141–150 of 181 posts
> We are not welcome, and never will be. It's quite silly that the the author of this post thinks non-free support was a top priority for the free software foundation.
It is a strange interpretation of freedom, if you are free to run the software how you want, except if RMS disapproves your OS. I think this way of "defending free software" is rather counterproductive. I say this as a strong supporter of free and open source software and both a Mac and Linux user. I want Linux or any other free operation system to be strong in the market. But this should be reached on features and c…
Yet RMS disapproval of MAC OS does not make Free software less free. The fundamental rights of free software are still preserved: "the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the fact that tar is a tape archiver, and according to the UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" it should empathically not dub as a (de)compressor. GNU implements tools inside of other tools. Emacs is a perfect example if that.
GNU didn't originate from a unix mindset. You should know this. That doesn't mean their software is bad. Also, Emacs is incredibly useful, and one of the best general-purpose text editors out there.
I do and oh-how-right you are. What I have major difficulty with is comprehending why people like it, and why they tolerate Stallman's nonsense when there are alternatives. The "rip it all out because it's not ours and re-invent everything just because" attitude is so fundamentale broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the fact that tar is a tape archiver, and according to the UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" it should empathically not dub as a (de)compressor. GNU implements tools inside of other tools. Emacs is a perfect example if that.
In that case you mean option -x not -z. Either way, there are several philosophies and schools of thought. Many of them yield good results in different situations. "Do one thing..." is not the same as "do _only_ one thing..." and there are exceptions to the rules and _we_ made the rules so _we_ can/may change them. Sticking to rules when they don't make sense is stubbornness and locks one in a local maximum.
tar cf - file | xz -9evc > archive.tar.xz
xz -dvc archive.tar.xz | tar xf -Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not talking about Emojis, but coloured typeface. Emojis are part of Unicode, coloured typeface are not.
Typefaces are not part of Unicode, coloured or not.
Emacs-Gud Will never support llvmdb either... sad...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be a lot of hate for this policy, but the goal is simply universal interoperability, which is laudible. Otherwise we might as well go back to the days of IE6, since apparently there is absolutely no problem with Embrace-Extend-Extinguish, as long as we can have emojis on our Macbooks. Edit: I should add that, since it doesn't appear to be a true interop issue, it may not be a sound decision here. I'm defendi…
> the goal is simply universal interoperability No, the goal is that "GNU Emacs should never offer people a practical reason to use some other system instead of GNU". Universal interoperability is just a side effect.
A colour emoji font is available for Linux [1][2] so it doesn't really make any sense to disable the feature on macOS. [1] http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/03/enable-color-emoji-linux-... [2] https://github.com/eosrei/emojione-color-font/releases/
I believe that having this implemented in FreeType would be sufficient to get it to work in GTK3 Emacs; not sure about plain X toolkits.