* "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <matom...@iname.com> | I suddenly realized that the current model where when a company goes | bankrupt or decides to kill a product and the source is not released is | WRONG.
no, it isn't wrong. from a customer perspective, it may be undesirable, the creator and owner of something has every right to what he sees fit, and you have no business at all telling him or anyone else that what he's doing is wrong. first, respect the inalienable right to property and the fruits of one's labor. only _then_ can you suggest ways to _entice_ the owner to do what you think would be desirable for _both_ parties.
as long as you guys who want something from others do not recognize that you, as users, have _no_ right to demand aything from those who create it, you will cause your own downfall as soon as you create something that others might want. if you don't think that will ever happen, you _still_ have no right to demand anything at all of those who bring something into existence. if you do, the next step is to _demand_ that those who can bring something into existence do so under threat of various penalties.
having been on the receiving end of such demands, in my case from the Norwegian government, which for a few years decided to tax me based on what I should have been _able_ to earn, and therefore _probably_ earned without reporting to them, so I should pay taxes on it, plus penalties for lying to them, I am very strongly opposed to anyone who makes the sort of claims you do. I consider the claims you make to be truly evil, just like the Norwegian tax system is truly evil.
| Maybe if some people get bitten like this in the States or countries with | similar legal systems, they should file a class action lawsuit in the | hope of establishing a precedent so that things like that cannot happen | anymore.
so you're seriously proposing to _sue_ people because they didn't want to give you what you wanted from them? why would _anyone_ want to give the slightest bit of evidence of what they were capable of under your system? the only guarantee not to be sued by you would be if you didn't know what people had that you could want. think about it.
I don't think you know bankruptcy law, which would not be particularly surprising, since so few people care about the law. well, I do, so I know that when a company goes into Chapter 11 (Reorganization), anyone can basically come up and say "I'll help keep you alive if I get X, Y, and Z if still can't make it", or you could even offer to buy X, Y, and Z right there. if a company goes into Chapter 7 (Liquidation), you get to offer a ridiculously low amount of money for something that turned out not to sustain the creator. all that matters to the managers of the bankruptcy is that they recover the outstanding debt. (this the best approximation to garbage collection the business world knows about.)
so believe it or not, you _already_ have the opportunity to buy the source code when a company folds, and the creditors are not even _allowed_ to demand more for the company assets than to cover their debt, because then the requirements of Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings have been violated: upon opening Chapter 7 proceedings, the owners have _lost_ all rights to the assets, and the real owners are now the creditors. should they come out with a _profit_, a lot of companies would have to fight off Chapter 7 proceedings from greedy competitors, so it's illegal to make a profit after Chapter 7, and a court will force the creditors to go back to Chapter 11. when in Chapter 11, the company is deemed able to continue operation provided that some of the debts are consolidated, and that, too, includes _selling_ assets to various bidders. the managers of the process, elected by the creditors, aim to "restart" the business and to make more money than they would if they simply waited and liquidated the assets.
I wish people would get more interested in _knowing_ the world they want to change. I can't keep lecturing obnoxious morons forever just because they have these wild-eyed desires that they think can be accomodated if they start a revolution or something.
| Besides that, people should start asking for such kind of thing when | negotiating a purchase. Management of the living company should not have | much trouble giving in, as they are supposed to be in "the company will | live forever and our products will be a success". Saying no implies they | are uncertain about their future and sends out a "you'd better look | somewhere else" message.
so if your employer asks you if you would like to donate your liver upon your timely or untimely demise, you fully expect that if you decline, your employer should consider your liver to be damaged goods and fire you because you _might_ be an alcoholic? and you do not consider such a request to be slightly suspicious, such as allowing your employer to force you to leave your liver when you get fired? (insert Monty Python sketch for best effect.)
here's a lithmus test on "good ideas": if it were applied to you, would you still think it's a good idea? in other words: if you can't imagine yourself as the vendor, maybe it's time to drop the good idea stuff, too?
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" <matom...@iname.com> writes:
> I suddenly realized that the current model where when a company goes > bankrupt or decides to kill a product and the source is not released > is WRONG.
It's not wrong of course, it's just one way of doing things. The classic solution is for the source to be put in escrow, which effectively means that if the company goes under, or something happens, the source gets released to the client. Large companies dealing with small ones often seem to insist on this.
>I suddenly realized that the current model where when a company goes >bankrupt or decides to kill a product and the source is not released is WRONG. >Maybe if some people get bitten like this in the States or countries with similar >legal systems, they should file a class action lawsuit in the hope of establishing >a precedent so that things like that cannot happen anymore. Besides that, people >should start asking for such kind of thing when negotiating a purchase. Management >of the living company should not have much trouble giving in, as they are supposed >to be in "the company will live forever and our products will be a success". Saying >no >implies they are uncertain about their future and sends out a "you'd better look >somewhere else" >message.
In general, if you are worried about this sort of thing, you require source code escrow in your contract for the software. Of course, this only applies to companies with which you write an actual contract (i.e., shrink-wrapped software you use will usually not have such). Also note that the willingness for the software supplier to sign such a contract with you will vary in proportion to the amount of the sale you're willing to give him...
Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> writes: > It's not wrong of course, it's just one way of doing things. The > classic solution is for the source to be put in escrow, which > effectively means that if the company goes under, or something > happens, the source gets released to the client. Large companies > dealing with small ones often seem to insist on this.
But I hit the send key to early.
What I should have added was that putting stuff into escrow may add a burden to small companies which they may not be able to afford. It's more than just putting dunp tapes in a safe somewhere, because it requires you to factor out the stuff that should be in escrow from that which shouldn't be, and that's all work. So a client should expect to pay extra for this.
Erik Naggum wrote: > * "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <matom...@iname.com> > | I suddenly realized that the current model where when a company goes > | bankrupt or decides to kill a product and the source is not released is > | WRONG.
> no, it isn't wrong. from a customer perspective, it may be undesirable, > the creator and owner of something has every right to what he sees fit,
I am just asking for a better WARRANTY.
> I don't think you know bankruptcy law, which would not be particularly > surprising, since so few people care about the law. well, I do, so I > know that when a company goes into Chapter 11 (Reorganization), anyone
I meant bankrupt as definitely dead. Not Chapter 11 (living dead). A customerhas invested (in the broad sense of the word) in the company, so it would be very honest that he has some rights at liquidation time, including
1. That the liquidation process does not take too long to accomplish 2. That he can oppose (like in Switzerland any neighbour can start a procedure against some new construction) to selling of the technology to a particular party because (for example): - The party's interest is in burying the product - The party plans on raising the maintenance fees by an order of magnitude - You just don't want to have anything to do with the party.
> so if your employer asks you if you would like to donate your liver upon > your timely or untimely demise, you fully expect that if you decline, > your employer should consider your liver to be damaged goods and fire you > because you _might_ be an alcoholic? and you do not consider such a > request to be slightly suspicious, such as allowing your employer to > force you to leave your liver when you get fired? (insert Monty Python > sketch for best effect.)
You're getting into Naggum hyperbole here. My employer has nothing to do with my liver. However, it might be argued that they want a warrantly that I did not write some undocumented, unmaintainable code somewhere, asking for the brain cells in charge would not be unreasonable. But then I could say 'sorry, no waranty'. Just like they can.
But there's something different between the two: in one case you're talking about a person's rights, and in the other a corporation. They are different kind of entities for law, fortunately, so I expect a Constitution to forbid an employer to ask for my body parts, and the non-existence of any laws forbidding companies to give me such the kind of warranty I'd like. If I might push it, some laws taking care of points 1 and 2 above would not be bad, either.
Tim Bradshaw wrote: > What I should have added was that putting stuff into escrow may add a > burden to small companies which they may not be able to afford. It's > more than just putting dunp tapes in a safe somewhere, because it > requires you to factor out the stuff that should be in escrow from > that which shouldn't be, and that's all work. So a client should > expect to pay extra for this.
I think that's fair. What is not is that a shoestring operation which shelled out 5K$, invested time and effort, and put their trust in a good alternative offering (by a company in good shape!) is suddenly informed that they have pulled the plug, and _with luck_ they are offered the sources for, say, 10K$ (when even coming up with 2K$ is a big deal).
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > no, it isn't wrong. from a customer perspective, it may be undesirable, > the creator and owner of something has every right to what he sees fit, > and you have no business at all telling him or anyone else that what he's > doing is wrong. first, respect the inalienable right to property and the > fruits of one's labor. only _then_ can you suggest ways to _entice_ the > owner to do what you think would be desirable for _both_ parties.
The inalienable right to property... That means, do not bother responding to Erik unless you are ready to get an earful from a tireless poster who will not rest until everyone respects the ludicrous libertarian credo of inalienable property rights.
> here's a lithmus test on "good ideas": if it were applied to you, would > you still think it's a good idea? in other words: if you can't imagine > yourself as the vendor, maybe it's time to drop the good idea stuff, too?
Yah, well, most people on the planet are able to distinguish between their liver, and a peice of software.
-- Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> Less matter, more form! - Bruno Schulz
>> I have a sad story to tell (please anyone correct me if I'm wrong): >> satisfied customers of ILOG Talk have developed a lot of software for it, >> and contributed infrastructure back to ILOG, who incorporated it in >> the main source. All in all, it's been a happy story for 7 years. >> But one day, ILOG decided it was not making money in the LISP business, >> and announced Talk would no more be maintained. Good bye, bug fixes, >> good bye ports, good bye ILOG Talk.
>I suddenly realized that the current model where when a company goes >bankrupt or decides to kill a product and the source is not released is WRONG. >Maybe if some people get bitten like this in the States or countries with similar >legal systems, they should file a class action lawsuit in the hope of establishing >a precedent so that things like that cannot happen anymore. Besides that, people >should start asking for such kind of thing when negotiating a purchase. Management >of the living company should not have much trouble giving in, as they are supposed >to be in "the company will live forever and our products will be a success". Saying >no implies they are uncertain about their future and sends out a "you'd better look >somewhere else" message.
Although Erik already replied concerning the moral aspects of this idea, I do want to correct any possible false impression that ILOG does not offer source code escrow services to its clients. It does, and many companies take advantage of this offer.
It was indeed too bad that we had to cancel the Talk project as I still believe it offered several advanced and useful features that Lisp systems still do not have, but we did try to do all we could to ease the pain of customers, including providing continued maintenance well beyond the end of the product's life and including continuing to provide a free Linux version of the product. It might have been a good idea to provide the source code as well, but upper management decided against it to keep the IP within ILOG in case of future need.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > so you're seriously proposing to _sue_ people because they didn't want to > give you what you wanted from them? why would _anyone_ want to give the > slightest bit of evidence of what they were capable of under your system?
This is probably just a disconnect between US and Norwegian law, Erik. In the US, we are encouraged to sue people for any reason any time we feel like they have something we want. I often have to sue someone just to get attention at a fast-food place. It's a way of life for us that is often not appreciated by foreigners, perhaps because they're not as facile with the required paperwork. It's fun once you get used to it, though... and it's ESPECIALLY fun to do meta. For example, suing people who are ahead of you in the line to sue people... --Kent
p.s. people don't mind telling you what they're capable of under this system because they can get sued for not providing it whether or not they were capable... telling you doesn't increase their liability.
On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 18:03:35 GMT, Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> wrote: >Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes:
>> no, it isn't wrong. from a customer perspective, it may be undesirable, >> the creator and owner of something has every right to what he sees fit, >> and you have no business at all telling him or anyone else that what he's >> doing is wrong. first, respect the inalienable right to property and the >> fruits of one's labor. only _then_ can you suggest ways to _entice_ the >> owner to do what you think would be desirable for _both_ parties.
>The inalienable right to property... That means, do not bother >responding to Erik unless you are ready to get an earful from a >tireless poster who will not rest until everyone respects the >ludicrous libertarian credo of inalienable property rights.
From the customer's perspective, you have no business at all telling him or anyone else that what they're asking for is wrong.
The customer has the unalienable right to property and to the fruits of their labours. If someone tries to deny this via going out of business or otherwise trying to stop supporting a piece of software, this takes away from the customer the use of software that they have paid good money for.
Open Source *does* mean never having to worry about a system becoming unmaintainable simply because a company goes out of business. There may be other reasons for software becoming diminishingly maintainable; if the source code is at least available, this makes the task less difficult...
-- "Just because the code is intended to cause flaming death is no reason to get sloppy and leave off the casts." - Tim Smith, regarding sample (F0 0F C7 C8) Pentium Death code on comp.os.linux.advocacy cbbro...@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
In article <7c1fsc$4t...@ffx2nh3.news.uu.net>, "Harley Davis" <spamless_davis@spamless_ilog.com> writes:
>>> ... > It was indeed too bad that we had to cancel the Talk project as I still > believe it offered several advanced and useful features that Lisp systems > still do not have, but we did try to do all we could to ease the pain of > customers, including providing continued maintenance well beyond the end of > the product's life and including continuing to provide a free Linux version > of the product. It might have been a good idea to provide the source code > as well, but upper management decided against it to keep the IP within ILOG > in case of future need.
Aren't there licenses thast let you release source code and still retain the IP rights?
h...@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes: > Aren't there licenses thast let you release source code and still retain > the IP rights?
Certainly. Contract law permits this. Two people can basically agree to do anything [legal] between the two of them and make it binding. Of course, if one violates the contract and tells others, getting the genie back in the bottle is tricky. I think this is what Trade Secret law is about, although I confess I've not run across a formal explanation of trade secrets in my informal study of the law, so I can't tell you the mechanics of it.
Harley Davis wrote: > Although Erik already replied concerning the moral aspects of this idea, I > do want to correct any possible false impression that ILOG does not offer > source code escrow services to its clients. It does, and many companies > take advantage of this offer.
We didn't know about all this stuff. I guess we were still too inexperienced.
> It was indeed too bad that we had to cancel the Talk project as I still > believe it offered several advanced and useful features that Lisp systems > still do not have, but we did try to do all we could to ease the pain of > customers, including providing continued maintenance well beyond the end of > the product's life and including continuing to provide a free Linux version > of the product. It might have been a good idea to provide the source code > as well, but upper management decided against it to keep the IP within ILOG > in case of future need.
Yes. ILOG was honest when they cancelled Talk. However, I think that even if you got a source license for free that might not help you really (imagine if the thing is like the CMUCL compiler, what newcomer can fully understand that?, and then, if you're a single developer, that will suck the time and money for your _application_). I think that if the software is not sold so some company that actively develops it (just `maintenance' was not enough for us in the case of Talk, e.g. while negotiating the purchase we got a verbal commitment that thread friendliness would be improved), the only way for many customers to be able to continue using the thing is for the software to be released under some Open Source license that attracts developers.
I think that in these days of slashdot effervescence, ILOG management should consider freeing Talk. You'd be buying a lot of ILOG awareness in a heavily C(++) oriented developer community (your core business), good PR with the Open Source/Linux masses, good PR with lispers (many of them now doing C++!), as well as probably making many in the Talk ex-teamsters glad to see the fruit of their hard work alive.
Of course, you might fear that some of your employees would leave to become full-time ILOG maintainers, but maybe you can arrange that internally.
Regarding myself, well, we moved from ILOG to MzScheme a long time ago, and VRAI is is suspended animation until VC is found, so it's not like I _need_ this to happen (although I might consider switching back if the time comes).
It would just be a Good Thing.
-- Fernando D. Mato Mira Real-Time SW Eng & Networking Advanced Systems Engineering Division CSEM Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157 Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
* "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <matom...@iname.com> | I meant bankrupt as definitely dead. Not Chapter 11 (living dead). A | customerhas invested (in the broad sense of the word) in the company, so | it would be very honest that he has some rights at liquidation time, | including
what? a customer of a product has _invested_ in the company?! this is too fucking nuts to bother discussing.
| My employer has nothing to do with my liver.
so why doesn't the customer of your services invest in you?
Erik Naggum wrote: > * "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <matom...@iname.com> > | I meant bankrupt as definitely dead. Not Chapter 11 (living dead). A > | customerhas invested (in the broad sense of the word) in the company, so > | it would be very honest that he has some rights at liquidation time, > | including
> what? a customer of a product has _invested_ in the company?! this is > too fucking nuts to bother discussing.
Why do I bother inserting parenthesized anti-Naggum countermeasures?
> | My employer has nothing to do with my liver.
> so why doesn't the customer of your services invest in you?
They have invested their trust the day they hired me. Different kind of `investment' [let's see if quotes work] give you moral entitlement to different things (Yes , I said _moral_. The raw material behind legal systems).
Have you ever heard the phrase `The Customer is King"? You can have all the INVESTMENT (money for equity, that kind of thing, got it?) you want, but w/o customers, the company won't be around for long. What's the first thing VCs ask? "Who are your customers?" Tech/originality is not the main issue. So it's not only `no capital -> no company' and `no customers -> no company' but even `no customers -> no capital -> no company'
Well enough. My first sentence should have sufficed, but maybe it's time _you_ get The Treatment (you've got way too violent in the time I've been out. I suggest you spend your government/media-induced hostility elsewhere, say comp.lang.c++, or even better, some bad people in The Real World (TM)).
-- Fernando D. Mato Mira Real-Time SW Eng & Networking Advanced Systems Engineering Division CSEM Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157 Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
: In an article recently published at a free software conference, : http://www.tunes.org/~fare/articles/ll99/index.en.html : I argue that the fate of languages such as LISP, : that integrate metaprogramming, is tied to that of free software: : metaprogramming allows arbitrary gains in software productivity : and reliability, in as much as it is used to cover a larger software : community in space and time. Proprietary software partitioning : prevents such communities from growing past intellectual property barriers; : only free software allows to take full advantage of metaprogramming.
hmm, autolisp won BIG and is proprietary vendor controlled software, not enhanced (the language) since its ancient beginnings. it's not free at all, it's even more expensive than most of the commercial lisps. nevertheless is AutoLISP the worldwide most used lisp type language and an incredible success, dispite all of its flaws. it is indeed a low-level, bad quality language.
VB is another proprietary, low-level, bad quality language which won big. the next paragraph is still true, but the last sentence not.
: I give explanations why proprietary software leads to bad quality : low-level languages, and excludes integrated high-level environments, : and why the metaprogramming style of LISP becomes a disadvantage, : not an advantage, when the infrastructure is proprietary. : This suggests that people who wish LISP to succeed, instead of : seeing the advent of ad-hoc metaprogramming kluges as done in Perl, : should participate in free LISP software and implementation projects.
: If LISP vendors want to win big, they should publish as free software : at least the system infrastructure, and sell service and possibly : peripheral software.
lisp vendors should better attract more commercially successful users and markets. dssl will not make it, guile will not make it, lisp will not win big. it will win big if someone could persuade bill gates that a lisp like language will be better than vb. java had had the potential and strong supporters.
or lisp vendors (or anyone else) should invest in expensive lisp machine or ai type of stuff.
: My article concludes that systems such a Free LISP systems : *shall* eventually overcome the market; : it only depends on us how fast and how well.
Christopher Browne wrote in message ... >On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 18:03:35 GMT, Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> wrote: >>The inalienable right to property... That means, do not bother >>responding to Erik unless you are ready to get an earful from a >>tireless poster who will not rest until everyone respects the >>ludicrous libertarian credo of inalienable property rights.
>From the customer's perspective, you have no business at all telling him >or anyone else that what they're asking for is wrong.
This is true. They may want to say, "No way in hell am I going to sell you that," to the request, but they shouldn't say that you have no right to ask.
>The customer has the unalienable right to property and to the fruits of >their labours. If someone tries to deny this via going out of business >or otherwise trying to stop supporting a piece of software, this takes >away from the customer the use of software that they have paid good >money for.
You should not use the software if you are so concerned about having the source. You can negotiate the source rights or use other software instead or (GASP) write your own. Plus - youc an still "use" the software you have on the systems for which it is licensed. If the hardware goes obsolete, well, YOU've made a mistake on assuming stability of the software and hardware market.
Many software manufacturers will also sell you "subscription" based software where they contract for periodic upgrades of the software for a specific period. If you are stupid enough to depend on upgrades by using a system for which you have no guarantee of upgrades, I'd expect the problem is with YOUR sense of risk.
Not that I WANT to defend the libertarian PoV. It's wrongheaded in many ways. But your arguments are fallacious.
>Open Source *does* mean never having to worry about a system becoming >unmaintainable simply because a company goes out of business. There may >be other reasons for software becoming diminishingly maintainable; if >the source code is at least available, this makes the task less >difficult...
And those who wish to work under this model are allowed to. You can get their software and use it. If you can't get the software that you want to use on the terms you want, write it yourself, distribute it as freeware, and put the other guy out of business.
Reini Urban <rur...@xarch.tu-graz.ac.at> writes: > or lisp vendors (or anyone else) should invest in expensive lisp machine > or ai type of stuff.
i think lisp is *more* than AI. sure it's good for AI, but you can use it for so much more. lisp is stuck in an AI perception rut. people think that's all it's good for -- not true. i'd like to see the non-AI applications of lisp receive more emphasis.
-- J o h a n K u l l s t a m [kulls...@ne.mediaone.net] Don't Fear the Penguin!
* "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <matom...@iname.com> | Why do I bother inserting parenthesized anti-Naggum countermeasures?
because you are too stupid to stop thinking in terms of "anti-Naggum".
also, because you think you'll get away with idiocy and lunacy if you can be sufficiently vague. that may work with others of your kind, but it doesn't work with me. I don't allow you to misuse a term like "invest" and then treat it as if it wasn't misused. this is called "equivocation" and you may succeed in leading others down the garden path, but don't be such an idiot that you get mad when somebody doesn't accept your tricks.
if you have a case, you can make it without equivocation. show us.
> Francois-Rene Rideau <f...@ZhengHe.augustin.thierry> wrote: > : In an article recently published at a free software conference, > : http://www.tunes.org/~fare/articles/ll99/index.en.html > : I argue that the fate of languages such as LISP, > : that integrate metaprogramming, is tied to that of free software: > : metaprogramming allows arbitrary gains in software productivity > : and reliability, in as much as it is used to cover a larger software > : community in space and time. Proprietary software partitioning > : prevents such communities from growing past intellectual property barriers; > : only free software allows to take full advantage of metaprogramming.
> hmm, autolisp won BIG and is proprietary vendor controlled software, not > enhanced (the language) since its ancient beginnings. > it's not free at all, it's even more expensive than most of the commercial > lisps. nevertheless is AutoLISP the worldwide most used lisp type language > and an incredible success, dispite all of its flaws. > it is indeed a low-level, bad quality language.
> VB is another proprietary, low-level, bad quality language which won big. > the next paragraph is still true, but the last sentence not.
Certainly. Free software "success" is rare, it's funny to claim that it will be the worlds savior. Russia has always had free software. Doesn't seem like they've done much innovation. What is the motivation to do something better? "Society" at large wants you to work on fixing the old stuff, not create something new and incompatible. In fact, you'll be ridiculed and outcast for your efforts. Let's say you fail to make something better. Then you get the same treatment, but are also considered stupid too. Let's say you do something clearly and obviously better which the old guard can't ignore. Then they just claim it was their idea and incorporate it into their offering, and still call you stupid. Fundamentally, there is no upside to innovation in a public ownership world. You end up with an establishment in control that doesn't want change.
The nature of private ownership free-market competition is that the "old guard" isn't in control, the buying customers are in charge and they decide what is the best because they pay for their decisions. If you create something truly better, then customers are free to choose that over the old stuff. And the old guard can't just take it over. That's not to say "better" means incompatible. Indeed, in the software business, compatible is of high value.
> : I give explanations why proprietary software leads to bad quality > : low-level languages, and excludes integrated high-level environments, > : and why the metaprogramming style of LISP becomes a disadvantage, > : not an advantage, when the infrastructure is proprietary. > : This suggests that people who wish LISP to succeed, instead of > : seeing the advent of ad-hoc metaprogramming kluges as done in Perl, > : should participate in free LISP software and implementation projects.
> : If LISP vendors want to win big, they should publish as free software > : at least the system infrastructure, and sell service and possibly > : peripheral software.
> lisp vendors should better attract more commercially successful users and > markets. dssl will not make it, guile will not make it, lisp will not win > big. it will win big if someone could persuade bill gates that a lisp like > language will be better than vb. java had had the potential and strong > supporters.
Agreed. But I add two points: 1) The "big players" may in fact buy into a Lisp language under some circumstances. I most definitely think it won't be "Common Lisp, The Standard." 2) Lisp doesn't have to win "big". It only has to win "small".
> or lisp vendors (or anyone else) should invest in expensive lisp machine > or ai type of stuff.
I don't understand this comment.
In my opinion, the world is crying out for a better operating system, they just don't know they can get it until they see something better. The growing popularity of Linux will just make it clear how that need remains unfulfilled. I saw a sound bite from mr. gates the other day saying how so far there hasn't been any real innovation that solves the software-is-too-hard-to-write problem. Java certainly doesn't solve it. "Common Lisp, The Standard" is not the answer to the problem either. And NiCLOS may be no better. At least I'm trying.
> : My article concludes that systems such a Free LISP systems > : *shall* eventually overcome the market; > : it only depends on us how fast and how well.
> we can just hope... :) > but it's not that realistic.
Yeah, "Management by Hope", as Andy Groves, ex-CEO of Intel said regarding Intel's failed memory-chip business.
We all make mistakes. The smart people learn from them.
In article <m2pv6i1dl9....@sophia.axel.nom>, Johan Kullstam
<kulls...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote: >i think lisp is *more* than AI. sure it's good for AI, but you can >use it for so much more. lisp is stuck in an AI perception rut. >people think that's all it's good for -- not true. i'd like to see >the non-AI applications of lisp receive more emphasis.
I couldn't agree more. For example, with suitable libraries for basic numerical operations, Lisp is fantastic for data analysis. I do all my neurophysiology research analysis with Lisp.
ej
-- E.J. Chichilnisky Nospam: to send me mail, please remove the X characters from my email address.
Johan Kullstam <kulls...@ne.mediaone.net> writes: > Reini Urban <rur...@xarch.tu-graz.ac.at> writes:
> > or lisp vendors (or anyone else) should invest in expensive lisp machine > > or ai type of stuff.
> i think lisp is *more* than AI. sure it's good for AI, but you can > use it for so much more. lisp is stuck in an AI perception rut. > people think that's all it's good for -- not true. i'd like to see > the non-AI applications of lisp receive more emphasis.
Agreed. The quote goes "a mind once stretchd by a new idea never regains its original shape". Lisp's mind has been stretched by AI to embrace the hardest of the world's prblems. Many other languages haven't been thus stretched, in many cases because they would snap under the stress. Other languages are often good for what they are good with because people have learned not to stress them much and have adjusted their goals to be doable with the existing technology. Lisp had traditionally been about actually going after your real goals, not about going after goals you make up by dumbing down what you wish you could do... There are many hard problems in the world for which Lisp is well-suited. The key is getting people to use Lisp to do them.
(Note: I do think there are some superficial obstacles to such acceptance. But the fact that there are such superficial obstacles is not itself a triviality. Lisp needs to confront them head on, not pretend they are not there. If you're dying of thirst in a desert and someone approaches carrying water, your problem may seem trivially solved. But if that person doesn't like you and isn't inclined to give you the water, the ordinary sense in which etiquette or persuasion may seem a superficial matter may be elevated to an extreme importance. Lisp is somewhat in this position right now. The details matter, and must be addressed, I think... it may seem obvious to us what the world should do, but the world doesn't see it as obvious. The problem may be contrived, but the need to solve it is not.)
* Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> | The inalienable right to property... That means, do not bother | responding to Erik unless you are ready to get an earful from a tireless | poster who will not rest until everyone respects the ludicrous | libertarian credo of inalienable property rights.
it doesn't mean that at all, of course, but I'm actually happy we know that your brain short-circuits whenever you have to respect ownership.
also, I'm always curious about one thing: when people attack this line, they _always_ forget half of it: you forget "the fruits of one's labor", while others forget "property". the fruits of one's labor argument is not something you hear from libertarian quarters. it might be taken to be purebred communism by the same kind of morons who take the other line for libertarian, but just with a different kind of bad childhood. it's mighty fun to watch people latch onto only one of these -- it offers very valuable insight into how people can't read stuff that doesn't already match their _very_ prejudicious, one-dimensional concepts.
if you look very carefully, 90% of my articles contain traps for morons, stuff that only deranged or retarded people latch onto and get upset about, and I gotta admit that I get a kick out of learning such things.
the best way to make somebody tell you his secrets is to offend those secrets. most people aren't smart enough to shut up at that point.
| Yah, well, most people on the planet are able to distinguish between | their liver, and a peice of software.
sure, but I'm adressing the rest, which are smart enough to "get" analogies and not get hung up in particulars.
thank you for your interjection, Craigh. go play on the highway, now.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > * Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> > | The inalienable right to property... That means, do not bother > | responding to Erik unless you are ready to get an earful from a tireless > | poster who will not rest until everyone respects the ludicrous > | libertarian credo of inalienable property rights.
> it doesn't mean that at all, of course, but I'm actually happy we know > that your brain short-circuits whenever you have to respect ownership.
I have no problem with ownership, Erik.
Inalienable \In*al"ien*a*ble\, a. [Pref. in- not + alienable: cf. F. inali['e]nable.] Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright.
I just have a problem with the concept of "inalienable" rights being used as the basis for intellectual property. Not that I think that there are not good arguments for inalienable rights, even with regards to posessions. But note that inalienable means they cannot be surrendered, or transfered. That makes it difficult to use them as the basis for intellectual property as it exists in the marketplace; patents, copyrights and licensing deals. IP is all about transfer, and exchange, so the concept of "inalienable" property rights is just ludicrous. The phrase "inalienable" as you use it makes no sense and is most likely just a semiotic place marker for "you are not allowed to disagree".
Talk about triggers for idiots, I've already been called a communist twice for that post, as if anyone who disagrees with *inalienable* property rights is a commie bastard with no respect for possessions or the fruits of one's labor.
But anyways who am I to correct you Erik, I disagree you with so I'm obviously already a moron in your book. Just as the previous poster is obviously an imbecile because they posted something which triggered yet another of your tirades. So go ahead and flip the bozo bit on me and anyone else who disagrees with you, we won't mind.
> | Yah, well, most people on the planet are able to distinguish between > | their liver, and a peice of software.
> sure, but I'm adressing the rest, which are smart enough to "get" > analogies and not get hung up in particulars.
The devil is in the details.
Back to Pop-11 hacking...
-- Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> Less matter, more form! - Bruno Schulz
