[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GnuTLS for W32
From: |
chad |
Subject: |
Re: GnuTLS for W32 |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:14:49 -0800 |
On Jan 5, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 17:19, chad <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity, do you assemble the pieces of your operating system by hand
>
> No, because I'm not offered that alternative in the system I use.
>
>> and manually check for updates yourself?
>
> I disable automatic checking and do manual checks every now and then, yes.
When you do manual checks, do you run a program that checks for updates,
downloads them, and then installs them; or do you load up a web browser, visit
some project pages from memory/bookmarks/etc, and start downloading and
unpacking zip files?
I certainly don't think that everyone should be *required* to run an automatic
critical-update-checker, but we're not talking about that - we're talking about
the default setting. That might involve you being asked a question once ever
(something that's been built into emacs at least since I started using in in
the 18.43 days), or adding a tiny bit of elisp to your set-up before being
asked.
>> Do you think that most GNU/Linux distributions are too much like `software
>> as a service' for the same reasons?
>
> Certainly I don't like much the way GNU/Linux distributions are going.
Ok, I sympathize (I tend to disable auto-updaters on windows systems myself),
but wasn't the question. I assume that you mention SoaS because you think that
such systems are opposed to the FSF's and/or GNU project's goals, not just
because you don't like them.
You asked, ``if your vote counts'', and - to me, at least - your vote
definitely counts. I'm trying to understand your reasoning for objecting to a
default setting that would notify the user about critical issues. Either I'm
not understanding what you're saying, or you're saying that the default users
shouldn't have a feature that many (I'd say `vast majority', but `many' is
enough) because it might cause you to have to type `n' a few times, and that
doesn't match what I expect from seeing your efforts on emacs-devel.
>> If you believe that the default user is opposed to this, I'll suggest that
>> you might not have noticed them all voting with their feet in favor of this
>> at least a decade ago. This isn't even the old `Windows Majority', even - I
>> can't think of a computing system today that meets the criteria ``might run
>> Emacs 24.2'' and ``does NOT somehow check the network for critical updates
>> in the default installation''.
>
> There are plenty of applications, many of them quite new, with no automatic
> checking and/or upgrading.
I don't want to start a flame-war, but I really don't think this statement is
true of user software. Basically everything not hand-hacked on modern
GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, or Windows system has an automatic checking (or checking
and upgrading) system in place, built in to the application (web browsers,
office suites, document/imaging systems, and games, for example) or the
operating system. To my knowledge, emacs is the *only* software I use under
windows that doesn't do this, but I don't use windows very often, and mostly
just for playing certain computer games. Can you suggest a few `user'
applications that don't?
Perhaps this is a matter of nomenclature, but in my opinion, if the operating
system's default-run package manager performs such a function, I believe that
it counts. Is that's the distinction you're drawing?
*Chad
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, (continued)
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2012/01/04
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Ted Zlatanov, 2012/01/04
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, chad, 2012/01/04
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Ted Zlatanov, 2012/01/04
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Ted Zlatanov, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Juanma Barranquero, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, chad, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Juanma Barranquero, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32,
chad <=
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Juanma Barranquero, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Richard Riley, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Juanma Barranquero, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/01/06
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Juanma Barranquero, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, chad, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Juanma Barranquero, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Óscar Fuentes, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Juanma Barranquero, 2012/01/05
- Re: GnuTLS for W32, Óscar Fuentes, 2012/01/05