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

81–90 of 186 posts

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

#81

Post by blisterpeanuts »

I like enriched-mode for simple markup purposes, like bolding headers. It's nothing spectacular, but makes an on-screen document that much more readable, and it doesn't add that much bulk to a text file, just a few extra markup directives.

It's easy to use, too. Select the text, ALT-o b = bold, and so forth.

Still, a true WYSIWYG editing mode would be cool once in a while. Although, it's not that much trouble to select text and paste into a nearby LibreOffice window for true formatting.

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

#82

Post by melling »

Stallman lacks a coherent vision. He has an end goal but he really doesn't have a great plan to get there. It's really frustrating. Emacs could be a lot better. For instance, it has taken forever to get a high-performance Lisp working inside of Emacs. I think Guile is partly there?

Anyway, since we'll all be long dead before his plan starts to work, I think the better solution is to support inexpensive software. For example, I pay for Sublime Text. Recently I bought PixelMator and Sketch, and I'm planning on learning how to use them soon. :-)

Sure it would be great if Free Software ruled but faster change comes with a paid ecosystem. The real problem was that software was expensive. If it's simply inexpensive, we'll get most of what we need.

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

#83

Post by coldtea »

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…

That "all three use Display Postscript, CoreGraphics and Quartz" doesn't mean they use the respective drawing context as it's intended for screen/print work.

Editing LaTeX with Vim on a Mac also uses Quartz to render the Vim window, that doesn't mean that you get what I talked about.

With respect to your examples now, HTML and ePub/Mobi don't guarantee they are WYSIWYG and stable between different viewing devices and contexts. On the contrary, for example even something as basic as the line width can change by making your browser or eBook reader wider.

That said, they are not the standard output of WYSIWYG editors we were talking about either (despite some WYSIWYG editors being able to save in those formats too).

Word, Pages, Open Office et al have print view modes that look identical to what will be printed. As do programs such as InDesign, Quark XPress, etc.

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

#84

Post by belorn »

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…

Stallman (and FSF) uses Asterisk, and assumingly a free phone stack when using their physical phones.

Stallman has always refused to use unfree software in devices he own or are directly using. Skype is within that criteria, while an Asterisk powered free software device is not.

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

#85

Post by reuven »

belorn wrote: post #78
reuven wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely believe it. First of all, Stallman isn't known for hiding his opinions, or masking his version of the truth. But beyond that, Stallman has often failed or refused to use technologies that the rest of us take for granted. Years ago, I spoke with him about a proposed bill in the US Congress that would have affected intellectual property laws. (I can't remember the specifics.) At some point, Stallman, who h…

> But to flat-out refuse to read things on the Web As you described it, he did not actually flat-out refuse. He simply stated that he hasn't read all the documented published on the world wide web, since he don't "surf" the web. His approach to the web has been described many times. When someone sends him a link that they want him to read, stallman uses the program wget to download the file and reads it offline.

When I specifically asked him if he had read the bill in question to which he was objecting, which was available on the Web, he said that he had not, because he doesn't surf the Web. He, not I, equated "surfing" with "reading documents."

The impression I got from that conversation was that Stallman makes no effort to go out and find things that would be useful and of interest to him.

I don't call that "surfing," but "research" and "responsible," especially from someone who then calls upon people to contact their public representatives.

I don't care how much he hangs out on Hacker News, or elsewhere. I do care that he clearly indicated, in that conversation, that he will not do the necessary legwork (which doesn't even require using your legs) that can even help to strengthen his arguments.

I also think that it's helpful for everyone to read things from opposing and diverse viewpoints. By only reading those documents that his supporters send him, I worry that Stallman is ignoring arguments that may inform his own, or even change them.

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

#86

Post by xradionut »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #67
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…

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…

"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."

Some people do use PGP, but they pay for it or it's an internal component in a larger system. GPG, the OSS version does have a sucky interface, but that's not the real issue people don't use it, there's three others:

1) Most people don't give a shit about encryption 2) Most people are too fucking lazy to understand/use encryption (Not being cynical, this is reality.) 3) Writing good encryption software is thankless and discouraging. There's a ton of commercial companies that use SSH and GPG that haven't donated squat to the developers.

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

You don't work where I do. I wrap GPG in another layer of software to make it more usable to the above average folks at my job. It's mainly limited to automated processes.

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

#87

Post by xeroxmalf »

melling wrote: post #82

Stallman lacks a coherent vision. He has an end goal but he really doesn't have a great plan to get there. It's really frustrating. Emacs could be a lot better. For instance, it has taken forever to get a high-performance Lisp working inside of Emacs. I think Guile is partly there? Anyway, since we'll all be long dead before his plan starts to work, I think the better solution is to support inexpensive software. For…

I find the $70 for a text editor (sublime) to be expensive. Price is relative.

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

#88

Post by coldtea »

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…

>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.

That's just an extra convinience feature you can turn on or off, and doesn't have anything to do with whether the editor is WYSIWYG or not.

It's not like the program forces you to see red swiggly lines underneath words when editing...

>Hyperlinks are usually hit and miss; sometimes they print as 'blue and underline' (but, of course, are useless), sometimes they don't.

Which is configurable too in all editors I know of. And the "blue and underline" is not exactly useless -- it conveys the information that this part of the document was a hyperlink initially.

>In short, what you see is certainly not what you get

No, it's 99.9% of what you get, minus additional layers of information that people expect to be there, and you can turn on or off.

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

#89

Post by mathattack »

Could people please start working on the features that are needed?

As someone aware of gnu, but not an active participant, how effective are requests like this? Does "Can people start working on this?" actually get results? I'm curious as this gets to the heart of why they may have trouble finishing things. (You can't toss money at someone to do the dirty work)

I'm coming with an open mind, and would like to hear either side of this.

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

#90

Post by mathattack »

melling wrote: post #82

Stallman lacks a coherent vision. He has an end goal but he really doesn't have a great plan to get there. It's really frustrating. Emacs could be a lot better. For instance, it has taken forever to get a high-performance Lisp working inside of Emacs. I think Guile is partly there? Anyway, since we'll all be long dead before his plan starts to work, I think the better solution is to support inexpensive software. For…

Is it that Stallman lacks a manager's mindset of breaking the vision into manageable pieces, and then delegating them out? Or is it that this is so against the ethos, that he couldn't make it happen with a volunteer workforce?
Post reply on HN