Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Decline of hacker culture and "hacker" POV usage

The header "decline of hacker culture" is POV, as it suggests there is this singular hacker culture consisting of just those people that ceased to exist then. I'm not sure how to properly phrase the change though, it should be something in terms of his prior relationship with them, while avoiding the term "hacker."

I've discussed this in the Hacker talk page as well, classification of people as a hacker (because it's no different, POV-wise, from saying "very skilled programmer"), as a matter-of-factly by Wikipedia, is also POV and this seems to be a problem with a lot of articles. I'll elaborate on an earlier discussion I started on the Hacker talk page sometime later (not now though because I'm feeling lazy). --Nathan J. Yoder 05:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "MIT hacker culture" is much better than "the hacker culture." MIT ceased having a hacker culture in 1983? I'm sure the MIT students of today would disagree. It seems more like, Stallman's relationships with his MIT friends broke off, not that this had anything to do with a "hacker culture" (which in itself is a subjective qualification of a group anyway).

Also, the section as a whole is written in a way that is very unclear if you're not already familiar with the history. It also appears that the "single-handedly" part isn't correct about Emacs (see Gosling Emacs and Emacs). --Nathan J. Yoder 08:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that MIT's hacker culture ceased, it says it declined. Most of the hackers were hired away, and hackable software (free software) was replaced by unhackable software, so this is justified. Also, the "single-handedly" bit is not about Emacs, it's about Symbolics. --Gronky 12:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So it declined and stayed that way? That still doesn't make sense. It seems you're trying to sensationalize what was a temporary slump in the MIT AI Lab's history, one based on one sided accounts which don't even cover what the many other MIT students, not in the AI Lab, were doing at the time. And according to the current article, he replaced their works eventually, so if you're going based on the status of the software's "freeness" (rather than the interpersonal relations), it wouldn't be a decline, it'd be an upswing. You either need to be really, really specific with the already POV term "hacker" or just drop it completely and describe it strictly terms of RMS' relation to them. The symbolics work he "replaced" involves his work with Emacs, which replaced symbolics' zmacs. --Nathan J. Yoder 18:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

First you ask "MIT ceased having a hacker culture in 1983?", I tell you that I didn't say that, then you ask "So it declined and stayed that way?", and I have to tell you that I didn't say that either. I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion on such foundations. --Gronky 00:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

But that's exactly what the article says, as per your modification. You don't say an entire culture declined to describe a temporary slump in a single lab, that's very misleading, to say the least. You also don't describe the entire university for what applies to only a specific part of it. It's also a subjective, POV description ("hacker culture"), one which you've already contradicted yourself with since RMS IMPROVED the 'hackability' of the software by the end of that period (that's "hackability" by your own definition). If one wants to be NPOV, one would give a description stating something (in more concise terms) in terms of RMS' declining relationship with his MIT AI lab colleagues.

Also, I take it you no longer have an objection to RMS not single-handedly duplicating the Symbolics work (which included Emacs as I mentioned)? --Nathan J. Yoder 12:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The description that you call POV was not written by me. Claims about RMS single-handedly duplicating stuff were not written by me. The title of the "Decline..." section was not written by me (I only added one word). You are calling me to account for other people's edits, and I am simply not accountable for them. I am accountable for my edits. Only. --Gronky 18:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but doesn't really address any of what I said. I could care less WHO made the edits. You were arguing against my criticism of the current state of the article, which was the issue. So do you have an objection to changing the title to something phrased more in terms of the way I described? Do you have an objection to removing 'single-handedly'? --Nathan J. Yoder 22:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Do I have an objection to changing the title to something phrased more in terms of the way you described? I can't answer that. I can't predict what wording you would use/suggest. Do I have an objection to removing 'single-handedly'? It's not a big deal to me, but it seems to be backed up by this: [1] (About halfway down, read the paragraph staring "It also guaranteed"). --Gronky 00:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I already explained it, but you ignored it for some reason to complain about you not making certain edits. It would be in term of his declining /relationship/ with his /MIT AI lab colleagues/, not in terms of "hacker culture." The source you quote is ridiculously biased and a non-credible source. It appears you also ignored my explanation that part of his duplication efforts included duplication of Zmacs (part of Symbolics' Genera) by creating Emacs, which he didn't create from scratch. Please don't make me become a broken record. --Nathan J. Yoder 00:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Free software

I think the Free software section should be altered to reflect the fact that the English language has the unambiguous word "freedom" to reflect Stallmam's intended meaning and the ambiguity problem stems from his use of the word "free" rather than "freedom" and NOT a limitation of the English language as is the current mythology. Libre software is freedom software. Further, open software HAS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION. It is NOT an alternative way to say freedom software. --WAS 4.250 13:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Open Source Initiative's definition of open source software is derived from FSF's definition of free software - Bruce Perens reworded FSF's free software definition to make the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and Open Source Initiative used that definition with the words "free software" replaced by "open source software". For this reason (and more importantly anyway) the two definitions are practically identical. By "practically" I mean "in practice; in the real world". I justify this because the vast majority of software that is one, is also the other. The sliver of software that is one but not the other is small and contains little or nothing that is widely used. The English spoken in Ireland, and the English spoken in England is different - if one wants to split hairs - but they're practically identical. --Gronky 01:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I went off to prove the importance of the difference and proved to myself you were right. So I crossed out that part of the above. Thanks for setting me right. --WAS 4.250 01:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

So what's the source for this thing about most other languages not having this problem? See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --Nathan J. Yoder 17:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a source to cite for that information. It comes from me being familiar with a number of languages (Germanic, Romance, Indian, Chinese, and Austronesian). The guide you link to says "if you add information to an article which you gleaned from a specific external source, please cite where you got your information." Since my information didn't come from a specific external source, it seems I'm not required to cite anything. If I could cite a source, that would be great. Maybe this [2] is a useful document because it shows that in a very varied set of languages, there are unambiguous terms for free-as-in-freedom. Also, after living in the free software community for some 7 years, I have yet to hear others complaining about the "freedom/cost" confusion in other languages - the absence of a problem, after 7 years, suggests there is no problem, or the problem is very isolated. If anything, "most" is probably an understatement. --Gronky 19:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding the policy. It says if you acquired it from a specific source, you must cite it, not that if you didn't acquire it from a specific source, you don't have to cite it. One doesn't logically follow from the other (P -> Q doesn't imply ~P -> ~Q). Read a few lines down: "If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject—you will not be around forever to answer questions." Anecdotal evidence is not enough.

The romance languages appear to use grat* (gratuit) and libr* (libre) (http://www.wordreference.com/) as a seperate distinction, for a start. Someone needs to compile an actual list. --Nathan J. Yoder 22:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I edited the section as I had suggested. The issue of english versus foreign languages goes away. On the other hand the question of why don't people just say "freedom software" cries out to be adressed. I don't have a clue to the answer to that, so I don't address the issue. --WAS 4.250 02:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Trustworthy Computing

I'm editing the part that references Trustworthy Computing. Trusted Computing is not the same as Trustworthy Computing. The first is a "family of specifications from the TCPA, which extend the behavior of a personal computer or server to offer particular cryptographic security services", while the latter is a Microsoft marketing campaign that was a response to the security problems within windows. Microsoft is involved with Trusted Computing, but it seems as if they refer to it as NGSCB. Though Trustworth Computing is mostly marketing hype, from an inside perspective, it's more oriented towards eliminating buffer overflows, ensuring privacy of data, etc. --Timbatron 05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've reported this to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for all the 71.141.* ip addresses under the 'moderate' section. --Nathan J. Yoder 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. --Maru (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Symbolics

The article says, "As no agreement could be reached, most of the remaining lab hackers founded Symbolics." Then the very next sentence reads, "Symbolics recruited most of the remaining hackers — most notably Bill Gosper — and they left the AI lab." So, did most of the remaining hackers found Symbolics, or were they recruited by Symbolics? HistoryBA 01:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Both. Noftsker had an idea for Symbolics, and they left the Lab for it- incidentally becoming the founders/first employees. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Killjoy

Not to be a killjoy but the guideline "Make sure, however, that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link" from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) clearly indicates the format of the Java joke is unencyclopedic. It's a good joke, but this is an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 07:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Can someone unlock this page? --Jacoplane 21:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. I think it's been long enough. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak

This biography is generally very weak. For one, it does not introduce Stallman as a controversial figure who's actions were questionable. I would put a POV flag on it, but I fear that would set off some sort of violent, bloody conflict. I don't know enough about Stallman to revise it, but conflict in the AI Lab is much more interesting the Decline of MIT's Hacker Culture makes it. As an example, http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ has many interesting insights that could be responsibly incorporated. For the second result on Google for "stallman", this is a very poor introduction to the character. In fact, almost every article about Stallman on the Internet in a better introduction to him than this article. --149.169.20.229 05:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"renowned hacker" vs "notable programmer"

An anon changed the former to the latter in the lead. I can't help but think that if rms is not a hacker, then who is? On the other hand, I can't disagree with the latter. Any comments/opinions? --Stevage 11:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say "programmer" is more appropriate than "hacker". He most certainly is a hacker's hacker, and it should be in the article, but, while considering what should go in the intro, I think something to keep in mind is that his being a programmer is better known than his being a hacker. I find the harder decision to be "renowned" vs. "notable". After a while I decided the latter, but maybe even better would be "acclaimed"? Just my 2c. --Gronky 15:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

He wrote Emacs. I'd go with "acclaimed" if we can find a sufficiently gushy article to reference. --Stevage 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As well as Emacs, he wrote gcc, gdb, and others, and if you look at the Recognition section of the article you'll find at least 5 prestigious awards which are for his software development. (entries 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8. Maybe more than 5, I don't know what the honorary doctorates are for.) So he's not just notable, he has been noted. "Renowned" is not great since he is not renowned by the general public. "Acclaimed" is a good fit because he has been acclaimed by the respected organizations listed in the Recognition section. I wasn't too happy with "acclaimed" at first, and I was going to then suggest "noteworthy", but after thinking about it, "acclaimed" is quite apt, and "noteworthy" has the same flaw as "notable". So, in light of new evidence: how about "acclaimed"? --Gronky 23:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd support that. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Who has met him?

I don't claim to know RMS at all. I just met him today as he was giving a speech on the Free Software Movement at WPI, where I am currently going to school. He doesn't seem to be as abrasive as I gather from a lot of the criticisms against him, and is actually pretty funny. So, I ask of you: do any of you people know him in person? Tell me about your experiences. I'm curious. EDIT: forgot to sign. --130.215.171.13 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've met him at conferences and talks and conversed with him over email. He's an extremely unique and intriguing character who's always seemed to me to be gracious. He has a strong personality but his most heated comments are otherwise both polite and relevant. There's a phrase used on the left, "The personal is political", that I think arose from second-wave feminism but is now used in a variety of contexts. I think of this recent adage when I hear from Richard's critics. They often make seemingly apolitical criticisms of his personality or character, but if you look closer, the deeper problem is often rooted in their political--or as Richard would say, "philosophical" or "moral"--differences. If you're familiar with his biography, you know he's a busy individual. This can make working with him trying because he can be short with you and have little patience for those who disagree. In a situation involving some of these critics, RMS is quoted, "We want to cooperate, but we are not doormats." --216.114.169.154 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Prince Kropotkin of Software Chapter 3 of the open ebook Portraits of Open Source Pioneers

Why is this link continuously deleted? Of all the external links to there are none that are critical of him right now. The person is reputable, there are links to Nikolai Bezroukov's site in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond, Open source, Alan Cox, GNU General Public License, Linux kernel, John Socha, and other articles. The site is informative and well researched and includes much information on open source and non open source software. Clearly the site is not a troll as I'm sure some of you will call it, it just presents an alternative view of the open source movement. Just because you don't agree with him or think he is too critical of RMS doesn't mean you can delete the link. A link critical of him deserves to be included just as much as a link singing his praises. GNUwatch 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, This has already been rejected on 02:57, 21 December 2005 on the basis of it not being a reputable or widely known source and authored by a person who's only reputation is perhaps as a troll.[3] --Ashawley 19:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote? It is referenced in many places on wikipedia (as can be seen in my original post). It is reputalbe, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it not reputable. It is not shocking that Eric S. Raymond is going to disagree with a book that is critical of him. Did you expect him to write a response saying that Bezroukov got it all right? You can't just label everything you disagree with as a troll, people can have different opinions you know. GNUwatch 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact there is a "Criticisms" section on the page. I have not changed my opinion because these sort of links appear on other Wikipedia articles. --Ashawley 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, That page is not deleted because it contains criticism, it is deleted because it contains crap. That page simply lumps together the text from numerous third-party webpages and slashdot comments and the author has added his own wildly speculative and usually incorrect interpretations. Gronky 12:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: An eyesore

The "trivia" section of this article is an eyesore of a laundry list. Any volunteers to start trimming away the cruft? Nandesuka 19:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of it, however the grounds for removing some items from the trivia section was that was that they were insufficiently trivial. So maybe they need mention elsewhere. Phr 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The trivia section used to be in rough shape and was, up until now, much better. I'm archiving the old section here. I think people are letting themselves get to dstracted from a fun and legitimate section of the article.

Old Trivia (January 29, 2006)

• An aficionado of a wide range of music from Conlon Nancarrow to folk, Stallman is the author of the filky Free Software Song. He has performed renaissance music and Balinese gamelan music, as well as international folk dance. He plays the recorder.
• Stallman is a science fiction fan and occasionally goes to conventions.
• Stallman gave POSIX its name.
• In 1977, Stallman published an AI truth maintenance system called dependency-directed backtracking. The paper was co-authored by Gerald Jay Sussman. He jokes that "This is how the computer can avoid exploding when you ask it a self-contradictory question." [4]
• When asked who his influences are, he has remarked that he admires Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich. He has also commented: "I admire Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, even though I criticize some of the things that they did."
• Stallman has never learned Java. He has done a little bit of programming on Java, but he used the C and Lisp programming languages.
• Stallman did not participate in the counterculture of the 60s, but found its rejection of wealth as the main goal of life inspiring.
• Stallman initially named the GNU HURD kernel "Alix" after his then-girlfriend, who managed a Unix computer facility and had told her friends "They ought to name a kernel after me."
• Stallman speaks fluent English and French, moderately fluent Spanish, and flawed Indonesian. He has studied Latin, Chinese, Hungarian, and Navajo, but did not reach the point of being able to speak them. He feels he has mastered a language when he can make puns in it. [5]
• In 2004, having been asked, he endorsed Hugo Chavez, recommending people to vote No in the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004
• The movie documentary Revolution OS features interviews with Stallman.
• He has been the subject, or some would say the instigator, of a number of widely-publicized flamewars. Although occasionally for technical reasons (Tcl vs. Scheme), most of these flamewars have revolved around the use of non-free software.
• Stallman founded the League for Programming Freedom in 1989 to fight software patents and interface copyright. The League never gained the momentum Stallman hoped for, and has become dormant.
• In 1999, Stallman called for development of a free on-line encyclopedia through the means of inviting the public to contribute articles. See GNUPedia. [6]
• Stallman cannot swim.
• Stallman is on the Advisory Council of teleSUR, a Latin American TV station
• Linus Torvalds said: “Think of Richard Stallman as the great philosopher and think of me as the engineer.” [7]
• Stallman notably produced the Emacs editor; its popularity rivaled that of another editor vi, spawning the editor wars; Stallman's humourous take on this was to saint himself "St. Ignucius" / "St. IGNUcius" (of the Church of Emacs). [8] [9]
• For years, Stallman's account on the Free Software Foundation computer systems had an empty password, as Stallman believed in as few barriers as possible.[10] This allowed anyone to use Stallman's account for any purpose. With the rise in popularity of the Internet in the early 1990s, increasing vandalism and hacking attempts from FSF systems forced a secret password to be used.
• In his Personal Ad [11] he declares himself an atheist, reputedly intelligent, with unusual interests in politics, science, music and dance.
• His initials, RMS, are also the initials of Microsoft's Rights Management Services, the DRM component of Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista.

GNU manifesto

I think the GNU Manifesto was first published in 1983 or 1984 (need a cite). The 1985 publication mentioned was the printed version in Dr Dobbs. See also Talk:GNU Manifesto. Phr 08:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

An apology

I'd like to apologise for some of my past comments on this page, which were at times provocative and juvenile. Such material was both unbecoming of me and at odds with the stated intention of this site. Petrus4 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Lots of these items are worthless, and many of them belong in the copy of the article... at the moment it reads like a lazy schoolboy essay written in bullet-point form.

Examples:

• "Stallman did not participate in the counterculture of the 60s, but found its rejection of wealth as the main goal of life inspiring." -- Hardly trivia since it describes his main motivations. It needs to be sourced and written into the article copy, or removed.
• "POSIX" -- again, hardly trivia. It needs to be sourced and included in the article copy or removed.
• "He cannot swim" -- big deal. This is relevant how?
• "He can't program in Java" -- relevant how? He has talked about "The Java Trap" in the past. If the article had part discussing his objections to Java, it might be relevant there. As it is, it's just a rather pointless factoid.
• "Right Management System" -- pointless bit of cruft, unless Microsoft chose the name specifically to irk him, and I don't think they did.
• "Linus Torvalds said: 'Think of Richard Stallman as the great philosopher and think of me as the engineer' -- interesting, but not for a trivia section. More appropriate if written into the article section discussing his relationship with Linux. -Motor (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Most of these points -- Java, POSIX, Linus, philosophy -- need to be moved and/or expanded on, not deleted. Until they are expanded on, they should stay, as a form of "stub". --GRuban 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of the most obviously poor entries (I'm waving on the SF entry... it should probably go too, unless it is a major influence on him).. I added the fact template to others -- without sources for these, they should be removed. Additionally, as I said above, once these items are sourced many of them should be written into the article rather than left in a shoddy bullet-point form. -Motor (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

All of those, except the Java and influences ones, cna be sourced to at least Free as in Freedom. --maru (talk) contribs 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

People shouldn't complain so much about the Trivia section. The article has a bibliography of which people should be familiar before questioning the article's accuracy, and it has been edited (and verified) by the article's subject, so let's not get too obsessed with the this section. Suprisingly, the biographical section of the article had most of the inaccuracies fixed directly by RMS, and not so much the trivia section.--71.241.138.70 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"People shouldn't complain so much about the Trivia section." -- the Trivia section is an eye-sore on this article. "Suprisingly, the biographical section of the article had most of the inaccuracies fixed directly by RMS, and not so much the trivia section" -- What does this have to do with requesting cites for the facts in the trivia section, and removing obviously irrelevant nonsense to tighten up a poorly-structured article? Not to mention requesting that many of trivia section entries are not trivia at all, but substantive claims that should be written into the article rather than left as bullet-points. It's not a matter of accuracy, so much as tidying up a bad article and wanting the information in it verified to a higher standard. That's why I've re-reverted you... anon IP editor. BTW: by adding the fact template I'm requesting more than just "it came from this book"... preferably a page number so it can be easily verified by others... there are too many people adding crap to this article to trust just one person, especially if they happen to be an anon-IP editor. -Motor (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Java entry can be considered confirmed by Stallman- I think he may even have been the one who added it in. Of course, then there is concern about verifiability... --maru (talk) contribs 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the Java entry (again), because this is an encyclopedia. If RMS, or any other editor, wants to make clever puns, I suggest they start a weblog, not use Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic content. Nandesuka 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The trivia section is definitely not an eyesore. The article is probably one of the higher quality biographical articles on the site. Although silly, the trivia section is fine and people have been distracted by it (or instead the criticism section) while the main biographical material has not been verified by the same standard (proof by RMS's fixes). These pleas to make the article more "encyclopedic" fall flat when paper encyclopedias are not required to have footnotes and don't have trivia sections. If having trivia sections doesn't prescribe to your sensibilities, then I'm sorry to hear that. But don't use fact checking to enforce your motives. Further, attempting to find a compromise by merging trivia items into the main article will likely result in an article with poor style. People familiar with Stallman (or Stallman himself) have and will continue to speak up when inaccuracies exist. This current exercise is futile and wasteful. You win the edit war; I'll just surrender. --65.19.87.53 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Core speech

"explainging the proposed changes became a core speech." -- typo aside, 'core speech' sounds like a bit of opaque management-speak. If by "core", you mean that explaining the changes to the GPL is one of the most important parts of his agenda when speaking, then it needs to be stated clearly and in plain English. - Motor (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can smooth the wording, please do. My meaning is that before 2006, he had 3 speeches (each with a seperate topic) that he gave over and over again. Now, he has a 4th speech, and during 2006 he will give it over and over again. Gronky 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

reverts in Criticism

Hi, 64.222.109.153 and 71.241.136.108 (are you one person or two?) Thanks for helping out; I see you think the number of sources on the Emacs/XEmacs split here should be limited and the others moved to XEmacs.

I don't much mind where that material goes (except that XEmacs is a little messy at present.) But I do ask you to be more careful in your reverts. Each of you now (or you, twice, as the case may be) has, while cutting down the discussion of the Emacs conflict, reverted edits I made that clarified text, labeled links, and fixed typos. As you might imagine, I find this a little frustrating.

After the first instance, I made a comment at User_talk:64.222.109.153, but in hindsight I suppose that wasn't the right place. =) I am a little new around here.

Thanks,

Greg Price 08:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored again the edits unrelated to XEmacs. Please don't revert them (unless you have a reason, in which case please give it here.)

I made a new rewrite of the XEmacs text, too, for two reasons:

• Stallman wasn't "at the center" of the split; necessarily it had two ends, and he was just one of them.
• The link to JWZ's email archive should be labeled.

If you think the resulting text is too long, please go ahead and tighten it. But please don't just revert it without discussing it here.

Thanks,

Greg Price 08:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your initial rewrite was good, except for the formatting, and 71.241.136.108 should not have deleted it. I've restored the Xemacs discussion that lists Ben Wing's, Zawinski's, etc. criticisms separately. I think devoting a few sentences to the topic is not excessive. Nandesuka 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about ignoring Gnp's grammar fixes. I thought I had moved things pretty close to as-is to XEmacs, and reverted sentences back to a form agreeable for some time (In Wikipedia time at least). The material belongs at XEmacs not just because it duplicates material, but its more notable at the XEmacs article. The poor quality of the XEmacs article is only reason to improve it, not to avoid putting your contributions there.

Links that serve as references don' always have link text. I'd think it could result in poorly chosen link names and make external links appear like Wikipedia entries. There could be a Wikipediai guideline on this, but it contradicts the style in this article. --71.241.136.108 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)