A note on free software text editors and software freedom

[Michael Shigorin]

PreScriptum:
> If someone can defend *why* it's important that it be free
> they've progressed beyond the religious stage of Linux
> fanaticism.

True.

On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 06:09:42PM -0400, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> Ok, I should have pre-fixed that statement with user-friendly
> text editors. Emacs, vi, vim, etc are virtually unusable unless
> you spend oodles of time memorising arcane commands and reading
> manuals. I tried XEmacs for a while and threw it out -- it
> wasn't worth my time and effort to learn a WHOLE new interface
> (it's extremely poorly designed).

You should have prefixed that with "I hate long learning curves 
and prefer to use software that pretends to offer simple
solutions to complex tasks".

The fact is, latent time loss with "friendly" **** is just that
-- day-to-day t1me l0ss.

> Gedit is on the right path but it's still quite simple. It'd be
> nice to see someone take Gedit's code quality and ease of use
> and start to add more advanced capabilities.

You could try to look at tea.linux.kiev.ua -- Peter still does
believe in features.  I try to convince him to learn something
proper and not reinvent the wheel, poorly; having abandoned
my-own-editor (in Modula-2, non-rectangular text model but still
with arbitrary length limit) some 10 years ago or so...

But sincerely -- it's all waste of time.  Prettier one but just
like video games.

> > > Plus, Free (GNU, etc.) software is widely available for
> > > Mac, and, besides, do you actually TAKE ADVANTAGE of the
> > > Freeness of the software ? do you change the code and
> > > recompile the software?

I occasionally do and found more than once quite aggravating the
inability to do so.  In fact, when frustrated with isofs driver
behaviour with Joliet-only CDs, I've cranked up a kernel patch
some 6 years ago (Jul 19 1999, for Linux 2.2.5).  It worked.

> > > Or, is your use of Free software merely as a tool?

Most of the time so.

> > This doesn't and should not matter.  Freedom should be valued
> > for its own sake, we shouldn't think of these freedoms as
> > dismissable if they're not used.  The default should not be
> > to give up these freedoms.
> Yes, it *does* and *should* matter. You CANNOT equate "real"
> freedom to "software" freedom, and to do so devalues "real"
> freedom.

Define "real freedom" if you please.  It's hard to compare things
when one _is_ defined and another is _not_.

> We use computers as TOOLS! They are not necessary for us to
> LIVE.

...yet.

> Whether or not the tool is open or shut should not matter

...until the problems are there.

While we may be used to the idea that the tool (the hammer,
the wrench, etc) Just Works (TM), this isn't always the case
with computers.  Less so with Jobs' Mac Classic, more so with
Gates' pro-ducts (and I'd dare say Apple's later cruft).

Then it's the question of "who can fix it?".  If the hammer 
uses six-faceted screws and you don't happen to have the specific
non-metric six-faceted screwdriver to tighten them, you're nuts.

So the "free" is about using standard (metric, usual-headed)
screws and "proprietary" is about inventing things to drive you
back to the store to buy another one when this one breaks.

It's the matter of complexity and cost to reproduce what already
exists, so virtually any "plain" analogy is basically screwed
here.  Yours particularly.

> To use a software tool _merely_ because it is Free is no more
> defensible than, say, disliking a person because of the colour
> of her skin.

BS.  Still you don't seem to be able to listen, so I'd probably
better vim ~/.mutt/score to be productive...

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike at altlinux.ru>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/