Re: w32 does not have emacsclient/server

[Lennart Borgman]

David Kastrup wrote:

> Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:
>  
>
> > Yes, nobody has done it yet and I believe there is no one working on
> > it actively at the moment. I raised the issue to see if someone could
> > do it.
> >
> > I have suggested that there might be too few developers on the w32
> > side. In that sense it may actually be part of a strategy.
> >    
>
> Oh nonsense.  How many developers are _assigned_ to ports of Emacs on
> free operating systems?  How many are _assigned_ to ports on
> proprietary Unix-like systems?
>  
Sorry, I think you are misunderstanding me.

> Who do you think has the power to command all those resources?  Why do
> you think we are taking years for the release to finish?  Because the
> strategy does not involve assigning resources.  The only way to work a
> strategy is to accept, encourage or refuse contributions.  And with
> regard to proprietary systems, there is the policy that things like
> Windows-only features will not be accepted.
>
> That takes some of the fun out of working on Emacs for Windows, and so
> might account for a smaller number of developers.  Frankly, I find it
> surprising that the Windows port runs as well as it seemingly does,
> given the minuscule amount of Windows-focused developers.
>  
You make the same guess as I do. What should be allowed and what should 
not be allowed must be handled with care otherwise it will not make 
sense. Not doing that is just exercising power without saying so.

I personally find it quite disturbing that the policies do not allow for 
fetching for example paper size from within Emacs. You can work around 
that, but in the end you have done far less useful work than if it was 
allowed from withing Emacs. This and the small amount of developers I 
believe can cause trouble.

> But that does not change that things like porting emacsclient don't
> happen by either magic or decree.
>  
I do not believe in either magic or decree ;-)

>  
>
> > I would be glad to be proven wrong.
> >    
>
> Before you can be proven wrong, you need to come up with a coherent
> theory.  General moping around that stuff gets not done all by itself
> on your platform is not something that is worth a proof.
I try to share my thoughts on this. Others before me have preferred to 
leave. Since I believe GNU is a good thing I am staying.