······@topinform.com (Andreas Holz) wrote in message news:<···························@posting.google.com>...
> Hello all,
>
> who is using OpenGenera today?
>
People with way too much money.
··········@hotmail.com (Anton Elron) wrote in message news:<···························@posting.google.com>...
> ······@topinform.com (Andreas Holz) wrote in message news:<···························@posting.google.com>...
> > Hello all,
> >
> > who is using OpenGenera today?
> >
>
> People with way too much money.
As I heard, the price of OpenGenera is USD 5k. This is not much for a
development environment, if used commercially. If used just for
playing around, it might be a lot of money.
Andreas
·········@posting.google.com>...
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > who is using OpenGenera today?
> > >
> >
> > People with way too much money.
>
> As I heard, the price of OpenGenera is USD 5k. This is not much for a
> development environment, if used commercially. If used just for
> playing around, it might be a lot of money.
>
Schmidt doesn't sell any copies except to diehards whose Ivory boxes
shit the bed, but he's adamant on the price. The best thing the Lisp
community would be to make MIT put all the old LispM source out there.
My guess is he has someone at that school who has enough pull to stop
it, but probably they can be gotten around.
The only reason to even _want_ Genera anymore is to play with it.
It's a rococo environment that time has passed by for good reason and
no one would use it for a serious project today, the stuff it has that
modern commercial Lisps don't is mostly what you don't want your
people using.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: who is using OpenGenera today?
Date:
Message-ID: <ur8h4d5e8.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 11 Aug 2002 19:56:49 -0700, Anton Elron ("Anton") writes:
Anton> The only reason to even _want_ Genera anymore is to play with it.
There are people who are using Genera as their development environment
today. But Genera is an old, unsupported product, from a company that
has for all practical purposes out of business for nearly a decade.
So unless you are already an expert on Genera, you probably don't want
to start now.
Anton> It's a rococo environment that time has passed by for good reason and
Anton> no one would use it for a serious project today, the stuff it has that
Anton> modern commercial Lisps don't is mostly what you don't want your
Anton> people using.
I have two confessions:
1. I had to look up the word "rococo": it relates to elaborate
ornamentation in 18th century art or music styles,
I now dimly recall knowing the word, from elementary school.
However, I have no idea what you mean in reference to Genera.
2. I have no idea what you're trying to say in the rest of
your message, either. But it sure makes me wonder!
I'm curious about what the "good reason" you think time has passed it by,
and what is the unique "stuff" that you don't want people using?
I think most modern Lisps would love really love to have the
features that they have thus far been unable to copy from Genera.
There is certainly quite a lot of stuff that I miss!
You also suggest some sort of conspiracy to keep MIT from releasing
the original Lisp Machine source code. Are you sure about that?
Anyway, that would be a far cry (about 1,000 man-years) from Genera.
> 1. I had to look up the word "rococo": it relates to elaborate
> ornamentation in 18th century art or music styles,
> I now dimly recall knowing the word, from elementary school.
> However, I have no idea what you mean in reference to Genera.
Not offering any opinion on whether it applys to Genera, here's the
definition the poster probably intended, courtesy of the on-line
hacker Jargon File, version 4.3.1, 29 JUN 2001:
rococo adj.
Terminally baroque. Used to imply that a program has become so
encrusted with the software equivalent of gold leaf and curlicues that
they have completely swamped the underlying design. Called after the
later and more extreme forms of Baroque architecture and decoration
prevalent during the mid-1700s in Europe. Alan Perlis said: "Every
program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." Compare critical
mass.
baroque adj.
[common] Feature-encrusted; complex; gaudy; verging on excessive. Said
of hardware or (esp.) software designs, this has many of the
connotations of elephantine or monstrosity but is less extreme and not
pejorative in itself. "Metafont even has features to introduce random
variations to its letterform output. Now that is baroque!" See also
rococo.
Cheers,
joelh
"Anton Elron" <··········@hotmail.com> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
>
> The best thing the Lisp
> community would be to make MIT put all the old LispM source out there.
> My guess is he has someone at that school who has enough pull to stop
> it, but probably they can be gotten around.
I think it is more likely that they don't have an easy way to
find and read backup tapes.
Oops! "Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> "Anton Elron" <··········@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ·································@posting.google.com...
>>
>> The best thing the Lisp
>> community would be to make MIT put all the old LispM source out there.
>> My guess is he has someone at that school who has enough pull to stop
>> it, but probably they can be gotten around.
>
> I think it is more likely that they don't have an easy way to
> find and read backup tapes.
According to the thesis on TCFS...
<http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~boogles/papers/tcfs-thesis/thesis.html>
this is supposed to be something of a "solved problem."
"By moving all of our files to TCFS, it will become more economical
for anyone to develop tools to help search and organize this vast
amount of data. I prototyped a few such tools as part of this
work. It is possible to build a single unified interface for all of
the Labs' archival data. This not only allows easy access to all our
old files, but simplifies maintenance. As a result, we hope that
none of our data is ``stranded'' in some forgotten format on an
unlabeled tape ever again."
I could easily see there being an issue surrounding, oh, call it
"copyright."
The big scuffle that led to RMS heading off to start the FSF was that
Symbolics treated the AI Lab work as being their proprietary property,
or at least so the story goes. That might be "RMS' biased side" of
the story; it still doesn't prevent there from being an issue of
copyright issues surrounding the code...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@acm.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/multiplexor.html
"prepBut nI vrbLike adjHungarian! qWhat's artThe adjBig nProblem?"
-- Alec Flett
"Christopher Browne" <········@acm.org> wrote in message ····················@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
> Oops! "Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> > "Anton Elron" <··········@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > ·································@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> The best thing the Lisp
> >> community would be to make MIT put all the old LispM source out there.
> >> My guess is he has someone at that school who has enough pull to stop
> >> it, but probably they can be gotten around.
> >
> > I think it is more likely that they don't have an easy way to
> > find and read backup tapes.
>
> According to the thesis on TCFS...
> <http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~boogles/papers/tcfs-thesis/thesis.html>
> this is supposed to be something of a "solved problem."
>
> "By moving all of our files to TCFS, it will become more economical
> for anyone to develop tools to help search and organize this vast
> amount of data. I prototyped a few such tools as part of this
> work. It is possible to build a single unified interface for all of
> the Labs' archival data. This not only allows easy access to all our
> old files, but simplifies maintenance. As a result, we hope that
> none of our data is ``stranded'' in some forgotten format on an
> unlabeled tape ever again."
I've read the thesis, but I don't know how much of it has been
put into practice. There is some stuff at http://www.its.os.org/
and some of it appears to be old CADR code.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: who is using OpenGenera today?
Date:
Message-ID: <uit2f251w.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 12 Aug 2002 19:24:29 GMT, Christopher Browne ("Christopher") writes:
cbrowne> The big scuffle that led to RMS heading off to start the FSF
cbrowne> was that Symbolics treated the AI Lab work as being their
cbrowne> proprietary property, or at least so the story goes.
cbrowne> That might be "RMS' biased side" of the story; it still
cbrowne> doesn't prevent there from being an issue of copyright
cbrowne> issues surrounding the code...
1. Not true.
2. Don't see how it's relevent to the current discussion.