101–110 of 181 posts
Does anyone really need colored emoji in Emacs? It's a programmer's editor.
Also, people use emacs for all kinds of crazy stuff, like IM and email and so on ...
I wish all emojis just disappeared. They're stupid, don't add any value, waste unicode space and developers' time.
The desirability of emoji aside, Unicode has plenty of space for this. The bulk of Unicode code points are CJKV (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese ideographs) characters. Compared to that, a few emoji outside of the BMP don't really amount to much.
In fact, I am under the impression that the popularity of emoji had an unintended benefit. It seems to have contributed to a much better support of non-BMP¹ Unicode characters across the board. Until the extended emoji set came along, most characters outside of the BMP where fairly specialistic or extremely regional, so bugs didn't show up as fast as they do now. It used to be a tiny miracle of you managed to view a PDF containing non-BMP characters properly, nowadays that is just how things work.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(Unicode)#Basic_Multilin...
This kind of thing is exactly why I will always support and use Mitsuharu Yamamoto's macOS Emacs port ( https://bitbucket.org/mituharu/emacs-mac ), which has been consistently rock solid and committed to implementing nice to haves on macOS that this sort of political bullshit holds back on official development. Homebrew tap here: https://github.com/railwaycat/homebrew-emacsmacport
The Free software movement needs a few extremists like RMS.
https://wiki.dequis.org/notes/emoji/
https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2015-August/047175.h...
And several other Mac features were stopped before they made it into the official release. This is Richard Stallman's policy: "GNU Emacs should never offer people a practical reason to use some other system instead of GNU. Therefore, when someone implements a useful new feature but only for a non-GNU system, we do not accept it that form." https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg01... https://lists.…
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…
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.
20 years ago the FSF had some very forward-looking ideas. Now we have the ornery opinion of old men - it was good enough for us two decades ago, it's good enough for you now. The point of free as in speech and not free as in beer is that the choice you make does not need to be right or wrong by the standards of other humans. Holding back technology because it's not available on "your" platform is just as monopolistic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of free as in speech and not free as in beer is that the choice you make does not need to be right or wrong by the standards of other humans. No, it may be yours, but I'm pretty sure that was never the FSF's point. Not now, and not 20 years ago. Holding back technology because it's not available on "your" platform is just as monopolistic as any corporate entity they have butted heads with. - It's not "their…
It's not the FSF's point to have freedom of ideas? Then please explain what it's point is. You disagreed but haven't explained why. If it's not "their" platform then how is it available elsewhere? If other distributors have access and can make it available then it is very much a GNU political standard and not a side effect the technology. How are those platforms free if existing features have been removed due to poli…
Freedom of ideas is supposed to be a given in a free society. The FSF certainly supports it, but they weren't created for the purpose of promoting it.
In any case, your initial statement was that "the choice you make does not need to be right or wrong by the standards of other humans", which is actually the opposite of the FSF's position, which is that some choices (like developing, distributing or even promoting proprietary software) are unethical and should be opposed. That's the definition of making a standard and holding other humans to it.
If other distributors have access and can make it available then it is very much a GNU political standard and not a side effect the technology.
I don't disagree. It's still not their platform, it's all platforms they consider ethical.
How are those platforms free if existing features have been removed due to politics? I stand by my point, 20 years ago the FSF was a foundation that wanted to make technology available to all - without having to worry about IP ownership. They have removed a feature that was technically sound due to it's status as a commercial work. How am I free to use this if I can only do so in designated zones?
I completely disagree with your portrayal of the FSF of 20 years ago. The whole point of the creation of the GPL, instead of using the existing permissive licenses, was to legally enforce the position that the Freedom of the software, not its technical superiority, is the fundamental goal. This is a markedly political position, and one which prevented the creation of many features. Being "technically sound" was never enough to be considered good software by the GNU project.
And several other Mac features were stopped before they made it into the official release. This is Richard Stallman's policy: "GNU Emacs should never offer people a practical reason to use some other system instead of GNU. Therefore, when someone implements a useful new feature but only for a non-GNU system, we do not accept it that form." https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg01... https://lists.…
Yes, yes. Hold Emacs hostage Mr. Stallman. That'll make everyone stay up all night hacking to bring your lackluster platform to parity with its competition. There's a real need for innovation and great ideas to better support all manner of open community resources, free software and beyond. But stupid control games are totes better than all that.
It's RMS being RMS. I think he's ridiculously dogmatic and unpractical, but you can't be surprised by this - he has his ideologies to push with fervent absolutism. I doubt he's all that concerned about the market share of his text editor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the reason why they did it. I understand your view of why it should be done. I'd be A LOT more sympathetic if they hadn't been shipping it working for two years. At that point it's a little late to put the horse back in the barn. Some of Stallmans list seems insane to me. They withheld accurate scrolling until all the other platforms had it? They are crippling font rendering to the lowest common denomina…
I feel like there is some lost perspective here. > But breaking font rendering? I would instead see at is making font rendering work equally across platforms. > Making scrolling work worse? Again, making scrolling work equally across platforms. > Not having some generic cosmetic effects like background transparency? Again, equally. I am more than a little surprised that this is so surprising to people...it seems rath…
And yes, you can have a transparent terminal on Linux, make emoji work, have better scroll, etc