From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A new collaborative editing package (maybe tangent) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2024 22:48:36 -0500 Message-ID: References: <3E633CB5-B727-4933-8CF1-E1044CF39E70@gmail.com> <402A5724-BDDC-49A3-BE51-E122FB05D494@gmail.com> <87wmspwmiw.fsf@web.de> <1E21F13D-008F-4E22-96AC-4B37B753EFC5@gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8226"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: arne_bab@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Yuan Fu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 08 04:48:50 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rMgd7-0001wA-Nb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 04:48:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rMgd4-0005Le-6D; Sun, 07 Jan 2024 22:48:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rMgd3-0005Iw-5c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2024 22:48:45 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rMgd2-0004qU-T1; Sun, 07 Jan 2024 22:48:44 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: mime-version; bh=Lw9Rmq+iY3UTFQIm/xO2x3AyITKV6PIOHgSKCN9fTSI=; b=qn2yEkrv8GtQ VYcPavEVjBhbDhOMFunz73nhkoSwdJm/JSzCQbpfX2Q1F7Dw765qbP9qaIA+NCtEK71Pf2eoG9ugV yTdJ2f8Sssn2bCLoWEDC3t2cehP4Xyz92KJNjRw/5c0ZjISsec9lMzRSKrPMQNYA81AjuR2p7+em/ 2uOaTT0krMllvhnjjwczUWQmCq3FjtRiEYiKSVS5pVyFgFAwA7p1M+IExxV+kUhY0Sa8rtYyfEVBh UXGIALMCDplMeEZeioaOEV1+D2zqsuyLhDemjyMcVoru8ojozxhnsZrlvcf57OGzTyEBYGN7R7od5 MhQ7voVQZCPABQrCqktRXg==; Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rMgcu-0003Ne-BY; Sun, 07 Jan 2024 22:48:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1E21F13D-008F-4E22-96AC-4B37B753EFC5@gmail.com> (message from Yuan Fu on Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:14:47 -0800) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:314733 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > Why so? There are other collaborative editing systems, right? Why > > can't it be compatible with those that use the same method - or at > > least one of them (if they are incompatible with each other)? > I don’t think any one of them are designed with interoperability > in mind; most of them are non-free software. You may be right about that, but it doesn't conclusively answer the question. Are you saying that there is NO other implementation of either OT or CRDG with which we could feasibly interoperate? It sounds that way, but I'd like to be sure I understand. If interoperability is not a feasible option, that is unfortunate, but it follows we don't need to think about the possibility of interoperation with existing systems when designing this. We still need to think carefully about the factors that do apply, when choosing whic one, or which ones, of OT and CRDG to support. > > Would it make sense for collab-mode to support both methods? Are the > > differences just matters of detail, or are the concepts > > incommensurable? > It wouldn’t make sense. As I said, they are significantly different. I take your word for it that they are significantly different -- but that's not a very clear or specific statement. It doesn't automatically follow that one program cannot support both methods to some extent. I suggest raising the question in this form: if I wanted to support both, how would I go about it? Would it make sense for machine A, which is hosting a document, to communicate with machines B and C using OT, and in parallel to communicate with machines D, E and F using CRDG? -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)