From: Nick Levine
Subject: preserving Harlequin's lisps
Date: 
Message-ID: <7mfuf9$48v$1@epos.tesco.net>
I keep coming across various people and small groups interested in
preserving something of Harlequin's lisp products. I wonder whether we'd all
prefer to continue working in the dark, or get together and pool resources?

Mail me if interested.

- n

From: David Bakhash
Subject: Re: preserving Harlequin's lisps
Date: 
Message-ID: <cxjhfn8uquq.fsf@acs5.bu.edu>
"Nick Levine" <···········@tesco.net> writes:

> I keep coming across various people and small groups interested in
> preserving something of Harlequin's lisp products. I wonder whether we'd all
> prefer to continue working in the dark, or get together and pool resources?

I don't think that there is anything to worry about.  I believe that
Harlequin's Lisps are not going to be harmed by the recent aquisition, and
since Lisp has continued to be profitable for them, there is no reason why the
new aquiring company will do anything but promote its use.

dave
From: Mike McDonald
Subject: Re: preserving Harlequin's lisps
Date: 
Message-ID: <7mia7c$nvq$1@spitting-spider.aracnet.com>
In article <···············@acs5.bu.edu>,
	David Bakhash <·····@bu.edu> writes:
> "Nick Levine" <···········@tesco.net> writes:
> 
>> I keep coming across various people and small groups interested in
>> preserving something of Harlequin's lisp products. I wonder whether we'd all
>> prefer to continue working in the dark, or get together and pool resources?
> 
> I don't think that there is anything to worry about.  I believe that
> Harlequin's Lisps are not going to be harmed by the recent aquisition, and
> since Lisp has continued to be profitable for them, there is no reason why the
> new aquiring company will do anything but promote its use.
> 
> dave

  There are lots of valid reasons for a company to can a profitable product.
It may not be returning enough profits, it's a distraction for management, it
doesn't fit in with the direction of the company, ...

  Mike McDonald
  ·······@mikemac.com
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: preserving Harlequin's lisps
Date: 
Message-ID: <378CACE4.33297ED2@pindar.com>
Mike McDonald wrote:

>   There are lots of valid reasons for a company to can a profitable product.
> It may not be returning enough profits, it's a distraction for management, it
> doesn't fit in with the direction of the company, ...

Yes. Sucessful companies should 'stick to the knitting' but there is not reason why
you can't flog off the part of the company that doesn't fit in with the corporate
vision to other interested parties, or even the worker!! Especially, if the work
carried out IS in a completely different direction). This makes some quick cash and
allow the good work to continue. Why just shut it down and sack everybody?

:-) will