Looking for Lisp compiler
Lisp Newbie
Windows, develiver executables, have sockets implementation and support
multithreading?
Thank you
Coby Beck
"Lisp Newbie" <wann...@lisp.programmer> wrote in message
news:4PKO9.164844$6k.33...@news1.west.cox.net...
> Is there such thing as free Lisp compiler, that can work under Linux and
> Windows, develiver executables, have sockets implementation and support
> multithreading?
Start at www.lisp.org
Delivering executables is the only thing there I don't know if you can get
for free. Usually it is not really what people need/want anyway.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Dave Bakhash
> Delivering executables is the only thing there I don't know if you can
> get for free. Usually it is not really what people need/want anyway.
It's important for a lot of things. To me, the ideal thing is to have a
self-contained executable that depends on as few things as possible
going right. These days, I've found that having the right system
configuration, with the tons of OSs, libraries, application versions,
etc. is becomming harder and harder -- especially in the Unix world.
In a way, Mac OS X + Fink was my attempt to have something as nice as MS
Windows, but at the same time, robust like FreeBSD, and uniform. I
think it wasn't a bad call, but now the problem is that LispWorks
doesn't run on Mac OS X. ACL does, except for the GUI stuff (which I
don't really care about anyway). But getting back to the main story...
...delivering an executable is the end result of what you want to do
with a Lisp application in many cases. In the case of LispWorks, for
example, you can export your application with some of the basic tools
you use during development (e.g. the editor, and a listener). While the
delivered image isn't too tiny in these cases, it's nice to deliver such
a product, and make use of of it all.
My company, for example, delivers not only our core application, but a
built-in listener, editor, and event log console that make use of the LW
development environment. I think there's a lot of value in that (at
least for companies that sell tools).
dave
Marc Spitzer
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>
> > Delivering executables is the only thing there I don't know if you can
> > get for free. Usually it is not really what people need/want anyway.
>
> It's important for a lot of things. To me, the ideal thing is to have a
> self-contained executable that depends on as few things as possible
> going right. These days, I've found that having the right system
> configuration, with the tons of OSs, libraries, application versions,
> etc. is becomming harder and harder -- especially in the Unix world.
I agree the big honken static exe is a good thing, especially now
with disk and ram so cheap, iff you are distributing commercial
software. Otherwise it is not that important.
>
> ...delivering an executable is the end result of what you want to do
> with a Lisp application in many cases. In the case of LispWorks, for
> example, you can export your application with some of the basic tools
> you use during development (e.g. the editor, and a listener). While the
> delivered image isn't too tiny in these cases, it's nice to deliver such
> a product, and make use of of it all.
Yes in almost all commercial, especially shrink rapped, software. Now
if you want do a commercial thing you should be willing, happy even,
to pay vendors money to help you make money. The creation of an exe
in one of the things that I would generally consider a necessary part
of commercial development. Otherwise it is nice to have, but by no
means necessary for non commercial use.
Now the original poster wanted the ability to create exe file on
linux and windows and he can get it for 900 USD retail, lispworks pro.
Now everything else he can get for free(cmu, ecl, clisp). The ability to
create exe's does not help you do anything but distribute applications
that are no longer lisp code, they are object/byte code and that looks
like a commercial interest to me. I think that commercial software is
a good thing, how else can some one get the software that they need but
no one will enjoy making(among other things).
marc
Dave Bakhash
> Now everything else he can get for free(cmu, ecl, clisp). The ability
> to create exe's does not help you do anything but distribute
> applications that are no longer lisp code, they are object/byte code
> and that looks like a commercial interest to me.
I might be misunderstanding your post, but I know that at least ecl can
pretty much dump out an executable that actually _is_ compiled by
(g)cc. You can write something in CL using ECL and without close
inspection one would never guess that it was done in CL (except insofar
as it didn't crash).
dave
Peter Seibel
> "Lisp Newbie" <wann...@lisp.programmer> wrote in message
> news:4PKO9.164844$6k.33...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > Is there such thing as free Lisp compiler, that can work under Linux and
> > Windows, develiver executables, have sockets implementation and support
> > multithreading?
>
> Start at www.lisp.org
>
> Delivering executables is the only thing there I don't know if you
> can get for free. Usually it is not really what people need/want
> anyway.
Supposing for a moment that not everyone who *thinks* they need/want
to deliver a standalone executable is totally on crack (and it must be
of *some* use as all the commercial vendors seem to have thought it
was worth implementing), can anyone describe more or less what
strategies are used in implementations that do generate standalone
executables? Maybe someone (maybe me) will say, hmmm, that doesn't
sound too hard and will figure out how to hack it into their favorite
free Lisp. Then the standard answer to this question could change
from, "you don't really want that and if you do really want it you
have to buy it" to "you don't really want that but if you do, you can
buy it or get it for free in implementation XXX."
FWIW, I imagine that in an implementation that compiles to native
machine code (CMUCL and SBCL as I understand it) building an
executable would presumably involve generating some wrapper code that
compiles into something that looks like what you get with a simple C
program with a 'int main()' function which in turn calls into some
entry point that the programmer specifies somehow and which is linked
against a library containing the lisp runtime support. Obviously if
it's going to a absolutely standalone executable this all needs to be
statically linked but I can imagine that some folks would also like
having the lisp runtime dynamically linked if they're going to have a
bunch of lisp apps running separately.
In a bytecode based implementation (CLISP, again, if I understand
correctly) presumably a "standalone app" would have to be a bundle of
the CLISP vm plus the generated bytecodes. Again, folks with lots of
apps might appreciate an option that lets them install the VM once per
computer (or user per computer perhaps) rather than once per app.
Perhaps a starting point for this approach might be something like
what Sun has tried to do with the JRE (Java Runtime Environment).
Is that more or less how it would go or are there other better ways to
do it? And finally, does anyone who currently works on any of the free
Lisps care to say whether this kind of "enhancement" would in fact be
considered desirable in their implementation.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel
pe...@javamonkey.com
Pascal Costanza
> In a bytecode based implementation (CLISP, again, if I understand
> correctly) presumably a "standalone app" would have to be a bundle of
> the CLISP vm plus the generated bytecodes. Again, folks with lots of
> apps might appreciate an option that lets them install the VM once per
> computer (or user per computer perhaps) rather than once per app.
> Perhaps a starting point for this approach might be something like
> what Sun has tried to do with the JRE (Java Runtime Environment).
On Mac OS X, you can install CLISP and OpenMCL via fink. I don't think
it's too much to ask for from users who want to use "free" software to
require them to deal with fink. I guess, similar solutions are available
for Linux. I don't know about other Unixes or Windows in that regard.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
mailto:cost...@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de Römerstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
Paolo Amoroso
wrote:
> Delivering executables is the only thing there I don't know if you can get
> for free. Usually it is not really what people need/want anyway.
Popular open-source implementations such as CLISP and CMU CL (and I also
guess SBCL) are able to deliver standalone applications. The process is not
automated, but it just involves shipping a few files to the customer:
1) the Lisp executable
2) the dumped image of the application
3) a small shell script that runs #1 and passes it #2 as an argument
The CLISP documentation explains how to deliver applications on all
supported operating systems.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Paolo Amoroso
wrote:
> was worth implementing), can anyone describe more or less what
> strategies are used in implementations that do generate standalone
> executables? Maybe someone (maybe me) will say, hmmm, that doesn't
One of the main techniques is called "tree shaking".
> FWIW, I imagine that in an implementation that compiles to native
> machine code (CMUCL and SBCL as I understand it) building an
> executable would presumably involve generating some wrapper code that
Some time ago there was some discussion in a CMU CL mailing list on
bundling together all the 3 application components (Lisp executable + core
+ launcher) mentioned in my other post in this thread. I can't remember
whether this has actually been done.
> do it? And finally, does anyone who currently works on any of the free
> Lisps care to say whether this kind of "enhancement" would in fact be
> considered desirable in their implementation.
I guess the maintainers of open-source Common Lisp implementations consider
desirable everything that someone is willing to contribute :)
Peter Seibel
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 06:29:51 GMT, Peter Seibel <pe...@javamonkey.com>
> wrote:
>
> > was worth implementing), can anyone describe more or less what
> > strategies are used in implementations that do generate standalone
> > executables? Maybe someone (maybe me) will say, hmmm, that doesn't
>
> One of the main techniques is called "tree shaking".
I've heard that term before and infer that it means taking an image
and starting from some entry point (or points) shaking off all the
unused bits of code (anything not reachable from the transative
closure of called code starting from the entry points) so as to reduce
the size of the image and then dumping it. Is that more or less right?
> > do it? And finally, does anyone who currently works on any of the
> > free Lisps care to say whether this kind of "enhancement" would in
> > fact be considered desirable in their implementation.
>
> I guess the maintainers of open-source Common Lisp implementations
> consider desirable everything that someone is willing to contribute
> :)
You think? Cool--I'll "contribute" my patch that "fixes" all those
annoying (to me) coding idioms in implementation X. Do you think the
maintainers of X will consider *that* patch desirable? ;-)
Seriously though, I asked because there are enough people here on
c.l.l. who seem to believe that "you don't really want that feature"
that it's possible there would be folks with strong philosophical
objections. Which is fine. I just wouldn't want anyone (maybe me) to
spend the time working on some code only to have it turned down
because it doesn't fit with the philosophy of a given project.
Marc Spitzer
Yes ecls does do that on posix systems( I never meant to imply it could
not) but not on windows and the original poster wanted both. To go off
on a bit of a tangent I could see ecl used in several cool projects,
an apache module like mod_perl or a stored procedure language for
postgres for example or clxemacs which you are interested in.
My main point was that the win/linux exe thing was a
distribution/commercial request and when that happens you really want
a vendor and a support contract with said vendor. You see I would
want to have someone who knows much more about the CL I am using be
bound under contract to care about my problems, for a fixed fee.
This way I get work arounds and patches and features that I need
but are not fun or interesting to do, a large amount of high quality
documentation presented in a consistent format comes to mind.
marc
Pascal Bourguignon
The point is that software with freedom is not antinomic to contract
support. On the contrary. How could you offer contract support for a
commercial product you don't have the sources? Or you're not allowed
to modify the sources?
So, you may shop at the monopoly of contract support offered by the
closed proprietary implementation, or at the various competting
contract support offers for free software.
Moreover, guess who will have the most pressure to help you resolve a
problem, the developper of commercial tools who have thousands or tens
of thousands customers and who is busy developping the next version to
be able to charge the upgrade price, or the small shop dedicated
support team who will have a couple dozen of custmers and for whom
you'll be relatively a much more important customer?
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fault in reality. do not adjust your minds. -- Salman Rushdie
Marc Spitzer
>
> The point is that software with freedom is not antinomic to contract
> support. On the contrary. How could you offer contract support for a
> commercial product you don't have the sources? Or you're not allowed
> to modify the sources?
I do not and that is pretty self evident.
>
> So, you may shop at the monopoly of contract support offered by the
> closed proprietary implementation, or at the various competting
> contract support offers for free software.
Well the only place that I have seen this is with linux distributions
and the first thing they will tell you is you need to get into a
supported configuration. If you contract with red hat you run red hat
or you get no help. If you compile the newest glibc from source and
call them they will say put our supported version in place or we can
not help you under your contract. If you want us to look at it, it
will be time & materials and can I please have a credit card number.
>
> Moreover, guess who will have the most pressure to help you resolve a
> problem, the developper of commercial tools who have thousands or tens
> of thousands customers and who is busy developping the next version to
> be able to charge the upgrade price, or the small shop dedicated
> support team who will have a couple dozen of custmers and for whom
> you'll be relatively a much more important customer?
>
this is just ignorant, do the math. Let's say a support contract for
open source product X is 5,000 USD/year and you have 5, not 2, dozen
customers. This gives you 300,000 USD/year. Now you need to pay for
office space, 800 phone service, commercial grade internet connection,
handle billing and collections, if you take credit cards they take
their cut off the top and so does paypal. We have not even gotten to
the point of hiring the people needed to do the support work yet and
much of the money is gone, I will be nice 1/3 is gone. I am counting
the commission on the sale that the sales person gets up front, lets
say 10% . Now you need to hire people to actually do tech support. to
have 16x7 coverage on the phone requires a min of 3 people, 2 work m-f
and 1 does 2 doubles on the weekend(40k/person gross cost not just
pay), you now have 80k USD left. I forgot to take out the commission
on the sales, another 30k, 50k left. So now you can get 1 more person
to answer the phones, you cannot afford a Sr./Guru type person with
the money and you would need at least 2 of them, think vacation/sick days
and people leave. With 2 1/2 times your customer base it still makes
no sence.
Now on to the tech issues:
1: you get me a patch and it it not accepted in to the source code of
the product I am using.
2: You only support the current version (or an older version) of the
product that I cannot use for other reasons, I can only do apache 1.x
because the modules I use are not thread safe and you now only support
apache 2.x
3: you go out of business, I have no support
Oh yea, I forgot *Taxes* and *Fees*.
marc
Ng Pheng Siong
> Moreover, guess who will have the most pressure to help you resolve a
> problem, the developper of commercial tools who have thousands or tens
> of thousands customers and who is busy developping the next version to
> be able to charge the upgrade price, or the small shop dedicated
> support team who will have a couple dozen of custmers and for whom
> you'll be relatively a much more important customer?
Sir, you need to upgrade that black and white television of yours. The
upgrade price isn't much.
--
Ng Pheng Siong <ng...@netmemetic.com> * http://www.netmemetic.com
Pascal Bourguignon
ng...@netmemetic.com (Ng Pheng Siong) writes:
> According to Pascal Bourguignon <p...@informatimago.com>:
> > Moreover, guess who will have the most pressure to help you resolve a
> > problem, the developper of commercial tools who have thousands or tens
> > of thousands customers and who is busy developping the next version to
> > be able to charge the upgrade price, or the small shop dedicated
> > support team who will have a couple dozen of custmers and for whom
> > you'll be relatively a much more important customer?
>
> Sir, you need to upgrade that black and white television of yours. The
> upgrade price isn't much.
Yes, sorry if I sound caricatural, but I can only compare the support
I've never been able to get from Microsoft/Sony for the Vaio of my
niece (for a MS-Windows-Me problem) vs. the bugs in NeXTSTEP BSD layer
that never have been corrected in any new version (at least Apple
freed Darwin) vs. the support and maintainance I get (and give)
everyday on usenet for GPL'ed or BSD'ed software.
Marc Spitzer
>
> Moreover, guess who will have the most pressure to help you resolve a
> problem, the developper of commercial tools who have thousands or tens
> of thousands customers and who is busy developping the next version to
> be able to charge the upgrade price, or the small shop dedicated
> support team who will have a couple dozen of custmers and for whom
> you'll be relatively a much more important customer?
I forgot something here it is:
A company gains reputation by having good customer support, but good
support costs money so you do not want your customers to use it. And
if they do you want to take care of it as quickly as possible and at
the lowest level in the organization as possible, web sites are where
they want you to go first. So I would expect a company that has lots
of customers to want to fix bugs and in the interim come up with work
arounds for the issues until a patch can be released and then get the
info on the website or level 1 phone support, its cheaper.
Also I am not talking about MS shrink rap crap when I talk about
support. When I think of a support/maintenance contract I am thinking
about things like hp-ux or openview or oracle or solaris etc. Those
products when you pay for support you get all new releases that happen
during the course of the contract as a matter of course, oracle does
split upgrade license from support license though.
If a CL vendor starts to shit on his customers they can and will go
else where. There are 3 commercial vendors for linux/unix(allegro,
lispworks, scl) the same is true for windows. This is not true for
VB. And this is not counting all the free CL's out there(cmu, sbcl,
ecl, openmcl, clisp)
And I do not care who feels the most pressure, I care who gives me the
best information in a timely manner. If I call big lisp vendor and
the level 1 phone support person says " I will mail you a link that
explains the problem and the work around, it in the website, and a
patch is making it through QA as we speak. Would you like an email
alert when it is available for download? thanks and have a nice day"
I am happy and I consider the money I spent very well spent. The
reason for this is it helps me to get my job done in a timely manner
and that is how I make money, not pressuring some other guy who is
trying to fix a problem he has never seen before and who's company has
no reason to invest in a website like "big CL vendor" does, because
there is no economy of scale for the little guy that presents a
compelling business to spend the money to develop and maintain such a
site.
marc
Pascal Bourguignon
> Pascal Bourguignon <p...@informatimago.com> writes:
>
> >
> > The point is that software with freedom is not antinomic to contract
> > support. On the contrary. How could you offer contract support for a
> > commercial product you don't have the sources? Or you're not allowed
> > to modify the sources?
>
> I do not and that is pretty self evident.
>
> >
> > So, you may shop at the monopoly of contract support offered by the
> > closed proprietary implementation, or at the various competting
> > contract support offers for free software.
>
> Well the only place that I have seen this is with linux distributions
> and the first thing they will tell you is you need to get into a
> supported configuration. If you contract with red hat you run red hat
> or you get no help. If you compile the newest glibc from source and
> call them they will say put our supported version in place or we can
> not help you under your contract. If you want us to look at it, it
> will be time & materials and can I please have a credit card number.
The point is that any and all unix/linux experts could maintain a
linux installation either as external contractee or internal
employees, depending on your needs. The point is that RedHat gave you
a quote, and now you can shop and find other linux experts who could
maintain your patched installation, while this would not be possible
at all with proprietary software.
Because Microsoft or the other big software editors do offer support
for custom patched software?
> 2: You only support the current version (or an older version) of the
> product that I cannot use for other reasons, I can only do apache 1.x
> because the modules I use are not thread safe and you now only support
> apache 2.x
> 3: you go out of business, I have no support
Oops. Hopefully, then you'll be able to choose between the 11000
"linux consulting" offers returned by:
Or the 42000 "linux support" offers returned by:
I don't doubt that amongst those 42000 hits you'll be able to find a
corporation more supple than RedHat on the patch and customization
side of your problem.
> Oh yea, I forgot *Taxes* and *Fees*.
>
> marc
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fault in reality. Do not adjust your minds. -- Salman Rushdie
Marc Spitzer
> Marc Spitzer <mspi...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Pascal Bourguignon <p...@informatimago.com> writes:
>
> The point is that any and all unix/linux experts could maintain a
> linux installation either as external contractee or internal
> employees, depending on your needs. The point is that RedHat gave you
> a quote, and now you can shop and find other linux experts who could
> maintain your patched installation, while this would not be possible
> at all with proprietary software.
We are back to time and materiels. This means I do not have a fixed
cost for support. And now I am now, as a business person, trying to
figure out who is a linux/unix expert, a recipee for success. And
what you are talking about is system administration not tech support.
The reason this is a problem is now you have forked the code to
add/fix the feature you needed. You now have your own source tree/set
of patches to maintain until you decide to get back with everyone
else. This costs money and leads to more points of failure.
> > 2: You only support the current version (or an older version) of the
> > product that I cannot use for other reasons, I can only do apache 1.x
> > because the modules I use are not thread safe and you now only support
> > apache 2.x
> > 3: you go out of business, I have no support
>
> Oops. Hopefully, then you'll be able to choose between the 11000
> "linux consulting" offers returned by:
>
The money I have for support is spent, to get these people to support
me I need to pay them right? Now I go to my boss and say "Boss Bobo's
linux support is dead and I need more money to go with louies linux
support", boss says " I have to talk to my boss for the money". So
now my boss looks stupid to his boss at the very least. From all
levels above me the shit/question rolls down "why did you not use
red hat for support? They are still in business." Now this is a fair
question that I need to have a good answer for or I stand a good
chance of taking a hit on my review/contract renewal. I just do not
have the problem if I go with the vendor.
> http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Linux+consulting&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=m3&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=.com&safe=images
>
>
> Or the 42000 "linux support" offers returned by:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22Linux+support%22+site%3A.com&btnG=Google+Search&num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_qdr=m3&as_qdr=m3
>
> I don't doubt that amongst those 42000 hits you'll be able to find a
> corporation more supple than RedHat on the patch and customization
> side of your problem.
>
see above for why keeping your own patches around is not the best
idea. If I was going to do that I would probably use IBM( even
bigger then Red Hat), but they now have moved on to their own
distribution for use with their rack mount pc's.
You see once I start using a custom, as in using source code not at
"where you get kernels" is not a good idea for small operations to
do. With red hat and IBM economies of scale kick in.
marc
Rahul Jain
> You think? Cool--I'll "contribute" my patch that "fixes" all those
> annoying (to me) coding idioms in implementation X. Do you think the
> maintainers of X will consider *that* patch desirable? ;-)
For all values of X where X = SBCL, you have a good shot ;)
Actually, there is some talk of merging SBCL with CMUCL, since the
refactoring done by SBCL is resulting in some huge portability benefits,
and there are cases where people using SBCL want to use some of the
"extras" provided by CMUCL such as the UNIX package, etc.
--
Rahul Jain
Paolo Amoroso
wrote:
> was worth implementing), can anyone describe more or less what
> strategies are used in implementations that do generate standalone
> executables? Maybe someone (maybe me) will say, hmmm, that doesn't
Another relevant source of information is the paper "Delivering the Goods
with Lisp", by Barber and Imlah, in the Sep 1991 issue of CACM.
Paolo Amoroso
wrote:
> Popular open-source implementations such as CLISP and CMU CL (and I also
> guess SBCL) are able to deliver standalone applications. The process is not
> automated, but it just involves shipping a few files to the customer:
The procedure for CMU CL is explained in this comp.lang.lisp articles:
See also the messages in thread "Program Delivery" posted to the cmucl-help
mailing list, in particular:
Thomas F. Burdick
Just because it hasn't been pointed out already, it doesn't take a
genius to make something that feels like a native executable from a
native VM executable plus a core and one or more fasl's, at least on
unix. Modifying CMUCL's vm to look for things in different places
isn't very hard. Call the resulting binary "myapp" instead of "lisp",
and you're done.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Lisp Newbie
CLISP doesn't qualify to my original requirements due to lack of
multithreading.
So what else is left among freebies?
"Thomas F. Burdick" <t...@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:xcv8yya...@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
Tim Daly, Jr.
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 06:29:51 GMT, Peter Seibel <pe...@javamonkey.com>
> wrote:
>
> > was worth implementing), can anyone describe more or less what
> > strategies are used in implementations that do generate standalone
> > executables? Maybe someone (maybe me) will say, hmmm, that doesn't
>
> Another relevant source of information is the paper "Delivering the Goods
> with Lisp", by Barber and Imlah, in the Sep 1991 issue of CACM.
>
Are you and I looking at the same "paper"? They prattle for a mere
three pages about how slow their PS/2 was and how they could maybe
have used this product or maybe have used that product... Not a word
about strategies for generating standalone executables.
Not that I can't sympathize about the PS/2. Man, those things sucked.
-Tim
Erik Naggum
| Yes, sorry if I sound caricatural, but I can only compare the
| support I've never been able to get from Microsoft/Sony for the
| Vaio of my niece (for a MS-Windows-Me problem) vs. the bugs in
| NeXTSTEP BSD layer that never have been corrected in any new
| version (at least Apple freed Darwin) vs. the support and
| maintainance I get (and give) everyday on usenet for GPL'ed or
| BSD'ed software.
So what you need is to become a customer of a commercial enterprise
that provides much /better/ service than you can get with the Free
Software and you would instantly change your mind? Some of us have
had that experience. I strongly suggest that you accept that people
can actually have happy experiences with commercial software despite
your unhappy experiences and therefore find your caricature damning
for you, not for the commercial software you have yet to experience.
What is so tragic about so many (rabid) Free Software adherents is
that they remain Microsoft victims even when they decry its evil.
It is not unlike freeing slaves whose slave psychology remains, and
instead of experiencing the liberty to partake in the possibilities
before them and enjoy the freedom to fail without punishment and
reap the benefits of their success, they cling to the security of
knowing the outcome of their actions as determined by their master,
and so freedom presents them with problems, not opportunities. The
Microsoft victims truly believe that Free Software is the solution
to their problems, but their problem was getting no support and now
they think software must be free in order to get good support. It
is all hogwash! This is not what Free Software was about! This is
not the reason people fight for Free Software! Microsoft does not
even /exist/ in the Free Software universe -- Microsoft is entirely
irrelevant. Whether Microsoft provides shitty or no service is of
/zero/ consequence in the Free Software universe. Free Software is
not about support at all. Using it as an argument is specious at
best. Free Software is about your ability qua user to look under
the hood. That (or if) you can hire somebody do this for you is
entirely immaterial. The freedom to ask somebody to do something
for you in exchange for another service or money is an aspect of
the environment in which Free Software exists, but the freedom to
look under the hood is essentially disconnected from this aspect.
Once bitten, twice shy, the saying goes, but it appears to me that
many people are of the "bitten, thence shy" persuasion, and it is
as impossible to change their mind as it is to unbite them. The
doctrine of forming all of one's opinions after the first encounter
with anything is well known under a variety of names, all nasty and
properly derisive of those who succumb to it, but until and unless
many people understand that they do in fact subscribe to it, they
appear to believe they have a right to an opinion about that which
they have yet to experience based on what they have experienced so
far. Some even claim that this lunacy is "scientific" and that one
cannot escape prejudice. Again, hogwash! People can /think/ and
they can make new choices without any obligation to tell you about
it, so no amount of "historic evidence" can predict the future of
someone's choices, very much unlike physics. To become satisfied
that you have seen all there is to see from someone is the ultimate
disrespect towards that person. Most people acknowledge this when
they face the naked facts, but still return to this loathsome and
vile practice whenever they hope to get away with it, such as when
they deal with "businesses" instead of "people".
Please try to understand that the quality of the support you get is
completely irrelevant to the issue of Free Software. Would you
abandon Free Software as a concept if you got lousy service from
one or even many suppliers? But you abandoned commercial software
because of bad experience with one or a few suppliers of commercial
software? Pardon the passion when I ask you a heartfelt question:
What the hell were you /thinking/? Drawing that kind of conclusion
from that kind of evidence strongly suggests that you are unable to
think clearly and instead try to prop up your emotional conclusions
with delusions of logic, with mere rationalization. You are not
alone in this mind-boggling stupidity, just as there are numerous
people out in the real world who still believe that as soon as they
know somebody's /race/ they can stop learning about them as people.
You should be smart enough to realize that your personal experience
is entirely immaterial as part of a critique of a system, and even
more so to support your negative attitude to future experiences and
those of other people you do not know. You ought to be /ashamed/
of yourself for trying to pull such a fantastically stupid stunt in
a newsgroup of /really/ smart people. The /arrogance/ of trying to
fool people with such mind-numbing idiocy has marked /your/ past
and has obliterated any trust in your thinking ability so far. But
according to the principles I laid down above, you, too, have the
ability to think and make some intelligent choices. Now, hear me
when I tell you that nobody is interested in your past, in what you
believe is your personality or your identity or your personal pride.
You are only your arguments and your articles to this forum, and we
know /nothing/ about you as a person, nor does anybody care. Only
a bigoted idiot would deny /you/ the chance to change your mind and
fix your mistakes. That means that your personal defense of your
past is not suitable for this forum, however strongly you feel the
urge to defend yourself. In a debate, you are /expected/ to learn
when you are mistaken. Being a good debater means that you grasp
the consequences of having your arguments shot down: You re-open
them only if you have a solid argument to support them and refute
the refutation, and attacking those who shot them down /does not/
count in that regard. And please realize this: This debate is not
about what /you/ feel like doing, what /you/ have experienced that
gave rise to your desires, but about something that could apply to
other people with other experiences than yours. Therefore, what
you need to present as an argument is not what you experienced, but
why anyone should care about it.
But, since you have opened this argument in this newsgroup, where
it has been opened hundreds of times before, even though it does
not belong here, the sheer arrogance you display by expressing a
belief that nobody has ever heard /your/ arguments before, I have
also formed a set of expectations about your ability to reason and
think clearly and grasp what you should do to present a coherent
argument to us that is at least /somewhat/ novel in this forum if
you have to discuss such an /off-topic/ issue here to begin with.
That does not mean that you cannot start thinking without telling
me or that you must feel obliged to continue down only one path. I
ask you, implore you, to reconsider whether you think anyone here
is even remotely interested in your personal experiences or has not
heard your pro-Free Software arguments before and whether you could
hope to change anyone else's mind when yours is apparently made up
for good. People here are generally experienced programmers, not a
cobble of newbies who need to be led onto the One True Path by
another newcomer to the newsgroup. When older and wiser people
than you do not accept your self-evident truth, it is time for you
to stop and think: at the very least, it is not self-evident, and
it may not even be the truth. Another thing you might want to
consider is that those who want to discuss the programming language
(family|Common) Lisp may simply ignore you and hope you go away,
and that those who respond to you are just really pissed off that
we have yet /another/ Free Software zealot waste everyone's time
with this non-issue in this forum. The desire to have everyone
else agree to one's personal opinion may run strong in some people,
but it has no place in a programming language forum, no matter how
strongly felt the opinion or its gravity to the world in general.
Those who want do discuss this issue are generally found over in
gnu.misc.discuss.
As a personal advice to you, I would very strongly suggest that you
adopt a different attitude. Try some humility towards people you
do not know -- they may be the people who some day decide your very
future, or they may just be the people who could help you, but may
decide not to based on your perceived arrogance and aggressiveness
about what you currently believe and your apparent lack of ability
to listen to people unless they do exactly as you tell them to. If
you see other people as negative or harsh towards you, it is a good
idea to examine what you have done to them first rather than go on
and aggravate matters by doing it again -- people react negatively
for a reason, and insisting that you are faultless tends to annoy
people more than anything else.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
wni
> You should be smart enough to realize that your personal experience
> is entirely immaterial as part of a critique of a system, and even
> more so to support your negative attitude to future experiences and
> those of other people you do not know.
So it's your experience that counts? What makes you think that you are
qualified to criticize while the other people can't?
> You ought to be /ashamed/
> of yourself for trying to pull such a fantastically stupid stunt in
> a newsgroup of /really/ smart people.
I think you are talking about *you*, the only smart one.
> The /arrogance/ of trying to
> fool people with such mind-numbing idiocy has marked /your/ past
> and has obliterated any trust in your thinking ability so far.
What's idotic about Bourguignon's argument? Don't you build your
arguments from your experience or you don't have any experience
on anything at all? The pretense of objectivity is a dirty trick
you play on your sycophants and horrify innocent people.
> But according to the principles I laid down above, you, too, have the
> ability to think and make some intelligent choices. Now, hear me
> when I tell you that nobody is interested in your past, in what you
> believe is your personality or your identity or your personal pride.
> You are only your arguments and your articles to this forum, and we
> know /nothing/ about you as a person, nor does anybody care.
We are not interested in your opinions, past, and whatever half-cooked,
densely packed dirty laundry of yours. Treating people this way has long
been your scare tactics and the laughing butt of comp.lang.lisp.
> Only
> a bigoted idiot would deny /you/ the chance to change your mind and
> fix your mistakes. That means that your personal defense of your
> past is not suitable for this forum, however strongly you feel the
> urge to defend yourself. In a debate, you are /expected/ to learn
> when you are mistaken.
You are really being patronizing. You have nothing to show why people
should listen to this.
wni at attbi dot com
Marc Spitzer
> Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > You should be smart enough to realize that your personal experience
> > is entirely immaterial as part of a critique of a system, and even
> > more so to support your negative attitude to future experiences and
> > those of other people you do not know.
>
>
> So it's your experience that counts? What makes you think that you are
> qualified to criticize while the other people can't?
>
No it is his well formulated arguments that count. And I have never
seen him say "do not do it", but I have seen him say "do not do such a
bad job of it"
>
> > You ought to be /ashamed/
> > of yourself for trying to pull such a fantastically stupid stunt in
> > a newsgroup of /really/ smart people.
>
> I think you are talking about *you*, the only smart one.
>
stuck in 3rd grade are we?
> > The /arrogance/ of trying to
> > fool people with such mind-numbing idiocy has marked /your/ past
> > and has obliterated any trust in your thinking ability so far.
>
> What's idotic about Bourguignon's argument? Don't you build your
> arguments from your experience or you don't have any experience
> on anything at all? The pretense of objectivity is a dirty trick
> you play on your sycophants and horrify innocent people.
>
did you try google? He has answered why XML sucks several times.
> > But according to the principles I laid down above, you, too, have the
> > ability to think and make some intelligent choices. Now, hear me
> > when I tell you that nobody is interested in your past, in what you
> > believe is your personality or your identity or your personal pride.
> > You are only your arguments and your articles to this forum, and we
> > know /nothing/ about you as a person, nor does anybody care.
>
> We are not interested in your opinions, past, and whatever half-cooked,
> densely packed dirty laundry of yours. Treating people this way has long
> been your scare tactics and the laughing butt of comp.lang.lisp.
Actually some of us are.
>
> > Only
> > a bigoted idiot would deny /you/ the chance to change your mind and
> > fix your mistakes. That means that your personal defense of your
> > past is not suitable for this forum, however strongly you feel the
> > urge to defend yourself. In a debate, you are /expected/ to learn
> > when you are mistaken.
>
>
> You are really being patronizing. You have nothing to show why people
> should listen to this.
>
He is right? You are judged here by the work you produce here, posts
mostly but it also includes research. If the original poster had
googled for "Erik xml" in the CLL archives he could have found out why
Erik dislikes xml. And he could have gotten a different response from
Erik by posting a well researched article with counter information
supporting his view that xml does not suck. And if he could not
refute Erik's arguments then perhaps xml does suck after all.
>
> wni at attbi dot com
And since you have been here long enough to know how Erik will respond
to stupid dick head messages like this, you claim long lurker status
above. You must want to start a stupid fuckking shit storm, for no
good reason, that will waste a lot of time and effort.
Please go fuck off, and please do it somewhere else.
marc
ps it is not a full moon out so why start this shit tonight?
Pascal Bourguignon
Marc Spitzer <mspi...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> The money I have for support is spent, to get these people to support
> me I need to pay them right? Now I go to my boss and say "Boss Bobo's
> linux support is dead and I need more money to go with louies linux
> support", boss says " I have to talk to my boss for the money". So
> now my boss looks stupid to his boss at the very least. From all
> levels above me the shit/question rolls down "why did you not use
> red hat for support? They are still in business." Now this is a fair
> question that I need to have a good answer for or I stand a good
> chance of taking a hit on my review/contract renewal. I just do not
> have the problem if I go with the vendor.
The fact is that linux consulting/support corporation are not
necessarily in the insurance business, that is the risk management
business. Big corporations do everything including that. You pay a
prime, and the probabilities are you won't get any 'benefit', you
won't need any support activity.
But you could get an insurance contract with a respected and stable
insurance corporation and then be able to pay for any intervention by
any linux consulting company available at the time the problem occurs.
But then the prime asked by your insurance corporation may hint you
that to get your money worth in support, you'd have to pay much more
than what RedHat and the other ask anyway. I speak of real service,
not shit umbrellas.
Marc Spitzer
> Marc Spitzer <mspi...@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> > The money I have for support is spent, to get these people to support
> > me I need to pay them right? Now I go to my boss and say "Boss Bobo's
> > linux support is dead and I need more money to go with louies linux
> > support", boss says " I have to talk to my boss for the money". So
> > now my boss looks stupid to his boss at the very least. From all
> > levels above me the shit/question rolls down "why did you not use
> > red hat for support? They are still in business." Now this is a fair
> > question that I need to have a good answer for or I stand a good
> > chance of taking a hit on my review/contract renewal. I just do not
> > have the problem if I go with the vendor.
>
> The fact is that linux consulting/support corporation are not
> necessarily in the insurance business, that is the risk management
> business. Big corporations do everything including that. You pay a
> prime, and the probabilities are you won't get any 'benefit', you
> won't need any support activity.
The reason you buy insurance is that when an event happens that can
destroy your business someone else is required to pay for it so you
can recover and continue doing business. The benefit you get is that
you still have a business because you can meet your obligations, you
can reorder the stock that burned up in the fire because of the
insurance check. The freedom from that threat is the benefit.
I would think it depends on what is being insured. Most businesses do
not carry "business continuation" insurance, they carry things like
fire, theft, flood and liability insurance. And for those you are
right the underwriter does not care about tech support for your
business, you are not paying him to cover it. Now if they were
insuring the gross profit from your ecommerce site, ie site can not
transact business(doors are closed) insurer starts cutting checks,
they will look at your operation in great detail. In fact they will
probably require changes in it to reduce down time or just charge you
a (much)higher premium. One thing they might require is 24x7 admin
support, not just operators. Another one is getting Sr management involved
much earlier in the outage then is normal and he has to stay available
for the duration. And real tech support, not Louie's Linux hut.
>
> But you could get an insurance contract with a respected and stable
> insurance corporation and then be able to pay for any intervention by
> any linux consulting company available at the time the problem occurs.
>
And this would cost more or less then just going to redhat or ibm
for a normal or even premium service contract?
> But then the prime asked by your insurance corporation may hint you
> that to get your money worth in support, you'd have to pay much more
> than what RedHat and the other ask anyway. I speak of real service,
> not shit umbrellas.
>
possibly not, remember the first thing asked for is your support contract.
So if you have no contract it is time and materials or to put it another
way 3-400 usd/hour/person also many service organizations have different
levels of contract support and if you have the better contract you get more
help faster and access to more spares that are stashed closer to your site.
And if someone with a contract needs access to the same people that are
working with you they get it, as per the contract and you can wait.
Real support is not cheap, but when the business goes away when the
computer goes away then it is much cheaper then not having it.
marc
Frank A. Adrian
> Real support is not cheap, but when the business goes away when the
> computer goes away then it is much cheaper then not having it.
Yes. And when you really need uptime, you ain't gonna be looking at either
crap Linux OR Windows and the boxes they run on. You're going to be going
with something that has both design for reliability AND support built in.
And that means something old and tested by a company that's been in the
business for more than a few years. Probably something like OS/390 or
OS/400. Yeah, it costs more, but those things stay up. And, if they do
fall down, you got REAL backup.
faa
Paolo Amoroso
> Paolo Amoroso <amo...@mclink.it> writes:
[...]
> > Another relevant source of information is the paper "Delivering the Goods
> > with Lisp", by Barber and Imlah, in the Sep 1991 issue of CACM.
> >
>
> Are you and I looking at the same "paper"? They prattle for a mere
> three pages about how slow their PS/2 was and how they could maybe
> have used this product or maybe have used that product... Not a word
> about strategies for generating standalone executables.
I think we are talking about the same paper. But while you probably have a
copy of it handy, I no longer have it, just a vague recollection. Hence its
alleged relevance and implied usefulness.
Hannah Schroeter
Marc Spitzer <mspi...@optonline.net> wrote:
>[...]
>Yes ecls does do that on posix systems( I never meant to imply it could
>[...]
I've tried to port a current ecls release (0.7b) to OpenBSD/x86 and failed.
Has someone else succeeded in doing so and what changes were needed?
Porting a very old version (0.0g) worked, but things seem to have
changed significantly.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
wni
> wni <w...@nospam.attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>
>>
>>So it's your experience that counts? What makes you think that you are
>>qualified to criticize while the other people can't?
>>
>
>
> No it is his well formulated arguments that count. And I have never
> seen him say "do not do it", but I have seen him say "do not do such a
> bad job of it"
I fail to see how he did the job better. Stuffing a lot of twisted
sentences with no logic foundation is basically what I see in his
articles. Yes, you can claim and claim and claim on the Usenet without
being critically judged by real experts (who might never read this
group), but that doesn't make you an authority. One particular
silly instance is his attack on Paul Graham's "Being Popular" (
which dismisses Java) but he himself dismissed a lot of languages.
This kind of double standard is what makes him unbearably harsh.
>
>>> But according to the principles I laid down above, you, too, have the
>>> ability to think and make some intelligent choices. Now, hear me
>>> when I tell you that nobody is interested in your past, in what you
>>> believe is your personality or your identity or your personal pride.
>>> You are only your arguments and your articles to this forum, and we
>>> know /nothing/ about you as a person, nor does anybody care.
>>
>>We are not interested in your opinions, past, and whatever half-cooked,
>>densely packed dirty laundry of yours. Treating people this way has long
>>been your scare tactics and the laughing butt of comp.lang.lisp.
>
>
> Actually some of us are.
That's your freedom and nobody will condemn you for that.
>
>
>>> Only
>>> a bigoted idiot would deny /you/ the chance to change your mind and
>>> fix your mistakes. That means that your personal defense of your
>>> past is not suitable for this forum, however strongly you feel the
>>> urge to defend yourself. In a debate, you are /expected/ to learn
>>> when you are mistaken.
>>
>>
>>You are really being patronizing. You have nothing to show why people
>>should listen to this.
>>
>
>
> He is right? You are judged here by the work you produce here, posts
> mostly but it also includes research. If the original poster had
> googled for "Erik xml" in the CLL archives he could have found out why
> Erik dislikes xml. And he could have gotten a different response from
> Erik by posting a well researched article with counter information
> supporting his view that xml does not suck. And if he could not
> refute Erik's arguments then perhaps xml does suck after all.
>
So what makes Mr Naggum the King in opinions that people have to submit
"well researched article?" Last time I checked, I can't find one single
reference to any of his name in
That means he has no acadmic credential for people to believe him. So
we have to dismiss people like Philip Wadler and believe in Erik
Naggum instead? The massive number of "articles" posted by Mr Naggum
are mostly unfounded claims and personal attacks. From my point of
view, some of them made sense but I don't think I have the "high
gound" to judge people working on XML as "stupid."
Yes, Knuth, Perlis, Dijkstra, Hoare, Reyolds, Landin, etc. can
call me "stupid" whenever they want, because they've got credentials.
Alas, they are too smart to do such a thing.
So, who are you guys to judge people? If Mr Naggum has any refereed
paper in either a reputed conference, workshop, (even better) journal
to show us how *well researched* his arguments are, then people might
have the obligation to show him that. Until then, this kind of one
way street is nonsense.
> And since you have been here long enough to know how Erik will respond
> to stupid dick head messages like this, you claim long lurker status
> above. You must want to start a stupid fuckking shit storm, for no
> good reason, that will waste a lot of time and effort.
>
> Please go fuck off, and please do it somewhere else.
>
> marc
>
> ps it is not a full moon out so why start this shit tonight?
>
A lot of people described c.l.l as a private elite club where only
certain class of people are welcome. From the above message, it
seems this *club* has been penetrated by *foul-mouth street gangs*
that blocks the area with such kind of sabre rattling.
Marc Spitzer
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > wni <w...@nospam.attbi.com> writes:
> >
>
> >>
> >>
> >>So it's your experience that counts? What makes you think that you are
> >>qualified to criticize while the other people can't?
> >>
> > No it is his well formulated arguments that count. And I have never
> > seen him say "do not do it", but I have seen him say "do not do such
> > a bad job of it"
>
> I fail to see how he did the job better. Stuffing a lot of twisted
> sentences with no logic foundation is basically what I see in his
> articles. Yes, you can claim and claim and claim on the Usenet without
> being critically judged by real experts (who might never read this
> group), but that doesn't make you an authority. One particular
> silly instance is his attack on Paul Graham's "Being Popular" (
> which dismisses Java) but he himself dismissed a lot of languages.
> This kind of double standard is what makes him unbearably harsh.
>
You started this with an out of the blue personnel attack on Erik,
that you chose to do for your own reasons. This is a remarkably
stupid thing to do for anyone who has been here for any length
of time. Unless having someone verbally slap you around and having
this archived now and forever is your idea of fun. If it is please
find another hobby or practice it elsewhere.
And a little well reasoned verbal slapping around is not in any way
shape or form unendurable, it the grand scheme of things it dose not
even count on scale of humanities experience with harshness. Think of
some of the things that were normal for people to endure just a few
hundreds years ago, half or more of your children would die before the
age of 5 for example, which was endured for a long time.
>
> >
>
> >>> But according to the principles I laid down above, you, too, have the
> >>> ability to think and make some intelligent choices. Now, hear me
> >>> when I tell you that nobody is interested in your past, in what you
> >>> believe is your personality or your identity or your personal pride.
> >>> You are only your arguments and your articles to this forum, and we
> >>> know /nothing/ about you as a person, nor does anybody care.
> >>
> >>We are not interested in your opinions, past, and whatever half-cooked,
> >>densely packed dirty laundry of yours. Treating people this way has long
> >>been your scare tactics and the laughing butt of comp.lang.lisp.
> > Actually some of us are.
>
>
> That's your freedom and nobody will condemn you for that.
>
How nice of you to say so.
> >
>
> >>> Only
> >>> a bigoted idiot would deny /you/ the chance to change your mind and
> >>> fix your mistakes. That means that your personal defense of your
> >>> past is not suitable for this forum, however strongly you feel the
> >>> urge to defend yourself. In a debate, you are /expected/ to learn
> >>> when you are mistaken.
> >>
> >>
> >>You are really being patronizing. You have nothing to show why people
> >>should listen to this.
> >>
> > He is right? You are judged here by the work you produce here, posts
>
> > mostly but it also includes research. If the original poster had
> > googled for "Erik xml" in the CLL archives he could have found out why
> > Erik dislikes xml. And he could have gotten a different response from
> > Erik by posting a well researched article with counter information
> > supporting his view that xml does not suck. And if he could not
> > refute Erik's arguments then perhaps xml does suck after all.
> >
>
>
> So what makes Mr Naggum the King in opinions that people have to submit
> "well researched article?" Last time I checked, I can't find one single
> reference to any of his name in
>
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs
>
Erik has well thought out and logical reasons for disliking xml that is
why and they are posted. The other guy was I like it so there.
that is why
> That means he has no acadmic credential for people to believe him. So
> we have to dismiss people like Philip Wadler and believe in Erik
> Naggum instead? The massive number of "articles" posted by Mr Naggum
> are mostly unfounded claims and personal attacks. From my point of
> view, some of them made sense but I don't think I have the "high
> gound" to judge people working on XML as "stupid."
>
> Yes, Knuth, Perlis, Dijkstra, Hoare, Reyolds, Landin, etc. can
> call me "stupid" whenever they want, because they've got credentials.
> Alas, they are too smart to do such a thing.
>
So they do not even acknowledge your existence, they are smarter then I.
> So, who are you guys to judge people? If Mr Naggum has any refereed
> paper in either a reputed conference, workshop, (even better) journal
> to show us how *well researched* his arguments are, then people might
> have the obligation to show him that. Until then, this kind of one
> way street is nonsense.
>
Well he has posted them here and they are in google for your reading
pleasure, go read.
> > And since you have been here long enough to know how Erik will respond
> > to stupid dick head messages like this, you claim long lurker status
> > above. You must want to start a stupid fuckking shit storm, for no
> > good reason, that will waste a lot of time and effort.
> > Please go fuck off, and please do it somewhere else.
>
> > marc
>
> > ps it is not a full moon out so why start this shit tonight?
>
> >
>
>
> A lot of people described c.l.l as a private elite club where only
> certain class of people are welcome. From the above message, it
> seems this *club* has been penetrated by *foul-mouth street gangs*
> that blocks the area with such kind of sabre rattling.
>
Well you come here and start throwing verbal shit around because you
felt like it. You then get offended because you are asked to fuck off
and go away. Well fuck off and go away, take the hint this time.
marc
wni
>>
>>A lot of people described c.l.l as a private elite club where only
>>certain class of people are welcome. From the above message, it
>>seems this *club* has been penetrated by *foul-mouth street gangs*
>>that blocks the area with such kind of sabre rattling.
>>
>
>
> Well you come here and start throwing verbal shit around because you
> felt like it. You then get offended because you are asked to fuck off
> and go away. Well fuck off and go away, take the hint this time.
I am really sorry that I wrote *foul-mouth street gangs*. It should
have been *foul-mouth attack dogs*.
You can have the last bark.
Kenny Tilton
> A lot of people described c.l.l as a private elite club where only
> certain class of people are welcome.
Really? I would love some details. People somewhere are sitting around
talking about c.l.l? A /lot/ of people? Do they also talk about Lisp? If
so, what do they say? If not, why are they even reading cll?
I realize you are not speaking strictly, because no un-moderated NG can
be private or elite. Unwelcome would be possible, if the preponderance
of opinion re some poster was so negative that they could not take the
heat and went away. I've seen that happen, with people who were really
off base. Nothing wrong with making bozos feel unwelcome, I hope.
Periodically someone crawls out of the woodlurk to upbraid Erik, but it
is hard to do that without self-referentially despoiling the joint and
they take heat for that. Then, since they had nothing else to offer cl,
they usually just fade away.
As you will (fade away), unless you want to talk about Lisp.
But first, since you have bandied about hearsay accusations against cll,
please now back it up by specifying a few (or one!) threads in which
reasonable people were made to feel unwelcome by the private elite.
We'll wait while you get back to "a lot of people" for those references.
I am really curious because the only folks I have ever seen get into
protracted battles with any cll regular are people willing to engage in
protracted battles, and that is always optional.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Cells let us walk, talk, think, make love and realize
the bath water is cold." -- Lorraine Lee Cudmore
Marc Spitzer
A properly trained attack dog make no noise, they don't bark they rip
your throat out. You may be thinking of a guard dog, the noise can be
a deterrent. It depends how they are trained.
woof
marc
Erik Naggum
| So it's your experience that counts?
Was that a question? If so, no, that is /so/ not the point.
| What makes you think that you are qualified to criticize while the
| other people can't?
Well, to be honest, your rather frantic response virtually proves
that I am qualified to criticize and you are not.
Oleg
[ snipped ]
You may find it amusing that a search for
"idiot OR moron OR cretin" in comp.lang.lisp limited to year 2002 returns
102 results. OTOH, a similar search in comp.lang.fortran produces only 9
results; fa.caml - 1; comp.lang.c - 163 (You need to ignore google's
overestimated expectations) *.fortran is 1.5-2 times smaller than *.lisp,
and *.c is about 3 times larger.
I agree with you and Richard Fateman, who started a thread about this a
couple of months ago, that CLL is quite uncivilized. Why it is so is a
mystery.
If you are, say, a caltech professor, and are being attacked by a bunch of
trolls with no high school, your best strategy is to simply ignore them
(there is only one of you and very many of them ;)
Oleg
Marc Spitzer
As one if the people who is being accused of being a high school dropout,
could you please provide proof of this. Or just shut the fuck up and
go away you idiot or moron or creitin.
marc
Geoffrey Summerhayes
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message news:32502243...@naggum.no...
>
> Well, to be honest, your rather frantic response virtually proves
> that I am qualified to criticize and you are not.
>
That's odd. I feel a sudden impulse to read a Joseph Heller novel...
--
Geoff
Tim Bradshaw
> I realize you are not speaking strictly, because no un-moderated NG
> can be private or elite. Unwelcome would be possible, if the
> preponderance of opinion re some poster was so negative that they
> could not take the heat and went away. I've seen that happen, with
> people who were really off base. Nothing wrong with making bozos feel
> unwelcome, I hope.
The last person who could be thought of as being hounded out of cll
who I can think of was Ilias, although he kind of hounded himself out
- I think by the end that basically no one would talk to him and he
got bored and wandered off. Can anyone - *anyone* - give examples of
someone who really had a lot (or anything) to contribute who was
hounded out?
I think that there are two relevant features of cll which make it
somewhat ruder than (some - by no means all) other groups. (1) There
are a relatively large number of people who turn up with extremely
wrong and very negative views, and who are not interested in learning
the truth. I don't read any other language groups, but I *really*
doubt that the C groups, for instance, get this. (2) Some regular
posters say you are an idiot when they think you are. So what's wrong
with that?
--tim
Pascal Costanza
> I think that there are two relevant features of cll which make it
> somewhat ruder than (some - by no means all) other groups. (1) There
> are a relatively large number of people who turn up with extremely
> wrong and very negative views, and who are not interested in learning
> the truth. I don't read any other language groups, but I *really*
> doubt that the C groups, for instance, get this. (2) Some regular
> posters say you are an idiot when they think you are. So what's wrong
> with that?
wrt (1): This is also the case for some of the regular posters. Some of
them try to defend Common Lisp by all means, and at least one of them
has even stated this as an explicit goal. I fail to see what this has to
do with any notion of "truth".
wrt (2): Some of those alleged idiots are possibly no idiots at all, but
may decide to have something better to do than to repeatedly expose
themselves to abusive language. I'd regard this as a serious loss.
Just my 0.02€.
Pascal
P.S.: I wonder what Common Lisp vendors think about this situation.
After all, anyone that shows some interest in Common Lisp is a potential
customer in the long run, unless scared away prematurely. Or am I
overestimating the impact of newsgroups?
(Some background information: This is my first real newsgroup
experience, and I have only made my first posting in this year's August.
Before that, I have only occasionally touched newsgroups. So I possibly
have wrong expectations...)
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
mailto:cost...@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de Römerstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)