Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 186 posts

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#51

Post by nknighthb »

pkaler wrote: post #22
coldtea wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The implementation will look vastly different if you define 'where' as a printer, desktop, tablet, mobile phone, wearable device, etc. Not since more than a decade ago, when we started using the same rendering infrastructure (e.g Display Postscript, Quartz, Cairo, what Windows uses etc) for both print and display. In fact nowadays, with hidpi (retina) displays, you even get similar resolution between the average pr…

I have a couple HTML documents open on my MacBook, iPad, and iPhone. All three look different. I opened a couple of eBooks on Kindle and iBooks on my MacBook, iPad, and iPhone. All three look different. All three use Display Postscript, CoreGraphics and Quartz. All three look different. WYSIWG depends on where. I don't own a printer, but I bet if I printed from all three devices all three documents would look differe…

HTML and CSS are very, very explicitly not WYSIWYG. Their specifications are crystal clear on this point. The same HTML document can and should be displayed differently depending on device.

Your ebooks are also not WYSIWYG. They're also specifically designed to display differently on different devices, and according to user preferences for things like font, text size, brightness, background, line spacing, etc..

WYSIWYG is exactly the opposite of these formats, and does not depend on the device. Postscript and PDF are WYSIWYG.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#52

Post by interpol_p »

rimantas wrote: post #38
adamnemecek wrote: post #10

Out of curiosity, what is Stallman a doctor of? Wikipedia says that he did not finish his Ph.D. Or is that one of the honorary doctorates he received?

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sure what it enables millions of people to do: freely communicate no matter the distance, but I don't really get what freedoms it denies. Do I lose som freedom just but installing it, or must I use it for that to take an effect?

It's extremely hard to agree with Stallman, but you have to admire the fact that he lives by his principles.

He truly believes the world would be a better place if all software was free, and he lives his life in support of that. People rarely devote their lives to a single principle like that.

Skype might be convenient and wonderful in the short term, Stallman believes that supporting it is not the right step for society in the long term.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#53

Post by josu »

chrisdevereux wrote: post #44
josu wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there an option for decentralized P2P communication?

Sorry, should have pasted the full quote. Edited.

No problem, it was an honest question, I wasn't sure if such software existed.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#54

Post by chriswarbo »

coldtea wrote: post #11
tikhonj wrote: post #5

With inline LaTeX previews, we're already surprisingly close. In fact, I'd say that going all the way would be almost a step back. WYSIWYG is ultimately not an ideal editing paradigm: it wins in the short term, being easy to learn, but drags you down in the long term. I've recently started using Quora a bit more. Unlike StackOverflow, they use a WYSIWYG editor. I've found this significantly less convenient than Stack…

> With inline LaTeX previews, we're already surprisingly close. In fact, I'd say that going all the way would be almost a step back. WYSIWYG is ultimately not an ideal editing paradigm: it wins in the short term, being easy to learn, but drags you down in the long term. That --in the extend that it happens-- is a byproduct of the limitations of current WYSIWYG editors, not something inherent in the idea of WYSIWYG ed…

> That --in the extend that it happens-- is a byproduct of the limitations of current WYSIWYG editors, not something inherent in the idea of WYSIWYG editing.

If WYSIWYG editing is not inherently limited, why do pretty much no editors actually support it? For example, spelling/grammar checkers are useful, but when pseudo-WYSIWYG editors implement them, they underline the text, or change its colour. This colouring and formatting doesn't appear when the document is printed. Hyperlinks are usually hit and miss; sometimes they print as 'blue and underline' (but, of course, are useless), sometimes they don't. Annotations don't print, but they do show on the screen. Automatically-generated content like page numbers are often shown differently, eg. with a grey background. Again, this doesn't appear when printed.

In short, what you see is certainly not what you get; but removing these non-WYSIWYG features would be a step backwards.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#55

Post by terhechte »

rimantas wrote: post #38
adamnemecek wrote: post #10

Out of curiosity, what is Stallman a doctor of? Wikipedia says that he did not finish his Ph.D. Or is that one of the honorary doctorates he received?

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sure what it enables millions of people to do: freely communicate no matter the distance, but I don't really get what freedoms it denies. Do I lose som freedom just but installing it, or must I use it for that to take an effect?

Freedom, in Stallmans words, is not meant to be 'free as in beer' (like free skype calls). Instead he refers to the freedom to read, modify, understand, and ultimately choose everything about the software that you use. I.e. be able to answer these questions (say about Skype):

- Is any communication not properly encrypted

- Is your communication being spied on / being recorded

- Is there a way to add feature "x" to the application

- Is there a way to remove feature "x" from the application

- Is there a way to use the application on your specific hard / software

With Skype, none of that is possible. You can't see what's happening with your Skype calls internally, you can't see if there's somebody else listening. If Skype comes out with a new interface, and you really don't like it, you can't change it, if Skype removes support for older operating systems that you just happen to have to use because your IT department still wants to run Windows XP, then you can't support, change or fix any of it.

Of course, Skype is a free product, so you may say the proverbial never look a gift horse in the mouth, but Emacs is also a free product, and provides all these benefits I listed above.

You have to understand Stallman as someone who is concerned about the future, not so much about the now. Right now using Skype is all fine, but imagine the world in 20 years time, when everything is connected to software, and every movement you make is tracked. Wouldn't it be nice if all the software then would be fully transparent, allowing you to see every detail that is happening, and change it all to your liking, without being afraid of what happens if you do this or that.

Sounds like an utopist dream right? And Stallman is the guy who tries to fight for it, however unwinnable the fight may seem.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#56

Post by revelation »

chrisdevereux wrote: post #42
rimantas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sure what it enables millions of people to do: freely communicate no matter the distance, but I don't really get what freedoms it denies. Do I lose som freedom just but installing it, or must I use it for that to take an effect?

> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. > Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. It made me wonder what's free-er about an ordinary phone call. Presumably, most of the software the phone companies use is also proprietary. Does it become less non-free if somebody else runs the software? Or maybe it shifts the moral burden of using something non-free to somebody else?

He explains this here: http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

Paragraph starting with "I firmly refuse.."

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#57

Post by curiousdannii »

rimantas wrote: post #38
adamnemecek wrote: post #10

Out of curiosity, what is Stallman a doctor of? Wikipedia says that he did not finish his Ph.D. Or is that one of the honorary doctorates he received?

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sure what it enables millions of people to do: freely communicate no matter the distance, but I don't really get what freedoms it denies. Do I lose som freedom just but installing it, or must I use it for that to take an effect?

It denies freedom to the software more than freedom to the person. For copyleft licences the software is most important; for permissive licences people are most important.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#58

Post by annnnd »

chriswarbo wrote: post #54
coldtea wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With inline LaTeX previews, we're already surprisingly close. In fact, I'd say that going all the way would be almost a step back. WYSIWYG is ultimately not an ideal editing paradigm: it wins in the short term, being easy to learn, but drags you down in the long term. That --in the extend that it happens-- is a byproduct of the limitations of current WYSIWYG editors, not something inherent in the idea of WYSIWYG ed…

> That --in the extend that it happens-- is a byproduct of the limitations of current WYSIWYG editors, not something inherent in the idea of WYSIWYG editing. If WYSIWYG editing is not inherently limited, why do pretty much no editors actually support it? For example, spelling/grammar checkers are useful, but when pseudo-WYSIWYG editors implement them, they underline the text, or change its colour. This colouring and…

I have found WYSIWYM concept (What You See Is What You Mean) and WymEditor[1] in particular a very useful solution, at least for website editing.

Previously I have used Xinha, FSCKEditor and similar, but there was always some problem with the resulting markup. WymEditor copes much better in this regard... (not affiliated, just really like the concept and WymEditor)

[1] https://github.com/wymeditor/wymeditor

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#59

Post by guygurari »

terhechte wrote: post #55
rimantas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sure what it enables millions of people to do: freely communicate no matter the distance, but I don't really get what freedoms it denies. Do I lose som freedom just but installing it, or must I use it for that to take an effect?

Freedom, in Stallmans words, is not meant to be 'free as in beer' (like free skype calls). Instead he refers to the freedom to read, modify, understand, and ultimately choose everything about the software that you use. I.e. be able to answer these questions (say about Skype): - Is any communication not properly encrypted - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded - Is there a way to add feature "x" to th…

Fair enough. But then he says:

> Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

Let's go over your list for an ordinary phone call. Here the 'client app' is your phone terminal, and the 'server' is the phone operator.

> - Is any communication not properly encrypted

Yes, it's not encrypted at all.

> - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded

I would say yes, at a similar level of probability as a skype call.

> - Is there a way to add feature "x" to the application

> - Is there a way to remove feature "x" from the application

The specs for the phone terminal are not open-source, so you can only do that with some hacking. The same is true for skype, even though there it might be more complicated technically.

> - Is there a way to use the application on your specific hard / software

Irrelevant for a physical phone.

The main difference between the skype client and a phone, is that a phone follows an open protocol, and therefore you can build your own. This is the only reason I can think of why using a phone is 'free' while using skype is not. But I think that if the skype protocol was made open, Stallman would still argue that it is not free and therefore should not be used, and therefore I do not understand his argument.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#60

Post by lmm »

guygurari wrote: post #59
terhechte wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom, in Stallmans words, is not meant to be 'free as in beer' (like free skype calls). Instead he refers to the freedom to read, modify, understand, and ultimately choose everything about the software that you use. I.e. be able to answer these questions (say about Skype): - Is any communication not properly encrypted - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded - Is there a way to add feature "x" to th…

Fair enough. But then he says: > Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. Let's go over your list for an ordinary phone call. Here the 'client app' is your phone terminal, and the 'server' is the phone operator. > - Is any communication not properly encrypted Yes, it's not encrypted at all. > - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded I would say yes, at a similar level of probability as a skype call. > - Is…

> Yes, it's not encrypted at all.

Right, but at least you can tell. No-one knows whether the encryption Skype claims to be applying actually works. And you can integrate an encryption system into a phone if you want to, whereas if you try and do that with skype they'll change the client so that your thing doesn't work any more.

> The specs for the phone terminal are not open-source, so you can only do that with some hacking.

Speak for yourself. There are open source phones available if you want them. There are no open-source skype clients.

> Irrelevant for a physical phone.

Sure. But I don't have to use a physical phone. I can run a virtual phone on my freebsd box, whereas I can't run skype.

> The main difference between the skype client and a phone, is that a phone follows an open protocol, and therefore you can build your own. This is the only reason I can think of why using a phone is 'free' while using skype is not.

That's not a small difference; I'd say it's the most important difference.

Post reply on HN