> This is what we call relitigation or, since you don't actually have a new
> point to litigate, rubbing salt in the wound.
> From what I have observed, most of you are very, very deeply diverged into an
> insider's club, and this kind of group-reaffirming behavior is why.
It has nothing to do with that, I was just giving context to what the author of
Commercial Emacs did before we started praising him. The README of Commercial
Emacs is also very hostile. If anyone needs to be friendly it's him, and he had
chances to, and he made his decision.
> In twenty five years of web 2.0 technologies coming to the forefront, the FSF
> beat the same drum, telling consumers to stop liking it and businesses to
> stop making money.
Find me a word in anything Richard or FSF has written where they're saying
businesses need to stop making money or consumers' experience isn't important.
I hope you understand the notion of a hierarchy of values. FSF's hierarchy of
values is pretty simple, its first aim is to philosophically be consistent.
That is, we shall not give up on the values of (software) freedom (defined in
the precise way as it is before you chime in "it's actually not free") even if
we have to give up on certain things, no matter how much we want them (yes, we
do).
There must be first a ground, before we can choose other preferences. FSF's
philosophy is that ground. Again, you should try reading about it. Read
Richard's collection "Free Software & Free Society".
Nobody deliberately wants to worsen the user's experience, rather we go a step
further and instead of just contaminating the user with features we care about
values such as freedom & privacy. Which organisation can you name, cares about
the freedom of the user to such an extent? Which software do we have comparably
to GNU Emacs (an embodiment of GNU's philosophy) that provides even a pinch of
the freedom?
Similarly, nobody is against business. Richard himself is not. It's not our
fault that modern capitalism considers business as jailing users in a walled
garden and then charging for it. Who is stopping people from doing normal
business with AGPL licensed code? I know several Web3 organizations that do so.
So, if you are interested in critiquing. Write a comparable essay, in good
faith, that actually takes parts of GNU's philosophy and tries to internally
criticize its foundations. This is what is called immanent critique in
philosophy. Making generalized statements with the assumption that people
should take you seriously because some words have been chained is pointless.
Regards,
On 24 August 2025 01:55:02 GMT, Psionic K <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Bro" was also the person who sent a 3K LOC commit for gnus and became
>> offensive when asked to restructure it into smaller patches that can be
>> reviewed.
>
>This is what we call relitigation or, since you don't actually have a
>new point to litigate, rubbing salt in the wound.
>
>From what I have observed, most of you are very, very deeply diverged
>into an insider's club, and this kind of group-reaffirming behavior is
>why.
>
>> people don't understand how exactly Free Software works
>
>The framing is most certainly in question in this discussion. In
>twenty five years of web 2.0 technologies coming to the forefront, the
>FSF beat the same drum, telling consumers to stop liking it and
>businesses to stop making money. If ever the long play tactics were
>supposed to work, it should have happened inside of two decades.
>
>If you can't do anything any faster or more effective, get out of the way.
Divya Ranjan, Mathematics, Philosophy and Libre Software
---
via emacs-tangents mailing list
(https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
