From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: EmacsW32 invocation options Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 08:56:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: <59osrdF2m97hgU1@mid.individual.net> <46383B57.6050508@gmail.com> <4638EE03.8000602@gmail.com> <85bqgzvm20.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178348202 17774 80.91.229.12 (5 May 2007 06:56:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 06:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 05 08:56:41 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HkEC6-0007zF-3i for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 May 2007 08:56:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HkEIo-0003CQ-D5 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 May 2007 03:03:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HkEIZ-0003CL-TN for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2007 03:03:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HkEIX-0003C8-Ul for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2007 03:03:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HkEIX-0003C5-Ov for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2007 03:03:17 -0400 Original-Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.236]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HkEBo-0004Vm-OE for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2007 02:56:20 -0400 Original-Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s17so998704wxc for ; Fri, 04 May 2007 23:56:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=eNjR02f4WwbCAQ9h0BpzSfBZbWSWqWzlaWio+zDYLcWO26ZYYCLx4qRjpCWk5IxYvuReUdHpkqAeQg8JBCe6z1jE60N8TAllU/fdSvmf9MeK0nvQlEXj4SIHKFZXbNLDKsf9l145O0LXho7wg8cjJXq6o+iSh0EKZrHUEsq66Dw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Escg9+RqK3cInfJi8qa2RkHM2aLXDc1DPB+n7K9//K8pbWpQnM+9Dpdy/cVKB3zuuHi9IQgsFzbW4YXf6ZGBAJoRYstNTARZLK5dhoUgMJ4CjugVyOVCA0e31dhQDrqR7HQyn7zvWXUn6qELLYvNlIbiGL6CsK/fVT7/KPIBNnA= Original-Received: by 10.90.119.15 with SMTP id r15mr3976681agc.1178348178240; Fri, 04 May 2007 23:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.103.8 with HTTP; Fri, 4 May 2007 23:56:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <85bqgzvm20.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:43717 Archived-At: On 5/5/07, David Kastrup wrote: > No, he forbids changes that would give Windows an advantage beneath > Emacs over GNU/Linux or other free systems. > > "I would not be using Windows if it were not for Emacs" is no outcome > he is interested in. I can follow him on that. He didn't want a patch to make Emacs act as a COM server. It's hard to think that many people would say "I would not be using Windows if it were not for Emacs being a COM server". > I also find it disconcerting if programmers enjoying the benefits of > free software don't bother helping anybody else reaping the benefits > of benefitting from their adaptations. It always has been one goal of > free software to be available to as many people as possible, and the > "I cater for myself, let everybody else cater for themselves" stance > is not particularly helpful when 90% of potential users are actually > using non-free systems. Sorry, you lost me here. I don't see how this applies to the discussion. Could you please elaborate? Juanma