Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV
in [Lisp]
|
From: Emmy Noether on 18 Jul 2010 04:23 On Jul 18, 12:27 am, David Kastrup <d...(a)gnu.org> wrote: > Emmy Noether <emmynoeth...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <d...(a)gnu.org>, > >> wrote this mindboggling stuff: > >> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p) > > >>>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that, > >>>> its like a lock > > >>> There is no unfreedom involved here. Freedom does not hand you a free > >>> ride. Only a free road. > > > No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough. > > Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about. > > > Perhaps we do the same to him and break into his FSF office and leave > > a "friend" note we came to get the docs he has not released. > > You can't "get" anything that has not been written. > > > The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle. > > You have the freedom to walk the forest you perceive. You have the > freedom to build the road that you want, in that forest. > > If it is a puzzle to you, that is your own problem. It is not a puzzle > because somebody would have cut a whole into pieces and scattered them > around. It is a puzzle because nobody put it together yet. > > Feel free to do so, doing others the service you want done. > > > Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the > > boys from his mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager > > and he can put the volunteers to the task of documenting, illuminating > > and revealing the operation of his softwares and its evolution. > > You want a free ride, very obviously. > > > He owes it to others > > And you think your whining entitles you to it. By his own admission he broke into professor's offices to help others, ie unlock the monitors. He has tried to project an image of a saint for freedom. Its a DECEPTION. A scoundrel has a right to be scoundrel. But if he projects himself as a saint, then people have a right to clear the facts. > What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you? What did we do to deserve him to write that elisp manual of 800+ pages ? NOTHING. He gave it to us in the hope that his software will spread like a VIRUS. He had hopes for money from big companies probably, which he must be making to pay the astronomical rent in tbe boston/cambridge area. I can assure you that he can document all the essentials of his program in a thin book of a few hundred pages with a trivial amount of man-hours compared to being spent on things which brings fewer volunteers. It is said : A picture is worth a thousand words. Make some transition diagrams, structures, and UML type diagrams of the operation of the software. > What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you? Draw a diagram, A state transition diagram to understand how illogical you are. A person arrives in the state of a newbie and wants to exit in a state of having made a contribution to FSF. How can one do it without adequate documentation ? Xah Lee has been complaining for a year. First you deprive people of ESSENTIAL documentation to contribute. Stall man has written user manuals to effect viral spread. But he has not written operational details to get the same viral contribution by others. He must not want it. Yet you want to use it as a taunt as in pot calling the kettle black ???!!! OK, why dont you explain a few basic things, if it not a puzzle ????!!!! DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0, "Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value. \n\ The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\ If all args return NIL, return NIL.") (args) Lisp_Object args; { register Lisp_Object val; Lisp_Object args_left; struct gcpro gcpro1; if (NULL(args)) return Qnil; args_left = args; GCPRO1 (args_left); do { val = Feval (Fcar (args_left)); if (!NULL (val)) break; args_left = Fcdr (args_left); } while (!NULL(args_left)); UNGCPRO; return val; } I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it. And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote function definition ? Basically, Richard Mathew Stall man is a STALLER of PROGRESS. He expected the XEMACS people to EXPLAIN HIM EVERY SINGLE line of code. What did he do to expect all this ? He was even paid money , as claimed by the XEMACS people. What did he do to deserve and EXPECT a line by line explanation from them ?????!!!!!! ANSWER this question and dont run away !!!!!! He is prone to forgetting like all mortals and if he is prolific to write that 900 page manual, I am sure he has hidden notes that he has not released. Where was he recording the line by line explanation he was receiving from the XEMACS people ? If not in his own very personal version ??? Answer these very strong arguments ??? What did he deserve to get the XEMACS people's explanations ? AND why is he INCAPABLE of building upon the XEMACS work ??? This is all about documentation, professional jealousies of these mean spirited people with double standards. Send him a CC of this thread. I expect him to explain some of these issues of documentation. > -- > David Kastrup
From: Emmy Noether on 18 Jul 2010 04:38 On Jul 18, 1:09 am, Nick <3-nos...(a)temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > Emmy Noether <emmynoeth...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, bolega <gnuist...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr > > >> Enjoy ..... > > > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd > > of them. > > I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case. But I've found > through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of > someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong. Huh, you forgot that the whole of GNU = Gnu Not Unix You have double standard and you know very well whats right and whats wrong. > 5 lines in > and here we are - so if your case has merit, think about whether you > want to do this. > > BTW - Did you see what I did there? I snipped all the rest of the post > as it wasn't relevant. I know several people have asked you to do it, > but you seem to be having difficulty with the concept, so I thought I'd > give you a practical example. > -- > Online waterways route planner |http://canalplan.eu > Plan trips, see photos, check facilities |http://canalplan.org.uk
From: Julian Bradfield on 18 Jul 2010 04:50 On 2010-07-18, Emmy Noether <emmynoether3(a)gmail.com> wrote: > DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0, > "Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value. > \n\ > The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\ > If all args return NIL, return NIL.") > (args) > Lisp_Object args; > { > register Lisp_Object val; > Lisp_Object args_left; > struct gcpro gcpro1; > > if (NULL(args)) > return Qnil; > > args_left = args; > GCPRO1 (args_left); > > do > { > val = Feval (Fcar (args_left)); > if (!NULL (val)) > break; > args_left = Fcdr (args_left); > } > while (!NULL(args_left)); > > UNGCPRO; > return val; > } > > I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it. What do you need explained? Other than what's already in the manual (Gnu Emacs Internals section of the Elisp manual.) > And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic > cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote > function definition ? Try lisp.h RMS doesn't really believe in ADTs - that's one of the main complaints from XEmacs. As for finding functions, I believe Emacs has commands to help with that, but personally I just go grep eval_quote *.c
From: Nick on 18 Jul 2010 05:30 Emmy Noether <emmynoether3(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Jul 18, 1:09 am, Nick <3-nos...(a)temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: >> Emmy Noether <emmynoeth...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, bolega <gnuist...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr >> >> >> Enjoy ..... >> >> > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd >> > of them. >> >> I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case. But I've found >> through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of >> someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong. > > Huh, you forgot that the whole of GNU = Gnu Not Unix > > You have double standard and you know very well whats right and whats > wrong. Ah. I see. You know my thoughts better than I do. That means you're another nutter. What I wrote was entirely true - I haven't read these great long posts in any detail. I've just deleted your email unread and plonked you. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 18 Jul 2010 06:45 Cor Gest <cor(a)clsnet.nl> writes: > You know, nowdadys many 'people' are used to get everything on a platter > any mental incovieniences are circumvented as much as possible, so is > any try for independent thinking about anything strongly dissuaded. > > The last 25 years, since click-tah-icon-software emerged > "the dumbing down of programming" [1] has been on a rampage. > > [1] http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/05/cov_12feature.html Very good article. Thank you. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: reusing places and values Next: Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV |