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

Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#101

Post by orbitur »

flukus wrote: post #95
orbitur wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For functionality like that it sounds like a mailing list would fit the use case better. Then you're looking at an email with the visual noise of recipients and whitespace and signatures, and if the UI is really bad (mailing list websites, for example), every message is viewed in isolation without the responses.

I totally agree on the UI disaster that a lot of those mailing lists are. But it seems like the solution to that would be a better mailing list ui, not to throw the whole lot out and start from scratch.

I don't know how we'd find a nice, automated solution to removing people's wordy signatures.

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#102

Post by drivingmenuts »

ciupicri wrote: post #52
drivingmenuts wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While one might be an annoying waste of your time, the other is not only annoying, but quite possibly illegal as well. I leave it to you to figure out which is which.

What's so illegal in some dick pics?

Send one to a person under the age of 18 and I'm sure the prosecution, the judge and possibly your eventual roommate might be willing to explain it in ways that make you regret ever asking that question.

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

ciupicri wrote: post #84
moosingin3space wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dick pics fall into the category of "unwanted sexual advances", which is a form of harassment.

I guess some people could see it that way given the donglegate scandal, but it can't be harassment if it's not repeated. And if something is to be repeated, then lots of things can be used besides dick pics.

> but it can't be harassment if it's not repeated.

Incorrect. Sexual harassment doesn't require repeated conduct, though repeated conduct is more likely to be harassment (both because it is more likely to create a hostile environment simply because of the pervasiveness, and because it is more likely that the actor will be in a position where they should reasonably have known that it was unwelcome.)

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

ciupicri wrote: post #96
moosingin3space wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it can't be harassment if it's not repeated Pretty sure there are a LOT of women who would strongly disagree.

No, it's just annoying or a simple threat if it's one time only. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harass (emphasis mine): > Simple Definition of harass: to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way; to make repeated attacks against (an enemy).

"sexual harassment" is a term with its own specific definition, which is not precisely a naïve combination of the simplest common definitions of "sexual" and "harassment".

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#105

Post by flukus »

orbitur wrote: post #101
flukus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree on the UI disaster that a lot of those mailing lists are. But it seems like the solution to that would be a better mailing list ui, not to throw the whole lot out and start from scratch.

I don't know how we'd find a nice, automated solution to removing people's wordy signatures.

Doesn't gmail handle this really well? It doesn't change often, so it should be too hard to build a filter.

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#106

Post by flukus »

rakoo wrote: post #99
flukus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain slack to me? It just seems like a shitty reinvention of IRC.

Here we go again. There has already been countless discussions on HN about why Slack has raised instead of IRC, see ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10486541 ) for instance. In short: Slack is what you get when you have a team managing an IRC server with all the nice plugins and bots and building a single UI that does everything. You can spend your time setting up the same thing, or you can go to Slack.

So because something is hard to setup we should regressive from an open internet to walled gardens.

Why not make IRC easier to setup?

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#107

Post by rakoo »

flukus wrote: post #106
rakoo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here we go again. There has already been countless discussions on HN about why Slack has raised instead of IRC, see ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10486541 ) for instance. In short: Slack is what you get when you have a team managing an IRC server with all the nice plugins and bots and building a single UI that does everything. You can spend your time setting up the same thing, or you can go to Slack.

So because something is hard to setup we should regressive from an open internet to walled gardens. Why not make IRC easier to setup?

Because IRC-the-protocol currently doesn't have what is requested by the users who prefer Slack over it:

* offline messages * full history access and search * fancy authentication schemes

There are some who try to build a full experience similar to what Slack is proposing; I'm thinking of IRCCloud for instance. But then instead of being stuck inside Slack, you're stuck inside IRCCloud (note: for the nice features, not for the basic messages). What we'd need is an open source IRCCloud server and client, that would then become the new standard... then only can IRC compete.

So, it's not just a software issue, it's a protocol issue. Which is why XMPP was born, and Matrix was born, and all other IM protocols were born. But none of them has reached the point where they can overwhelm all the other ones combined, so in the meantime people converge towards a centralized system because it's easier to be up-to-date.

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#108

Post by jjrh »

nprescott wrote: post #6

It sounds like the author wants basically everything about how Emacs is developed to change in order to better fit their ideas about what open source looks like. There are plenty of established projects that don't use a "pull request" workflow, Emacs only recently migrated to Git; I don't have the discussion from ESR around migrating Emacs to Git handy, but it was a pretty slow process to "bring Emacs into the 21st c…

> This sounds more like "the vast majority of software developers like me" and I'm not sure how much value there is in debating something like that. Mark me down for "disagree".

I'm not a fan of this, but lets not act like A LOT of new projects aren't going in this direction because they are.

> the suggestions are so far-fetched as to be laughable.

Yeah, considering git still is a source of contention on the list changing anything in their process seems nuts.

> I have, in the past, skipped over projects when the only means of contribution or discussion is "sign up for our Slack/Gitter/etc. channel".

I understand - and i'm not a fan, but that goes both ways - lot of folks have skipped over projects when the primary forms of communication are mailing lists/irc - stuff that is foreign to them or seems like a hassle.

I do think that stuff like emacs does get hurt by their processes - moving to git was a big step. The devel list is less than welcoming and at times very hostile.

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#109

Post by jjrh »

flukus wrote: post #106
rakoo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here we go again. There has already been countless discussions on HN about why Slack has raised instead of IRC, see ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10486541 ) for instance. In short: Slack is what you get when you have a team managing an IRC server with all the nice plugins and bots and building a single UI that does everything. You can spend your time setting up the same thing, or you can go to Slack.

So because something is hard to setup we should regressive from an open internet to walled gardens. Why not make IRC easier to setup?

I believe slack does have a IRC gateway.

A webbased irc client that doesn't suck (and keeps a channel log) would probably be a good solution to making things easy for people unfamiliar with IRC.

Some sort of one click setup for a channel on Freenode or a similar network would probably be pretty popular - especially if you could get some useful bots from the get go (like git ones) .

Re: Open Letter to the Emacs Maintainers

#110

Post by [deleted] »

colemickens wrote: post #88
wtbob wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A code of conduct is a signal that juvenile behavior won't be tolerated Hardly: a code of conduct is juvenile behaviour. It's like when I was a little kid and drafted a huge constitution for my amazing awesome cool club — that was just me. Adults don't need to write down a code of conduct, because they adhere to an unwritten code of conduct. Children whinge, 'you shouldn't do that, because this says not to!'; adult…

In this thread are men literally defending sending unsolicited dick pics to unwilling participants. Feel free to waste your breath trying to convince me that CoCs aren't needed.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN