3 ms·

That was a very interesting and long discussion that you linked to in the second link, in this day and age it was quite refreshing to read an adult and polite d

That was a very interesting and long discussion that you linked to in the second link, in this day and age it was quite refreshing to read an adult and polite debate where disagreements were discussed without resorting to name-calling and insults. Emacs being such an important part of the FSF it makes a lot of sense that its maintainer should be conscious of this fact and prioritize it accordingly, even if sometimes that means not making Emacs as good as it could be (see the clang/gcc discussion in the linked thread).

taiar 11y ago
Totally agreed. Rare thing nowadays...
temo4ka 11y ago
Heh, I like how Richard Stallman begins his messages: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00234.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00...
- x0x0 11y ago
  I dunno, I think that's some bullshit doublespeak right there. He conflates emacs and the gnu project, while claiming to want the best possible emacs. The GNU Emacs maintainer's responsibility is to take charge of Emacs on behalf of the GNU Project, and produce the best possible GNU Emacs -- which means, the one that advances our aim the most. [...] It includes making sure dynamic loading resists GPL violation. [1] Non bs would be to say, eg, "the task of our maintainer is to build the best emacs possible subject to the political goals of the gnu project." Note that I'm not sharing my opinion of whether this is good or bad; I just dislike bs. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00234.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00... edit: I take it back; you're talking about the message to the NSA? I skipped over everything in brackets while reading...
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    I don't think you're justified in reading in your own definition of "best", when RMS defines it himself right there in your quote. If you're prepared to agree that the best possible chocolate mousse is probably "good" in ways that are incomparable to the best possible steam locomotive, then all you have in your comment here is misleading rhetoric. Kind of funny to then sign off with > I'm not sharing my opinion of whether this is good or bad; I just dislike bs
    - x0x0 11y ago
      the thing is, words have meanings. Writing we want to create the best X (*) [...] * NB: not the best or we want the best X (redefinition of best) is bs Finding mangling language to deceive dumb is orthogonal to my opinion of the political goals of the gnu foundation.
      - _delirium 11y ago
        How is it a "redefinition" of best? What was the original definition? Unless you add some qualifier, "best" for a software project doesn't have any kind of objective definition. For a company it might be "most profitable", for a newbie it might be "easiest to use", etc. There are a ton of criteria that can go into it. RMS helpfully explains in broad terms what in his opinion would constitute the "best Emacs".
        x0x0 11y ago
        In the context of avoiding widely desired features in order to preserve the political goals of the gnu foundation, it's straightforward to understand.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        "Best" means "most optimized for some utility function". It always requires the utility function to be defined, and there's always an infinite array of conflicting utility functions that could be used -- that's the nature of "best". Stallman is, quite properly, clearly addressing the relevant utility function. This may differ from your preferred utility function, but that doesn't make RMS's definition a "redefinition of best".

taiar 11y ago

Totally agreed. Rare thing nowadays...

temo4ka 11y ago

Heh, I like how Richard Stallman begins his messages: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00234.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00...

x0x0 11y ago
I dunno, I think that's some bullshit doublespeak right there. He conflates emacs and the gnu project, while claiming to want the best possible emacs. The GNU Emacs maintainer's responsibility is to take charge of Emacs on behalf of the GNU Project, and produce the best possible GNU Emacs -- which means, the one that advances our aim the most. [...] It includes making sure dynamic loading resists GPL violation. [1] Non bs would be to say, eg, "the task of our maintainer is to build the best emacs possible subject to the political goals of the gnu project." Note that I'm not sharing my opinion of whether this is good or bad; I just dislike bs. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00234.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00... edit: I take it back; you're talking about the message to the NSA? I skipped over everything in brackets while reading...
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  I don't think you're justified in reading in your own definition of "best", when RMS defines it himself right there in your quote. If you're prepared to agree that the best possible chocolate mousse is probably "good" in ways that are incomparable to the best possible steam locomotive, then all you have in your comment here is misleading rhetoric. Kind of funny to then sign off with > I'm not sharing my opinion of whether this is good or bad; I just dislike bs
  - x0x0 11y ago
    the thing is, words have meanings. Writing we want to create the best X (*) [...] * NB: not the best or we want the best X (redefinition of best) is bs Finding mangling language to deceive dumb is orthogonal to my opinion of the political goals of the gnu foundation.
    - _delirium 11y ago
      How is it a "redefinition" of best? What was the original definition? Unless you add some qualifier, "best" for a software project doesn't have any kind of objective definition. For a company it might be "most profitable", for a newbie it might be "easiest to use", etc. There are a ton of criteria that can go into it. RMS helpfully explains in broad terms what in his opinion would constitute the "best Emacs".
      - x0x0 11y ago
        In the context of avoiding widely desired features in order to preserve the political goals of the gnu foundation, it's straightforward to understand.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      "Best" means "most optimized for some utility function". It always requires the utility function to be defined, and there's always an infinite array of conflicting utility functions that could be used -- that's the nature of "best". Stallman is, quite properly, clearly addressing the relevant utility function. This may differ from your preferred utility function, but that doesn't make RMS's definition a "redefinition of best".