where is emacs21?
A. L. Meyers
Please don't waste time on people trying to hurry you. Haste is
not quality's friend. Do the job right the first time.
All the best.
Lucien
--
This message is only for the addressee(s). If you receive it
by error, please delete it and inform the sender. We recommend
encrypted e-mail. Welcome to: http://www.consult-meyers.com
"Don't fight reality, face it."
---
to "big brother" from GNU/Emacs spook:
Khaddafi North Korea Uzi ammunition Clinton Honduras Cocaine
genetic Ft. Bragg class struggle smuggle spy World Trade Center
SDI Rule Psix
Stefan Monnier <foo@acm.com>
> software projects. EMACS (although I worship at her alters) she is a
> Cathedral. How Bazaar.
Having read some of ESR's papers (despite having serious reservations about
the political underpinnings of his rhetoric), I think you're confused.
Emacs development might not be as transparent as you'd like, but it is
not following a carefully planned design. Instead Emacs just incorporates
code contributed from just about anybody in a manner strongly reminiscent
of things like fetchmail (to take a completely arbitrary example ;-)
I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
represented by resp RMS and ESR).
Stefan
Alex Schroeder
> I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
> has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
> Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
> to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
> represented by resp RMS and ESR).
From reading the posts of people complaining, I got the impression
that these people expect read-only CVS access, that's it. I
understand that -- I run gnus and bbdb on the bleeding edge, and it
feels good.
What these people confuse is "no CVS access" and "not open source".
Obviously I think they are confused. But I do think that people like
to have CVS access, and since they are being denied CVS access, they
complain.
Alex.
--
http://www.geocities.com/kensanata/emacs.html
http://www.emacswiki.org/
"Check the Emacs Wiki: http://www.emacswiki.org/"
Per Abrahamsen
> Having read some of ESR's papers (despite having serious
> reservations about the political underpinnings of his rhetoric), I
> think you're confused. Emacs development might not be as
> transparent as you'd like, but it is not following a carefully
> planned design.
I believe the opaqueness of Emacs development is the main issue, and
will continue to be so. That RMS and Gerd doesn't follow the open
discussion fora where most (in persons, not in code) of the developers
hang out will continue to make a difference, even when the CVS
repository gets opened.
Only slightly releated fact: The invisibility of the main Emacs
maintainer is astonishing, of the Emacs contributers, Gerd Moellmann
is only the #312 most well known, as measured by Google hits. This is
not a critique, but it make a difference compared to projects where the
development discussions and the developers are more visible.
See <URL: http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/emacs/fame.html > for the
full list.
> Instead Emacs just incorporates code contributed from just about
> anybody in a manner strongly reminiscent of things like fetchmail
> (to take a completely arbitrary example ;-)
You won't claim the fetchmail development isn't visible, will you?
And certainly not the maintaner.
> I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
> has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
> Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
> to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
> represented by resp RMS and ESR).
I believe the Open/Free split was later than the C&B paper.
Kai Großjohann
> I believe the opaqueness of Emacs development is the main issue, and
> will continue to be so. That RMS and Gerd doesn't follow the open
> discussion fora where most (in persons, not in code) of the
> developers hang out will continue to make a difference, even when
> the CVS repository gets opened.
IIUC, Gerd reads the emacs-devel mailing list, doesn't he? So that
would be a way to get in contact with him directly.
I'm not sure, but I think that other projects are similar. For
example, aren't there debian-user and debian-devel mailing lists,
roughly parallel to gnu.emacs.help and emacs-devel? Also, it seems
that the FreeBSD project has a users mailing list and a developers
mailing list.
And the idea is that user-to-user communication happens on one of
them, and the developer-to-developer and user-to-developer
communication happens on the devel list?
How does Emacs compare to other projects? I don't really know enough
about the projects to be able to say.
Maybe Emacs could gently be moved in a direction which makes everybody
satisfied (if not happy)?
kai
--
~/.signature: No such file or directory
Luis Fernandes
Per> Only slightly releated fact: The invisibility of the main
Per> Emacs maintainer is astonishing, of the Emacs contributers,
Per> Gerd Moellmann is only the #312 most well known, as measured
Per> by Google hits. This is not a critique, but it make a
Per> difference compared to projects where the development
Per> discussions and the developers are more visible.
If you want to raise gerd's profile, just get him to grow his hair
long, have him drive a Porsche Boxter and arrange for a Playboy bunny
(just don't tell his wife) to accompany him to an Emacs con.
Per Abrahamsen
> IIUC, Gerd reads the emacs-devel mailing list, doesn't he?
But few of the developers does. Most developers just write a single
Lisp package, post it to g.e.sources (which both Gerd and RMS read),
and talk about it g.e.help. The emacs-devel list does not seem to
have many active participants. I don't even know if it is open to the
public, like e.g. xemacs-beta or the Linux kernel lists are.
> So that would be a way to get in contact with him directly.
It has never been hard to get in touch with Gerd or RMS.
> I'm not sure, but I think that other projects are similar.
In organization, perhaps, but not in execution.
> Maybe Emacs could gently be moved in a direction which makes everybody
> satisfied (if not happy)?
It doesn't have to. What is important is that the development process
works, not how it works. And if the current organization means Gerd
can spend more time code, and less time reading mailing lists and more
time writing code and integrating patches, that might be a good
tradfoff, even if it gives a more opaque impression.
Nix
> I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
> has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
> Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
> to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
> represented by resp RMS and ESR).
Hardly. GCC is one of the most well-known bazaar projects out there, yet
it too was written by RMS to start with. It's just adapted better, to
the point where BSD developers and even people @microsoft.com help out
and don't get tortured, even slightly.
And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
Emacs's.
--
`LARTing lusers is supposed to be satisfying. This is just tedious. The
silly shite I'm doing now is like trying to toothpick to death a Black
Knight made of jelly.' --- RDD
Rene Kyllingstad
> On 18 May 2001, Stefan Monnier gibbered:
> > I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
> > has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
> > Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
> > to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
> > represented by resp RMS and ESR).
>
> Hardly. GCC is one of the most well-known bazaar projects out there, yet
> it too was written by RMS to start with. It's just adapted better, to
> the point where BSD developers and even people @microsoft.com help out
> and don't get tortured, even slightly.
>
> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
> Emacs's.
Wasn't egcs started *because* the GCC development was too closed? Or,
would the fork have occured if the gcc development was as open then as it
is today?
-- Rene
Austin Ziegler
> On 18 May 2001, Stefan Monnier gibbered:
>> I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
>> has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
>> Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
>> to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
>> represented by resp RMS and ESR).
> Hardly. GCC is one of the most well-known bazaar projects out there, yet
> it too was written by RMS to start with. It's just adapted better, to
> the point where BSD developers and even people @microsoft.com help out
> and don't get tortured, even slightly.
>
> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
> Emacs's.
My understanding is that GCC only *became* bazaar because of EGCS,
which was (IIRC) started shortly after the C&B paper. I think it was
because people were tired of how long it was taking and how opaque the
process was, at least in part.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
-----------------* I speak for myself alone
Nix
> Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Hardly. GCC is one of the most well-known bazaar projects out there, yet
>> it too was written by RMS to start with. It's just adapted better, to
>> the point where BSD developers and even people @microsoft.com help out
>> and don't get tortured, even slightly.
>>
>> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
>> Emacs's.
>
> Wasn't egcs started *because* the GCC development was too closed? Or,
Yes, but bear in mind that *all* the GCC developers got involved in it
in short order, even Kenner, the maintainer of GCC :) so it's arguable
how much of a fork it really was. The *code* forked, but the developer
base did not, not really. (Not for long.)
> would the fork have occured if the gcc development was as open then as it
> is today?
No, definitely not.
Hmm. I think I may have just torpedoed my own argument.
Ah well.
Matthias Warkus
...and Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
> Emacs's.
I could care less about how open Emacs' development is. To me, the
important things are:
a) development continues
b) releases are often
c) the code is under the GPL.
All fine and dandy. *I*'m happy.
mawa
--
When you think of Red Hat, think of Perrier (bottled water). Water is
essentially free, or at least very low cost to produce. Red Hat is
selling the name, and some service.
-- Ed Young
Paul Repacholi
> Wasn't egcs started *because* the GCC development was too closed?
> Or, would the fork have occured if the gcc development was as open
> then as it is today?
No, egcs was forked out because the design of gcc was not a good base
for non-32 bit machines, and also had major problems if you wanted to
include a pile a modern optimizations. A clean sheet that re-used
those parts of gcc that made sense was an idear whose time had come.
From day one, it was expected that the streams would become one, and
that egcs would replace classic gcc.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
Spam-To: u...@ftc.gov,enfor...@sec.gov,sn...@fcc.gov,hfur...@fcc.gov,
mpo...@fcc.gov,gtri...@fcc.gov
Rene Kyllingstad
> Rene Kyllingstad <ren...@hamspam.stud.ntnu.no> writes:
> > Wasn't egcs started *because* the GCC development was too closed?
> > Or, would the fork have occured if the gcc development was as open
> > then as it is today?
>
> No, egcs was forked out because the design of gcc was not a good base
> for non-32 bit machines, and also had major problems if you wanted to
> include a pile a modern optimizations. A clean sheet that re-used
> those parts of gcc that made sense was an idear whose time had come.
>
> From day one, it was expected that the streams would become one, and
> that egcs would replace classic gcc.
From the egcs 1.0 release statement:
"EGCS is a collaborative effort involving several groups of hackers using an
open development model to accelerate development and testing of GNU
compilers and runtime libraries."
http://gcc.gnu.org/egcs-1.0/egcs-1.0.html
It seems to me that this was not merely an experimental branch and redesign
off the main trunk, but also a reaction to the closed development.
-- René
Simon Josefsson
> I could care less about how open Emacs' development is. To me, the
> important things are:
> a) development continues
> b) releases are often
> c) the code is under the GPL.
I agree, these are good measures. But with an opaque development
model you have the risk that outsiders don't know if (A) holds unless
(B) holds -- and we're now close to celebrating the one year
anniversity of Emacs 20.7.
Russ Allbery
> No, egcs was forked out because the design of gcc was not a good base
> for non-32 bit machines, and also had major problems if you wanted to
> include a pile a modern optimizations. A clean sheet that re-used those
> parts of gcc that made sense was an idear whose time had come.
Er, that bears very little resemblence to the egcs project as I understood
it, and I've been following the mailing lists since day one. I
particularly question the idea that egcs represented a clean sheet.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Lars Balker Rasmussen
> and we're now close to celebrating the one year
> anniversity of Emacs 20.7.
<heretic>
Yeah, maybe it's about time I upgraded from 20.4...
</heretic>
--
Lars Balker Rasmussen "Woo hoo!?"
phil hunt
>It was the 20 May 2001 23:09:36 +0100...
>...and Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
>> Emacs's.
>
>I could care less about how open Emacs' development is.
No, you mean you couldn't care less.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]*****
Pstream class library for C++: a Parsing Stream library that
facilitates writing lexical analysers and other programs
that parse data files. Available on an open source license from
<http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/oss/phlib/intro.html>
Nix
> Er, that bears very little resemblence to the egcs project as I understood
> it, and I've been following the mailing lists since day one. I
> particularly question the idea that egcs represented a clean sheet.
So do I. Some of the worst cruft *is* being removed from GCC; but this
is an incremental, evolutionary process, not a revolutionary `chuck
everything and start again' process.
(In some respects GCC *would* benefit from having some of its ad-hockery
chucked, because some of the confusing intertangled unstated assumptions
would be chucked with it... but this hasn't happened.)
Matthias Warkus
...and phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
> >> Emacs's.
> >
> >I could care less about how open Emacs' development is.
>
> No, you mean you couldn't care less.
I've seen it both ways by native English speakers, so I suspect I
could care less about whether I couldn't care less or I could care
less about whether it's "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less".
mawa
--
We must not forget that these ridiculous and tyrannical laws were not
imposed [...] -- they were voted by [...] free agreement [...] -- and
that their mores were even more austere and puritanical than their
laws. -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1838
Kai Großjohann
> I've seen it both ways by native English speakers,
That doesn't mean both ways are correct :-)
Paul Jarc
> On Tue, 22 May 2001, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > I've seen it both ways by native English speakers,
>
> That doesn't mean both ways are correct :-)
No, but the fact that native speakers understand each other both ways
*does* mean it's correct. Usage defines language.
paul
William M. Perry
If this is correct the english language (at least the dialect spoken in
america) is doomed. :)
Before people reach for their flamethrowers, I am a native english speaker,
born in America. That does not mean I cannot openly weep at the way some
people butcher language. Myself included sometimes. :)
-Bill P.
--
Ceterum censeo vi esse delendam.
Glyn Millington
Isn't that just due to native speakers being able to understand even when
people get soemthing half wrong.
"I could care less" actually means something different from "I couldn't
care less" - to say one when you mean the other can hardly be correct
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
6:14pm up 11:06, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.05, 0.01
Paul Jarc
> p...@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
> > Kai.Gro...@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> > > On Tue, 22 May 2001, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > > > I've seen it both ways by native English speakers,
> > >
> > > That doesn't mean both ways are correct :-)
> >
> > No, but the fact that native speakers understand each other both ways
> > *does* mean it's correct. Usage defines language.
>
> If this is correct the english language (at least the dialect spoken in
> america) is doomed. :)
Well, there are still "rules" which help us to express ourselves
coherently, and to interpret what others say. But as long as you
understand me, then adherence to the rules is somewhat academic.
Also, intentional, creative violation of the rules should not be
considered incorrect - it's inconsistent with the rules, obviously,
but conformance to the rules is only a means to an end. Other ways of
meeting that end should not be discouraged.
Anyway, M-x all-hail-emacs.
paul
Paul Jarc
> > *does* mean it's correct. Usage defines language.
>
> Isn't that just due to native speakers being able to understand even when
> people get soemthing half wrong.
Half-inconsistent with an artificial set of rules *describing* a
naturally developing language, you mean. If this inconsistency makes
it difficult for the speaker to be understood, then perhaps the
language construct is a bad one. Otherwise, perhaps the artificial
description is a bad one.
> "I could care less" actually means something different from "I couldn't
> care less" - to say one when you mean the other can hardly be correct
If the speaker and listener agree on what something means, then they
are correct about it, by definition.
paul
Kai Großjohann
> Well, there are still "rules" which help us to express ourselves
> coherently, and to interpret what others say. But as long as you
> understand me, then adherence to the rules is somewhat academic.
> Also, intentional, creative violation of the rules should not be
> considered incorrect - it's inconsistent with the rules, obviously,
> but conformance to the rules is only a means to an end. Other ways
> of meeting that end should not be discouraged.
I agree. So if Markus knew what he was doing, all is fine, right?
kai (wishes to someday understand what it means to "try and do
something")
Glyn Millington
> > Isn't that just due to native speakers being able to understand even when
> > people get soemthing half wrong.
>
> Half-inconsistent with an artificial set of rules *describing* a
> naturally developing language, you mean. If this inconsistency makes
> it difficult for the speaker to be understood, then perhaps the
> language construct is a bad one. Otherwise, perhaps the artificial
> description is a bad one.
I'm with you so far!
> > "I could care less" actually means something different from "I couldn't
> > care less" - to say one when you mean the other can hardly be correct
>
> If the speaker and listener agree on what something means, then they
> are correct about it, by definition.
But this was a case where the speaker said one thing and meant the
other...
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
6:44pm up 11:36, 2 users, load average: 0.19, 0.22, 0.10
Paul Jarc
> > > "I could care less" actually means something different from "I couldn't
> > > care less" - to say one when you mean the other can hardly be correct
> But this was a case where the speaker said one thing and meant the
> other...
You have defeated yourself. In order to make the statement you just
made, you need to know what the speaker meant. But if you know what
the speaker meant, then that is what the speaker's words mean.
paul
Paul Jarc
> On 22 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote:
> > Also, intentional, creative violation of the rules should not be
> > considered incorrect - it's inconsistent with the rules, obviously,
> > but conformance to the rules is only a means to an end. Other ways
> > of meeting that end should not be discouraged.
>
> I agree. So if Markus knew what he was doing, all is fine, right?
In this case, I'd just say he was using a common idiom which is well
understood. It may not be easy to arrive at the idiomatic meaning
based on the words he used and the usual descriptive rules of English,
but I think that indicates a deficiency in the description rather than
the idiom.
paul
Kai Großjohann
> You have defeated yourself. In order to make the statement you just
> made, you need to know what the speaker meant. But if you know what
> the speaker meant, then that is what the speaker's words mean.
This gubblick contains many nonsklarkish English flutzpahs,
but the overall pluggandisp can be glorked from context. -- David Moser
scnr,
Glyn Millington
>
> You have defeated yourself. In order to make the statement you just
> made, you need to know what the speaker meant. But if you know what
> the speaker meant, then that is what the speaker's words mean.
Rubbish - the speakers words mean the opposite of what he wanted to say -
he may not know that, but it is still so.
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
10:38pm up 15:30, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.07, 0.02
Paul Jarc
> p...@po.cwru.edu. (Paul Jarc) writes:
> > You have defeated yourself. In order to make the statement you just
> > made, you need to know what the speaker meant. But if you know what
> > the speaker meant, then that is what the speaker's words mean.
>
> Rubbish - the speakers words mean the opposite of what he wanted to say -
> he may not know that, but it is still so.
The speaker's words have meaning by virtue of a speaker to intend
meaning and a listener to interpret meaning, *not* of an artificial
descriptive system to assign meaning. The intended and interpreted
meanings in this case are the same (assuming you know what the speaker
was trying to say). The descriptive system that tells you the words
ought to mean something else is what is at fault here. You think of
the descriptive system as being authoritatively prescriptive - but
thinking of it that way doesn't accomplish anything useful, and it's
less historically accurate than thinking of it as just an imperfect
description.
paul
Jay Maynard
<monnier+comp.emacs/news/@flint.cs.yale.edu> wrote:
>I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
>has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
>Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
>to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
>represented by resp RMS and ESR).
Bzzt.
I got this straight from ESR last week over a game of Robo Rally: The open
source movement explicitly includes the soi-disant "free software" movement.
The goals of the open source movement are broader than those of the "free
software" movement, and not incompatible at all. RMS doesn't think so, but
he's flat-out wrong, and been told so repeatedly.
Rene Kyllingstad
> Glyn Millington <gl...@millingtons.org> writes:
> > p...@po.cwru.edu. (Paul Jarc) writes:
> > > You have defeated yourself. In order to make the statement you just
> > > made, you need to know what the speaker meant. But if you know what
> > > the speaker meant, then that is what the speaker's words mean.
> >
> > Rubbish - the speakers words mean the opposite of what he wanted to say -
> > he may not know that, but it is still so.
>
> The speaker's words have meaning by virtue of a speaker to intend
> meaning and a listener to interpret meaning, *not* of an artificial
I couldn't care less about your real-time clock.
Furthermore, you coward, it's fun to be really braindamaged.
You're a typical intellectual person, totally bad.
Save the MicroVAX IIs!
The Editor Has Spoken - who are *we* to interpret meaning?
-- René
Shawn Betts
'not incompatible at all'? So you're suggesting that they are not
fully incompatible and therefore at most partially compatible? Yes you
are correct. But their philosophical objectives differ.
ESR isn't necessarily correct. Perhaps you should read some of RMS's
essays on the topic. Just because lots of people tell RMS he's 'wrong',
doesn't make him 'wrong'.
Perhaps you could dig your head out of your butt so as to better smell
the coffee?
Russ Allbery
> I got this straight from ESR last week over a game of Robo Rally: The
> open source movement explicitly includes the soi-disant "free software"
> movement. The goals of the open source movement are broader than those
> of the "free software" movement, and not incompatible at all. RMS
> doesn't think so, but he's flat-out wrong, and been told so repeatedly.
Your acceptance of ESR's word for this over RMS's obvious disagreement is
rather interseting.
For the record, I agree with RMS and think ESR is fooling himself if he
doesn't realize that the open source movement as he presents it is
incompatible with the free software movement that RMS believes in.
They're advocating some of the same practices, but for *radically*
different reasons, and the reasons are far more important to RMS than the
actual techniques.
Jay Maynard
>ESR isn't necessarily correct. Perhaps you should read some of RMS's
>essays on the topic. Just because lots of people tell RMS he's 'wrong',
>doesn't make him 'wrong'.
I've read RMS's essays. They all hinge on his peculiar redefinition of the
term "free", applying it to a collection of bits instead of people. If ESR's
wrong, he's at least a lot closer to right than RMS, who the rest of the
world (except for those who belong to the Holy Church of GNU, with Stallman
as its Pope) sees as anywhere from out in left field to a real ****ing kook.
>Perhaps you could dig your head out of your butt so as to better smell
>the coffee?
I've been following the FSF and RMS's polemics for well over a decade, and
arguing against the GPV since 1990. I'm well familiar with the issues. I've
seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more inclusive, less
politicized approach. RMS's approach doesn't advance anything but his own
blood pressure. ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
I prefer positive results to political blathering every time.
Russ Allbery
> I've been following the FSF and RMS's polemics for well over a decade,
> and arguing against the GPV since 1990. I'm well familiar with the
> issues. I've seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more
> inclusive, less politicized approach.
The idea that ESR is less political and politicized than RMS is completely
absurd. His politics just have different goals.
Glyn Millington
> Glyn Millington <gl...@millingtons.org> writes:
> > p...@po.cwru.edu. (Paul Jarc) writes:
> > > You have defeated yourself. In order to make the statement you just
> > > made, you need to know what the speaker meant. But if you know what
> > > the speaker meant, then that is what the speaker's words mean.
> >
> > Rubbish - the speakers words mean the opposite of what he wanted to say -
> > he may not know that, but it is still so.
>
> The speaker's words have meaning by virtue of a speaker to intend
> meaning and a listener to interpret meaning, *not* of an artificial
What's artificial about it??
> descriptive system to assign meaning. The intended and interpreted
> meanings in this case are the same (assuming you know what the speaker
> was trying to say). The descriptive system that tells you the words
> ought to mean something else is what is at fault here.
The descriptive system is what allows me to suspect that he means
something other than what he said - so it's not entirely useless!
I suspect that we are arguing about different theories of "meaning" here,
and you clearly know more about it than I ;-) Perhaps we should agree not
to agree and get on with our study of the One True Editor?
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
8:19am up 41 min, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.15, 0.43
Matthias Warkus
...and Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> I got this straight from ESR last week over a game of Robo Rally: The open
> source movement explicitly includes the soi-disant "free software" movement.
Has Raymond lost any contact to reality? If no, why does he think he
can annect other people's momentum into the "movement" of his own
creation at will?
mawa
--
X[11] is like pavement: once you figure out how to lay it on the
ground and paint yellow lines on it, there isn't much left to say
about it. [...] New developments are happening in things that run ON
TOP of the pavement, like cars [...] and motorcycles. -- E. O'Neil
Matthias Warkus
> arguing against the GPV since 1990. I'm well familiar with the issues. I've
> seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more inclusive, less
> politicized approach.
Less politicised? One of ESR's main reasons for the "Open Source
movement" is political self-gratification, i.e. trying to prove to
himself that his libertoonian anarcho-capitalist gun-crazed ideology
has some place in the world.
> RMS's approach doesn't advance anything but his own
> blood pressure.
Bullshit. Where would we be without gcc?
Jay Maynard
>The idea that ESR is less political and politicized than RMS is completely
>absurd. His politics just have different goals.
Hardly. ESR's concentrating on what works. RMS is concentrating on being
politically correct as defined by the GNU Manifesto. ESR isn't concerned
about being politically correct by any definition.
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>Less politicised? One of ESR's main reasons for the "Open Source
>movement" is political self-gratification, i.e. trying to prove to
>himself that his libertoonian anarcho-capitalist gun-crazed ideology
>has some place in the world.
Baloney.
ESR's greatest goal in life is to pass along the torch to someone else
qualified to do it and go back to hacking. If you think about the
qualifications needed, though, there are only a very tiny number - less than
five - people who have the necessary qualifications. Hint: RMS is
emphatically not one of them.
As for the ideology you deride, I find it much more compelling and much more
desirable than RMS's naked communistic desire to destroy the software
industry.
Oh, and smile when you say "gun-crazed"...for you'd probably label me that
way, too. Among other things, I'm a Patron Life Member of the NRA.
>> RMS's approach doesn't advance anything but his own
>> blood pressure.
>Bullshit. Where would we be without gcc?
How long has it been since he had anything to do with gcc? AIUI, he was the
major reason it didn't advance at all for several years, and he finally
dissociated himself with it to allow it to advance.
To quote ESR: "Richard, shut up and show them the code." Only problem is
that he hasn't *done* anything significant in the last several years to show
anyone.
Per Abrahamsen
> The idea that ESR is less political and politicized than RMS is completely
> absurd. His politics just have different goals.
No, it is not completely absurd. ESR explicitly wants to downplay the
political goals, in order to make open software more acceptable.
While the goals are there, and are just as radical, they are not in
front to the same degree as with RMS.
It might be considered a less honest approach, but if it works, I
don't care.
Jay Maynard
>Your acceptance of ESR's word for this over RMS's obvious disagreement is
>rather interseting.
Well, since ESR disagrees with RMS's disagreement... :-)
>For the record, I agree with RMS and think ESR is fooling himself if he
>doesn't realize that the open source movement as he presents it is
>incompatible with the free software movement that RMS believes in.
>They're advocating some of the same practices, but for *radically*
>different reasons, and the reasons are far more important to RMS than the
>actual techniques.
It comes down to a simple question: What's important here, reasons or
results?
(It seems necessary to note that the following analysis is mine, not
(necessarily) ESR's.)
RMS is overwhelmingly consumed with the need to be simon-pure ideologically.
He doesn't care what the effects are in the real world as long as his
motives are pure. He doesn't care, in particular, what someone who doesn't
share his ideology does. He's after saving souls, not doing good. If you
don't hew to his line all the way, you're the enemy.
ESR, OTOH, is concerned with results. As long as software is released under
an OSD-compliant license (several of which, I'll note, even RMS admits
qualify for his definition of "free software"), it's good, regardless of the
motives of the person doing the releasing. The software is all that he cares
about.
Thus, ESR and RMS are free to disagree while both being correct by their own
definitions. Personally, I consider results to be important - I truly
believe without the relative depoliticzation of the OSI, we wouldn't be
anywhere near the point we are today - and so I agree with ESR.
ESR's argument in this discussion is that, since "free software" is
distributed under a license that makes it OSD-compliant, it is a proper
subset of open source software. The reverse is obviously not true: Hercules,
for example, is released under the QPL, an OSD-compliant license that RMS
does not consider "free". Advancing the cause of "free software", therefore,
also automatically advances the cause of open source software.
There's room in the open source movement for advocates of "free software".
If they choose not to believe that, that's their problem.
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>Has Raymond lost any contact to reality? If no, why does he think he
>can annect other people's momentum into the "movement" of his own
>creation at will?
Because, as I explained in another reply a moment ago, advancing the cause
of "free software" also advances the cause of open source software as well.
Per Abrahamsen
> If this is correct the english language (at least the dialect spoken in
> america) is doomed. :)
Of course it is doomed. Languages evolve or die. They can't both
stay the same, and stay alive.
Per Abrahamsen
> What's artificial about it??
Apparently it is based on logic, not usage.
Paul Jarc
> p...@po.cwru.edu. (Paul Jarc) writes:
> > The speaker's words have meaning by virtue of a speaker to intend
> > meaning and a listener to interpret meaning, *not* of an artificial
>
> What's artificial about it??
Our rules of English grammar are younger than the language itself (or
do you want to argue that English was a constructed language?), and
could only have been created as description, even if they were
subsequently taken to be prescription. If they weren't created as
description of the existing language, they would have been promoting a
new language, and thus probably wouldn't have lasted.
> The descriptive system is what allows me to suspect that he means
> something other than what he said - so it's not entirely useless!
What he said is a string of words; what he meant was an idea. The two
are necessarily just that different. You have two ways of mapping a
string of words to an idea - your common-sense understanding of
English, and the formal rules - and they give different results. You
know that one of them produces the same idea that the speaker had in
mind - doesn't that suggest that the other way is not to be completely
trusted? The formal rules are useful in guiding you in the general
direction of the intended meaning (and in letting you choose words
that will likely be interpreted as you intended them), but they aren't
the final word (no pun intended). If you understand a string of
words, but the formal rules alone aren't enough to interpret them,
then that's a deficiency in the rules, not the words.
> Perhaps we should agree not to agree and get on with our study of
> the One True Editor?
(defun mega-praise-emacs ()
(praise-emacs)
(mega-praise-emacs) ;; my stack runneth over
(praise-emacs))
paul
Chong Yidong
> >can annect other people's momentum into the "movement" of his own
> >creation at will?
>
> Because, as I explained in another reply a moment ago, advancing the cause
> of "free software" also advances the cause of open source software as well.
That's a circular argument. "Free software is part of open source
because free software is open source."
Heh.
Shawn Betts
> On 22 May 2001 17:49:31 -0700, Shawn Betts <sab...@van.gobasis.com> wrote:
> >ESR isn't necessarily correct. Perhaps you should read some of RMS's
> >essays on the topic. Just because lots of people tell RMS he's 'wrong',
> >doesn't make him 'wrong'.
>
> I've read RMS's essays. They all hinge on his peculiar redefinition of the
> term "free", applying it to a collection of bits instead of people. If ESR's
> wrong, he's at least a lot closer to right than RMS, who the rest of the
> world (except for those who belong to the Holy Church of GNU, with Stallman
> as its Pope) sees as anywhere from out in left field to a real ****ing kook.
Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
> >Perhaps you could dig your head out of your butt so as to better smell
> >the coffee?
>
> I've been following the FSF and RMS's polemics for well over a decade, and
> arguing against the GPV since 1990. I'm well familiar with the issues. I've
> seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more inclusive, less
> politicized approach. RMS's approach doesn't advance anything but his own
> blood pressure. ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
>
> I prefer positive results to political blathering every time.
Are these inroads taking us where we want to go? I'm not sure they
are.
Glyn Millington
> > What's artificial about it??
>
> Our rules of English grammar are younger than the language itself (or
> do you want to argue that English was a constructed language?), and
> could only have been created as description, even if they were
> subsequently taken to be prescription.
Fair enough, but still don't see why artificial? It's a second-order
activity but so what? Sorry, I'm just dim!
>
> > The descriptive system is what allows me to suspect that he means
> > something other than what he said - so it's not entirely useless!
>
> What he said is a string of words; what he meant was an idea. The two
> are necessarily just that different. You have two ways of mapping a
> string of words to an idea - your common-sense understanding of
> English, and the formal rules - and they give different results. You
> know that one of them produces the same idea that the speaker had in
> mind - doesn't that suggest that the other way is not to be completely
> trusted? The formal rules are useful in guiding you in the general
> direction of the intended meaning (and in letting you choose words
> that will likely be interpreted as you intended them), but they aren't
> the final word (no pun intended).
Yes, I'm with you so far
> If you understand a string of words, but the formal rules alone aren't
> enough to interpret them, then that's a deficiency in the rules, not
> the words.
This is the step I'm not sure about ;-) To say one thing and mean another
does not seem to me to call the "rules" into question - it suggests an
insufficient grasp of the structures/idioms of the language
concerned. The rules only take a you a litle way along the road to
grasping the meaning.
>
> > Perhaps we should agree not to agree and get on with our study of
> > the One True Editor?
>
> (defun mega-praise-emacs ()
> (praise-emacs)
> (mega-praise-emacs) ;; my stack runneth over
> (praise-emacs))
(Amen)
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
5:23pm up 9:45, 2 users, load average: 0.08, 0.18, 0.09
Chong Yidong
> He doesn't care what the effects are in the real world as long as his
> motives are pure. He doesn't care, in particular, what someone who doesn't
> share his ideology does. He's after saving souls, not doing good. If you
> don't hew to his line all the way, you're the enemy.
Looks like you're insinuating that RMS' "reasons" for advancing free
software are somehow arbitary or impractical - in other words,
religious. However, the fellow has explained the reasons he thinks
free software is important, many times. Advancing free software for
its usefulness to society strikes me as no more or less a "simon pure"
idealogy than advancing free software for its technical superiority.
> ESR, OTOH, is concerned with results. As long as software is released under
> an OSD-compliant license (several of which, I'll note, even RMS admits
> qualify for his definition of "free software"), it's good, regardless of the
> motives of the person doing the releasing. The software is all that he cares
> about.
Here, you insinuate that RMS begrudges the use of free software
licenses other than the GPL. The GNU website does explain on the
rationale for different free software licenses. Also, can you come up
with an example of RMS dissing a free software project due simply to
the motives of its author?
> Thus, ESR and RMS are free to disagree while both being correct by their own
> definitions. Personally, I consider results to be important - I truly
> believe without the relative depoliticzation of the OSI, we wouldn't be
> anywhere near the point we are today - and so I agree with ESR.
Of course, that's not a falsifiable statement. Note that you're again
implying that RMS is pushing free software without a reason.
> ESR's argument in this discussion is that, since "free software" is
> distributed under a license that makes it OSD-compliant, it is a proper
> subset of open source software. The reverse is obviously not true: Hercules,
> for example, is released under the QPL, an OSD-compliant license that RMS
> does not consider "free". Advancing the cause of "free software", therefore,
> also automatically advances the cause of open source software.
From the GNU licenses page:
The Qt Public License (QPL).
This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible
with the GNU GPL.
Jay Maynard
>Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
>it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
You go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. In my guts,
however, I know he's nuts.
>> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
>Are these inroads taking us where we want to go? I'm not sure they
>are.
That depends on just where you want to go. I believe that open source
(which, by definition, includes "free") software and commercial software are
both valid choices, depending on the needs of an organization. I just want
to see open source software get the same consideration as commercial
software. I do not consider those who wish to destroy commercial software
as having the best interests of users truly at heart, regardless of what
they believe or what their motives are. The inroads from ESR's approach are
those which I would like to see, and I do not believe RMS's approach would
have led to the same penetration of "free" software in the real world where
people use computers to actually get things done.
Shawn Betts
> On 23 May 2001 09:58:37 -0700, Shawn Betts <sab...@van.gobasis.com> wrote:
> >Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
> >it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
>
> You go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. In my guts,
> however, I know he's nuts.
Looks like you have worms, though dude.
> >> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
> >Are these inroads taking us where we want to go? I'm not sure they
> >are.
>
> That depends on just where you want to go. I believe that open source
> (which, by definition, includes "free") software and commercial software are
> both valid choices, depending on the needs of an organization. I just want
> to see open source software get the same consideration as commercial
> software. I do not consider those who wish to destroy commercial software
> as having the best interests of users truly at heart, regardless of what
> they believe or what their motives are. The inroads from ESR's approach are
> those which I would like to see, and I do not believe RMS's approach would
> have led to the same penetration of "free" software in the real world where
> people use computers to actually get things done.
Do you use VI or something??
Kai Großjohann
> What he said is a string of words; what he meant was an idea. The
> two are necessarily just that different. You have two ways of
> mapping a string of words to an idea - your common-sense
> understanding of English, and the formal rules - and they give
> different results. You know that one of them produces the same idea
> that the speaker had in mind - doesn't that suggest that the other
> way is not to be completely trusted? The formal rules are useful in
> guiding you in the general direction of the intended meaning (and in
> letting you choose words that will likely be interpreted as you
> intended them), but they aren't the final word (no pun intended).
> If you understand a string of words, but the formal rules alone
> aren't enough to interpret them, then that's a deficiency in the
> rules, not the words.
Some people make mistakes, and there are cases cases where everyone
would agree that a mistake was being made. Due to redundancy in
natural languages, error correction is often possible. So there are
two cases:
* The speaker (or writer) made a mistake, but people can still
understand because of redundancy or context information.
* The speaker (or writer) is using something which does not fit the
rules but is nevertheless correct.
How do you distinguish one from the other?
Or do the terms `understandable English' and `correct English' have
the same meaning in your frame of reference?
kai (IANALน)
น I Am Not A Linguist.
--
~/.signature: No such file or directory
Paul Jarc
> > do you want to argue that English was a constructed language?), and
> > could only have been created as description, even if they were
> > subsequently taken to be prescription.
>
> Fair enough, but still don't see why artificial? It's a second-order
> activity but so what? Sorry, I'm just dim!
I can only imagine that the descriptive rules were formulated more
consciously than the language itself, so they'd be artificial in that
sense. Also, some rules (no split infinitives, noun-pronoun
agreement, etc.) actually were invented for the purpose of making
English more like Latin - that much was certainly artificial.
> > If you understand a string of words, but the formal rules alone aren't
> > enough to interpret them, then that's a deficiency in the rules, not
> > the words.
>
> This is the step I'm not sure about ;-) To say one thing and mean another
Think about what is implicit in the phrase "to say one thing and mean
another". What you really mean is that there are two different
meanings - one is intended (and apparently understood); the other is
the one you tend to call "correct". But what good does it do to call
that one "correct" instead of the other? There is no authority in the
rules that prescribe the "correct" meaning.
> does not seem to me to call the "rules" into question - it suggests an
> insufficient grasp of the structures/idioms of the language
> concerned.
Certainly it happens that people violate the rules out of ignorance of
them, and it may happen that this causes them to have trouble getting
their meaning across. But when it doesn't, what do the rules matter?
> The rules only take a you a litle way along the road to
> grasping the meaning.
Isn't that my line? :)
paul
Paul Jarc
> arguing against the GPV since 1990.
There is no virus. You can commercialize Emacs. Here's how: you
distribute vanilla Emacs (under the GPL), alongside your proprietary
modifications. Your proprietary installer program applies your
changes. The result cannot be distributed except under the GPL, but
you don't need to distribute it at all at this point.
The GPL does not apply except to what is distributed. So all you need
to do is keep the free bits separate from the proprietary bits until
after distribution.
It's true that this interpretation hasn't been supported by case law,
but no other interpretation has either (AFAIK), and this is the only
one that makes sense to me. IANAL, etc.
paul
Florian Weimer
The statement that writing free software is not a policital issue is
in itself a highly political statement.
I'm sorry, but you cannot be apolitical in this context. ;-)
Matthias Warkus
> way, too. Among other things, I'm a Patron Life Member of the NRA.
No wonder you dig ESR and the dangerous bullshit he believes in.
*plonk*
mawa
--
Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum.
Paul Jarc
> Some people make mistakes, and there are cases cases where everyone
> would agree that a mistake was being made.
Yes. A listener takes a string of words and produces a meaning from
them, along with a degree of confidence that the understood meaning is
the same as the intended meaning. If the words are too inconsistent
with the formal rules, then the degree of confidence will be low, and
either the speaker or listener probably needs more familiarity with
the rules if they are to communicate successfully.
If the words are not very consistent with the formal rules, then the
listener may form an unfavorable opinion of the speaker, or of the
speaker's familiarity with the rules, but that's another matter.
See also Jabberwocky.
> * The speaker (or writer) made a mistake, but people can still
> understand because of redundancy or context information.
>
> * The speaker (or writer) is using something which does not fit the
> rules but is nevertheless correct.
>
> How do you distinguish one from the other?
Perhaps first you should ask *whether* I do. :) What do you mean by
"nevertheless correct"? The only possibilities I can come up with for
what "correct" might mean in this context are "consistent with the
formal rules" and "intelligible, with a reasonable degree of
confidence". The two cases you describe both do not fit the first,
and both do fit the second.
> Or do the terms `understandable English' and `correct English' have
> the same meaning in your frame of reference?
It's probably best to avoid the word "correct", since it tends to
cause this sort of confusion. It might refer to a useful idea, but
due to the confusion, the word itself is not very useful, so a
different name is in order, I think. We do all agree (by and large)
on what "intelligible" and "consistent with the formal rules" mean.
These two ideas are useful. "Correct" could be used as another name
for one of them - but why bother? "Correct" could also be used to
name a different idea - but what?
paul
brl...@my-deja.com
> ESR, OTOH, is concerned with results. As long as software is released under
> an OSD-compliant license (several of which, I'll note, even RMS admits
> qualify for his definition of "free software"), it's good, regardless of the
> motives of the person doing the releasing. The software is all that he cares
> about.
You use the word "admits" as if he were somehow ashamed of such
statements, or as if such statements were somehow in conflict with the
rest of his philosophy.
> The reverse is obviously not true: Hercules,
> for example, is released under the QPL, an OSD-compliant license that RMS
> does not consider "free".
Where did you get this info? Obviously not from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.es.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
where the QPL is called a "free software license".
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to brl...@my-deja.com
Russ Allbery
> It comes down to a simple question: What's important here, reasons or
> results?
Given that the ends don't justify the means, I think that question has a
simple and obvious answer. And I even prefer the BSD or MIT license.
Russ Allbery
> Hardly. ESR's concentrating on what works. RMS is concentrating on being
> politically correct as defined by the GNU Manifesto. ESR isn't concerned
> about being politically correct by any definition.
I know from personal experience that this isn't even remotely close to
correct. For example, ESR regularly lays into people in the open source
or free software movements for stating public disagreement with things
that he says because he claims that it shows a divided front to
organizations like Microsoft or makes it seem like not everyone agrees
with his Open Source movement. This is *pure* politics and political
correctness.
People seem to think that it's RMS who's starting the conflicts with ESR.
That's not my experience at all. ESR regularly shoves sharp, pointy
sticks at RMS in public or posts incredibly condescending "advice" aimed
at furthering his political agenda.
Luc Van Oostenryck
>
> On 23 May 2001 09:58:37 -0700, Shawn Betts <sab...@van.gobasis.com> wrote:
> >Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
> >it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
>
> You go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. In my guts,
> however, I know he's nuts.
>
> >> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
> >Are these inroads taking us where we want to go? I'm not sure they
> >are.
>
> That depends on just where you want to go. I believe that open source
> (which, by definition, includes "free") software and commercial software are
> both valid choices, depending on the needs of an organization. I just want
> to see open source software get the same consideration as commercial
> software.
I 'just' want to see commercial software get the same consideration as
...
> I do not consider those who wish to destroy commercial software
> as having the best interests of users truly at heart, regardless of what
> they believe or what their motives are. The inroads from ESR's approach are
> those which I would like to see, and I do not believe RMS's approach would
> have led to the same penetration of "free" software in the real world where
> people use computers to actually get things done.
--
Luc Van Oostenryck
Do not use the address in the 'reply-to' field, but this instead:
<luc dot vanoostenryck at easynet dot be>
Jay Maynard
>> That depends on just where you want to go. I believe that open source
>> (which, by definition, includes "free") software and commercial software are
>> both valid choices, depending on the needs of an organization. I just want
>> to see open source software get the same consideration as commercial
>> software. I do not consider those who wish to destroy commercial software
>> as having the best interests of users truly at heart, regardless of what
>> they believe or what their motives are. The inroads from ESR's approach are
>> those which I would like to see, and I do not believe RMS's approach would
>> have led to the same penetration of "free" software in the real world where
>> people use computers to actually get things done.
>Do you use VI or something??
Uhm...huh? What does that have to do with anything? If you must know, I
despise vi and EMACS equally, though for different reasons, and use joe.
Now, would you mind answering the paragraph I quoted?
Jay Maynard
>There is no virus. You can commercialize Emacs. Here's how: you
>distribute vanilla Emacs (under the GPL), alongside your proprietary
>modifications. Your proprietary installer program applies your
>changes. The result cannot be distributed except under the GPL, but
>you don't need to distribute it at all at this point.
The FSF disagrees, and rather strongly; this is essentially the RIPEM case,
and those folks were strong-armed into writing their own library to avoid
the problem.
>It's true that this interpretation hasn't been supported by case law,
>but no other interpretation has either (AFAIK), and this is the only
>one that makes sense to me. IANAL, etc.
Me, too, but the FSF has other ideas.
Jay Maynard
>The statement that writing free software is not a policital issue is
>in itself a highly political statement.
Huh? Only if you subscribe to the FSF's strange definition of "free" is this
a true statement.
I work on open source software to make it available to those who want it,
not out of some political agenda.
>I'm sorry, but you cannot be apolitical in this context. ;-)
Watch me.
Roberto Alsina
>On 23 May 2001 14:12:04 -0400, Paul Jarc <p...@po.cwru.edu.> wrote:
>>There is no virus. You can commercialize Emacs. Here's how: you
>>distribute vanilla Emacs (under the GPL), alongside your proprietary
>>modifications. Your proprietary installer program applies your
>>changes. The result cannot be distributed except under the GPL, but
>>you don't need to distribute it at all at this point.
>
>The FSF disagrees, and rather strongly; this is essentially the RIPEM case,
>and those folks were strong-armed into writing their own library to avoid
>the problem.
And the KDE case, and the NeXT obj-c compiler case, and the ncFTP case,
and so on.
>>It's true that this interpretation hasn't been supported by case law,
>>but no other interpretation has either (AFAIK), and this is the only
>>one that makes sense to me. IANAL, etc.
>
>Me, too, but the FSF has other ideas.
Oh, do they have other ideas ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
Jay Maynard
>You use the word "admits" as if he were somehow ashamed of such
>statements, or as if such statements were somehow in conflict with the
>rest of his philosophy.
RMS would like for the world to use the GPV exclusively, and anything that
does not further that goal is in conflict with the rest of his philosophy.
>Where did you get this info? Obviously not from
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.es.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>where the QPL is called a "free software license".
You're correct, somewhat to my surprise, as I'd thought he had heartburn
with the QPL's requirement that all changes be sent to the original author
even if not otherwise distributed. The original Artistic License qualifies
in its place, however.
It's also instructive to note that every license listed on the OSI site as
being approved Open Source licenses is also, if mentioned at all, listed on
the RMS page as a free software license. This makes the claims of a
distinction between the two even more hollow.
Jay Maynard
>In gnu.misc.discuss, Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
>> It comes down to a simple question: What's important here, reasons or
>> results?
>Given that the ends don't justify the means, I think that question has a
>simple and obvious answer. And I even prefer the BSD or MIT license.
While this is certainly true when morally correct results are achieved by
immoral means, I'm not at all sure it applies when two different, equally
morally correct means are in question. This then reduces to "Are ESR's means
less morally correct than RMS's?", which, of course, is the entire point of
contention. Since I disagree rather strongly with RMS's morality, my answer
to that question is "no", and therefore disagree that your observation
applies to the present question.
Jay Maynard
>I know from personal experience that this isn't even remotely close to
>correct. For example, ESR regularly lays into people in the open source
>or free software movements for stating public disagreement with things
>that he says because he claims that it shows a divided front to
>organizations like Microsoft or makes it seem like not everyone agrees
>with his Open Source movement. This is *pure* politics and political
>correctness.
Does he? I'm not familiar with such examples. However, I would suggest that
pointing that out to him might well have the effect of changing his
behavior. Have you tried it?
>People seem to think that it's RMS who's starting the conflicts with ESR.
>That's not my experience at all. ESR regularly shoves sharp, pointy
>sticks at RMS in public or posts incredibly condescending "advice" aimed
>at furthering his political agenda.
Shoving sharp, pointy sticks at RMS is hardly limited to ESR...it's
something I do regularly, and with (IMAO) more than adequate justification.
As for the advice, you're presupposing your conclusion. ESR's agenda isn't
political, either on its own or (especially) when compared to RMS's.
brl...@my-deja.com
> It's also instructive to note that every license listed on the OSI site as
> being approved Open Source licenses is also, if mentioned at all, listed on
> the RMS page as a free software license. This makes the claims of a
> distinction between the two even more hollow.
What's the story with APSL? Although it's not listed on
http://www.opensource.org/site_index.html
that page has a broken link titled "OS Clarifies The Status Of The APSL"
that probably pointed to something like
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4240.html
asserting that the APSL is "Open Source".
Has ESR quietly retracted APSL's "Open Source" status?
Shawn Betts
Alright, alright. I have no problem with commercial software but if
its proprietary commercial software then its just a tool to crush
people. As 'useful' as proprietary software may seem, you must realize
the diseases it is a host for.
As for the real world, what good are these things people use computers
to actually get done if they corrupt and propagate harm? If ESR's
inroads continue to fuel the evils of software, then I want no part of
it. Perhaps RMS wishes to help us free ourselves from the bondage we
have bought ourselves into through Free Software.
There are many users who do not know what they want. We must help
these users to see the True Light. This begins with Emacs. Users will
realize what is in their best interest as Emacs opens their minds. You
would do well to renounce joe. Come my child, do not be
afraid...come...
Niels Möller
> It's also instructive to note that every license listed on the OSI site as
> being approved Open Source licenses is also, if mentioned at all, listed on
> the RMS page as a free software license. This makes the claims of a
> distinction between the two even more hollow.
Some posts ago you said `I believe that open source (which, by
definition, includes "free") [...]'. I'm happy that you now see that
`Free software (by the GNU definition) includes open source software.'
is also true.
The practices are the same, only the reasons differ. (And of course, a
proprietary "enhanced" version of an open source/free software program
is neither open nor free, so they're kind-of irrelevant for this
distinction, if any).
/Niels
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>What's the story with APSL? Although it's not listed on
>http://www.opensource.org/site_index.html
>that page has a broken link titled "OS Clarifies The Status Of The APSL"
>that probably pointed to something like
>http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4240.html
>asserting that the APSL is "Open Source".
>Has ESR quietly retracted APSL's "Open Source" status?
Good question. I don't know. AIUI, though, that decision would not be ESR's,
alone, to make; approving licenses as OSD-compliant takes more than one
man's decision, ESR or otherwise.
Russ Allbery
> Does he? I'm not familiar with such examples. However, I would suggest
> that pointing that out to him might well have the effect of changing his
> behavior. Have you tried it?
Yes. He told me essentially that if I thought I could do his job better,
I was welcome to try. Given that I don't agree with him that someone
needs to be doing what he's doing, that seemed to indicate a rift of
fundamental assumptions that effectively ended the discussion.
> ESR's agenda isn't political, either on its own or (especially) when
> compared to RMS's.
This is definitely not my experience. Perhaps we'll have to agree to
disagree.
Jay Maynard
>Yes. He told me essentially that if I thought I could do his job better,
>I was welcome to try. Given that I don't agree with him that someone
>needs to be doing what he's doing, that seemed to indicate a rift of
>fundamental assumptions that effectively ended the discussion.
Then I must be on the other side of that rift, as well. Put simply, there
will be someone who the media and such will latch on to to provide quotes
and opinions, whether we like it or not. That person will be the defacto
spokesman for the movement. Our choice is not whether or not to have
someone, but only (within limits) who that someone will be.
ESR certainly takes a lot of flamage over the job he does from people not
qualified to do it themselves.
>> ESR's agenda isn't political, either on its own or (especially) when
>> compared to RMS's.
>This is definitely not my experience. Perhaps we'll have to agree to
>disagree.
I guess so.
Kev
>
> A listener takes a string of words and produces a meaning from
> them, along with a degree of confidence that the understood meaning is
> the same as the intended meaning.
Doesn't modern linguistics teach that non-tautologous statements are
meaningless? :-) (Think I read that somewhere, I forget.)
Russ Allbery
> Then I must be on the other side of that rift, as well. Put simply,
> there will be someone who the media and such will latch on to to provide
> quotes and opinions, whether we like it or not. That person will be the
> defacto spokesman for the movement. Our choice is not whether or not to
> have someone, but only (within limits) who that someone will be.
Yes, you and I are on opposite sides of the rift. I don't agree with this
analysis of the situation.
There is no single person that the media interviews about closed-source
software licenses and no single spokesperson for the closed-source
software industry. I see no reason why free / open source software has to
be any different. The media interviews large numbers of people from Linus
to RMS to the Samba developers to Larry Wall to Tim O'Reilly to Bruce
Perens, and I far prefer that to having any single person try to put
themselves forward as the spokesperson. Thankfully, ESR has backed down
considerably in recent times from trying to be that person; for a while,
it was getting rather ridiculous.
In general, I'm quite happy to see the quantity of drama around open
source or free software dying down considerably. Microsoft is now coming
late to the party, but hopefully soon we might actually be able to go back
to just writing software rather than talking about licensing software in
the media. I'm mildly allergic to constant jabbering about things without
actually doing anything concrete.
Rene Kyllingstad
> Kai.Gro...@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> > On Tue, 22 May 2001, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > > I've seen it both ways by native English speakers,
> >
> > That doesn't mean both ways are correct :-)
>
> No, but the fact that native speakers understand each other both ways
> *does* mean it's correct. Usage defines language.
Sure, but what language does it define?
The fact that most of the conversation can be parsed as meaningful english
is surely not enough to state that the incorrect parts redefine english any
more than the GNU C extensions redefine ANSI C.
-- René
Per Abrahamsen
> Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
> it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
Actually, he is mad at RMS because he didn't want to target GNU
development for a 16 bit platform, back in the days where 32 bit
platforms (with 1MB memory) was way beyond the reach of ordinary
people. Since then he has invented reasons to keep being mad, even
after the original cause has become obsolete.
Kai Großjohann
> It's probably best to avoid the word "correct", since it tends to
> cause this sort of confusion. It might refer to a useful idea, but
> due to the confusion, the word itself is not very useful, so a
> different name is in order, I think. We do all agree (by and large)
> on what "intelligible" and "consistent with the formal rules" mean.
> These two ideas are useful. "Correct" could be used as another name
> for one of them - but why bother? "Correct" could also be used to
> name a different idea - but what?
Okay, those two terms can be used.
kai
--
~/.signature: No such file or directory
Jay Maynard
>Actually, he is mad at RMS because he didn't want to target GNU
>development for a 16 bit platform, back in the days where 32 bit
>platforms (with 1MB memory) was way beyond the reach of ordinary
>people. Since then he has invented reasons to keep being mad, even
>after the original cause has become obsolete.
I will certainly agree that I was mad at RMS at one time for targeting
machines well beyond the reach of the average person. It's worthwhile to
note that his attitude of not caring how big and bloated his programs are
remains to this day; GNU software is normally the biggest and most bloated
of any in its class.
I don't have to invent reasons to be mad at him now, however. His utopia is
nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it,
which will result in millions of programmers being thrown out of work, or
else having their jobs devalued to the point of poverty. I cannot consider
this beneficial to anyone. That he redefines the term "freedom" to support
his utopia makes it all the more offensive.
I consider Bill Gates' greatest crime to be lowering the expectations of the
average person about software to the point that repeated crashes and
reinstalls and data destruction are all taken in stride, with at most minor
grumbling. I consider RMS' greatest crime to be making the idea that
programmers should not be compensated for the fruits of their labor unless
they do it in just the way RMS considers "good" politically acceptable.
Kai Großjohann
> Okay, those two terms can be used.
Err. Not that I have any say on this! Argh. I hope you don't
misunderstand this message. It wasn't intended to sound
condescending, only affirmative.
David B Terrell
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 00:23:44 +0000, Matthias Warkus <mawa...@gnome.org>
>wrote:
>>Has Raymond lost any contact to reality? If no, why does he think he
>>can annect other people's momentum into the "movement" of his own
>>creation at will?
>
>Because, as I explained in another reply a moment ago, advancing the cause
>of "free software" also advances the cause of open source software as well.
On the other hand, advancing open source software does not necessarily
advance free software*, therefore working within the "open source"
movement instead of "free software*", if that's what you believe
in, is not productive or even counterproductive.
As RMS is the ultimate authority on whether or not someone else is
advancing his goals or not, I'd say taking ESR's word for it is
pretty inappropriate.
For what it's worth, I think ESR is honest in his intentions, but
misguided... but then again, I feel the same way about RMS. I'm a
2 clause BSD man myself.
* - Using RMS's definition here, though I don't agree with it.
--
David Terrell | "Instead of plodding through the equivalent of
Prime Minister, NebCorp | literary Xanax, the pregeeks go for sci-fi and
d...@meat.net | fantasy: LSD in book form." - Benjy Feen,
http://wwn.nebcorp.com | http://www.monkeybagel.com/ "Origins of Sysadmins"
Shawn Betts
> On 24 May 2001 11:43:58 +0200, Per Abrahamsen <abr...@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
> >Actually, he is mad at RMS because he didn't want to target GNU
> >development for a 16 bit platform, back in the days where 32 bit
> >platforms (with 1MB memory) was way beyond the reach of ordinary
> >people. Since then he has invented reasons to keep being mad, even
> >after the original cause has become obsolete.
>
> I will certainly agree that I was mad at RMS at one time for targeting
> machines well beyond the reach of the average person. It's worthwhile to
> note that his attitude of not caring how big and bloated his programs are
> remains to this day; GNU software is normally the biggest and most bloated
> of any in its class.
Why didn't you tell him? I'm sure with a small financial contribution
he would have readily ported GNU software to your platform of
choice. I'd rather have GNU software that is fat and useful, than some
other skinny retch of a software package that's hardcoded and
buggy. GNU is a good use of space in my eyes.
> I don't have to invent reasons to be mad at him now, however. His utopia is
> nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it,
> which will result in millions of programmers being thrown out of work, or
> else having their jobs devalued to the point of poverty. I cannot consider
> this beneficial to anyone. That he redefines the term "freedom" to support
> his utopia makes it all the more offensive.
Perhaps the software industry needs to be dismantled. Don't you want
to mess stuff up and wreck things? It sounds fun to me. Who cares
about poverty if we've derailed the software train to oblivion. Grab
the hammer beside you and start smashing. See, its fun!
> I consider Bill Gates' greatest crime to be lowering the expectations of the
> average person about software to the point that repeated crashes and
> reinstalls and data destruction are all taken in stride, with at most minor
> grumbling. I consider RMS' greatest crime to be making the idea that
> programmers should not be compensated for the fruits of their labor unless
> they do it in just the way RMS considers "good" politically acceptable.
Bill and Dick are not criminals. You just need a vacation. Take a load
off, enjoy the air.
Paul Jarc
> p...@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
>> Usage defines language.
>
> Sure, but what language does it define?
The one being used. :) In particular, *not* the one exactly defined
by the rules used to approximately describe the one being used.
> The fact that most of the conversation can be parsed as meaningful
> english is surely not enough to state that the incorrect parts
> redefine english
Presumably, the goal of the "incorrect" parts is to successfully
communicate some idea. Conformance to the formal rules of English is
one way to try to reach that goal, but usually not a goal itself.
We can choose to use "correct" as describing conformance to the formal
rules, but that tends to cause more disagreement than it's worth.
Better to explicitly speak in terms of the formal rules - that way,
you'll also be more likely to think about whether doing so is
worthwhile at all.
> any more than the GNU C extensions redefine ANSI C.
Computer languages are different. Or rather, communication with
computers is different - they're much less fault-tolerant than humans.
But a computer language can also be used to communicate an idea to a
human, and in that case, if the program violates the definition of the
language, so what? If I said (lamda (x) (* x x)), then you'd know
what I meant, and Emacs wouldn't (for the Editor shall not waste its
cycles trying to make sense of sloppy forms submitted without proper
respect (walking the OT line (carefully balancing content (and also
parentheses)))). But I may not care about whether Emacs understands,
and I would gain nothing by calling it "incorrect". (Although in the
case of a computer language, that name would be much less
controversial.)
paul
Jym Dyer
> inclusive, less politicized approach. RMS's approach doesn't
> advance anything but his own blood pressure.
=v= What an astonishing claim. It's hard to take your opinions
seriously when you dismiss RMS' many accomplishments like this.
> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
=v= I give both RMS and ESR credit for all that they've done and
continue to do.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> in its class.
=v= An astonishing claim, especially in an era when most
computer applications on the planet are written in Visual Basic
and Visual C++.
=v= GNU software differs from lesser Unix implementations by
finding and fixing holes in the designs of utilities, by being
feature-inclusive, and by insisting on dynamically-allocated
storage rather than that classic Unix security hole, the fixed-
length buffer. That's the sort of "bloat" I can live with.
<_Jym_>
Jay Maynard
>Why didn't you tell him? I'm sure with a small financial contribution
>he would have readily ported GNU software to your platform of
>choice.
Nope. He considered such machines beneath him, and would not consider
working on them for anything.
> I'd rather have GNU software that is fat and useful, than some
>other skinny retch of a software package that's hardcoded and
>buggy. GNU is a good use of space in my eyes.
Good, useful, non-buggy software need not be bloated. Alas, that is not the
way current programmers think.
>Perhaps the software industry needs to be dismantled. Don't you want
>to mess stuff up and wreck things? It sounds fun to me. Who cares
>about poverty if we've derailed the software train to oblivion. Grab
>the hammer beside you and start smashing. See, its fun!
No, thank you. I, and my bank, and my creditors, do indeed care whether or
not my income drops below the poverty level.
>Bill and Dick are not criminals. You just need a vacation. Take a load
>off, enjoy the air.
Well, this is certainly a new experience: an FSF supporter claiming Bill
Gates is not a criminal. (I started to say "not a bad guy", but decided that
you didn't say that, whether or not you appear to mean it.)
RMS is not a criminal in the sense of "has violated criminal statues"
(AFAIK); whether Bill has or not is the subject of current litigation. The
crimes I refer to are crimes against the public welfare.
David B Terrell
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 12:09:54 +0000, Matthias Warkus <mawa...@gnome.org>
>wrote:
>>Less politicised? One of ESR's main reasons for the "Open Source
>>movement" is political self-gratification, i.e. trying to prove to
>>himself that his libertoonian anarcho-capitalist gun-crazed ideology
>>has some place in the world.
>
>Baloney.
>
>ESR's greatest goal in life is to pass along the torch to someone else
>qualified to do it and go back to hacking.
He also thinks he carries a torch that needs carrying, or passing on.
Alex Schroeder
> I don't have to invent reasons to be mad at him now, however. His utopia is
> nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it,
> which will result in millions of programmers being thrown out of work, or
> else having their jobs devalued to the point of poverty. I cannot consider
> this beneficial to anyone.
Hm, I'm not so sure. As far as I can tell, most software (in terms of
money, not in terms of copies sold) is being written in projects --
for example our company will write a web portal for another company
and the effort we are putting into this (in terms of man-days) will
get paid. And if it were not for proprietary traditions, our software
could have been "free software". But it is not. Making it free
software would not have destroyed our software company.
Such a project may cost our clients anywhere from one half to three
million dollars. That is certainly more money than all our Microsoft
software cost. Therefore I claim that most software could be free
software and not destroy the industry.
Now, what about software products instead of software projects.
Eventhough (I claim) there is much less money being made in that area,
it obviously is very important to all the Windows and Word users out
there. It wouldn't work, some claim. But nobody has tried, right?
There are promising models out there, such as people paying money in
advance to a trusted third party which will pay the developpers when
the next release is out, or pay the money back if development is
cancelled. Sounds great! I am sure such schemes would spread very
quickly.
> That he redefines the term "freedom" to support
> his utopia makes it all the more offensive.
Hm, coming from a German speaking background, the distinction he makes
seems perfectly reasonable: free -> frei, Freiheit, liberté -- and
gratis, which is definitely not the same... So what is offensive
about making the distinction?
Alex.
--
http://www.geocities.com/kensanata/emacs.html
http://www.emacswiki.org/
"Put (global-font-lock-mode 1) in your .emacs for syntax coloring."
Per Abrahamsen
> Why didn't you tell him?
Jay did so back then, his arguments was just as polite, coherent and
convincing as they are today.
> I'm sure with a small financial contribution he would have readily
> ported GNU software to your platform of choice.
At the time, there wasn't any GNU to port. At the time GNU was
expected to be completed, 32bit machines with 1MB of RAM was expected
to be common.
I think the FSF rarely take development orders, unless they match the
direction of the project. However, nothing would stop anyone else
from making the port. Unfortunately, for some people that is not
enough. They reserve the right to complain when other people use
their own time to follow their own visions.
> I'd rather have GNU software that is fat and useful, than some
> other skinny retch of a software package that's hardcoded and
> buggy. GNU is a good use of space in my eyes.
Even GNU Emacs has a hard time fully utilizing the power of entry
level PC these days.
> Bill and Dick are not criminals. You just need a vacation. Take a load
> off, enjoy the air.
Jay is just being polite, and demonstrating my point about him
inventing reasons to keep up the hate
Per Abrahamsen
> Making it free software would not have destroyed our software
> company.
Very few programmers write programs intended for sale. By far the
majority of software is written to solve specific problems. A large
pool of free software make this process easier, which theoretically
can threaten the jobs of programmers, just like any other progress in
the software development process theoretically can threaten the jobs
of programmers.
Until now, the need for software have grown faster by far then the
improvements in the software development process, so we still lack
qualified programmers. I doubt free software will be the silver
bullet changing that trend. But one can hope.
> Hm, coming from a German speaking background, the distinction he makes
> seems perfectly reasonable: free -> frei, Freiheit, liberté -- and
> gratis, which is definitely not the same... So what is offensive
> about making the distinction?
It is a kind of philosofical play with word. Does true freedom
include the freedom to deny other the freedom they themselves have
received? People like Jay desperate for arguments will claim it does,
and thus any freedom that does *not* include the freedom to deny other
the same freedom is not a *true* freedom, and people advocating it are
hypocrites.
It might sound strange anyone would spend time inventing arguments
like that, but think of the theological arguments of the middle age,
where people were killed for disagreements about similarly obscure
details. It is apparently a common human trait.
Jay Maynard
>It is a kind of philosofical play with word. Does true freedom
>include the freedom to deny other the freedom they themselves have
>received? People like Jay desperate for arguments will claim it does,
>and thus any freedom that does *not* include the freedom to deny other
>the same freedom is not a *true* freedom, and people advocating it are
>hypocrites.
It comes down to a simple point: True freedom must necessarily include the
freedom for others to do things that piss you off, else it is merely a
hollow echo. FSF-style "free software"advocates are pissed off by the
thought that their work may be included in works they don't consider free,
*even if those works are freely available*. (See the RIPEM case.) The
argument about denying others freedom is a hollow one, as there is no way to
deny others the same freedom you had to obtain the same software under the
same conditions. What they want is to deny me the right to distribute *my*
work as *I* see fit. This is not freedom. It's communism.
You may compare me to middle-ages theologians all you wish, but it will not
change the fact that true freedom is precious and rare, and easily lost -
more quickly to ourselves than anyone else. Mislabeling something that's not
free as "freedom" to advance an agenda will inevitably harm the cause of
freedom.
Glyn Millington
> It might sound strange anyone would spend time inventing arguments
> like that, but think of the theological arguments of the middle age,
> where people were killed for disagreements about similarly obscure
> details. It is apparently a common human trait.
Hey, as this is a religious newsgroup I feel someone ought to stand up
for theologians! Also, I am genuinely ignorant about this:-
Which people were killed when over which obscure details in the middle
ages?
But I agree about the common human trait ;-)
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
4:40pm up 9:29, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.23, 0.11
John Hasler
> Which people were killed when over which obscure details in the middle
> ages?
Well, lots of christians and moslems killed each other over the obscure
details on which their religions differed, and then there was that
unpleasantness in southern France, and the activities of the Inquisition.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Glyn Millington
> Glyn writes:
> > Which people were killed when over which obscure details in the middle
> > ages?
>
> Well, lots of christians and moslems killed each other over the obscure
> details on which their religions differed, and then there was that
> unpleasantness in southern France, and the activities of the Inquisition.
Thanks John - its something I've often heard mentioned but never
understood. Not sure I agree about the Christians v Moslems thing (the
details weren't _that_ obscure!), but see the point of the others.
I would have thought that the kind of people who got so excited about the
nature of God are just the kind who would get excited about the nature of
freedom.... (hoping irony as as good as asbestos ;-)
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
8:12pm up 13:01, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.22, 0.15