Re: elisp's cl package. Don't understand the notice about eval-when-compile

[Xah Lee]

I just want to note here that wild non-fact and philosophical elements
are starting to flying in.

Richard Stallman, his use of “free” in his concept of Free Software
and Free Software Foundation, is a abuse of English. I do not know he
did this with the intent to ride the ambiguity for the marketing
benefit of the catcher word “free”, or innocently due to the fuzziness
of English. In any case, from the numerous talks and lectures he gave,
it is apparent he is abusing the concept of freedom to gain
supporters.

Please do not use the word “free” like he want you to. When referring
to his philosophical stance of software and his foundation, please say
perhaps put a quote such as: “Free Software” and “Free Software
Foundation”, or FSF Software.

Don't say “non-free” to refer to commercial software that are disliked
by FSF. Simply just say software, or commercial software if so, or non-
FSF ideal software.

For those of you FSF or Open Source fanatics who are ignorant of basic
literacy of pertinent social sciences, i recommend:

• Basic Economics 3rd Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy
by Thomas Sowell
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy/dp/0465002609

I read the first edition in the dot come age circa 2000, alone with
other books that helped me understand stocks and related financial
things. I've read Thomas's book 2 more times in the early 2000s.

• A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056

The above can teach you something about FSF ideals.

Personally, i'm a mild FSF supporter. Not out of any moral senses, but
simply the fact that software can be duplicated without cost,
therefore traditional copy right law may not work well and FSF's model
might be better. For detail, see:

• “Free” Software Morality, Richard Stallman, and Paperwork
Bureaucracy
  http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ2/FSF_philosophy.html

• Responsible Software Licensing
  http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

On Mar 26, 6:42 pm, Kevin Rodgers <kevin.d.rodg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Leo wrote:
> > Emacs is resistant to innovations. This is going to kill it at some
> > point. But maybe it is good as it shows emacs is subject to 'survival of
> > the fittest' after all.
>
> Or the converse: Emacs is the environment, and alleged innovations
> survive or not if they are fit for Emacs.
>
> > Having used GNU/Linux for 7 years and windows for 9 months, I am getting
> > my first macbook. I think paying a price for a good service, a peace of
> > mind and most importantly, saving hours and hours of time is far more
> > important in life than having the feeling of 'I'm using 100% free/open
> > source software', and the mac world is full of innovations. In this
> > regard, it seems the free software movement is out of touch.
>
> I used various proprietary Unix implementations (primarily Sun) for most
> of my 24 years in the profession before being forced to Windows 3 or 4
> years ago.  I only got a computer for home use a couple years ago, and
> it is an Apple (Mac OS X).  But I am very aware of the enormous open
> software and free software contributions to the technical success of
> both commercial Unix and Mac OS X.  They are both far more useable in
> the true sense than any Microsoft OS _because_ of open software and free
> software.  And I've never felt like I've wasted time using or
> contributing to the open and/or free software in those systems.
>
> > I learnt from #emacs on freenode the saying "Free software is free if
> > your time is useless", which wakes me up to the guilt of wasting time.
>
> That saying is false on a couple levels:
>
> 1. The freedom granted by free software is what allows you to use your
>     time as _you_ wish.
>
> 2. Using non-free software makes you guilty of wasting the time of the
>     persons who designed, implemented, documented, and distributed it:
>     because inevitably there will be bugs to fix or opportunities to
>     enhance it that will go undone because *you and everybody else*
>     _can't_.
>
> 2. It reminds me of a _former_ CTO at my company who made this point
>     when he introduced himself to the IT staff: We are not system
>     integrators. He is long gone, because he didn't understand that
>     _all_ software development is system integration.  And that depends
>     on open and free software, which the present CIO of my company (who
>     hired that CTO) still doesn't understand.