hi Louis Wen,
thanks for the thoughts. Here's some response as discussion.
On Apr 8, 9:25 pm, "Louis.Wen"
> Xah, I read all you article and some other else. You are a interesting
> person but I don't agree with you completely. I think you are doing
> good in your way(write articles on these and release ErgoEmacs). And I
> want to make comments and give suggestions.
> Although I am not much interested in politics (and actually not good at
> it), in my opinion it is somewhat radical to ask for dropping the word
> "free software" and replace it with "FSF ideal software", to advocate
> the abandonment of all traditional way of doing things in emacs (that is
> what you call "emacs cult", do I understand you exactly right?). As
> emacs is developed in more than three decades, due to the compatible or
> historical reason there is something, e.g. the "undo" issue, is not so
> easy to use comparing to some other more modern editors. If you want to
> change this, I think you could easily get the source code and do it as
> you want. (actually you have built another branch of emacs, ErgoEmacs.)
it's not easy. People say one of the main power of emacs is customization. Yes, for small dosages. But to change keybinding (such as C-c ＆ C-x for copy/cut), or adding the redo, really takes a lisp coder with several years of coding experience. Such is the case with ErgoEmacs as well as AquaMacs, Carbon Emacs, or the grandaddy XEmacs which took several elite pro programers several years full times in a day job to produce. Some of these core UI issues can't be fixed unless you hack emacs's C. At which point, you pretty much ends up as XEmacs, a complete incompatible fork, unless you kiss Richard Stallman's ass and dedicate your years of work under his design and name.
> That is exactly what FSF does, to make the software source code
> available to everyone and the provide the freedom to you to modify and
> redistribute the software. There is 4 different levels of freedom that
> GPL provides. Yes, it is just some points of view (and actually put down
> in GPL as law text). It seems you have different thought in you article
> I think it's easy to see that you take thinking on it, however I don't
> agree with part of you points in this article. By the way, the
> "entrepreneurs and businesses" example in this article is not good to
> support you point of view. It says you have the freedom to write
> software and release no matter in what license, but what GPL asks (for
> the entrepreneurs) and provides (to the user) is much more than this.
it should be noted that i was a dedicated FSF/GNU advocate, from late 1990s when i learned it to early 2000s. This can be seen in these essays:
〈On Microsoft Hatred〉
〈The Unix Pestilence: GNU〉
Of the Open Source, which is one of the most paltry idea of humanity, of dolts' musing, paupers' plead, a offshoot and outright turncoat of Stallman's vision ＆ hardship, dressing itself as the mediator between FSF and business men, fiddling and hawking a pipe dream of its own; a pot calling the kettle black; thieves and slouch's back seat. And in the end, it's just another fantastic fad pest of the world that is lingering. A sucker of programer's blood. A ruse for the enterprising corps. A disparate incongruous splash of vaporing nothingness that we shall see. —Xah Lee, 2002-05
that was when in ~1997 the Open Source started and there's a big war going on between it and FSF. (remember KDE, anyone?) I have also been called a Richard Stallman fanboy in mac fanatic mailing (which subsequently i was ban'd). Remember in late 1990s, there's a unix history page that was hugely popular on the web. The fuckhead guy, put Steve Jobs as one of the important unix people, yet does not include Richard Stallman. I criticized, nay, motherfucked the page in public. Eventually, the author put Richard Stallman there, but of course i don't get any credit. Those unix supposedly ethical hacker MOTHERFUCKING scumbags — GO FUCK YOURSELF.
am too lazy to search the links, but if anyone wants to doubt, i'll get the link, the Wikipedia history page on unix history that links to it, and the mac os x mailing list where i discussed this. (it was running on omniweb... one bunch of Mac fucking fanatics cheerleaders)
am ban'd in quite few places btw. It's funny that hacker news ban'd my site xahlee.org from submitting. (btw, i NEVER submitted my articles to any of those hip hop slashdot reddit hackernews motherfucking fashion FUCKS for the tech geekers) This page gives a summary:
〈Ban Xah Lee〉
in my past unix/gnu history sniffing, i've noticed there are quite a few prominent people who had problems with Richard Stallman. XEmacs people being one of the famous example, but there's also KDE camp, BSD camp (early 1990s or even 1980s), and lots others. Richard Stallman is to be admired 100% until this happened to you personally.
btw, i still fully respect Richard Stallman as a person, as i think most coder who have come to unfortunate dislike of him. Though, he's like attacking Linus, and quite few others. In recent years, i think he's getting old. Attacking cell phones and Google and Miguel de Icaza ect. In mid 2000s as far as i sniffed, he's been voted out in several rather leet hacker open source communities...
and there's one thing i never quite understood. Debian was the most free, but seems since mid 2000s there's lots of complex controversies and is not today considerd free... (there are lots of lots of these internal factions among FSF/Open Source communities)
I think FSF is going downhill fast.
> About the "paperwork issue", I think you have and good view of it and
> get the point. The requirement of paperwork is for protecting GPL, but
> it would slow down the process, probably we could find solution for this.
> Anyway, I think it is good to speak it out if you have different
> opinions and find some other guys who have the same though to figure out
> the problem, to improve things. BUT, ALWAYS REMEMBER TO WATCH YOUR
> LANGUAGE. It is much easier for others to accept your point if you
> speak in a good manner, isn't it?
In the end, there's a choice to make. It is not true that one should never go foul. Quite a few historical philosophers, and i think politicians, who made a change to the world, went full foul. Was ban'd, jailed, and so on. Their foul language or disruptive behavior varies in degrees.
to name a few from top of my head: Socrates, Hypathia, Bertrand Russell, Li Ao, Marquis de Sade. (and no, am not including common idiot's heros such as Ghandi, Martin Lurther King Junior fucks, etc.) Here's some related articles:
〈Justine by Marquis de Sade (Hardcore Sadomasochism)〉
〈Li Ao on Tibet and Dalai Lama〉
〈Li Ao on Tiananmen Square Protests Of 1989〉
i don't give a flying fuck to social norms. Kill me, then we'll talk.