Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Ian Kelling <ian@iankelling.org> writes:

> Just wanted to share, and bring this up for
> discussion. I'm cross posting to a few emacs mailing
> lists.
>
> http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/76571/emacs

This calls for a Jean-Luc Picard quote:

    The moment I have dreaded for nearly six years has
    finally arrived. The Borg, our most lethal enemy
    have begun an invasion of the Federation, and this
    time there may be no stopping them.

Personally, I don't like the SX sites. I don't like web
interfaces. I don't like the "reputation" system with
up- and downvotes: you should know who your seniors
are, with them having to look like peacocks or
christmas trees.

But what I dislike the most is the attitude to "avoid
extended discussion", keep that in the chat rooms - I
think discussion can be as valuable, and even more so,
than one single correct answer.

But I acknowledge that the SX are a good resource for
solving practical problems. As usual, the key factor
is as much the people using the technology as the
technology itself. There are lots of good programmers
using the SX sites. And the interface, though I
personally don't care for it, is undeniably fast.

As for Emacs in particular, it is a good idea. It will
bring attention to the editor, and beginners will be
helped, quickly. Perhaps someone will even make an
Emacs interface to it, so you can use it from a
terminal Emacs (I once tried with emacs-w3m, but I
couldn't get past the human-verification part). Emacs
is also a good subject for such a site, since there are
so many details you can ask about.

-- 
underground experts united

RE: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Drew Adams]

> As for Emacs in particular, it is a good idea. It will
> bring attention to the editor, and beginners will be
> helped, quickly.

I must be missing something obvious so far, because I don't see
why it would be helpful at all.  What's wrong with filtering
on the tag [emacs]?  Currently I do that, and there are really
only two SE sites I bother to check for that tag: SO, SuperUser.

And you can trivially set a filter to check all sites for that
tag (or for any combination of tags, e.g. [emacs] [elisp]
[lisp] [common-lisp]).

How would adding a third, "Emacs", site improve things for
anyone?  Just one more site to check for Emacs Q & A.
I looked at the proposal for the new site, and at the
"discussion" of it, but I haven't seen any good arguments
in support of it, so far.

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> How would adding a third, "Emacs", site improve
> things for anyone? Just one more site to check for
> Emacs Q & A. I looked at the proposal for the new
> site, and at the "discussion" of it, but I haven't
> seen any good arguments in support of it, so far.

Well, no one is forcing anyone to use it, if it were to
happen, of course.

You wouldn't have to use the tags at the other sites
though preferably those would remain, with a reference
to the new site.

On the Emacs site, tags would instead be Gnus,
emacs-w3m, Elisp, message-mode, and other familiar
topics.

I already said I don't like those sites, and why, but I
definitely see the advantages. It is PR for the editor.
It is a place to gather lots of Emacs-specific
information. And Emacs is such a big software system
that it can easily fill such a site with interesting
contents.

Again, as for PR, the SX has a good, eh, "reputation"
among Googlers. Often, after Googling a specific
problem, the SX answers are the very first to show up.

Compare this to Googling for Emacs questions - or even
worse, Elisp - which can bea dread. Either you get very
long texts in manuals or "extended discussion" (in the
lingo of the SX people) on mailing lists and newsgroups
(like this). Of course, I am in favor of lengthy
manuals as well as extended discussion, only those are
better suited when you travel by train - and, as for
the discussions, when you yourself take part in them or
follow them message by message and don't get 20-30
posts in one chunk to digest.

The SX are very suited for the Google quick fix age -
we may or may not like that age, but even I who dislike
both Googling and those SX in principle cannot deny
that often (especially error messages) are very suited
to Google, and often it is one of the SX sites that
instantly provide you with an answer.

And, if this age is here and now, Emacs should be in
that world and at that time, at least in all the 50/50
cases. It is just a site. It is not like why turn Emacs
into a Facebook farming game or turn it into a twitter
client. Besides, we can encourage the people who will
do the Emacs SX site (who?) to include links to the
FSF, to the Emacs and Elisp and Gnus manuals, to this
list/newsgroup, etc. etc. It is all interconnected
infrastructure.

Contrary to what some people believe, building roads
(so that people won't have to queue in the city core)
will *increase* overall traffic, not decrease it. And
traffic - in this case - we want.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Stefan Monnier]

> definitely see the advantages. It is PR for the editor.

The announcement of the existence of this SE site is indeed PR for Emacs.
Discussing such things there instead of discussing it in SO, on the
other hand, is more like moving those discussions to a private room.
Not clear it's a win overall.


        Stefan

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Tom]

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> 
> > definitely see the advantages. It is PR for the editor.
> 
> The announcement of the existence of this SE site is indeed PR for Emacs.
> Discussing such things there instead of discussing it in SO, on the
> other hand, is more like moving those discussions to a private room.
> Not clear it's a win overall.

Exactly. Even today one has to follow the emacs tag on
stackexchange to get notified of emacs questions on the different
sites (SO, Tex, SU, etc.):

http://stackexchange.com/filters/19474/emacs-questions

Adding an emacs SX site just adds one more site to monitor,
because I guess it won't be forbiden to ask an emacs question
on superuser or tex in the future.

RE: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Drew Adams]

> > Not clear it's a win overall.
> 
> Exactly. Even today one has to follow the emacs tag on
> stackexchange to get notified of emacs questions on the different
> sites (SO, Tex, SU, etc.):
> http://stackexchange.com/filters/19474/emacs-questions
> 
> Adding an emacs SX site just adds one more site to monitor,
> because I guess it won't be forbiden to ask an emacs question
> on superuser or tex in the future.

That was exactly my point.

And I don't see any great "PR" advantage, personally.  Is it
so hard for users of SE sites to learn about tags and filters?
Especially Emacs users and potential users?

If Emacs really needs PR that reaches past an individual's
ability to learn how to search for Emacs questions and answers
and throws "!! EMACS !!" directly in their face so they'll
notice it better, then it's a sad day for Emacs and Emacs
users generally (IMHO).

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> Adding an emacs SX site just adds one more site to
>> monitor, because I guess it won't be forbiden to ask
>> an emacs question on superuser or tex in the future.
>
> That was exactly my point.

That's the strangest point ever. How can an
Emacs-specific site make it more difficult to monitor?
It will be *easier* to monitor because all Emacs stuff
will be at one place!

> And I don't see any great "PR" advantage, personally.
> Is it so hard for users of SE sites to learn about
> tags and filters?

Again, the tags will be much more elaborate and
Emacs-specific on the Emacs site.

> Especially Emacs users and potential users?
> If Emacs really needs PR that reaches past an
> individual's ability to learn how to search for Emacs
> questions and answers and throws "!! EMACS !!"
> directly in their face so they'll notice it better,
> then it's a sad day for Emacs and Emacs users
> generally (IMHO).

Emacs shouldn't be a holy grale at the end of the
rainbow. I have no problems with kids and morons
starting to use Emacs at any stage of their age/degree
of moronity. It won't make anyone more stupid and some
will learn tremendously from it. Some will contribute
themselves, one day. We have schools and we force the
kids to go there. We don't expect the kids to be
alright and eventually figure out how to write, read,
count, and behave, left all alone. We obviously can't
force anyone to use the software we believe in but we
can give it maximum exposure so that at least a
fraction of the computer people of tomorrow will know
of other software than the MS and Apple IDEs.

-- 
underground experts united

RE: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Drew Adams]

> >> Adding an emacs SX site just adds one more site to
> >> monitor, because I guess it won't be forbiden to ask
> >> an emacs question on superuser or tex in the future.
> >
> > That was exactly my point.
> 
> That's the strangest point ever. How can an
> Emacs-specific site make it more difficult to monitor?
> It will be *easier* to monitor because all Emacs stuff
> will be at one place!

What makes you think that will be the case?

> > And I don't see any great "PR" advantage, personally.
> > Is it so hard for users of SE sites to learn about
> > tags and filters?
> 
> Again, the tags will be much more elaborate and
> Emacs-specific on the Emacs site.

Nothing prevents you from creating Emacs-specific tags
today.  Make them as elaborate as you like.  Nothing
is more elaborate than elaborate-as-you-like.

> > Especially Emacs users and potential users?
> > If Emacs really needs PR that reaches past an
> > individual's ability to learn how to search for Emacs
> > questions and answers and throws "!! EMACS !!"
> > directly in their face so they'll notice it better,
> > then it's a sad day for Emacs and Emacs users
> > generally (IMHO).
> 
> Emacs shouldn't be a holy grale at the end of the
> rainbow. I have no problems with kids and morons
> starting to use Emacs at any stage of their age/degree
> of moronity. It won't make anyone more stupid and some
> will learn tremendously from it. Some will contribute
> themselves, one day. We have schools and we force the
> kids to go there. We don't expect the kids to be
> alright and eventually figure out how to write, read,
> count, and behave, left all alone. We obviously can't
> force anyone to use the software we believe in but we
> can give it maximum exposure so that at least a
> fraction of the computer people of tomorrow will know
> of other software than the MS and Apple IDEs.

Blah.  But I do support the idea of anyone, "at any stage",
including kids and the supposedly mentally challenged,
starting to use Emacs.  Welcome!

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> That's the strangest point ever. How can an
>> Emacs-specific site make it more difficult to
>> monitor? It will be *easier* to monitor because all
>> Emacs stuff will be at one place!
>
> What makes you think that will be the case?

Because you just log in to one site to get to Emacs.

You don't have to be a nomad on several sites and move
back and forth. You don't have to care about any of
that. You just go to the specific site for the specific
purpose.

Collecting material that is associated on one place,
logically in categories and so forth, makes the
material more clear, more accessible, etc.

You yourself said: not another site to monitor!
(pseudo-quote) It is not another site to monitor - it
is *the* site to monitor.

By the way, I remember who rewarded you a bounty on
"Linux & Unix" years ago. If you have stayed on SX
since then I take it you are fond of the SX sites. You
are fond of Emacs, of course. So: how can it be you are
not found of an Emacs SX site?

This doesn't make any sense to me. I'm the one not
liking the SX sites and I'm the only one (?) in favor!

> Nothing prevents you from creating Emacs-specific
> tags today. Make them as elaborate as you like.
> Nothing is more elaborate than elaborate-as-you-like.

In the world of principles, yes. In reality, I can't
see anything else than that an Emacs-specific site will
bring about more material and more advanced material
that will be easier to browse and access.

> Blah. But I do support the idea of anyone, "at any
> stage", including kids and the supposedly mentally
> challenged, starting to use Emacs. Welcome!

Not "mentally challenged" - I wrote "morons" - if you
use moronic software, you become a moronic computer
user. Give me a bunch of Counterstrike- and
World of Warcraft-playing kids (morons) and I'll take
them to the woods and turn them into techno warriors,
all using Emacs, Vim, Linux, Solaris, like yedis...

-- 
underground experts united

RE: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Drew Adams]

> Because you just log in to one site to get to Emacs.
> You don't have to be a nomad on several sites and move
> back and forth. You don't have to care about any of
> that. You just go to the specific site for the specific
> purpose.

We'll see.

> Collecting material that is associated on one place,
> logically in categories and so forth, makes the
> material more clear, more accessible, etc.
> 
> You yourself said: not another site to monitor!
> (pseudo-quote) It is not another site to monitor - it
> is *the* site to monitor.

We'll see.

> By the way, I remember who rewarded you a bounty on
> "Linux & Unix" years ago.

No idea what you are talking about; sorry.

> If you have stayed on SX
> since then I take it you are fond of the SX sites.

I'm fond of helping people use Emacs.  Same reason I
answer questions here when I can and I have time.  Same
reason I file bug reports to improve behavior and doc.

If everyone asked their questions here then I wouldn't look
for Emacs questions on SO and SuperUser.  But this question
is not about me.  Or about you.

> You are fond of Emacs, of course. So: how can it be you
> are not found of an Emacs SX site?

I don't share your assumption that all Emacs questions
and answers will be in the same place.  That's all.

I asked you what makes you think that, and you just
repeat that it will be the case.  And yet you acknowledged
that it won't be, that some Emacs questions and info will
remain on other sites.

Which was my point.  Not a big deal, but yes, those looking
for Emacs info and questions will just end up looking at
one more site, AFAICT.

> This doesn't make any sense to me. I'm the one not
> liking the SX sites and I'm the only one (?) in favor!

Maybe your idea of what this proposal amounts to is
unrealistic?  I don't claim to have a clear idea of what
it entails either, which is why I raised the question at
the proposal page.  No clear answer there, so far.  And
none here either.  Just your claim that tomorrow there
will be a chicken in every pot.

> > Nothing prevents you from creating Emacs-specific
> > tags today. Make them as elaborate as you like.
> > Nothing is more elaborate than elaborate-as-you-like.
> 
> In the world of principles, yes. In reality, I can't
> see anything else than that an Emacs-specific site will
> bring about more material and more advanced material
> that will be easier to browse and access.
> 
> > Blah. But I do support the idea of anyone, "at any
> > stage", including kids and the supposedly mentally
> > challenged, starting to use Emacs. Welcome!
> 
> Not "mentally challenged" - I wrote "morons" - if you
> use moronic software, you become a moronic computer
> user. Give me a bunch of Counterstrike- and
> World of Warcraft-playing kids (morons) and I'll take
> them to the woods and turn them into techno warriors,
> all using Emacs, Vim, Linux, Solaris, like yedis...

Welcome anyway.

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> By the way, I remember who rewarded you a bounty on
>> "Linux & Unix" years ago.
>
> No idea what you are talking about; sorry.

Here - my question and your answer. Today, that
question doesn't make much sense to me - it is a bit
silly actually. I wasn't happy with Rmail so I tried
all sorts of things before I learned of Gnus. It
doesn't matter one bit today. It says "asked Mar 6 '13"
so it wasn't that so old as I thought. Right about then
I stopped using the SX sites and that I never
regretted.

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/67115/emacs-mute-messages-echo-area

>> If you have stayed on SX since then I take it you
>> are fond of the SX sites.
>
> I'm fond of helping people use Emacs. Same reason I
> answer questions here when I can and I have time. Same
> reason I file bug reports to improve behavior and doc.
>
> If everyone asked their questions here then I wouldn't
> look for Emacs questions on SO and SuperUser.

An Emacs-specific site will make it easier for you to
help more people.

>> You are fond of Emacs, of course. So: how can it be
>> you are not found of an Emacs SX site?
>
> I don't share your assumption that all Emacs
> questions and answers will be in the same place.
> That's all.

There will be more questions on Emacs, and most of
those will be in the new site.

> I asked you what makes you think that, and you just
> repeat that it will be the case. And yet you
> acknowledged that it won't be, that some Emacs
> questions and info will remain on other sites.

Yeah, but what is the problem with that? It is good
that there is an Emacs presence here and there, and
especially if they relate strongly to the purpose of
the "non-Emacs SX" site. That doesn't make a specific
site any less useful. Those entities don't eat each
other, on the contrary.

>> This doesn't make any sense to me. I'm the one not
>> liking the SX sites and I'm the only one (?) in
>> favor!
>
> Maybe your idea of what this proposal amounts to is
> unrealistic? I don't claim to have a clear idea of
> what it entails either, which is why I raised the
> question at the proposal page. No clear answer there,
> so far. And none here either. Just your claim that
> tomorrow there will be a chicken in every pot.

No, I don't expect a revolution but it'll be one more
Emacs site that is useful, and appealing to many
people. This list/group will go on, the EmacsWiki will
go on, everything will go on, it'll just be another
Emacs resource for people to use if they want to.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Tom <adatgyujto@gmail.com> writes:

> Exactly. Even today one has

One doesn't have to do anything - it is voluntary!

> to follow the emacs tag on stackexchange to get
> notified of emacs questions on the different sites
> (SO, Tex, SU, etc.):

So that will be easier when every thing will be on one
site.

About the tags, we should remember the Emacs tag will
remain on those other sites - as for the Emacs site,
the tag system will be much more elaborate for
Emacs-specifics: there will be one Gnus tag, one
emacs-w3m tag, one Elisp tag, and so one.

It will be much better for the "follower" and it will
be PR not just for Emacs but for all those modules as
well.

> http://stackexchange.com/filters/19474/emacs-questions
>
> Adding an emacs SX site just adds one more site to
> monitor, because I guess it won't be forbiden to ask
> an emacs question on superuser or tex in the future.

It won't be. And people will still do it. If it relates
only to Emacs and nothing whatsoever to for example
TeX, the question will be moved from that site to the
Emacs site. The user will thus be notified of that
site's existence.

-- 
underground experts united

RE: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Drew Adams]

> > Exactly. Even today one has to follow the emacs tag
> > on stackexchange to get notified of emacs questions on
> > the different sites (SO, Tex, SU, etc.):
> 
> So that will be easier when every thing will be on one
> site.

What gave you the idea that everything concerning Emacs
will be on one site?

> About the tags, we should remember the Emacs tag will
> remain on those other sites

And so will the questions there that are tagged [emacs].
As well they should, as they might also have other tags
(or content) that is specific to that site.

> - as for the Emacs site,
> the tag system will be much more elaborate for
> Emacs-specifics: there will be one Gnus tag, one
> emacs-w3m tag, one Elisp tag, and so one.

Nothing prevents you from adding those tags today.
See Emacs-specific tags such as `font-lock', for example.

> It will be much better for the "follower" and it will
> be PR not just for Emacs but for all those modules as
> well.
>
> > http://stackexchange.com/filters/19474/emacs-questions
> >
> > Adding an emacs SX site just adds one more site to
> > monitor, because I guess it won't be forbiden to ask
> > an emacs question on superuser or tex in the future.
> 
> It won't be. And people will still do it. If it relates
> only to Emacs and nothing whatsoever to for example
> TeX, the question will be moved from that site to the
> Emacs site. The user will thus be notified of that
> site's existence.

Migration of questions across sites is manual.  Just more
bother.  Please consider signing up to help maintain and
manage the overhead you're endorsing.

And your envisioned migration scenario applies only for
questions unrelated to anything else, besides Emacs, on
the given site.  Other questions tagged Emacs might well
be more relevant right where they are.  That's one reason
migration is manual.

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>>> Exactly. Even today one has to follow the emacs
>>> tag on stackexchange to get notified of emacs
>>> questions on the different sites (SO, Tex, SU,
>>> etc.):
>>
>> So that will be easier when every thing will be on
>> one site.
>
> What gave you the idea that everything concerning
> Emacs will be on one site?

Everything on the SX sites that is about Emacs or
mostly about Emacs will be moved to that site - at
least new questions. But that's just small potatoes.

The big potato is all the people (old and new SX
users) that will know about the Emacs SX site: those
will go there first hand and post their Q&As.

If you want an easy way to monitor Emacs activity on
the SX sites, how can you not want one site with
Emacs-only material? Isn't that the easiest way by far?

> Nothing prevents you from adding those tags today.
> See Emacs-specific tags such as `font-lock', for
> example.

In principle yes but in reality it will be much more
specific and in-depths, I can't imagine otherwise.
There is a TeX site. TeX is programming, so why not use
SE? A specific site makes for more specific, more
detailed, more of everything. It just makes for deeper
and broader drilling.

> Migration of questions across sites is manual. Just
> more bother. Please consider signing up to help
> maintain and manage the overhead you're endorsing.

Of course it is manual - you think some algorithm
should do that? The maintainers are hopefully
enthusiastic about their site which is the only reason
to do it. I'm not enthusiastic so I'll pass, but I can
definitely see the advantages of the project. Moving
questions is a very small detail in this issue (and it
doesn't involve much overhead either).

> And your envisioned migration scenario applies only
> for questions unrelated to anything else, besides
> Emacs, on the given site. Other questions tagged
> Emacs might well be more relevant right where they
> are. That's one reason migration is manual.

So they stay. What's the problem?

Again, this is a small detail. Most questions on the
Emacs SX site will not be moved there - they will be
posted there by people who know what they are doing!

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
| <snip>
:
| The SX are very suited for the Google quick fix age -
| we may or may not like that age, but even I who dislike
| both Googling and those SX in principle cannot deny
| that often (especially error messages) are very suited
| to Google, and often it is one of the SX sites that
| instantly provide you with an answer.

 Could you please elaborate why you dislike Googling and SX in
 principle?
 
| <snip>

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

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

> Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
> | <snip>
> :
> | The SX are very suited for the Google quick fix age -
> | we may or may not like that age, but even I who dislike
> | both Googling and those SX in principle cannot deny
> | that often (especially error messages) are very suited
> | to Google, and often it is one of the SX sites that
> | instantly provide you with an answer.
>
>  Could you please elaborate why you dislike Googling and SX in
>  principle?

In principle, because they are centralized services, therefore single
points of failure, or worse, of control (spying, censuring).  Also,
they're not present a unique (or a small number of) interfaces, but each
web site has it's own interfaces (user interface or API).  Therefore
they are very hard to use, compared to NNTP API to which each user can
apply consitenly the user interface he chooses.

Also, sociologically, the fact that it's easy to find error messages or
other help on Google/SX makes system authors LESS motivated to provide
working and documented systems in the first place.

This is not a good thing.

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


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

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                 http://www.informatimago.com/
“The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

> Could you please elaborate why you dislike Googling
> and SX in principle?

I have already said some of the reasons. Pascal said
some of the same things slightly differently, and added
some more. In principle, I agree with what he said,
though in practice I don't really mind Google spying on
me.

But OK:

I don't like Googling because it is a general tool for
the masses. There is nothing wrong with that -
sometimes, I'm part of the masses and then I use
Google. But when doing computer activity, I don't want
general tools for the masses - I want specific tools
for programmers and experts.

Take aptitude and the software repositories for
example. Compare searching with 'aptitude search',
getting more info with 'aptitude show', then getting
the software with 'sudo aptitude install' - compare
this to Googling for software, browsing flame wars in
discussion lists, getting to some site from the 90s,
downloading, installing - only it doesn't work, you
need this, this and this - back to Google... No hits -
maybe I should rephrase is? Try again... etc.

What I don't like with SX:

* I don't like that there are so many rules. It is
almost impossible to misbehave. If you do, they edit it
away instantly. I think heated discussions should be
avoided, and flame wars sucks for anyone involved but
also to anyone else. But I mean - so what, as long as
you learn from it? I don't want anyone telling me what
to do. I want to be free, but still behave. It is part
of growing up not to be angry and frustrated, but I
don't think "banning" it will get you there any sooner.
It is easy to be angry, but it is difficult to be angry
at the right person, at the right time, and for the
right reason. And even though you can't manage that,
when you feel frustration, you should *show*
frustration. Especially if you are frustrated with a
person who is your superior, bigger, stronger, etc. If
you don't show it then, you will show it to someone
else, and that will be ten times the worse both for him
and your self-esteem.

* The fixed web GUI, which you are stuck with -
mouse-based, as all web-GUIs those days, tons of links
everywhere. "Gnothi seauton" - "know thyself" - I am on
the one hand capable of a very high degree of focus,
but on the other hand I get very easily disturbed, and
once lost, I cannot easily get it back. That's what I
like with Usenet - it is only text, and the interface I
can whenever needed configure all I want (and I want it
a lot, even though I think it is ten times better than
SX even to begin with!).

* I also don't like the attitude there can be only one
correct answer, and the discourage from discussion. I'm
certainly not a mystic, "what you believe is right",
but above the level of pure factual questions there can
be endless discussion, and I don't mind that - on the
contrary.

But: discussion you should take part in, it is an
interaction between people (the famous distributed
peer-to-peer review of the FOSS world), or, if you are
a lurker, follow step by step. So this is why I give
the SX a half point - in the Google problem-solving
world, you don't want to wade through never-ending
Usenet threads: you just want an answer. So Google and
SX is a good match and I won't pretend I wasn't helped
numerous times.

While it is true that Google reduces the attention span
in time and in space, and it by itself cannot offer
deep understanding, sometimes you are just stuck on a
detail and that isn't even in your big-hefted book you
just read. Here is where Google can help you, so you
don't get stuck and can move on to bigger and better
things.

But even though I acknowledge Google can do this, it
doesn't mean another, much better tool could do it just
the same, only better and with another interface.

* I also don't like the reputation system. People get
stressed out over that. I can read an answer and tell
immediately if it makes sense or not. I don't need
anyone to pick my friends, or to present me in a
favorable light, for that matter.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

| I have already said some of the reasons. Pascal said
| some of the same things slightly differently, and added
| some more. In principle, I agree with what he said,
| though in practice I don't really mind Google spying on
| me.

 Why do you not mind Google spying on you?

 I ask because most of my reading on various fora had very vocal
 participants making known their outrage in no uncertain terms.  So, I
 would much appreciate a different view on this.
 
| But OK:
| 
| <snip comparison between general/mass tools and specific/expert tools>
:
| What I don't like with SX:
| 
| <snip displeasure at enforced goodness on SX>

 I assume they want participants to be nice and civil even while
 discussing matters technical.  Isn't that what moderation is all about?
 
| <snip displeasure at the distractiveness of the Web interfaces>

 I do not see the movement toward a GUI future abating.  Non-GUI fora
 like Usenet will perpetually be the shade under the trees by the road
 in that future.
 
| <snip displeasure at lack of discursive participation>

 I take it that "extended discussions" are "not constructive" and hence
 get "closed".
 
| But: discussion you should take part in, it is an
| interaction between people (the famous distributed
| peer-to-peer review of the FOSS world), or, if you are
| a lurker, follow step by step. So this is why I give
| the SX a half point - in the Google problem-solving
| world, you don't want to wade through never-ending
| Usenet threads: you just want an answer. So Google and
| SX is a good match and I won't pretend I wasn't helped
| numerous times.

 I wrote in comp.lang.c recently that I used to spend some time every
 now and then going through the archives of Usenet with Google's old
 interface.  It had been a fascinating experience every time.  But with
 the upgrade to the new JS-heavy interface, such exploration is hindered
 by its ease of use.
 
| While it is true that Google reduces the attention span
| in time and in space, and it by itself cannot offer
| deep understanding, sometimes you are just stuck on a
| detail and that isn't even in your big-hefted book you
| just read. Here is where Google can help you, so you
| don't get stuck and can move on to bigger and better
| things.

 I have done this myself, always making a note to read up on the point
 later.
 
| <snip postulation of tool with better interface doing Google's job>
| 
| <snip displeasure at the reputation system>

 Such a system or its variants are in widespread use on many fora,
 e.g. on Reddit, where the voting system tends to push popular answers
 to the top of a thread, but which may or may not be sound or valid.

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

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

>> I have already said some of the reasons. Pascal said
>> some of the same things slightly differently, and
>> added some more. In principle, I agree with what he
>> said, though in practice I don't really mind Google
>> spying on me.
>
>  Why do you not mind Google spying on you?

Because this is all public. I enjoy writing this but I
want people to read it as well. If Google want to read
it, they are most welcome :)

> I ask because most of my reading on various fora had
> very vocal participants making known their outrage in
> no uncertain terms. So, I would much appreciate a
> different view on this.

In the FOSS world, there are people with skills with
technology. Then there are people with political
opinions. Then there are combinations: most notably
RMS, but also - what it seems like - Pascal on this
list, and many others, of course.

The people with political opinions, and very limited
techno-skills, often feel (and perhaps rightly so) like
they aren't at the top of the food chain. So they are
all the more vocal politically to make up for it. They
are predictable in that they always have the "right"
opinions and they spend a lot of time being almost
aggressive about it.

> I assume they want participants to be nice and civil
> even while discussing matters technical. Isn't that
> what moderation is all about?

Yes. It is in part even automatized moderation. But I
don't believe in moderation - I believe in a community
where people are free to be moronic, and hopefully, in
time, they won't be, even though they can.

> I do not see the movement toward a GUI future
> abating. Non-GUI fora like Usenet will perpetually be
> the shade under the trees by the road in that future.

The GUI or UI shouldn't matter. A CLI, or otherwise
text-only, is superior to just about any GUI, I
believe. But that shouldn't matter. The material should
just be there, free - if you want to access it through
a GUI I don't have any problem with that, as long as I
can access the same material not using a GUI. Why fight
about it?

> I take it that "extended discussions" are "not
> constructive" and hence get "closed".

Yes, again, I don't want anyone to have opinions about
that. Let everyone and anyone themselves decide that.

> I wrote in comp.lang.c recently that I used to spend
> some time every now and then going through the
> archives of Usenet with Google's old interface. It
> had been a fascinating experience every time. But
> with the upgrade to the new JS-heavy interface, such
> exploration is hindered by its ease of use.

That always the case. Never do new things. Only do
improvements to old things.

> Such a system or its variants are in widespread use
> on many fora, e.g. on Reddit, where the voting system
> tends to push popular answers to the top of a thread,
> but which may or may not be sound or valid.

Yes, that is functional in that sense. But: the most
popular answer isn't by definition the best. Also, it
makes people neurotic and they start thinking in lines
of reputation, instead of thinking in lines "does this
answer make sense?" which is much more creative and
relevant.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
| Because this is all public. I enjoy writing this but I
| want people to read it as well. If Google want to read
| it, they are most welcome :)

 I should have mentioned this beforehand and included other entities
 along with Google.  Would the fact that many intelligence agencies were
 monitoring fora affect your perspective?
 
| <snip FOSS participants into technical and politico-technical people>
:
| <snip remaining political people>

 The industry of the latter is indeed great.  I get disturbed when the
 political "wins" over the technical.
 
| Yes. It is in part even automatized moderation. But I
| don't believe in moderation - I believe in a community
| where people are free to be moronic, and hopefully, in
| time, they won't be, even though they can.

 An admirable sentiment.

| The GUI or UI shouldn't matter. A CLI, or otherwise
| text-only, is superior to just about any GUI, I
| believe. But that shouldn't matter. The material should
| just be there, free - if you want to access it through
| a GUI I don't have any problem with that, as long as I
| can access the same material not using a GUI. Why fight
| about it?

 As I said, the future is the GUI, or so it seems.  This is to say that
 very often the primary and only interface available would be the GUI
 without alternatives.

| <snip live and let live>
:
| That always the case. Never do new things. Only do
| improvements to old things.

 This is interesting.  I am still trying to think about this.

| Yes, that is functional in that sense. But: the most
| popular answer isn't by definition the best. Also, it
| makes people neurotic and they start thinking in lines
| of reputation, instead of thinking in lines "does this
| answer make sense?" which is much more creative and
| relevant.

 This I can accept.

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

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

> I should have mentioned this beforehand and included
> other entities along with Google. Would the fact that
> many intelligence agencies were monitoring fora
> affect your perspective?

I expect them to do that. This is all public material
and that is in part the purpose. We communicate within
this guild of sorcerers, but if anyone Google our
discussion to help them with a particular problem (they
might find our material just as well as a SX site
question) that is just as well. Or if they just get
curious what we are doing and start thinking/acting in
new ways in part because of it. This sounds a bit
pompous but I know such things happen every day.

In general, I take a principled approach: if I possess
some sensitive material, I don't put it anywhere where
anyone can see it, ever.

If the material isn't sensitive, I put it somewhere
public. Then, if every single human being on the planet
read it, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

And as Pascal said (sort of), it is a difference
between the material (text) in a newsgroup, and the
number-crunching machines that do work on the posters,
searchers, i.e. the humans and their habits.

But I admit I don't have a huge problem with that,
actually. It is just a positive side effect from using
great software that you yourself control instead of
Hotmail, Gmail, etc. - it is more efficient, more
creative (fun), more pleasant, but also, correct, you
don't play their game. At least not (by far) as much as
they like you to.

>> The GUI or UI shouldn't matter. A CLI, or otherwise
>> text-only, is superior to just about any GUI, I
>> believe. But that shouldn't matter. The material
>> should just be there, free - if you want to access
>> it through a GUI I don't have any problem with that,
>> as long as I can access the same material not using
>> a GUI. Why fight about it?
>
> As I said, the future is the GUI, or so it seems.
> This is to say that very often the primary and only
> interface available would be the GUI without
> alternatives.

The future is not exactly the GUIs. The future is a
separation between the data and the GUIs. This is
already the case in a lot of places. We already
mentioned mails (Gnus = not GUI, Thunderbird = GUI -
still compatible), and Usenet (Gnus vs. web interfaces
à la Google Groups), but also bash, zsh, etc. that can
fully replace work in the Linux and Unix desktops
(GNOME, KDE, etc. - GNOME and KDE can absolutely not
replace bash and zsh, though they are hosted, of
course), in programming (mouse-free Emacs vs. the MS
and Apple IDE with tons of buttons and menus
everywhere), and so on. The GUIs came big with the
Xerox and Apple and Microsoft and IBM PC revolution,
but many, many programmers and advanced computer users
solely use the shell. The SX sites are a good example:
how many questions are of the nature "how do I do X
from bash?", "do that and that from the command line",
etc. There are also many books with that approach, on
that I can recommend is:

@Book{sobell,
author = {Mark Sobell},
title = {A Practical Guide to Linux},
publisher = {Prentice Hall},
edition = {3rd edition},
year = 2013,
ISBN = {0-13-308504-X}}

So I think GUI vs. CLI  will look much the same in the
future. The bigger challenge is the touchscreen interfaces
that are meant for just consuming information (not
being creative) that appear on pads and phones. Those
are much worse than GUIs and really make zombies out
of people.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
| <snip why entities monitoring technical fora is not bad>

 This has given me much to think about.  Thank you.

| <snip why GUI alone is not the future>
:
|There are also many books with that approach, on
| that I can recommend is:
| 
| @Book{sobell,
| author = {Mark Sobell},
| title = {A Practical Guide to Linux},
| publisher = {Prentice Hall},
| edition = {3rd edition},
| year = 2013,
| ISBN = {0-13-308504-X}}

 Thank you for the reference.

| So I think GUI vs. CLI  will look much the same in the
| future. The bigger challenge is the touchscreen interfaces
| that are meant for just consuming information (not
| being creative) that appear on pads and phones. Those
| are much worse than GUIs and really make zombies out
| of people.

 Now that I think about it, both smartphones and TVs invite consumption
 only.

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

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

> Now that I think about it, both smartphones and TVs
> invite consumption only.

Absolutely. But unlike TV (at least old-school TV with
fixed programming), the smartphone is undoubtedly a
small computer and can thus be used for specific
purposes and problems. Only what I can see, it is
seldom used that way, but rather as a general
time-passer with no specific purpose whatsoever (and if
that's what you do, that's what you get).

By the way, even TV isn't that stupid, always. I know
that BBC dropped the teletext service Ceefax (see
facts) - the first teletext in the world - which would
have been 40 years old today. Even CNN dropped theirs,
but Swedish SVT (which always modelled itself after
BBC) still offers Text-TV [1]. SVT was the second
broadcaster in the world to provide teletext, so that
should make Text-TV the oldest one still operating.

[1] http://www.svt.se/svttext/tv/pages/100.html

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig]

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

 I can accept that they are single points of failure.

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

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

 I have faced this many times, too.

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

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

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

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

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

The more the better!

The SX sites are a success, that is a fact.

If Emacs takes part of that success, and people start
using Emacs, they are much more likely to start using
NNTP, read the manuals, etc., than if they never
started to use Emacs to begin with!

I know that an Emacs SX site will bring new people to
use Emacs - 100%.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

> The point about spying could be applied to any forum,
> e.g., this very newsgroup: any agency could be
> monitoring it.

Being spied on is one thing.

Voluntarily turning over your information through their
very interfaces, straight to their number-crunching
machines, is something different.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
> | In principle, because they are centralized services, therefore single
> | points of failure, or worse, of control (spying, censuring).
>
>  I can accept that they are single points of failure.
>
>  The point about spying could be applied to any forum, e.g., this very
>  newsgroup: any agency could be monitoring it.  Did I misread the last
>  point?

The spying is not done on what goes on the channel. It's done on the
meta data around it.  Google and others gather information not about
newsgroups, but about YOU, cross referencing your phone number, your
postal address (your GPS coordinates), all your searches (and the page
you visit thru clicking on search results), your friends (circles), all
your emails (gmail), and so on.  This is this data that you don't want
spying agencies to have access to, but that is centralized in google's
data centers.

  
> | Also, they're not present a unique (or a small number of) interfaces,
> | but each web site has it's own interfaces (user interface or API).
> | Therefore they are very hard to use, compared to NNTP API to which
> | each user can apply consitenly the user interface he chooses.
> |
> | Also, sociologically, the fact that it's easy to find error messages
> | or other help on Google/SX makes system authors LESS motivated to
> | provide working and documented systems in the first place.
> |
> | This is not a good thing.
>
>  I can accept both of these as well.
>  
> | Notably, it only works for popular systems.  And error messages are
> | not discriminating of the various situations: often I have an error
> | message and find on SX ten different situations where it was issued,
> | and none matching mine.  In the end, I still have to debug by myself.
>
>  I have faced this many times, too.
>
> | Google/SX, it's the blind leading the blinds.
>
>  Now, given that Emacs has (fine) manuals, comes with sources, has a
>  community spread over many newsgroups and mailing lists, has the Emacs
>  Wiki, and has a presence on IRC, how then is the announcement to be
>  viewed?  Positively, negatively, or neutrally?

Given that despite all those inconvenient, unwashed masses use
google/SX, it may be a good thing to do some publicity there, to attract
new users and teach them about emacs and a more independant and free
computing.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                 http://www.informatimago.com/
“The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Stefan Monnier]

>  The point about spying could be applied to any forum, e.g., this very
>  newsgroup: any agency could be monitoring it.  Did I misread the last
>  point?

They can only monitor the content of the forum.  SX, on the other hand,
can monitor which part you read and when, for example.


        Stefan

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:

| The spying is not done on what goes on the channel. It's done on the
| meta data around it.  Google and others gather information not about
| newsgroups, but about YOU, cross referencing your phone number, your
| postal address (your GPS coordinates), all your searches (and the page
| you visit thru clicking on search results), your friends (circles),
| all your emails (gmail), and so on.  This is this data that you don't
| want spying agencies to have access to, but that is centralized in
| google's data centers.

 Is there no way out of this mess?

 [IIRC, once you outlined the difference (in comp.lang.lisp) between a
 world (such as the original ARPANET) where each person has his own mail
 server and one (such as ours) wherein everyone used a single mail
 server (like the one for Google Mail.)  I think you gave the example of
 Minitel.

 So, now, instead of an N * M network we have an N * 1 network.

 This may or may not be relevant.]

| <snipped agreements>
| 
| Given that despite all those inconvenient, unwashed masses use
| google/SX, it may be a good thing to do some publicity there, to
| attract new users and teach them about emacs and a more independant
| and free computing.

 I suppose that the end is a good one, even though not all the new users
 will stay on to become better than newbies, and fewer experts.

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

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

> Is there no way out of this mess?

No. Just live and be active. Don't waste your very
short time in the sun.

> [IIRC, once you outlined the difference (in
> comp.lang.lisp) between a world (such as the original
> ARPANET) where each person has his own mail server
> and one (such as ours) wherein everyone used a single
> mail server (like the one for Google Mail.) I think
> you gave the example of Minitel.

That sounds like an interesting post. Perhaps you or
the OP can provide a URL or downright yank it here?

Anyway, your (Mr. Wig) description of the Internet is
somewhat but not entirely correct. The internet is
distributed. Google Mail (Gmail) is an interface
(i.e., a client, a web client) but Google also stores
the mails themselves.

If you, on the other hand, use a client that is a
program on your computer - e.g., Gnus - you have your
own mails on the disk and you don't hand anything over
to Google automatically, by using their interfaces and
having them store your mails.

However, if you send mails to people with Gmail mails,
your mails end up in their inboxes. When they quote you
in their replies, what you write is stored that way, as
well. So there is no escape - but not using Gmail still
makes a huge difference (for the better) if you are
concerned with this issue (as for me, I'm aware of it,
not exactly concerned; I use Gnus mainly because I
think it is a much better interface and more powerful
client; and, it makes sense for me to have all the
mails myself as I often use the Linux shell tools on
them, collectively, as they are represented 1 message =
1 file).

Read this, if you like:

http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-has-all-of-yours

Off topic, but still a good opportunity to ask: how do
you reference a Usenet (NNTP) post? I take it there are
web archives - I only know of Google Groups (if you
don't count those that archive specific mailing lists).
The coolest thing would be to get the post straight in
Gnus or whatever news client, and that shouldn't be
that difficult for posts that are still on the
newsserver (I don't know for how long they are stored;
I use Aioe.org).

Actually, I'm on comp.lang.lisp though I very seldom
read it because I don't do CL or Scheme or anything but
Elisp actually.

> So, now, instead of an N * M network we have an N * 1
> network.

Not exactly but it sure feels like that.

> This may or may not be relevant.

Relevant!

> I suppose that the end is a good one, even though not
> all the new users will stay on to become better than
> newbies, and fewer experts.

They won't. No one believes that. It is like a book in
the public library on Debian or Fedora. No one will
read it for several years and then some guy stumbles
upon it when browsing the shelf for a book on game
programming in C++ (perhaps C# those days). That guy
then becomes a Linux user and forgets about stupid
games. That makes it worth it and that is why the
library board shouldn't throw that book away, or
else...!

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
| <snipped not bothering about Google spying>
:
| > [IIRC, once you outlined the difference (in
| > comp.lang.lisp) between a world (such as the original
| > ARPANET) where each person has his own mail server
| > and one (such as ours) wherein everyone used a single
| > mail server (like the one for Google Mail.) I think
| > you gave the example of Minitel.
| 
| That sounds like an interesting post. Perhaps you or
| the OP can provide a URL or downright yank it here?

 A cursory search of Google Groups did not turn it up for me.
 
| <snip correction to intuition about the Internet and Gmail>
:
| Read this, if you like:
| 
| http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-has-all-of-yours

 Thank you for the reference.

 [Off topic.

 Is Google now as bad as Microsoft then?]

| Off topic, but still a good opportunity to ask: how do
| you reference a Usenet (NNTP) post?

 If I suspect that the post would still be active, a simple message ID
 does it for me, because then I can just M-^
 (gnus-summary-refer-article) and retrieve the post.  If I had saved it,
 then I might repost it partially, quoting it appropriately.  If it
 turns out that I have to Google it, then I might sigh and get to it.
 
| I take it there are web archives - I only know of Google
| Groups (if you don't count those that archive specific
| mailing lists).  The coolest thing would be to get the
| post straight in Gnus or whatever news client, and that
| shouldn't be that difficult for posts that are still on
| the newsserver (I don't know for how long they are stored;
| I use Aioe.org).

 Imagine a hyperlinking system built into newsreaders and connected to
 some Usenet archive.
 
| Actually, I'm on comp.lang.lisp though I very seldom
| read it because I don't do CL or Scheme or anything but
| Elisp actually.

 Once a while, there is some discussion of the Lisp family, which might
 include Maclisp (the basis, as far as I can tell, for Emacs Lisp) and
 Emacs Lisp.  But usually Emacs Lisp is not considered in that newsgroup.
 
| <snip>
:
| They won't. No one believes that. It is like a book in
| the public library on Debian or Fedora. No one will
| read it for several years and then some guy stumbles
| upon it when browsing the shelf for a book on game
| programming in C++ (perhaps C# those days). That guy
| then becomes a Linux user and forgets about stupid
| games. That makes it worth it and that is why the
| library board shouldn't throw that book away, or
| else...!

 Well put.

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

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

> Imagine a hyperlinking system built into newsreaders
> and connected to some Usenet archive.

Exactly. That's not difficult to imagine. There was a
Usenet archive called Deja News but I think that is
what today is Google Groups. I don't know of any
interface between Gnus and GG though but as it is only
a matter of representation it doesn't sound impossible
to do.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Udyant Wig]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
| They can only monitor the content of the forum.  SX, on the other
| hand, can monitor which part you read and when, for example.

 A crucial difference.

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

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:

> Also, sociologically, the fact that it's easy to find
> error messages or other help on Google/SX makes
> system authors LESS motivated to provide working and
> documented systems in the first place.

Yes, but is that really something we can blame
Google/SX for?

If system authors neglect doing that they are fully to
blame regardless of whatever.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> definitely see the advantages. It is PR for the
>> editor.
>
> The announcement of the existence of this SE site is
> indeed PR for Emacs. Discussing such things there
> instead of discussing it in SO, on the other hand, is
> more like moving those discussions to a private room.
> Not clear it's a win overall.

Point, but that is almost never the case.

Putting up a big scientific library in the middle of
the city doesn't lead to the schools and the public
libraries starting to neglect science.

And we should not underestimate people. If they can
find Emacs in SO, they can find the Emacs SX site, no
doubt.

People will still ask about Emacs all over the place,
only those questions will be moved to the Emacs-specific
site.

-- 
underground experts united

emacs stackexchange beta site

[Ian Kelling]

Just wanted to share, and bring this up for discussion. I'm cross posting to
a few emacs mailing lists.

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/76571/emacs

And some discussion going on here:
http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/17923/what-to-expect-in-the-emacs-private-beta

Which I replied to here http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/a/17944/115173

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Bastien]

The Emacs Stackexchange site is now official:
http://emacs.stackexchange.com

This is good, but let's continue to aggregate as much knowledge
directly on the list.

Thanks!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> The Emacs Stackexchange site is now official:
> http://emacs.stackexchange.com

OMG! Let's get there as fast as possible to answer all
the simple questions that gets Googled and upvoted one
zillion times so we get loads of reputation! (N.B. Note
Important: Irony)

Seriously, is there a link from that site to our
support-line and/or feud-o-rena here? Both the listbot
and the gnu.emacs.help newsgroup should be mentioned,
I think!

And we should not be less. Whenever there is a question
that is answered in a good way there and then appears
here we can opt to use the site as a dynamic FAQ and
use it to be more "persistent" in our endevours. Like
writing our answers on a sunny beach or on an ice-cube,
only better!

Important thing is the users get help, someday perhaps
someone will make a Gnus patch or whatever so that the
ESX material can be accessed in a civilized way (or
seemingly so which is all that matters) and we can all
be happy with Emacs :)

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

It is great that site materialized. Who are the people
behind this initiative? Are they not here? H-e-l-l-o-o?

If they would communicate with us perhaps it would be
simpler to make an interface (or partial interface to
begin with), if there is such a desire from them, that
is.

Anyway, great initiative to them. Pepp pepp!

It'll be interesting how many brave souls will take the
step from here to there, like the fish in the water,
just showing the fish head at another part of the lake,
where the ice is likewise broken! (Or is it?)

As for me I think I'll be loyal and stay with mainland
China. I put to much of an effort into this to throw it
all away just because some wench wants to look pretty
in a uniform. But one can dream, right?

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Artur Malabarba]

> It is great that site materialized.

It is. It's a chance to give specialized answers in a way that's
relatively permanent with respect to googling.
It's also an excuse for the lazy to post very basic questions without
going through the trouble of even a single search, but you can't
have everything I suppose. :-)

> Who are the people
> behind this initiative? Are they not here? H-e-l-l-o-o?

Hello there. I try to read the lists (maybe glance would be a better
word :-), and I'm quite active at that other part of the lake.
There are others who I know at least glance at this list as well.

> Seriously, is there a link from that site to our
> support-line and/or feud-o-rena here? Both the listbot
> and the gnu.emacs.help newsgroup should be mentioned,
> I think!

The community there will soon start deciding things like what to put
in the FAQ page. Things like the mailing list and the wiki are sure to
be there.

> If they would communicate with us perhaps it would be
> simpler to make an interface (or partial interface to
> begin with),

As in..?

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Emanuel Berg]

Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:

>> It is great that site materialized.
>
> It is. It's a chance to give specialized answers in
> a way that's relatively permanent with respect to
> googling. It's also an excuse for the lazy to post
> very basic questions without going through the
> trouble of even a single search, but you can't have
> everything I suppose. :-)

There was a lengthy discussion as to the
permanent/Google/lazy aspects of it all, well, more
opinions back-and-forth I should say. Probably it'll
be interesting to you if you didn't already read it.

>> Seriously, is there a link from that site to our
>> support-line and/or feud-o-rena here? Both the
>> listbot and the gnu.emacs.help newsgroup should be
>> mentioned, I think!
>
> The community there will soon start deciding things
> like what to put in the FAQ page. Things like the
> mailing list and the wiki are sure to be there.

Don't forget this is also a USENET (NNTP) newsgroup -
gnu.emacs.help - which can be accessed in the full
sweetness of things with Gnus (which I hope will be an
often-visited tag on your site!).

>> If they would communicate with us perhaps it would
>> be simpler to make an interface (or partial
>> interface to begin with),
>
> As in..?

I can think of dozens of things. Links are the first
step. But then... There has been so much material on
this list/group. How do you reference particularly
interesting posts? Indeed, how do you find them? How
do we access your site in a way that isn't to
far-fetched from what we are used to? For example,
does it require JavaScript? Does it play well with
Emacs-w3m and other in-Emacs browsing alternatives?
Using the site from and with Emacs should be a
objective from day one, don't you think? Thinking big
(although it isn't big in terms of technology if the
wish is there, at least not in terms of reading) - can
it be integrated with the message-mode, with Gnus and
RMAIL? For example, why don't you generate a mail once
a week with all the new questions and post it here?
There are just tons of things that are worth
checking/trying out. (There was already a guy here who
did a question-based interface to the SX sites - it
was about parsing the HTML and showing the results in
plain text - I remember many people were delighted and
it seemed to work well but I didn't hear from him
since.)

What I hope for the future of computing is
UI-agnostic: some guy likes USENET, some other guy
likes SX, some guy likes CLI, some guy GUI, some the
keyboard, some the mouse, and so on. Why fight about
it? Just make the data independent from all that and
then have everyone access it and interact with it any
way and with any tool he or she desires.

Here is an example right here:

U+1F44D is the Unicode for "THUMBS UP" [1].

I'm on another kind of system than most people so I
can't see it. But I can still insert it (`C-x 8 RET
1f44d RET') - I hope (do you see it?):

👍

You see. It is not that difficult :)

Anyway, good luck!

[1] http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1F44D/index.htm

-- 
underground experts united

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Rainer M Krug]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3538 bytes --]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> It is great that site materialized.
>>
>> It is. It's a chance to give specialized answers in
>> a way that's relatively permanent with respect to
>> googling. It's also an excuse for the lazy to post
>> very basic questions without going through the
>> trouble of even a single search, but you can't have
>> everything I suppose. :-)
>
> There was a lengthy discussion as to the
> permanent/Google/lazy aspects of it all, well, more
> opinions back-and-forth I should say. Probably it'll
> be interesting to you if you didn't already read it.
>
>>> Seriously, is there a link from that site to our
>>> support-line and/or feud-o-rena here? Both the
>>> listbot and the gnu.emacs.help newsgroup should be
>>> mentioned, I think!
>>
>> The community there will soon start deciding things
>> like what to put in the FAQ page. Things like the
>> mailing list and the wiki are sure to be there.
>
> Don't forget this is also a USENET (NNTP) newsgroup -
> gnu.emacs.help - which can be accessed in the full
> sweetness of things with Gnus (which I hope will be an
> often-visited tag on your site!).
>
>>> If they would communicate with us perhaps it would
>>> be simpler to make an interface (or partial
>>> interface to begin with),
>>
>> As in..?
>
> I can think of dozens of things. Links are the first
> step. But then... There has been so much material on
> this list/group. How do you reference particularly
> interesting posts? Indeed, how do you find them? How
> do we access your site in a way that isn't to
> far-fetched from what we are used to? For example,
> does it require JavaScript? Does it play well with
> Emacs-w3m and other in-Emacs browsing alternatives?
> Using the site from and with Emacs should be a
> objective from day one, don't you think? Thinking big
> (although it isn't big in terms of technology if the
> wish is there, at least not in terms of reading) - can
> it be integrated with the message-mode, with Gnus and
> RMAIL? For example, why don't you generate a mail once
> a week with all the new questions and post it here?
> There are just tons of things that are worth
> checking/trying out. (There was already a guy here who
> did a question-based interface to the SX sites - it
> was about parsing the HTML and showing the results in
> plain text - I remember many people were delighted and
> it seemed to work well but I didn't hear from him
> since.)

There is the SOS package, which allows to search the stackexchange site
and returns the result in org format - but no posting from there.


>
> What I hope for the future of computing is
> UI-agnostic: some guy likes USENET, some other guy
> likes SX, some guy likes CLI, some guy GUI, some the
> keyboard, some the mouse, and so on. Why fight about
> it? Just make the data independent from all that and
> then have everyone access it and interact with it any
> way and with any tool he or she desires.
>
> Here is an example right here:
>
> U+1F44D is the Unicode for "THUMBS UP" [1].
>
> I'm on another kind of system than most people so I
> can't see it. But I can still insert it (`C-x 8 RET
> 1f44d RET') - I hope (do you see it?):
>
> 👍
>
> You see. It is not that difficult :)
>
> Anyway, good luck!
>
> [1] http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1F44D/index.htm

-- 
Rainer M. Krug
email: Rainer<at>krugs<dot>de
PGP: 0x0F52F982

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 494 bytes --]

Re: emacs stackexchange beta site

[Artur Malabarba]

> Don't forget this is also a USENET (NNTP) newsgroup -
> gnu.emacs.help - which can be accessed in the full
> sweetness of things with Gnus (which I hope will be an
> often-visited tag on your site!).

So do I. Right now it's still a little shy--only 3 questions as opposed to
org-mode's 49.

> >> If they would communicate with us perhaps it would
> >> be simpler to make an interface (or partial
> >> interface to begin with),
> >
> > As in..?
>
> I can think of dozens of things. Links are the first
> step. But then... There has been so much material on
> this list/group. How do you reference particularly
> interesting posts?

Popular posts in the SE network tend to be kept alive but voting. A
high rank gives them more traffic which I suppose also keeps them
alive in Web Search rankings.
I haven't yet seen discussions from here being referenced there, but
I'd like to remedy that with time.

> Indeed, how do you find them? How
> do we access your site in a way that isn't to
> far-fetched from what we are used to? For example,
> does it require JavaScript? Does it play well with
> Emacs-w3m and other in-Emacs browsing alternatives?

"Well" is not a word I'd use here. :-/
It renders, but it's not exactly pleasant. But see below!

> Using the site from and with Emacs should be a
> objective from day one, don't you think?

It is for me! I'm planning a stackexchange-mode package for Emacs.
This would allow people to read/ask/answer entirely within Emacs, but
asking and answering will require an account. So visiting their site
(and its javascript) at least once should be necessary.
In any case, current ETA is around New Year.
There's also a package called SOS for reading questions and answers.

> Thinking big can it be integrated with the message-mode, with Gnus
> and RMAIL? For example, why don't you generate a mail once a week
> with all the new questions and post it here?

The site has that ability, I'll get to that. I'd rather make each
question a separate email, but I don't want to spam the list either.
I'll bring this up on a thread of its own.

> (There was already a guy here who did a question-based interface to
> the SX sites - it was about parsing the HTML and showing the results
> in plain text - I remember many people were delighted and it seemed
> to work well but I didn't hear from him
> since.)

You might be thinking of the SOS package I mentioned above.

> What I hope for the future of computing is
> UI-agnostic: some guy likes USENET, some other guy
> likes SX, some guy likes CLI, some guy GUI, some the
> keyboard, some the mouse, and so on. Why fight about
> it? Just make the data independent from all that and
> then have everyone access it and interact with it any
> way and with any tool he or she desires.
>
> Here is an example right here:
>
> U+1F44D is the Unicode for "THUMBS UP" [1].
>
> I'm on another kind of system than most people so I
> can't see it. But I can still insert it (`C-x 8 RET
> 1f44d RET') - I hope (do you see it?):
>
> 👍
>
> You see. It is not that difficult :)

Your cheerfulness is refreshing. :-)

> Anyway, good luck!

Thanks!