> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 23:18:26 -0500 > > Our general policy makes a subtle distinction between these two cases: > > 1. If a nonfree program FOO is not well known, we don't even mention that > it exists. Because we don't want to promote using FOO. > > 2. If a nonfree program FOO is well known and widely used, something to > help and encourage FOO's users to use some GNU packages along with FOO > is good. > > 3. Anything that would encourage the existing users of some GNU packages > to use FOO with them is bad. > > Is SickStart the main scripting language for Windows now? No. > BUT, it is a bad thing if people use SickStart to write scripts > that they could have written in a free scripting language. There are no scripting languages for MS-Windows that are Free Software, AFAIK. > Is there anything we can do to urge people to use Perl or Python > or Bash instead of SickStart? These are not native Windows scripting languages, and so are either unable to access advanced Windows features, or require a lot of additional non-default setup for doing so (and even after that they are unable to access some of those advanced features). > Why would someone, on Windows, use SickStart rather than those other > scripting packages? Does it have some major advantage, for use on > Windows? Yes, it has many advantages. (I don't use it, but I've skimmed the manual.) > Or is it that Microsoft is going to tell everyone that "SickStart is > the scripting language for Windows! KiXtart isn't a Microsoft product, AFAICT. > Maybe we can come up with a way to encourage people to choose some > free and portable scripting language, even when using Windows. One would have to be written first.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4