help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is Emacs on Aqua crippleware or is it just broken?


From: BK
Subject: Re: Is Emacs on Aqua crippleware or is it just broken?
Date: 7 May 2003 04:35:12 -0700

Ajanta <address@hidden> wrote in message news:<address@hidden>...
> Andrew Choi <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > So I'll not respond to his questions.  People asking for help should 
> > have basic manners.
> 
> OTOH you may wish to also consider that threads like this are read and
> followed not just the original poster but also hundreds or even
> thousands of individuals, more if we count those who might access it on
> Google. Strong language used on the net is not always a personal attack
> on anyone, it is just to get attention in a crowded chaotic place. Just
> a thought.

Thank you for making that point.

I had already explained my definition of crippleware and you will find
that it is in no way offending. Apart from the need to get attention
there is also the need to make the subject line short.

So instead of

"Emacs: Does the Aqua port have the following features left out
because the developer didn't have time to do it yet or are there any
fixes for the problems I have experienced?"

(I have done this sort of thing in an earlier life and almost never
got any replies to it)

one writes

"Is Emacs on Aqua crippleware or is it just broken?"

This fulfills both requirements, getting attention and being short.

Besides, I posted this in gnu.emacs.help and not gnu.emacs.advocacy.

Anybody who reads the actual post can see that there is no flaming no
bashing, but a description of problems along with a question whether
or not the problem described is intentional ("feature") or broken
("bug").

This is important to know because if it is intentional then it would
be a complete waste of time trying to find a fix.

There is far too many posts on usenet where somebody reports a
problem, is told that the software in question hasn't implemented such
a feature, at least not yet, and then it goes on and on and on mocking
about it. If it's not there then it's not there and consequently there
is then no point trying to get "the bug fixed".

I am sorry if anyone who has been working on any of the various Emacs
Mac ports feels offended by my pragmatism. I certainly didn't mean to
cause offense. If someone tells me: "Quitting is not yet implemented,
for now you have to use force quit or kill -9", then I call that a
feature, albeit an inconvenient feature, but you won't find me going
on about it. I will accept that it's not there and that is it, I'll
proceed to the next problem. Likewise, if you tell me "Weird, this
should work, it works for me", then I call that a bug, which is a lot
better than if it's a feature because many bugs have known fixes.
Again, you won't find me going on about it like "Look how bugridden
this software is", no, all I want is to find out is how to fix the
bug.

In respect of the term "crippleware", again this is born out of
pragmatism. You won't find me going on about it like "Look how
crippled this software is", no, it means there are missing features
which are present in other versions of the same software. Very often
this is done for marketing reasons "cheaper or freeware version is
crippled - full version costs more". However, it also applies to work
in progress software if that work in progress is not explicitly
denoted as "beta software", which is another way to describe missing
features that haven't been included yet. However, if the developer
doesn't call it "beta software" it would create more confusion then
anything else if I was to call it "betaware", so I choose the
alternative "crippleware".

rgds
bk


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]