5 ms·

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 fa

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
    "my" is the key word there... Your argument sounds like "A man shouldn't be allowed to marry a man because I don't want to marry a man"
tedunangst 10y ago
Defective by design...
ploxiln 10y ago
Upstream GNU Emacs can no more be called "crippled" on macOS than it can be called "crippled" on linux, because on neither does it support multi-color emoticons. Maybe it seems "unfair" because macOS users could easily have the feature advantage over a free/libre OS user, but upstream GNU Emacs denies macOS the advantage. It is kind of funny. But also funny because GNU's adherence to their licensing philosophy means it's just as easy for you to get the full macOS-enhanced fork. So the angst seems unreasonable to me. (Also, the whole emoticon trend is pretty annoying, from an implementation perspective. First it was just B/W icons, fine. But then users wanted color, and now fonts have to do something they've never done before, embed multiple colors for a glyph. There were multiple proposals for font formats to do this, IIRC Microsoft proposed a new TrueType table with color references, and Mozilla proposed just stuffing most of SVG into OpenType, I didn't follow this story to the end. Fonts were already pretty complicated and prone to vulnerabilities, and this more than doubles that complication. But it gets better, now that there's color and high detail, in this brave new politically correct world we need to be able to have a range of skin tones and genders for all emoticons with a person in them! Now we need color and gender "zero-width" modifiers, multiple for small groups! More than double the complexity again! Can't we just go back to B/W symbols and let people use PNG/JPG/SVG if they want an arbitrary fucking picture?)
- lilyball 10y ago
  From the original article, Emacs had this feature, and then they removed it. That's crippling it. Deciding not to implement the feature in the first place, well, that's a reasonable decision given their desire for functionality to be cross-platform. But accepting it, then turning around and removing it later even though it was already implemented, that's just spite.
  - blowski 10y ago
    Crippling sounds like the entire software is unusable. If they stopped MacOS users being able to type the letter 's' that would be crippling. This is just disabling one small feature. If crippled is a broken spine, then this is preventing some people from wearing a funny badge until everyone can wear funny badges.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

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
  "my" is the key word there... Your argument sounds like "A man shouldn't be allowed to marry a man because I don't want to marry a man"

tedunangst 10y ago

Defective by design...

ploxiln 10y ago

Upstream GNU Emacs can no more be called "crippled" on macOS than it can be called "crippled" on linux, because on neither does it support multi-color emoticons. Maybe it seems "unfair" because macOS users could easily have the feature advantage over a free/libre OS user, but upstream GNU Emacs denies macOS the advantage. It is kind of funny. But also funny because GNU's adherence to their licensing philosophy means it's just as easy for you to get the full macOS-enhanced fork. So the angst seems unreasonable to me. (Also, the whole emoticon trend is pretty annoying, from an implementation perspective. First it was just B/W icons, fine. But then users wanted color, and now fonts have to do something they've never done before, embed multiple colors for a glyph. There were multiple proposals for font formats to do this, IIRC Microsoft proposed a new TrueType table with color references, and Mozilla proposed just stuffing most of SVG into OpenType, I didn't follow this story to the end. Fonts were already pretty complicated and prone to vulnerabilities, and this more than doubles that complication. But it gets better, now that there's color and high detail, in this brave new politically correct world we need to be able to have a range of skin tones and genders for all emoticons with a person in them! Now we need color and gender "zero-width" modifiers, multiple for small groups! More than double the complexity again! Can't we just go back to B/W symbols and let people use PNG/JPG/SVG if they want an arbitrary fucking picture?)

lilyball 10y ago
From the original article, Emacs had this feature, and then they removed it. That's crippling it. Deciding not to implement the feature in the first place, well, that's a reasonable decision given their desire for functionality to be cross-platform. But accepting it, then turning around and removing it later even though it was already implemented, that's just spite.
- blowski 10y ago
  Crippling sounds like the entire software is unusable. If they stopped MacOS users being able to type the letter 's' that would be crippling. This is just disabling one small feature. If crippled is a broken spine, then this is preventing some people from wearing a funny badge until everyone can wear funny badges.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]