Live data from Hacker News

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

lists.gnu.org

61–70 of 186 posts

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

#61
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest issue with web apps is that I don't have control of the software -- someone else can unilaterally decide to change the interface or functionality from day to day. (GMail is an example of a case that regularly irritates me by doing this.) While I appreciate what you're saying about a common, open runtime being valuable -- I've considered using a self-contained, special purpose browser as the GUI for a proje…

Seems like Firefox OS' packaged web apps (shipped as a zip file) solves those issues without losing the common runtime benefits. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Publishing/Packaged...

If you just want a common runtime, what's wrong with java apps (or the CLR or similar efforts)?

(I mean yes, performance sucks and swing looks terribly ugly, but those were once the same problems on the web; they're not unsolvable by any means)

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

#62
post #36

> I don't know how to use Org mode, and don't know what it does (it seems to do so many things), but if it displays through Emacs then there are many formatting features that it can't display in a WYSIWYG fashion like Libre Office. I can't believe Stallman doesn't know how to use Org mode. If he is interested in selling people on Emacs, then Org mode is one of the killer features for the presentation. I don't expect…

[deleted]

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

#63

Neat. Really. I really want to use emacs but I find it hard to justify learning all it's intricacies when I'm only going to use it at certain times while programming. This kills two birds with one stone, gets me off MS Office and into keybind heaven

For some people Emacs acts like a maelstrom for everything you do on a computer. In the beginning you use it to code in one language, then in another language, then you use it for (La)TeX, then you use it as an organizer, then you use it to read your mail, then your RSS feeds, then you embed it into text-fields in your web browser...

At some point everything that does not act like Emacs feels annoying and uncooperative. That justifies the learning curve easily.

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

#64
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like Firefox OS' packaged web apps (shipped as a zip file) solves those issues without losing the common runtime benefits. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Publishing/Packaged...

If you just want a common runtime, what's wrong with java apps (or the CLR or similar efforts)? (I mean yes, performance sucks and swing looks terribly ugly, but those were once the same problems on the web; they're not unsolvable by any means)

If you just want a common runtime, what's wrong with java apps

Oracle v. Google. By CLR I assume you mean the CLI, but only a fool would trust a "standard" controlled by MS and driven by a proprietary implementation, not to mention that the latest version doesn't even have a patent promise from them.

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

#65
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…

So, Wordperfect 5.1's "reveal codes" from 1989.

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

#66
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there an option for decentralized P2P communication?

Until something like Ekiga does multipart conference calls, a minimum of 10 nodes and more voice only, then it is hard for me to switch from something like Skype.

Me and my buddies recently switched from Skype to Mumble+IRC. Works great, I like this setup way better. The big downside is of course that it requires a server.

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

#67

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…

It's a programmers dream.

It's not a software problem. Or at least, it's not purely a software problem. For the vast majority that freedom would make no difference. They don't know how to change things anyway. I remember a few months back on here when we were going 'Why don't people use PGP more? Oh yeah, the interface sucks.' And did anyone change the interface? Nope, not to my knowledge at least.

Did any of us make better encryption tools, despite there being available encryption libraries? Not to my knowledge.

That sort of freedom is tied to your capabilities as much as it is your tools. If your understanding of a computer goes something along the line of 'that magical glowing box under the desk.' it makes no difference either way.

To get to real freedom, in the sense that Stallman seems to mean, requires more than a change to open source software, it requires a system be built from the ground up to not just enable but also encourage co-evolutionary mastery. And it's not clear how that would work. Having the source code of the system available is probably a part of it, but you also need people to be able to start off with simple changes using the same language that the system is described in - preferably they'd use that language at least to some degree to instruct the system to do basic operations.

A lot of that probably has to do with how modular you can make a program - when you make changes how much of the program do you have to hold in your head to understand their effects? And I think that's probably, ultimately, a processor architecture level decision if you want it to be how most things on the system work.

Looking at it from the software side: at the moment, even with open source software, sure you can theoretically go in and learn about the program and make alterations and ... but that is not a trivial thing to do. Even for people with deep knowledge of computing it's not a trivial thing to go and learn about how the program works, and if they don't already know the language it's even worse. There are loads of open source projects out there at the moment where what needs to be done is essentially obvious but there's such a lack of people with the abilities and interest to do it.

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

#68

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?

there is no relation between "Dr" and his rant about Skype.

You would not believe the number of PHD who are not that intelligent (to be nice). Also Stallman is a master in its profession and "Dr", who is just acquired by doing a Phd, seems to me like it's not doing him enough justice.

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

#69
but we have many great wysiwig editors... isn't emacs specifically for all the people who want a highly configurable weird and wonderful dev tool and care little about wysiwig because they are writing code etc.?

i don't agree with what those kinds want.. but they should be allowed to have it. :)

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

#70
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you just want a common runtime, what's wrong with java apps (or the CLR or similar efforts)? (I mean yes, performance sucks and swing looks terribly ugly, but those were once the same problems on the web; they're not unsolvable by any means)

If you just want a common runtime, what's wrong with java apps Oracle v. Google. By CLR I assume you mean the CLI, but only a fool would trust a "standard" controlled by MS and driven by a proprietary implementation, not to mention that the latest version doesn't even have a patent promise from them.

Oracle lost the lawsuit, except for the part where Google literally copied one of their classes.
Post reply on HN