5 ms·
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
by 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 agoHow 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 agoIn 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".