lists through the savannah web interface. karl ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 18:17 ` Karl Berry @ 2008-07-23 20:18 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-24 6:19 ` Gilaras Drakeson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-23 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw To: Karl Berry; +Cc: acm, Thomas Lord, drobinow, rms, emacs-devel Karl Berry wrote: > I'm interested in seeing what ideas you have for improving our > build and installation specs, etc. I have cc'd Karl Berry > hoping that in a few days he will set up another list where we can > discuss that. > > I've set up a new list, emacs-build@gnu.org, and subscribed these > addresses (you should have received welcome msgs): > I don't mind using that address although I understand the topic to be larger in scope than just emacs. -t ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-23 20:18 ` Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-24 6:19 ` Gilaras Drakeson 2008-07-25 5:35 ` Richard M Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Gilaras Drakeson @ 2008-07-24 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw To: emacs-devel Hi, >> I've set up a new list, emacs-build@gnu.org, and subscribed these >> addresses (you should have received welcome msgs): > I don't mind using that address although I understand the > topic to be larger in scope than just emacs. [Since I am not sure if the name of that list will change, I post my comment here. I apologize if this is not the right mailing-list.] I really hope to see a portable build system in a reasonable lisp. To me, "the complexity of configure scripts" reads as "the accumulated outcome of a not so great language for the job"[*]. I hope the emergence of ad hoc build systems around various scripting languages and also ones using XML will inspire people to pick a (or rather, the) proper language for a build system of the future. A POSIX compatibility layer [**] and a large library of build/packaging related functions/macros will make a good head start. One ought to take a look at dh_* scripts in Debian [***] for packaging related utilities, which is an aspect sometimes overlooked in build systems. I shouldn't be saying this, since you all know way better than me, that the build system is a vital component in the software distribution (and it is even more crucial for free software). Yet it is in the sad state that we have today. The `bootstrapping' problem for a new build system won't be solved unless there is a concerted effort to push such a new system until it becomes a [de facto] standard. Such day-dreaming can really happen sometime in the future, if at least some of us are convinced that it is something important to have. [*]: I am not saying that at the time the choice of the language was made it was a mistake. I am arguing that lisp will make a much better choice for a future system. [**]: A Windows compatibility layer is also important to have. [***]: Those scripts come with the package `debhelper' -- Gilaras Drakeson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-24 6:19 ` Gilaras Drakeson @ 2008-07-25 5:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 7:08 ` Thomas Lord 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-25 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: Gilaras Drakeson; +Cc: emacs-devel the build system is a vital component in the software distribution (and it is even more crucial for free software). Yet it is in the sad state that we have today. I think the main reason our configuration and build methods are so clumsy is that they were designed to run on lots of different systems using only the programs we could expect to be available on them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs vista build failures 2008-07-25 5:35 ` Richard M Stallman @ 2008-07-25 7:08 ` Thomas Lord 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lord @ 2008-07-25 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw To: rms; +Cc: emacs-devel, Gilaras Drakeson Richard M Stallman wrote: > the build system is a vital component in the software distribution (and > it is even more crucial for free software). Yet it is in the sad state > that we have today. > > I think the main reason our configuration and build methods > are so clumsy is that they were designed to run on lots of different > systems using only the programs we could expect to be available on them. > I agree. It's a mistake worth correcting that more than (say) 10 GNU programs rely on a system designed with those constraints. (Then those "10" (or so) can be used, exclusively, to bootstrap all of the rest of GNU user-space.). -t ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-07-30 3:47 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 244+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-07-21 5:14 Emacs vista build failures christophe [not found] <36366a980807091202rd3b6521jc9fa45d321bc9d37@mail.gmail.com> 2008-07-11 0:02 ` Eric Hanchrow 2008-07-11 16:49 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-11 19:05 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 23:33 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 7:57 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 17:21 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-13 9:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-13 9:46 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-14 11:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-11 19:17 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 20:39 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-11 20:45 ` David Robinow 2008-07-11 20:57 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 19:46 ` Bastien Guerry 2008-07-12 20:17 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-12 10:49 ` Bastien Guerry 2008-07-12 16:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-12 20:40 ` David Robinow 2008-07-12 22:47 ` Bastien 2008-07-13 19:10 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-13 20:44 ` Claus [not found] ` <87tzet8c3i.fsf@offby1.atm01.sea.blarg.net> 2008-07-14 8:43 ` Claus 2008-07-15 3:06 ` Eric Hanchrow 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-13 20:46 ` Chong Yidong 2008-07-13 21:46 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 21:40 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-13 22:53 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 22:53 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-13 23:46 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-14 10:27 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-14 11:58 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-14 17:39 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-14 19:33 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-15 20:29 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-15 21:02 ` Chong Yidong 2008-07-15 23:42 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-16 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-16 1:58 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-16 2:43 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-16 3:01 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-16 4:44 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-16 4:43 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-14 10:45 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-14 12:24 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-14 12:20 ` joakim 2008-07-14 12:32 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-15 18:04 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-13 21:48 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-13 23:26 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-13 23:22 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-14 20:42 ` Don Armstrong 2008-07-14 21:05 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-16 14:36 ` Manoj Srivastava 2008-07-16 15:20 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-16 22:04 ` Manoj Srivastava 2008-07-16 21:23 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-16 22:17 ` Manoj Srivastava 2008-07-17 8:31 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-14 1:42 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-14 17:38 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-14 19:56 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-15 8:28 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-15 7:54 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-15 8:52 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-15 8:57 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-15 17:14 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-17 22:54 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-17 23:48 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-19 17:06 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 4:08 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-20 17:21 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 20:22 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 11:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 13:59 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-21 17:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 18:05 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 18:37 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 18:49 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 19:30 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-21 19:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 22:54 ` Evans Winner 2008-07-22 6:47 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 8:16 ` Jason Rumney 2008-07-22 8:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 13:46 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 13:58 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 14:34 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 17:22 ` James Cloos 2008-07-22 17:31 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 20:11 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-22 20:19 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 22:14 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 22:23 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-23 6:59 ` Stephen Leake 2008-07-23 8:20 ` Jason Rumney 2008-07-23 12:49 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-23 8:45 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-23 6:35 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 20:06 ` Alfred M. Szmidt 2008-07-22 20:24 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 20:31 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 20:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 20:59 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 21:03 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 22:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-21 22:47 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-21 23:11 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 13:13 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 13:24 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 13:51 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 13:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 14:34 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 15:12 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 15:21 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 23:55 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-22 3:41 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-22 13:28 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 14:04 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 14:11 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 14:39 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 14:47 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 14:52 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 15:00 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 15:13 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 15:18 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 15:20 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 15:22 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 15:26 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 22:11 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-23 6:32 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 18:52 ` Sven Joachim 2008-07-22 19:12 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 19:33 ` Sean O'Rourke 2008-07-22 14:42 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-22 14:57 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 14:37 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-23 2:26 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-23 3:40 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-23 3:45 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-24 2:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 3:34 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-24 2:44 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-24 3:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-22 17:35 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 18:40 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 11:06 ` Bastien 2008-07-23 16:56 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-23 17:42 ` Johannes Weiner 2008-07-24 0:06 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-24 5:25 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-24 22:04 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 22:26 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-24 23:15 ` Nick Roberts 2008-07-24 23:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-24 23:12 ` Óscar Fuentes 2008-07-26 1:23 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 6:23 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-26 6:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 7:07 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-25 3:20 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 6:21 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-24 8:07 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-24 10:20 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-24 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-25 14:51 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 15:08 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 15:38 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 15:55 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 16:08 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-25 16:19 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-25 15:40 ` Juanma Barranquero 2008-07-25 15:56 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 20:31 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 20:56 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-25 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-07-26 6:03 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-26 1:24 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 6:19 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-07-26 8:03 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-26 8:50 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 9:22 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 9:50 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 9:55 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 10:15 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 10:32 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-26 10:29 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-26 11:11 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 12:33 ` Alan Mackenzie 2008-07-26 14:26 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-26 21:34 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-26 23:52 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-27 17:14 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-28 0:05 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-28 21:47 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-29 1:00 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-29 6:21 ` tomas 2008-07-29 15:21 ` Barry Fishman 2008-07-30 3:46 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-30 3:47 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-30 3:47 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 5:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-22 17:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 16:48 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-22 2:48 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 13:55 ` Miles Bader 2008-07-20 20:36 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-21 3:29 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 6:14 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-21 9:04 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) 2008-07-22 2:48 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 6:35 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-20 22:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 0:43 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-21 14:37 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-21 14:51 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-22 2:49 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-22 12:46 ` David Kastrup 2008-07-23 2:27 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-22 8:02 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-07-22 16:31 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-18 0:05 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-19 17:05 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-19 21:34 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-23 18:17 ` Karl Berry 2008-07-23 20:18 ` Thomas Lord 2008-07-24 6:19 ` Gilaras Drakeson 2008-07-25 5:35 ` Richard M Stallman 2008-07-25 7:08 ` Thomas Lord
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.