Date: 29 Apr 89 18:46:54 GMT
From: ·······@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts)
Seriously, system admin on a Symbolics LISPm is a serious headache
compared to Sun system admin. The networking software is not as
sophisticated (yes, I _do_ know about Sun's infamous YP);
Actually, I'd say it's more sophisticated: the lispms employ "transparent
networking" which is considerably more efficient than UNIX. editing/copying
a file on the lispm, e.g. from the INTERNET is (for the user) the same as
editing copying locally. You don't run FTP, then copy the file, then edit
it... and that's a trivial example.
the
documentation for the various configuration files is sketchy;
Granted, some are. I've never had a problem decoding them. You see, you have
the source code to look at...
you
would miss the tools like grep, awk, & piping.
The current release includes a grep-like tool (find string; find symbol)
which does roughly everything grep does, and lets you restrict it to a
system or package and of course the editor has more powerful search tools
than grep; as for awk and piping, who needs additional languages? When I
need e.g. the output of one function to be the input of another, I write it
that way in lisp to a lisp listener, and I don't need to know yet another
shell language to do it. You just get used to writing a lot of two-liners to
do stuff; if you find yourself doing some particular thing often enuff, put
it in your init file. (You can even make it a "command").
I do site admin at our site for both Symbolics and Explorer hosts, including
their interface to the UNIX world. This for roughly a dozen lisp machines,
and I do it in roughly 10% of my weekly time[*] (the rest spent on what I
*really* do here). Contrarywise, back when we had that many UNIX machines
(Sun 2/120s and Vax 750s) we had two full time UNIXoids doing site admin on
them. Admitably, we now have even more UNIX machines, but really only one
environment (Sun 3); we still have 1.5 full timers doing UNIX maintainance
and a manager. I'm handling two environments in *much* less time than that,
and expect no real problems should we get, for example an XL400 which
requires different binaries than the 3600 series.
[*] I won't make a completeness comparison; the hand holding the UNIX admins
do is much greater than what I supply.
----
Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept.
······@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller}
In article <······················@cs.rochester.edu> ······@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller) writes:
Date: 29 Apr 89 18:46:54 GMT
From: ·······@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts)
Seriously, system admin on a Symbolics LISPm is a serious headache
compared to Sun system admin. The networking software is not as
sophisticated (yes, I _do_ know about Sun's infamous YP);
Actually, I'd say it's more sophisticated: the lispms employ "transparent
networking" which is considerably more efficient than UNIX. editing/copying
a file on the lispm, e.g. from the INTERNET is (for the user) the same as
editing copying locally. You don't run FTP, then copy the file, then edit
it... and that's a trivial example.
You don't have to do it that way on a Unix system. Simply mount the
external file system. (And it's a _lot_ faster than the Symbolics'
(ILA)NFS software).
--Doug
--
===============================================================
Douglas Roberts
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Box 1663, MS F-602
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
(505)667-4569
····@lanl.gov
===============================================================
From: Barry Margolin
Subject: Re: Tired C programmer (Really configuration files)
Date:
Message-ID: <39824@think.UUCP>
In article <·····················@studguppy.lanl.gov> ·······@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes:
>In article <······················@cs.rochester.edu> ······@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller) writes:
> Actually, I'd say it's more sophisticated: the lispms employ "transparent
> networking" which is considerably more efficient than UNIX. editing/copying
> a file on the lispm, e.g. from the INTERNET is (for the user) the same as
> editing copying locally. You don't run FTP, then copy the file, then edit
> it... and that's a trivial example.
>You don't have to do it that way on a Unix system. Simply mount the
>external file system. (And it's a _lot_ faster than the Symbolics'
>(ILA)NFS software).
First of all, the above only works if the server happens to be running
the same networked file system protocol as you. Lisp machines have
been able to access arbitrary remote file systems for a decade, using
pre-existing networking protocols. Is there an NFS server for
TOPS-20, ITS, Multics, or Macintosh? The Lispm can access all of
these using ordinary FTP.
Also, the Lispm generic network facilities aren't limited only to file
access. For instance, there's also just one terminal protocol, which
automatically chooses the appropriate remote login protocol (Supdup or
Telnet over TCP/IP or Chaos, VMS's login protocol over Decnet, ASCII
over a serial port, etc.).
Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.
······@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Can I login to a symbolics machine using a vt100, and run an emacs
editor on the machine, develop code etc., in this manner? I would
essentially like to login to a symbolics remotely and get work done
just as I do on unix machines.
gerry wiener
--
Gerry Wiener (303)497-8790 ···········@toadwar.ucar.edu
NCAR
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, Co
80307-3000
From: Eric A. Raymond
Subject: VT100 LISPM (was Re: Tired C programmer)
Date:
Message-ID: <1132@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>
In article <··················@toadwar.toadwar.ucar.edu> ·····@toadwar.ucar.edu (gerry wiener) writes:
>Can I login to a symbolics machine using a vt100, and run an emacs
>editor on the machine, develop code etc., in this manner? I would
>essentially like to login to a symbolics remotely and get work done
>just as I do on unix machines.
Yes you can, but you probably wouldn't want to. I know there is
provision for a non TV tty. This provides you ZMACS and Lisp
Listener. Anything else requires mouse/graphics.
I wouldn't reccommend it though. Maybe just to check up on thinks
from home or a quick hack on a remote site. This just demonstrates
how powerful (and dependent you can get upon) the development
environment.
This comes from looking through source code. I know the Lisp Listener
works, but does anyone know if ZMACS still supports this. Might be
sortof tricky to do a Select-E?
--
Eric A. Raymond (·······@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov)
G7 C7 G7 G#7 G7 G+13 C7 GM7 Am7 Bm7 Bd7 Am7 C7 Do13 G7 C7 G7 D+13: Elmore James
From: Rob Vollum
Subject: Re: Tired C programmer (Really configuration files)
Date:
Message-ID: <656@pitstop.West.Sun.COM>
In article <······················@cs.rochester.edu> ······@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller) writes:
>Actually, I'd say it's more sophisticated: the lispms employ "transparent
>networking" which is considerably more efficient than UNIX. editing/copying
>a file on the lispm, e.g. from the INTERNET is (for the user) the same as
>editing copying locally. You don't run FTP, then copy the file, then edit
>it... and that's a trivial example.
I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree here. While LispM networking may be more
convenient than FTP, it is definitely not transparent -- you've still got
to know what machines your files live on. For "transparent networking", look
at NFS, which is supported by any "serious" UNIX, which allows a user to
build his own logical filesystem, using pieces of other filesystems around
the network. Then there is no need to know where anything lives for copying,
editing, etc. Compare the LispM's (ed "some-other-machine:>foo>hacks>bar.lisp")
to "emacs /usr/robv/hacks/bar.lisp" for transparency. Given enough bandwidth,
NFS can work over wide area networks as well, giving the same transparency.
During the summer olympics in S. Korea, Sun consultants and Kodak folks used
NFS to build logical "single view of the world" file systems from systems in
Korea, London, and New York. Allowing for the requisite satellite latency, users
had no idea where a file they were editing *really* lived!
>as for awk and piping, who needs additional languages? When I
>need e.g. the output of one function to be the input of another, I write it
>that way in lisp to a lisp listener, and I don't need to know yet another
>shell language to do it. You just get used to writing a lot of two-liners to
>do stuff; if you find yourself doing some particular thing often enuff, put
>it in your init file. (You can even make it a "command").
You're missing the point. First of all, using UNIX pipes is not learning another
language. Secondly, the real use of pipes is not the processing by one command of
the single result of a former command. In that case, you're right; function
composition in Lisp is reasonable. The real power of pipes comes in the processing
by a second function a *stream* (or "uninstantiated file") of information
produced by a former function; e.g. "grep foo bar.lisp | wc -l". Granted, it
can be done by creating a custom command that sends all output to a stream, then
passes that stream to another command, but this is no where near as trivial
as you are trying to make it out to be, and is not as general as having a
pipe mechanism available to you.
>I do site admin at our site for both Symbolics and Explorer hosts, including
>their interface to the UNIX world. This for roughly a dozen lisp machines,
>and I do it in roughly 10% of my weekly time[*] (the rest spent on what I
>*really* do here). Contrarywise, back when we had that many UNIX machines
>(Sun 2/120s and Vax 750s) we had two full time UNIXoids doing site admin on
>them. Admitably, we now have even more UNIX machines, but really only one
>environment (Sun 3); we still have 1.5 full timers doing UNIX maintainance
>and a manager. I'm handling two environments in *much* less time than that,
>and expect no real problems should we get, for example an XL400 which
>requires different binaries than the 3600 series.
Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. The emphasis when using a LispM is *not*
on network services and connectivity (I didn't say that you don't use networks;
it's just not the emphasis). A LispM is a single user, non-secure
environment, so clearly there's less to do. Add a user? Only if you feel like it.
When you get down to editing LispM namespaces, it can get pretty disgusting as
well.
Don't get me wrong here -- I've worked for both Symbolics and TI, and am
a dedicated Lisp hacker. I use Lisp for a great deal of my current
Sun programming, because Lisp is a great language. I've just recognized
that UNIX (as an OS) has alot of good functionality as well, that you
just won't find on a LispM. What's really needed is a good Lisp programming
environment (for program development/debugging) on top of a real OS (that
manages filesystems, networks, users, etc).
Rob Vollum
Sun Microsystems, Lexington, MA
...sun!sunne!robv
From: Rob Pettengill
Subject: Re: Tired C programmer (Really configuration files)
Date:
Message-ID: <2308@perseus.sw.mcc.com>
In article <···@pitstop.West.Sun.COM> ·······@sun.com (Rob Vollum) writes:
;In article <······················@cs.rochester.edu> ······@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller) writes:
;
;>Actually, I'd say it's more sophisticated: the lispms employ "transparent
;>networking" which is considerably more efficient than UNIX. editing/copying
;>a file on the lispm, e.g. from the INTERNET is (for the user) the same as
;>editing copying locally. You don't run FTP, then copy the file, then edit
;>it... and that's a trivial example.
;
;I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree here. While LispM networking may be more
;convenient than FTP, it is definitely not transparent -- you've still got
;to know what machines your files live on. For "transparent networking", look
;at NFS, which is supported by any "serious" UNIX, which allows a user to
;build his own logical filesystem, using pieces of other filesystems around
;the network. Then there is no need to know where anything lives for copying,
;editing, etc. Compare the LispM's (ed "some-other-machine:>foo>hacks>bar.lisp")
;to "emacs /usr/robv/hacks/bar.lisp" for transparency. Given enough bandwidth,
;NFS can work over wide area networks as well, giving the same transparency.
;During the summer olympics in S. Korea, Sun consultants and Kodak folks used
;NFS to build logical "single view of the world" file systems from systems in
;Korea, London, and New York. Allowing for the requisite satellite latency, users
;had no idea where a file they were editing *really* lived!
; ...
Try again ... the lisp machine supports logical pathname hosts. A
logical host allows an arbitrary mapping of directories and files,
into a logical file structure independent of host, file system,
network type, and network protocol. As a heavy user of both lisp
machines, and "serious" UNIX machines I have found the logical
pathname host approach unmatched in the ability to create software
that will run transparently regardless of the filesystem environment
where it and its data are stored.
;rob
Robert C. Pettengill, MCC Software Technology Program
P. O. Box 200195, Austin, Texas 78720
ARPA: ···@mcc.com PHONE: (512) 338-3533
UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech,pyramid}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!rcp