Can someone point out how he/she has gotten LispWorks and UncommonSQL
(with Database Postgres) to work? Yes, I checked out the docs but the
installation is tailored for CMUCL and as I see they have used a lot
of "specialities" of CMUCL. So if someone had done that before he/she
could save me (and probably others) a bunch of work, while posting a
step-by-step descritpion on how to set up the needes things.
Regards
Friedrich
Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com> writes:
> Can someone point out how he/she has gotten LispWorks and UncommonSQL
> (with Database Postgres) to work? Yes, I checked out the docs but the
> installation is tailored for CMUCL and as I see they have used a lot
> of "specialities" of CMUCL. So if someone had done that before he/she
> could save me (and probably others) a bunch of work, while posting a
> step-by-step descritpion on how to set up the needes things.
Do you have money to pay in exchange for this saved time?
Just curious.
Not scouting consulting opportunities for myself. This isn't my personal
area of expertise. But observing that for people who really do value
their time, maybe you'd get faster or better quality results by paying for
some of that consulting that pays for the bread on the table of the people
giving you all that time-saving free software.
I'm not meaning to be mocking here, though reading back on my text
above I realize it may seem that way. I'm just trying to understand
that model people have of how the free stuff comes into existence. It
just sounds so drugerous to do as an all-volunteer thing, maybe that's
why it's not been done, so maybe some consulting incentive would hurry it
up... and maybe, too, it would make one of those people happy who's been
complaining there are no Lisp jobs to be had.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com> writes:
>
> [snip only tangentially relevant query]
>
> Do you have money to pay in exchange for this saved time?
> Just curious.
>
> Not scouting consulting opportunities for myself. This isn't my personal
> area of expertise. But observing that for people who really do value
> their time, maybe you'd get faster or better quality results by paying for
> some of that consulting that pays for the bread on the table of the people
> giving you all that time-saving free software.
This is true, and one always has to keep the internal exchange rate of
time to money current.
> I'm not meaning to be mocking here, though reading back on my text
> above I realize it may seem that way. I'm just trying to understand
> that model people have of how the free stuff comes into existence.
Do you have any game theory?
Speaking without formality, the model is that we play iterated
non-zero-sum games, the most famous example of which is the Prisoner's
Dilemma. Since I imagine that most people have heard of this and are
at least vaguely familiar with its properties, I'll skip over it
except to point out that the iterative and non-iterative versions have
very definitely different equilibrium points.
I would imagine that the model most free software advocates have is
that people would be willing to pay a relatively small cost (the time
involved in putting up a webpage HOWTO, say) in return for the large
reward both in the betterment of society and also because their action
might encourage other people to do the same kind of thing or
contribute to the effort in question by sending patches, say.
Now, one might say that the act of putting up a HOWTO doesn't
encourage other people to do the same, and this is a justifiable
response; there are many similar examples of this kind of arguably
misguided idealism, such as a public transport network which doesn't
have sufficient coverage of ticket inspectors, where freeloaders will
be able to abuse the system. The rationality of this model is thus
dependent on one's estimate of the number of actual contributors to
the society enviseaged, rather than the total number of people, and
also of the contribution that they bring to the society.
I'm slightly reminded at this point of the calculation of the number
of civilizations in the galaxy performed by the Green Bank group and
Carl Sagan -- there are too many assumptions to have strong confidence
in one's answer, so one just has to accept the conclusion as being
directly related to the axioms. This suggests that Free Software
advocates have found their substitute for religion in this modern
age...
Christophe
--
Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL +44 1223 510 299
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ (defun pling-dollar
(str schar arg) (first (last +))) (make-dispatch-macro-character #\! t)
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\! #\$ #'pling-dollar)
Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> ... the model is that we play iterated non-zero-sum games ... I
> would imagine that the model most free software advocates have is
> that people would be willing to pay a relatively small cost (the
> time involved in putting up a webpage HOWTO, say) in return for the
> large reward both in the betterment of society ...
> Now, one might say that the act of putting up a HOWTO doesn't
> encourage other people to do the same,
No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that if there isn't a HOWTO, then
perhaps the "betterment of society" theory isn't working locally to that
item and perhaps an alternate theory, like money, might hurry the betterment
of society along. Perhaps that money will be received by somenoe who isn't
in the game. Or if they are in the game, perhaps that money will get spent
on hastening someone else.
Honestly, I don't see how the model is made different by people working for
pay. If people are receiving and putting out equal benefit, then the
same money will travel around in a loop. But if people aren't, the money
will flow to benefit the person who is doing more than their share. Is
this not proper?
>>>>> "KMP" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
[...]
KMP> No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that if there isn't a
KMP> HOWTO, then perhaps the "betterment of society" theory isn't
KMP> working locally to that item and perhaps an alternate theory,
KMP> like money, might hurry the betterment of society along.
I find this way of putting things very cute, and enjoyable to read.
Thank you. As you seem to have indicated in a previous posting, this
"betterment for some money" is a known good working scheme in research
universities. What it does to people who actually bring about this
betterment when the funding disappears is also something you discussed.
KMP> Perhaps that money will be received by somenoe who isn't in
KMP> the game. Or if they are in the game, perhaps that money
KMP> will get spent on hastening someone else.
Maybe. Depending on the amount.
KMP> Honestly, I don't see how the model is made different by
KMP> people working for pay.
Hmm. The University analogy I alluded to does not really entail
people working for money, it is people getting paid adequately while
they mostly do things that they think need doing. This might be what
you meant actually, but I am not sure. Working for pay, or working
for money might also lead one to think about maximizing that money and
push the parts of the betterment aspect that fall outside
"prosessionalism" out of the picture altogether.
KMP> If people are receiving and putting
KMP> out equal benefit, then the same money will travel around in
KMP> a loop. But if people aren't, the money will flow to benefit
KMP> the person who is doing more than their share. Is this not
KMP> proper?
I think both are proper. That aside, definition of equality or measuring
the worth of work are tough to define. With money, things become easier
somewhat as we can fall back on "what the market will bear."
This OT stuff is getting interesting. comp.lang.lisp.ot anyone?
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> This OT stuff is getting interesting. comp.lang.lisp.ot anyone?
Whether it's off-topic depends a lot on whether you think that all there is
to a language is its syntax and semantics. You can check out my paper
http://world.std.com/~pitman/PS/Lambda.html
for a discussion of why I think the sociology and community around a language
is as fundamental to the language as its semantics.
My position is that free software won't really fix the problems that stand
before Lisp, but others have suggested otherwise. On the off chance they're
right, whether globally or in some limited cases, it certainly merits
an open discussion.
So I think this stuff is not really off-topic. Not that my opinion carries
any more force of law than anyone else's around here.
>>>>> "KMP" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
BM> This OT stuff is getting interesting. comp.lang.lisp.ot
BM> anyone?
KMP> Whether it's off-topic depends a lot on whether you think
KMP> that all there is to a language is its syntax and semantics.
That was 9/10 tongue-in-cheek.
KMP> You can check out my paper
KMP> http://world.std.com/~pitman/PS/Lambda.html for a discussion
KMP> of why I think the sociology and community around a language
KMP> is as fundamental to the language as its semantics.
Yes, I have read that. I think you are right. I like talking to people
here also. Still, I think my lispy-code to other stuff ratio is low
and at the end of any non-technical posting I type up, I realize that.
KMP> My position is that free software won't really fix the
KMP> problems that stand before Lisp, but others have suggested
KMP> otherwise. On the off chance they're right, whether globally
KMP> or in some limited cases, it certainly merits an open
KMP> discussion. [...]
Certainly.
cheers,
BM
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: LispWorks and UncommonSQL
Date:
Message-ID: <878zgv14yh.fsf@frown.here>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com> writes:
>
> > Can someone point out how he/she has gotten LispWorks and UncommonSQL
> > (with Database Postgres) to work? Yes, I checked out the docs but the
> > installation is tailored for CMUCL and as I see they have used a lot
> > of "specialities" of CMUCL. So if someone had done that before he/she
> > could save me (and probably others) a bunch of work, while posting a
> > step-by-step descritpion on how to set up the needes things.
>
> Do you have money to pay in exchange for this saved time?
Now I have, but I figured it out how it worked. And get it running
myself ;-) It was not so terrible difficult as I concluded working
through it. The unpleasant thing was that there is a makefile and that
there are different Mk:defsystem descriptions. Following my Unix
tradition I started looking into Makefile first than makefile.lisp and
there I found all the special stuff for CMUCL. (extensions to
compile-file)
Believing I had to follow this file I wrote a new file which does the
same for LispWorks... And so it goes on and on and time passed by. I
asked this question around 15 Minutes before I the first contact with
my Postgres-Database. I do not know if the translation is correct but
it goes along this. Right before dawn the night is the darkest. Please
forgive if this is a bad translation. But I hope you have an idea what
it means.
>
> I'm not meaning to be mocking here, though reading back on my text
> above I realize it may seem that way.
I don't have understand it that way.
Regards
Friedrich
Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com> writes:
> Now I have, but I figured it out how it worked. And get it running
> myself ;-) It was not so terrible difficult as I concluded working
> through it. The unpleasant thing was that there is a makefile and
> that there are different Mk:defsystem descriptions. Following my
> Unix tradition I started looking into Makefile first than
> makefile.lisp and there I found all the special stuff for
> CMUCL.
Yah, the makefile.lisp is for building a "library" under CMUCL. You
should be able to just use defsystem (mk:oos "UncommonSQL" :load) and
go.
--
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
The outer space which me wears it has sexual intercourse. - opus