Re: viper-mode C-[ behavior change in Emacs 24.4

[Emanuel Berg]

John Mastro <john.b.mastro@gmail.com> writes:

>> So then the question is: if not for stable software,
>> why would anyone want software that can be up to two
>> years old, just so that the distro itself is stable?
>
> To minimize the amount of not-strictly-necessary
> change occurring beneath their feet. Even if the
> absolute level of "stability" never changes, some
> users don't want to give up the devil they know for
> the devil they don't.
>
> Consider backwards incompatibilities in e.g.
> libraries, which may or may not count as instability
> depending on how you look at it but can certainly
> force cascading changes even in the absence of
> defects.

I don't know. It is difficult to visualize the
scenarios (and mentalities) you mention as I am not of
that mentality and the fail-case you mention I don't
think I have experienced.

If it is only what you mention, then why are there so
many releases? Does it take that much to just keep the
distro intact? A bunch of dependencies and man pages?

I always was very much in opposition to the
proliferation (or disintegration) of Linux, which
remind me of the selfsame tendency with respect to
programming languages.

I used to say that a new programming language is not as
bas as a new Linux distribution, as the new programming
language at least truly is something new, while the
Linux distro is just a new packeting of the age-old GNU
and X software. Especially when those distros are
reviewed in for example Linux Magazine: "There is a
black background. The default desktop is KDE, and the
default browser is Firefox
some.meaningless.version.number". Why is there a distro
for that? Why don't just retrieve and install whatever
damn software you want? Honestly, that makes me angry
because it is an insult to the advanced computer user.

But now, I sort of think it is much the same with
programming languages. Making a new language with some
changes in syntax and some other phrasings of the
compiler - it is just as lame. It is just intelligent
people who want to work on intelligent project, instead
I think they should put their intelligence to help
humanity. I think their behavior is the behavior of the
aristocrat. But as for technology, I respect those, of
course, which I cannot say about those Linux
distro-forkers...

> Obviously distributions do sometimes skip or modify
> problematic application versions, but my impression
> is that Stefan is right: what gets packaged has more
> to do with their release cycle than a qualitative
> judgment about what's "stable" and what isn't.

Well - the discussion wasn't about if that cycle is or
isn't governed by spelled-out methods, of course it it.
The discussion was if going through that cycle implies
an increased stability for the software itself, not
just the end result, namely the different releases. But
apparently there is no such implication or actual
consequence to it.

-- 
underground experts united