> Emacs isn't a business, so it doesn't care if it loses market share. Sure, but "market share" is at least to some degree a proxy for long-term health. My imp

> Emacs isn't a business, so it doesn't care if it loses market share. Sure, but "market share" is at least to some degree a proxy for long-term health. My impression -- and I think it's a well-founded one -- is that the most passionate free-software partisans do not like Visual Studio Code, for a variety of reasons ranging from its licensing to "it's Microsoft, dammit." And over the long-term, VS Code is arguably a major threat to all other editors, and perhaps particularly to long-standing editors that are highly extensible but perhaps not the easiest to get comfortably configured. I love Emacs in principle, but in practice it is way, way, way easier for me to set up and personalize an installation of VS Code. Being that easy to set up isn't necessarily a worthy goal for Emacs, but what the original article is pointing out is, in so many words, that if Emacs' maintainers specifically -- and the FSF more broadly -- consider "fuck you for using a Mac" to be a worthy goal, that's very likely to drive Mac users to non-FSF-approved software. With something as important as your editor, once you have it set up, you're going to want to use it everywhere you can, and like it or not, VS Code's "everywhere you can" includes Linux. Driving people away from any major free software package in the name of purity is something that, at the least, the maintainers should really, really think hard about: there is a generation of developers coming up right now who, even if you convince them to trade in their Mac in a few years for a glorious Linux desktop, may very well keep using Visual Studio Code on Linux because that's what they know. And they know it because Emacs deliberately chose to be frustrating on a Mac and VS deliberately did not. tl;dr: This sure looks like a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.