Re: Emacs vista build failures

[Barry Fishman]

Richard M Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     Hmm.  What if that software written on w32 has satisfied users?
>
> Our mission is not "satisfying users", it is establishing freedom.
>
> There are users who do not think their freedom is very important, and
> they may feel satisfied using proprietary software.  (It isn't ALL
> badly written.)  But that doesn't make the proprietary software a good
> thing.
>
> Freedom is important even if some people don't understand this, and
> taking away people's freedom is bad even if they are foolish enough
> not to care.  We do not judge right and wrong by their standards.

I think you may be loosing sight of some things by still focusing just
on gaining freedom.  A GNU system now exists that people can use
reliably and productively.  Many of us prefer it over the proprietary
alternatives, even if they were free.  Isn't that real freedom.  For
many of us you have already won.

The FSF seems to behave as if this wasn't true.  So much effort still
seems to be put into porting prorietary garbage like .NET to GNU, and
producing a Gnome windowing environment which has all the faults of
MS-Windows.

Why not concentrate on producing something better.  Emacs is far nicer
to work with than GNOME.  So why the interest in making Emacs fit in to
this inferior MS-Windows like environment.  Why not make GNOME work more
like Emacs.  Whats the point of a C based GTK it you don't use it
through a Lisp like layer?  Why is so much of my Gnome configuration
buried in zillions of directories filled with ugly XML files.  Why can't
I query it with simple REPL?

I don't have problems with porting Emacs to Vista.  My problem is with
this strong desire to port Vista to GNU.

-- 
Barry Fishman