> called Libre Office these days, but that isn't what RMS wants.
If you bothered to read the mail thread, you would see that RMS answer that specific question. The answer he gave was that Libre Officer do not have the multi-buffer system of emacs, and the core design is not made to be a lisp interpreter. As such, adding emacs like features to libre office would unlikely work effectively in the libre office project.
It would simply be easier and less work to modify emacs to do WYSIWYG, then adding emacs work flow and emacs features to libre office.
I don't see how what you just quoted contradicts Chuck's "[Libre Office] isn't what RMS wants" post. Libre Office is a free software WYSIWYG word processor with an extremely powerful feature set. But it isn't what RMS wants, because it doesn't have some things Emacs does.
It would be easier and less work to modify Emacs to do WYSIWYG than to add Emacs work flow and features to LibreOffice.
I'd suggest that you're vastly underestimating what would be involved in "doing WYSIWYG" to a sufficient degree that Emacs would actually be useful as a word processor to people who are not already dedicated Emacs users. I did read the mail thread, and it's pretty clear to me that a lot of the folks there -- and I do not mean to take away from their brilliance by saying this -- don't have a blinking clue what a full-featured word processor is capable of.
The reason that this hasn't been done, I suspect, is that the intersection of users for whom WYSIWYG is important and for whom having Emacs-ish features is important is virtually nil.
"The reason that this hasn't been done, I suspect, is that the intersection of users for whom WYSIWYG is important and for whom having Emacs-ish features is important is virtually nil."
We know from inspection the value is at least 1.0 (RMS).
> And he's 100% accurate, it has been 25 years, and there is an open source WYSIWYG word processor, called Libre Office these days, but that isn't what RMS wants. He wants someone to do the work to make his tool of choice into something which can do what he wants to do in it.
It is not that RMS simply want his tool of choice, but rather tool that has the work flow and features he needs. Its like someone comming from git, and wanting that workflow in cvs. Its not the name or code base of the program that matter. Chuck's post however implies NIH and a stubbornness in using other peoples tools, rather than a need for a specific work flow and feature sets.
If you bothered to read the mail thread, you would see that RMS answer that specific question. The answer he gave was that Libre Officer do not have the multi-buffer system of emacs, and the core design is not made to be a lisp interpreter. As such, adding emacs like features to libre office would unlikely work effectively in the libre office project.
It would simply be easier and less work to modify emacs to do WYSIWYG, then adding emacs work flow and emacs features to libre office.