6 ms·

As one of GNU's flagship products, why shouldn't Emacs remind users that it is not in agreement with Apple's treatment of its users? GNU has an agenda, just lik

by jordigh 10y ago

As one of GNU's flagship products, why shouldn't Emacs remind users that it is not in agreement with Apple's treatment of its users? GNU has an agenda, just like Apple does. Intel cripples icc for non-Intel CPUs, making it emit pessimised assembler. Apple makes sure that its hardware only works with other Apple products and that macOS can only be legally virtualised on Apple hardware. Everyone has an agenda. The difference is that GNU is a lot smaller and has a lot less power and resources than Apple and Intel. So much that it is relatively easy and, in fact, explicitly allowed by the GPL, for someone like Yamamoto to come along and decide that, by golly, Emacs will have unique macOS-only features and Apple deserves to have more money to do whatever it wants to its users because its users enjoy Apple's treatment, smelly GNU/Beards be damned. This is a lot easier than fixing icc for AMD CPUs or putting headphone jacks into iPhones 7. > We are not welcome, and never will be. You are welcome. You are very welcome. Apple is not. You should not identify yourself with Apple's operating system.

mwfunk 10y ago
That is true. Similarly, you shouldn't identify yourself with the FSF or GNU or RMS either. Tribalism in general is a dead end for humanity.
sooheon 10y ago
Thanks for this dose of perspective. I found the idea of emacs in macOS being hobbled out of spite very annoying, but what you said also makes sense to me.
lilyball 10y ago
Deliberately crippling your product on Apple platforms does not in any way "remind users that it is not in agreement with Apple's treatment of its users". In fact, it's fairly ironic that, in an attempt to protest someone else's treatment of users, Emacs has decided to treat its users badly. Deliberately crippling Emacs will not make Apple change, and will not get people to switch away from Apple platforms. But what it might do is get people to switch away from Emacs.
- pasquinelli 10y ago
  is removing multicolor font support crippling emacs?
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    If you prefer it, or rely on it, yes. Yes, as far as a user is concerned it would be
  - efnx 10y ago
    It's a paper cut. On the right finger it could be crippling ️
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    I'd say it's a feature, not a bug. There is no place for colorful smileys in my text files.
    - madeofpalk 10y ago
      Then don't put them there, or install an alternate font.
    - simonh 10y ago
      And therefore nobody else should be allowed to have them either. Which is the explicit justification given for this decision. Sheesh.
    - vurpo 10y ago
      Emojis are characters in the Unicode specification, which have glyphs in the macOS default font, and are rendered by default in native macOS apps that display text. Why should Emacs make the decision that most characters are okay to display in their text editor, but these specific characters are a no-no? You're sounding like "I'm not using this feature, why does it even exist?". If things worked like that, then everybody would be using Linux on all computers today.
    - jmcdiesel 10y ago
Annatar 10y ago
You should not identify yourself with Apple's operating system. If I want I will identify myself with whatever I decide to identify myself with; I don't really care about Apple, but now you've turned it into a matter of principle, moralizing what people shouldn't do. You should not identify yourself with GNU/Linux. How did you like that? How about identifying oneself with JustWorks(SM), vertical integration, and things being purposely designed not to get in one's way?
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  Then you will find yourself compromised when using software made by another school of thought. shrug
  - Annatar 10y ago
    Compromised in what way? There are other, non-GNU free software alternatives out there.
    - DocTomoe 10y ago
      And you are free to use them. Have fun.
      - Annatar 10y ago
        I have, and I will. What about the rest of you?
        DocTomoe 10y ago
        Well, some will join you. Some will consider the lack of multicoloured emojis in emacs on mac a minor issue at best and continue to use what they do.
        Annatar 10y ago
        I wasn't referring to emojis, but to GNU and GNU/Linux. GNU and Stallman are the culprits here; Emacs is just a symptom.
DonHopkins 10y ago
U+1F644 [1] [1] http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html#1f644 http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html#1f644
jmcdiesel 10y ago
Removing a feature that already existed is a slight against apple users, period. Work was done and committed to REDUCE the feature set for a group of users. There is no watering it down. It was done for rather childish reasons... and it makes no sense. It doesn't serve them. It doesn't serve anyone... But its what I expect from GNU, and the FSF hardcore community at large... you know, the PETA of software.
- jordigh 10y ago
  It's supposed to encourage people to bring the functionality to free OSes: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg01632.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg01... It's not like it's difficult to get Yamamoto's Emacs. So GNU's gesture is almost purely symbolic. If you don't care about getting a free OS and you like the conditions that macOS imposes upon you, you can easily use Emacs with macOS-only features.
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago
    "So GNU's gesture is almost purely symbolic" Yeah... and pedantic. And childish. I support free software, I commit to open source projects, I love just about any form of Linux and I prefer OSS when its as good as proprietary (sometimes it is... like blender... and sometimes its crap in a bucket... like GIMP ...) I think my aversion and disappointment comes from the fact that, like PETA, this group and the RMS brigade are very much the public face of a movement, but a movement that doesn't need a single face... but regardless, they are the what outsiders see, and when you turn every piece of software into a political statement, you end up hurting the cause. There are people out there who will, through some sick twisting of the mind, treat animals poorly or not care about actual animal abuse because PETA has been the face of the animal cruelty movement (or GreenPeace, another great example of this effect, I'm sure it has a name) ... even though the cause is good, and there are good organizations (ASPCA)... the annoying, loud, politically charged reactionary groups like PETA, GreenPeace, GNU, RMS/FSF ... those groups turn people away from free software... Maybe I'm ranting more about the politicalization of software... maybe its all tied together and one and the same... I just know that I've heard plenty of people say they don't use Linux because it doesn't have X application, or X drivers... when it really does, but the common distros don't include them because they aren't in-line with their political view of the situation...

by jordigh 10y ago

mwfunk 10y ago

That is true. Similarly, you shouldn't identify yourself with the FSF or GNU or RMS either. Tribalism in general is a dead end for humanity.

sooheon 10y ago

Thanks for this dose of perspective. I found the idea of emacs in macOS being hobbled out of spite very annoying, but what you said also makes sense to me.

lilyball 10y ago

Deliberately crippling your product on Apple platforms does not in any way "remind users that it is not in agreement with Apple's treatment of its users". In fact, it's fairly ironic that, in an attempt to protest someone else's treatment of users, Emacs has decided to treat its users badly. Deliberately crippling Emacs will not make Apple change, and will not get people to switch away from Apple platforms. But what it might do is get people to switch away from Emacs.

pasquinelli 10y ago
is removing multicolor font support crippling emacs?
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  If you prefer it, or rely on it, yes. Yes, as far as a user is concerned it would be
- efnx 10y ago
  It's a paper cut. On the right finger it could be crippling ️
- rbanffy 10y ago
  I'd say it's a feature, not a bug. There is no place for colorful smileys in my text files.
  - madeofpalk 10y ago
    Then don't put them there, or install an alternate font.
  - simonh 10y ago
    And therefore nobody else should be allowed to have them either. Which is the explicit justification given for this decision. Sheesh.
  - vurpo 10y ago
    Emojis are characters in the Unicode specification, which have glyphs in the macOS default font, and are rendered by default in native macOS apps that display text. Why should Emacs make the decision that most characters are okay to display in their text editor, but these specific characters are a no-no? You're sounding like "I'm not using this feature, why does it even exist?". If things worked like that, then everybody would be using Linux on all computers today.
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago

Annatar 10y ago

You should not identify yourself with Apple's operating system. If I want I will identify myself with whatever I decide to identify myself with; I don't really care about Apple, but now you've turned it into a matter of principle, moralizing what people shouldn't do. You should not identify yourself with GNU/Linux. How did you like that? How about identifying oneself with JustWorks(SM), vertical integration, and things being purposely designed not to get in one's way?

SapphireSun 10y ago
Then you will find yourself compromised when using software made by another school of thought. shrug
- Annatar 10y ago
  Compromised in what way? There are other, non-GNU free software alternatives out there.
  - DocTomoe 10y ago
    And you are free to use them. Have fun.
    - Annatar 10y ago
      I have, and I will. What about the rest of you?
      - DocTomoe 10y ago
        Well, some will join you. Some will consider the lack of multicoloured emojis in emacs on mac a minor issue at best and continue to use what they do.
        Annatar 10y ago
        I wasn't referring to emojis, but to GNU and GNU/Linux. GNU and Stallman are the culprits here; Emacs is just a symptom.

DonHopkins 10y ago

U+1F644 [1] [1] http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html#1f644 http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html#1f644

jmcdiesel 10y ago

Removing a feature that already existed is a slight against apple users, period. Work was done and committed to REDUCE the feature set for a group of users. There is no watering it down. It was done for rather childish reasons... and it makes no sense. It doesn't serve them. It doesn't serve anyone... But its what I expect from GNU, and the FSF hardcore community at large... you know, the PETA of software.

jordigh 10y ago
It's supposed to encourage people to bring the functionality to free OSes: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg01632.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg01... It's not like it's difficult to get Yamamoto's Emacs. So GNU's gesture is almost purely symbolic. If you don't care about getting a free OS and you like the conditions that macOS imposes upon you, you can easily use Emacs with macOS-only features.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  "So GNU's gesture is almost purely symbolic" Yeah... and pedantic. And childish. I support free software, I commit to open source projects, I love just about any form of Linux and I prefer OSS when its as good as proprietary (sometimes it is... like blender... and sometimes its crap in a bucket... like GIMP ...) I think my aversion and disappointment comes from the fact that, like PETA, this group and the RMS brigade are very much the public face of a movement, but a movement that doesn't need a single face... but regardless, they are the what outsiders see, and when you turn every piece of software into a political statement, you end up hurting the cause. There are people out there who will, through some sick twisting of the mind, treat animals poorly or not care about actual animal abuse because PETA has been the face of the animal cruelty movement (or GreenPeace, another great example of this effect, I'm sure it has a name) ... even though the cause is good, and there are good organizations (ASPCA)... the annoying, loud, politically charged reactionary groups like PETA, GreenPeace, GNU, RMS/FSF ... those groups turn people away from free software... Maybe I'm ranting more about the politicalization of software... maybe its all tied together and one and the same... I just know that I've heard plenty of people say they don't use Linux because it doesn't have X application, or X drivers... when it really does, but the common distros don't include them because they aren't in-line with their political view of the situation...