Suppose that I have in mind to write an application for normal users,
not programmers, and not system administrators. For example, I like
music applications, so supose that I'm going to write something similar
to Cubase or Logic.
(Actually this is just a desire, I know that making such a kind of
applicattion is quite difficult and requires a lot of work.)
Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
for a comercial compiler. Elsewhere, I need speed, as it is going to be
a real-time application, and of course it requires to do very efficent
floating point calculations.
My application is intended to run on MacOSX, Windows, and Linux. It is
primary going to be designed, edited and debuged using OSX, and then
ported to other plattforms.
So my only alternative is SBCL, and praid to heaven for the Windows
version to be avaiable some day.
I've been navigating thru cliki.net to see all the libraries avaiable
for this issue, and I'm confussed.
* I didn't find any library for GUI development except LTK that works
on all the 3 major OS without issues. But LTK is based on TK, it is
slower, and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on), and
Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
application. I also would like the library to produce nice-looking
widgets for the users; this is very important. Using a GTK binding
gives me a great headache: it works very nice on Linux, but there is
not native OSX widgets yet (it uses X11 and most people just don't
know/ want to install and/or use it), and for windows something similar
happens.
* For sound libraries is even worse. Almost all libraries are old and
beta versions. I think that there is not even a single library that
just makes sound to work on all OS. Some recomendations are welcome
here.
So this is my frustation with Lisp. I hope anyone here can bring me up
some hope. I like Lisp as a language, and would like to use it for
practical and real world applications, but there is little help from
avaiable libraries. I hope I'm wrong.
Javier wrote:
> * I didn't find any library for GUI development except LTK that works
> on all the 3 major OS without issues. But LTK is based on TK, it is
> slower, and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
> to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on), and
> Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
> application. I also would like the library to produce nice-looking
> widgets for the users; this is very important. Using a GTK binding
> gives me a great headache: it works very nice on Linux, but there is
> not native OSX widgets yet (it uses X11 and most people just don't
> know/ want to install and/or use it), and for windows something similar
> happens.
wxCL is probably the best bet. I haven't used wxCL (
http://www.wxcl-project.org/ ), but I have used wxPython. wxWidgets ( wxCL
and wxPython are interfaces to it) is THE way to get cross-platform native
GUIs. I would definitely try that one for GUI. Plus wxGlade (
wxglade.sourceforge.net ) now has support for generating CL code. So it can
be used for rapid and easy GUI design.
> * For sound libraries is even worse. Almost all libraries are old and
> beta versions. I think that there is not even a single library that
> just makes sound to work on all OS. Some recomendations are welcome
> here.
No idea there.
> So this is my frustation with Lisp. I hope anyone here can bring me up
> some hope. I like Lisp as a language, and would like to use it for
> practical and real world applications, but there is little help from
> avaiable libraries. I hope I'm wrong.
It is true that Lisp in general lacks the library support that, for example,
Python has. But I think for a large application CL would be the way to go.
Satya
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Satya wrote:
> Javier wrote:
> wxCL is probably the best bet. I haven't used wxCL (
> http://www.wxcl-project.org/ ), but I have used wxPython. wxWidgets ( wxCL
> and wxPython are interfaces to it) is THE way to get cross-platform native
> GUIs. I would definitely try that one for GUI. Plus wxGlade (
> wxglade.sourceforge.net ) now has support for generating CL code. So it can
> be used for rapid and easy GUI design.
Thank you! I like this.
But still having problems trying to install in my system. Perhaps you
know what's happening:
The constant WXCL:+LIBRARY-NAME+ is being redefined (from
"../lib/wxc-msw2.6.2.dll" to "../lib/wxc-msw2.6.2.dll")
[Condition of type DEFCONSTANT-UNEQL]
The problem here seems to be something related to system detection. My
system is Intel OSX with SBCL and it is trying to find a DLL (which
belongs to Windows).
On 30 Aug 2006 04:04:57 -0700, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Satya wrote:
> > Javier wrote:
>
> > wxCL is probably the best bet. I haven't used wxCL (
> > http://www.wxcl-project.org/ ), but I have used wxPython. wxWidgets ( wxCL
> > and wxPython are interfaces to it) is THE way to get cross-platform native
> > GUIs. I would definitely try that one for GUI. Plus wxGlade (
> > wxglade.sourceforge.net ) now has support for generating CL code. So it can
> > be used for rapid and easy GUI design.
>
> Thank you! I like this.
> But still having problems trying to install in my system. Perhaps you
> know what's happening:
>
> The constant WXCL:+LIBRARY-NAME+ is being redefined (from
> "../lib/wxc-msw2.6.2.dll" to "../lib/wxc-msw2.6.2.dll")
> [Condition of type DEFCONSTANT-UNEQL]
>
> The problem here seems to be something related to system detection. My
> system is Intel OSX with SBCL and it is trying to find a DLL (which
> belongs to Windows).
The immediate problem is that for portability, string values should not
used with defconstant; wxCL should use a defvar or defparameter for
this 'constant' and rename it accordingly.
Also, if it were a global special, then wxCL apps could rebind it as
a configuration step. As it is now, you have to edit the library source
if that relative path is not correct at deployment time.
--
Jack Unrue
Javier wrote:
> Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> for a comercial compiler. Elsewhere, I need speed, as it is going to be
> a real-time application, and of course it requires to do very efficent
> floating point calculations.
> My application is intended to run on MacOSX, Windows, and Linux. It is
> primary going to be designed, edited and debuged using OSX, and then
> ported to other plattforms.
> So my only alternative is SBCL, and praid to heaven for the Windows
> version to be avaiable some day.
>
> I've been navigating thru cliki.net to see all the libraries avaiable
> for this issue, and I'm confussed.
I'm in the same boat, but making progress.
> * I didn't find any library for GUI development except LTK that works
> on all the 3 major OS without issues. But LTK is based on TK, it is
> slower, and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
> to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on), and
> Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
> application. I also would like the library to produce nice-looking
> widgets for the users; this is very important. Using a GTK binding
> gives me a great headache: it works very nice on Linux, but there is
> not native OSX widgets yet (it uses X11 and most people just don't
> know/ want to install and/or use it), and for windows something similar
> happens.
Paul Reutz has made good progress the past year in integrating the
excellent Qt library (www.trolltech.com) with lisp. His latest draft is
available at http://lisp-cffi-qt4.sourceforge.net/
This code is not finished yet, but its already becoming usable.
Unfortunately, Paul is unable to keep working on it at this time. One
big gap in his implementation is no support for QEvents... I've started
toying with adding support for this, and it doesn't look like it should
take too long to get that working. (If I were a better Lisper with more
time...)
If you don't need a full widget library, then SDL (see below) might be a
good way to go.
> * For sound libraries is even worse. Almost all libraries are old and
> beta versions. I think that there is not even a single library that
> just makes sound to work on all OS. Some recomendations are welcome
> here.
The only active cross-platform sound system I know of is the SDL. There
are a couple projects for using SDL with Lisp
(http://www.cliki.net/SDL)... I haven't used either, but CL-SDL uses
the UFFI whereas lispbuilder uses the CFFI; from what I've heard, CFFI
is the way to go. Also, lispbuilder
(http://lispbuilder.sourceforge.net/) already has some support for
SDL_mixer (http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/). Didn't check CL-SDL.
Hope that helps,
Daniel
D Herring wrote:
> Paul Reutz has made good progress the past year in integrating the
> excellent Qt library (www.trolltech.com) with lisp. His latest draft is
> available at http://lisp-cffi-qt4.sourceforge.net/
And where is the source code or something to download? Is the same
library being stacked in cliki.net from 2003 to now?
> The only active cross-platform sound system I know of is the SDL. There
> are a couple projects for using SDL with Lisp
> (http://www.cliki.net/SDL)... I haven't used either, but CL-SDL uses
> the UFFI whereas lispbuilder uses the CFFI; from what I've heard, CFFI
> is the way to go. Also, lispbuilder
> (http://lispbuilder.sourceforge.net/) already has some support for
> SDL_mixer (http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/). Didn't check CL-SDL.
I've tried to install CFFI which is required, and got this error:
#<SB-SYS:FD-STREAM for "file
/Users/javi/.sbcl/site/rt-20040621/rt.fasl" {122FF099}>
is in native code fasl file format version 64, but this version of SBCL
uses
format version 66.
[Condition of type SB-FASL::INVALID-FASL-VERSION]
Thank you.
Javier <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've tried to install CFFI which is required, and got this error:
>
> #<SB-SYS:FD-STREAM for "file
> /Users/javi/.sbcl/site/rt-20040621/rt.fasl" {122FF099}>
> is in native code fasl file format version 64, but this version of SBCL
> uses
> format version 66.
> [Condition of type SB-FASL::INVALID-FASL-VERSION]
You have compiled /Users/javi/.sbcl/site/rt-20040621/rt.lisp with an
older version of SBCL, and the generated fasl file is no longer
compatible with your current version. Remove the stale fasl files, and
compile it again.
See http://www.cliki.net/asdf for a way to make the recompilation
happen automatically when using asdf.
--
Juho Snellman
"Javier" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> D Herring wrote:
>> Paul Reutz has made good progress the past year in integrating the
>> excellent Qt library (www.trolltech.com) with lisp. His latest draft is
>> available at http://lisp-cffi-qt4.sourceforge.net/
>
> And where is the source code or something to download? Is the same
The "Download" link at the above site leads to:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lisp-cffi-qt4
If you are familiar with Sourceforge, you can then click the "Files"
link at the top, leading to:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=168107
Or just have check the relevant CLD entry:
Simple Lisp Qt4 CFFI integration attempt
http://www.cl-user.net/asp/libs/lispolos
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
Javier wrote:
> Suppose that I have in mind to write an application for normal users,
> not programmers, and not system administrators. For example, I like
> music applications, so supose that I'm going to write something similar
> to Cubase or Logic.
> (Actually this is just a desire, I know that making such a kind of
> applicattion is quite difficult and requires a lot of work.)
>
> Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> for a comercial compiler.
Nonsense. You are just broke or cheap.
> Elsewhere, I need speed, as it is going to be
> a real-time application, and of course it requires to do very efficent
> floating point calculations.
> My application is intended to run on MacOSX, Windows, and Linux. It is
> primary going to be designed, edited and debuged using OSX, and then
> ported to other plattforms.
> So my only alternative is SBCL, and praid to heaven for the Windows
> version to be avaiable some day.
You have this terrible problem because you are broke or cheap.
>
> I've been navigating thru cliki.net to see all the libraries avaiable
> for this issue, and I'm confussed.
>
> * I didn't find any library for GUI development except LTK that works
> on all the 3 major OS without issues.
Missing cells-gtk and (understandably) celtk (its a demo project under
Cells).
>.. But LTK is based on TK, it is
> slower,
Nonsense. You'll be using it for the GUI, not protein-folding.
> and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
> to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on),
Because you do not know anything about Tk.
> and
> Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
> application.
Nonsense. Distribute the frickin DLLs with your app. <sigh>
> I also would like the library to produce nice-looking
> widgets for the users; this is very important. Using a GTK binding
> gives me a great headache: it works very nice on Linux, but there is
> not native OSX widgets yet (it uses X11 and most people just don't
> know/ want to install and/or use it), and for windows something similar
> happens.
This is open source you are trying to do in a really cheap, shoddy way
and you are worried about native widgets? You are the author of your own
unhappiness.
> * For sound libraries is even worse.
What about Snack? (not sure of the name). Oh, you cannot use Tcl because
you have no idea what you are doing.
> Almost all libraries are old and
> beta versions. I think that there is not even a single library that
> just makes sound to work on all OS. Some recomendations are welcome
> here.
CLM? Coomnon Music? Snack?
>
> So this is my frustation with Lisp.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Pogo
I suggest you use Java.
hth, kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Javier wrote:
>
>> Elsewhere, I need speed, as it is going to be
>> a real-time application, and of course it requires to do very efficent
>> floating point calculations.
If you have to, stick them in a C library, learn CFFI, and get over it.
>> My application is intended to run on MacOSX, Windows, and Linux. It is
>> primary going to be designed, edited and debuged using OSX, and then
>> ported to other plattforms.
>> So my only alternative is SBCL, and praid to heaven for the Windows
>> version to be avaiable some day.
I forgot to ask what was wrong with CLisp. Note, however, that you do
not know enough to answer that question.
C++ is also very popular, and there are great sound libs, free
compilers, GUIs, etc etc. You should look at those. Please.
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
[...]
You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you fool
idiot.
If I'm ask is because I don't know. Not all of every us was born being
the master of the universe as you are.
And this is the second time. And I see that you are doing this exactly
the same with everybody new. Even with people which aren't new. You
must have some kind of psicological problem, you're all the time hoping
a violent reaction from others to start a new flamewar.
Javier wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> [...]
>
> You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you fool
> idiot.
> If I'm ask is because I don't know. Not all of every us was born being
> the master of the universe as you are.
> And this is the second time. And I see that you are doing this exactly
> the same with everybody new. Even with people which aren't new. You
> must have some kind of psicological problem, you're all the time hoping
> a violent reaction from others to start a new flamewar.
Ken Tilton is an aquired taste - if you can ignore his inflammatory
remarks his advice is usually good. When I first saw some (most!) of
his posts I initially thought WTF! but think of him as someone with
Tourettes Syndrome and just look at what he is saying not how he is
saying it!
Sean SCC wrote:
> Javier wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you fool
> > idiot.
> > If I'm ask is because I don't know. Not all of every us was born being
> > the master of the universe as you are.
> > And this is the second time. And I see that you are doing this exactly
> > the same with everybody new. Even with people which aren't new. You
> > must have some kind of psicological problem, you're all the time hoping
> > a violent reaction from others to start a new flamewar.
>
> Ken Tilton is an aquired taste - if you can ignore his inflammatory
> remarks his advice is usually good. When I first saw some (most!) of
> his posts I initially thought WTF! but think of him as someone with
> Tourettes Syndrome and just look at what he is saying not how he is
> saying it!
I agree. New Yorkers need treating a little differently from most
people :)
Rob Thorpe <·············@antenova.com> wrote:
> Sean SCC wrote:
>> Ken Tilton is an aquired taste - if you can ignore his inflammatory
>> remarks his advice is usually good. When I first saw some (most!) of
>> his posts I initially thought WTF! but think of him as someone with
>> Tourettes Syndrome and just look at what he is saying not how he is
>> saying it!
>
> I agree. New Yorkers need treating a little differently from most
> people :)
They all need to be killfiled for being abusive jerks?
--
Juho Snellman
Juho Snellman wrote:
> Rob Thorpe <·············@antenova.com> wrote:
> > Sean SCC wrote:
> >> Ken Tilton is an aquired taste - if you can ignore his inflammatory
> >> remarks his advice is usually good. When I first saw some (most!) of
> >> his posts I initially thought WTF! but think of him as someone with
> >> Tourettes Syndrome and just look at what he is saying not how he is
> >> saying it!
> >
> > I agree. New Yorkers need treating a little differently from most
> > people :)
>
> They all need to be killfiled for being abusive jerks?
Gads, you don't killfile jerks, not if they're funny or informative.
Consider the following recent threads on comp.programming, imagine,
they would never have seen the light of day without their source of
inspiration...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming/browse_frm/thread/437b1f7e14fe305c/#
<·····························@yahoo.de>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming/browse_frm/thread/793a19924cc2d8ac/#
<························@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
See especially Richard Heathfields replies.
Sean SCC wrote:
>
> Ken Tilton is an aquired taste - if you can ignore his inflammatory
> remarks his advice is usually good. When I first saw some (most!) of
> his posts I initially thought WTF! but think of him as someone with
> Tourettes Syndrome and just look at what he is saying not how he is
> saying it!
I think there must be some kind of cll conservation principle at work
here. Kenny is clearly expanding to fill the void left by Erik,
although so far he is but a pale imitation. Who is the new KMP I
wonder?
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> Sean SCC wrote:
>
>>Ken Tilton is an aquired taste - if you can ignore his inflammatory
>>remarks his advice is usually good. When I first saw some (most!) of
>>his posts I initially thought WTF! but think of him as someone with
>>Tourettes Syndrome and just look at what he is saying not how he is
>>saying it!
>
>
> I think there must be some kind of cll conservation principle at work
> here. Kenny is clearly expanding to fill the void left by Erik,
> although so far he is but a pale imitation.
No, no, no, this is a complete disaster. Your first mistake leads to the
second. There are only minor commonalities between Erik and me, such as
usually being the first to identify trolls and idiots. This is no
justification for your pattern recognition system to come up with
"filling the void", but once it does your upper cortex clings to that
"fact" and then starts whining about "pale imitations".
In fact, I am just runway 26 to Erik's runway 22.
hth, ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> > Sean SCC wrote:
> >
> >>Ken Tilton is an aquired taste - if you can ignore his inflammatory
> >>remarks his advice is usually good. When I first saw some (most!) of
> >>his posts I initially thought WTF! but think of him as someone with
> >>Tourettes Syndrome and just look at what he is saying not how he is
> >>saying it!
> >
> >
> > I think there must be some kind of cll conservation principle at work
> > here. Kenny is clearly expanding to fill the void left by Erik,
> > although so far he is but a pale imitation.
>
> No, no, no, this is a complete disaster. Your first mistake leads to the
> second. There are only minor commonalities between Erik and me, such as
> usually being the first to identify trolls and idiots. This is no
> justification for your pattern recognition system to come up with
> "filling the void", but once it does your upper cortex clings to that
> "fact" and then starts whining about "pale imitations".
It's not a complete disaster -- you're right that Tim was making a
fallacy by casting you as The New Erik, but I think he was on to
something with the filling the void bit. Except I'd have phrased it
as filling a niche.
Javier wrote:
>
> You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you fool
> idiot.
See, this is the kind of thing Erik would have pounced on so quickly
and thoroughly that there wouldn't be any room left for others. His
absence allows other organisms to come in and consume the resources
that now sit there unused. That is to say that Tiltus kennae is
feeding on the same creatures that Naggum erikus used to.
(And as far as I can tell, I'm on the same bullshit I ever was)
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> (And as far as I can tell, I'm on the same bullshit I ever was)
Your real problem is that you have stolen my initials. I insist that
you change your name at once. It took me a huge amount of time to
persuade gnus that you weren't me, and now I use something else which
doesn't have full booleans in its rules I've given up all hope (why
does everyone who writes a mail/news reader or search tool think that a
single OR or AND is enough when you just obviously need negation, and
(OR (AND ... ...) ...) for instance?).
--tim
Ken Tilton wrote:
> No, no, no, this is a complete disaster. Your first mistake leads to the
> second. There are only minor commonalities between Erik and me, such as
> usually being the first to identify trolls and idiots. This is no
> justification for your pattern recognition system to come up with
> "filling the void", but once it does your upper cortex clings to that
> "fact" and then starts whining about "pale imitations".
This is the best (and funniest) cll article I've seen since, well,
since Erik used to post. Thanks for making my cold-ridden week a bit
less miserable. Unfortunately I will have to dispatch the black
helicopters however.
--tim
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries
Date:
Message-ID: <eR0Kg.25$rU4.7@newsfe11.lga>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>No, no, no, this is a complete disaster. Your first mistake leads to the
>>second. There are only minor commonalities between Erik and me, such as
>>usually being the first to identify trolls and idiots. This is no
>>justification for your pattern recognition system to come up with
>>"filling the void", but once it does your upper cortex clings to that
>>"fact" and then starts whining about "pale imitations".
>
>
> This is the best (and funniest) cll article I've seen since, well,
> since Erik used to post.
Oh, my. The balky recognizer has overwhelmed the cortex.
> Thanks for making my cold-ridden week a bit
> less miserable. Unfortunately I will have to dispatch the black
> helicopters however.
Someone needs to warn Erik.
k
Sean SCC wrote:
> Javier wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you fool
> > idiot.
> > If I'm ask is because I don't know. Not all of every us was born being
> > the master of the universe as you are.
> > And this is the second time. And I see that you are doing this exactly
> > the same with everybody new. Even with people which aren't new. You
> > must have some kind of psicological problem, you're all the time hoping
> > a violent reaction from others to start a new flamewar.
>
> Ken Tilton is an aquired taste - if you can ignore his inflammatory
> remarks his advice is usually good.
TBH, his response here was anything but useful. Not everyone
will respond gently to being personally insulted when they
want to write software to give away for free.
> When I first saw some (most!) of
> his posts I initially thought WTF! but think of him as someone with
> Tourettes Syndrome and just look at what he is saying not how he is
> saying it!
Yes, he is a smart cookie, but I doubt that his smartness
reaches the levels of (for example) Theo de Raadt; IOW,
overcoming the drivel to get at a tiny nugget of
information is only worth it if the nugget is rare
and/or particularly insightful. It sometimes is in
the case of TdR but I've never noticed it in the case
of KT (and I'm still looking:-).
goose,
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries
Date:
Message-ID: <CijJg.2$6z5.0@newsfe12.lga>
Javier wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> [...]
>
> You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you fool
> idiot.
I am an illusion. You are screaming at yourself for your really bad
original self-answering-wrongly question and the corrections to which it
naturally led.
> If I'm ask is because I don't know.
The most dangerous gun is the one you know is not loaded. Your
"question" was packed tight with things you knew which were not true.
Your mind has run amok and is forcing you to deal with misinformation as
if it were fact. It must be stopped. Based on the violence of its
("your") response, we have at least driven it out into the open. That is
a start.
> Not all of every us was born being
> the master of the universe as you are.
The self is an illusion. Neither you nor I exist. Conflict arises from
the illusion of self. There is only a question of how best to do your
application. But you are so full of your "self" that your original
request was merely a catalog of your other ignorances. Now that false
self is furious because the ignorances got corrected in a rude way by
another self. You, poor soul, are now consumed by your illusory self
wanting to go to war with my illusory self. It is so bad that even
Juho's "self" wants to get involved. Impressive.
> And this is the second time.
Oh, cool, I nailed you before? Gotta go google that. :)
> And I see that you are doing this exactly
> the same with everybody new.
No, that is your own ignorant "self" view blinding you. Plenty of noobs
who know how to ask questions on Usenet have no problem with me.
Your true wise and peaceful nature has not a prayer of being heard until
you tame the false self, and that is done by meditating until it
disappears. As an initial exercise, see if you can sense that the raging
author of this most recent bit of vituperation is not you.
> Even with people which aren't new. You
> must have some kind of psicological problem, you're all the time hoping
> a violent reaction from others to start a new flamewar.
>
We all have a psychological problem: the self.
hth, kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> We all have a psychological problem: the self.
Start looking at yourself first.
Just as it seems that you like so much budhist filosofy, apply it first
to yourself. If everything is an illusion start understanding deep into
your mind first. Then, when you really understand that everything is an
illusion, then you'll have no need to attack the apparent external
world, as you are continiusly doing, and suffering and having what you
deserve, as it is. Or, do you think that you are in a superior level
from others, and it is time to evangelize them?
Is that so difficult for you to understand that newcomers are confused
for programming TASKS, as they were not born mastering in everything,
and that's because we are asking, without aprension and without any
feeling of having to being deffending ourself from an idiot like you?
You are free for not to help me. But you decide to attack me because
you believe (erroneusly) that attacking people is the way to teach
them. Somewhat your way of thinking and acting is very close to the
fascist one. There is not a little thing of compasion in you, but a lot
of egoism and vanish. And personal confusion, too.
On 2006-08-30, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... an interesting rant ... ]
Half way through I thought you really were channeling Erik, but then I
realized you were channeling a zen master or something.
-- L
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries
Date:
Message-ID: <6fnJg.29$6z5.0@newsfe12.lga>
Larry Clapp wrote:
> On 2006-08-30, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> [ ... an interesting rant ... ]
>
> Half way through I thought you really were channeling Erik,
Oh yeah, and I notice the resonance myself as I am typing. But I think
this is just one of those separate but independent deals, where a common
problem defines its own response, so multiple respondents come up with
same result only by addressing the problem as it wants to be. If that
makes any sense.
> but then I
> realized you were channeling a zen master or something.
Mom has the last word on that:
"Ken, I went to the library and read up on Buddhism, and believe me, you
are no Buddhist."
:)
ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Seems to be closer to the New York School,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_School
I think Ken's a real plus. And I am realizing just by typing this reflects
on my own Lisp skills - yep, been side-tracked again.
> > but then I
> > realized you were channeling a zen master or something.
>
> Mom has the last word on that:
>
> "Ken, I went to the library and read up on Buddhism, and believe me, you
> are no Buddhist."
>
> :)
>
> ken
>
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: What is Juho's Problem Anyway? [was Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries]
Date:
Message-ID: <ZMtJg.604$JG2.287@newsfe09.lga>
Adam wrote:
> Seems to be closer to the New York School,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_School
>
> I think Ken's a real plus. And I am realizing just by typing this reflects
> on my own Lisp skills - yep, been side-tracked again.
I was just going to observe that the "kenny and erik: separated at
birth?" thread won't be much fun until kenny-defenders start weighing
in, so thanks for the impetus, but I will not be satsfied until I get
attacked by name in the subject line of an article.
:)
kz
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
On 2006-08-31 05:42:32 +0100, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>
> Adam wrote:
>> Seems to be closer to the New York School,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_School
>>
>> I think Ken's a real plus. And I am realizing just by typing this reflects
>> on my own Lisp skills - yep, been side-tracked again.
>
> I was just going to observe that the "kenny and erik: separated at
> birth?" thread won't be much fun until kenny-defenders start weighing
> in, so thanks for the impetus, but I will not be satsfied until I get
> attacked by name in the subject line of an article.
"Nagging Naggum" had its fun, but now I'm not sure: "Tilting Tilton" ?
:-)
--
JFB
On 2006-08-30, Javier <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> [...]
>
> You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you
> fool idiot.
> If I'm ask is because I don't know. Not all of every us was born
> being the master of the universe as you are.
> And this is the second time. And I see that you are doing this
> exactly the same with everybody new. Even with people which aren't
> new. You must have some kind of psicological problem, you're all the
> time hoping a violent reaction from others to start a new flamewar.
Kenny's just beating the drum to remind people that if they *give away
their work for free*, then they shouldn't be surprised when they
*can't afford the tools that would actually make their work easier, or
even merely possible*.
Besides, the fact that your project will be FOSS in no way prohibits
you from using a commercial compiler to create it.
-- Larry
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries
Date:
Message-ID: <WMkJg.20$JG2.2@newsfe09.lga>
Larry Clapp wrote:
> On 2006-08-30, Javier <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you
>>fool idiot.
>>If I'm ask is because I don't know. Not all of every us was born
>>being the master of the universe as you are.
>>And this is the second time. And I see that you are doing this
>>exactly the same with everybody new. Even with people which aren't
>>new. You must have some kind of psicological problem, you're all the
>>time hoping a violent reaction from others to start a new flamewar.
>
>
> Kenny's just beating the drum ...
Actually, the other drum I forgot to beat was the classic open source
whiner whining about the Open Source Fairy not leaving the libraries
they need under their pillows: "I do not want to pay anything, so one of
you should have written this for me for free."
RMS cast the pearl "We should all write and contribute great software
and make it free." before us swine and now we are running around
wondering where is the all the free software that somehow is just
supposed to be Out There. (Psst: <oink><grunt> we are supposed to
/write/ it! <grunt>).
<sigh>
ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Actually, the other drum I forgot to beat was the classic open source
> whiner whining about the Open Source Fairy not leaving the libraries
> they need under their pillows: "I do not want to pay anything, so one of
> you should have written this for me for free."
> RMS cast the pearl "We should all write and contribute great software
> and make it free." before us swine and now we are running around
> wondering where is the all the free software that somehow is just
> supposed to be Out There. (Psst: <oink><grunt> we are supposed to
> /write/ it! <grunt>).
RMS has their things, and we are free to follow him or not. I'm
actually don't, and don't going to in the future.
Elsewhere, it hasn't got anything to do with the original question. I
never said that you are supposed to do anything for me or anybody. I
asked for a technical question I was (and still am) confused. My
criticism is that you attacked me in the personal area without any
personal provocation from my part. And you are doing this every day
with everybody, especialy newcomers.
Congratulations if you are pretending to destroy (even more) the Lisp
comunity, as you are working very well.
Javier wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Actually, the other drum I forgot to beat was the classic open source
>>whiner whining about the Open Source Fairy not leaving the libraries
>>they need under their pillows: "I do not want to pay anything, so one of
>>you should have written this for me for free."
>>RMS cast the pearl "We should all write and contribute great software
>>and make it free." before us swine and now we are running around
>>wondering where is the all the free software that somehow is just
>>supposed to be Out There. (Psst: <oink><grunt> we are supposed to
>>/write/ it! <grunt>).
>
>
> RMS has their things, and we are free to follow him or not. I'm
> actually don't, and don't going to in the future.
> Elsewhere, it hasn't got anything to do with the original question. I
> never said that you are supposed to do anything for me or anybody. I
> asked for a technical question I was (and still am) confused.
Your "question" contained many false statements about Lisp. As you
noted, the way I reacted is not the way one reacts when someone wants to
help someone. You failed to deduce from that that I had no interest in
helping you, rather only in correcting the record. There are an awful
lot of newbies hanging around c.l.l who I did not want confused by your
foolishness.
> My
> criticism is that you attacked me in the personal area without any
> personal provocation from my part.
Too fucking bad. I did not like your stupidity, you do not like the way
I slammed you for it. Catch a clue: this is Usenet. If you want to be
pampered even when you post mistakes such as "no free Lisp other than
SBCL runs on all three OSes" and "LTk is the only portable GUI", I
recommend #lisp. The yobbos love people like you.
> And you are doing this every day
> with everybody, especialy newcomers.
Not.
> Congratulations if you are pretending to destroy (even more) the Lisp
> comunity, as you are working very well.
>
No one told you about The Savages of C.L.L?
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Your "question" contained many false statements about Lisp. As you
> noted, the way I reacted is not the way one reacts when someone wants to
> help someone. You failed to deduce from that that I had no interest in
> helping you, rather only in correcting the record. There are an awful
> lot of newbies hanging around c.l.l who I did not want confused by your
> foolishness.
You were not only trying to correct me (which might be discutible as we
are adults), but also insultating me (which is not tolerable at all),
as your are doing right now. And you use to do this very frecuently.
"This is Usenet" is just an excuse, and you know it.
On 2006-08-31 01:04:17 +0100, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> There are an awful lot of newbies hanging around c.l.l who I did not
> want confused by your foolishness.
You'd rather have them walk away in disgust?
:-)
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-08-31 01:04:17 +0100, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> There are an awful lot of newbies hanging around c.l.l who I did not
>> want confused by your foolishness.
>
>
> You'd rather have them walk away in disgust?
>
> :-)
Before I respond, I just want to clarify two things:
(1) Your premise is that people looking for a better programming
language will find Lisp and then abandon it because Kenny made fun of
javier while correcting his many mistakes? (Apologies if I made that
sound too stupid.)
(2) Neither you nor javier have said one word defending the half-dozen
idiocies I identified in his original "question". So, with Javier, you
concede the original post was a nightmare of inaccuracies and that all
my corrections were on the mark?
Thx, kenny
ps. I notice that, in a thread titled "Lets <sic> talk about GUI and
sound libraries" you did not say anything about GUI /or/ sound
libraries. Is this because you are "self" absorbed? kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
On 2006-08-31 03:51:09 +0100, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> verec wrote:
>> On 2006-08-31 01:04:17 +0100, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> There are an awful lot of newbies hanging around c.l.l who I did not
>>> want confused by your foolishness.
>>
>> You'd rather have them walk away in disgust?
>>
>> :-)
>
> Before I respond, I just want to clarify two things:
>
> (1) Your premise is that people looking for a better programming
> language will find Lisp and then abandon it because Kenny made fun of
> javier while correcting his many mistakes? (Apologies if I made that
> sound too stupid.)
Yes. Life is short. And between Erlang, Io or Haskell, the choice of
interesting languages to learn is far from nil.
> (2) Neither you nor javier have said one word defending the half-dozen
> idiocies I identified in his original "question". So, with Javier, you
> concede the original post was a nightmare of inaccuracies and that all
> my corrections were on the mark?
I do.
But calling names someone just because of lack of reflection,
naivete or ignorance is probably not going to point him in the
right direction.
> Thx, kenny
>
> ps. I notice that, in a thread titled "Lets <sic> talk about GUI and
> sound libraries" you did not say anything about GUI /or/ sound
> libraries. Is this because you are "self" absorbed? kt
You didn't pay attention, that's all. I mentionned CoreAudio as a technology,
Finale, Garage Band and Impromptu as existing products to compare on feature
sets, and finally pointed out that access to these technolgies is _not_
language dependant (is not harder tn Lisp than in say: Python) as all you
need is a usually trivial FFI layer.
Once you become less cell-absorbed :-) I'm willing to invest time on
"porting"/FFI'ing the entire SWT toolkit to Lisp. Definitely NOT a small
task (about 1 MB of Java source + about 100K of C source _per platform_)
and your "C" to Lisp expertise might come handy.
Are you in?
--
JFB
verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
>
> But calling names someone just because of lack of reflection, naivete
> or ignorance is probably not going to point him in the right
> direction.
Or in other words, oftentimes the carrot is more useful than the stick...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
'Y'know how they touted Java as this remarkable cross-platform solution
for everything; Is that why applets usually crash my browser, regardless
of which browser I'm using?' --Kevin Deighton in uk.net.web.authoring
From: Larry Elmore
Subject: Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries
Date:
Message-ID: <r2LJg.5729$N84.1677@trnddc08>
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Javier wrote:
>> My
>> criticism is that you attacked me in the personal area without any
>> personal provocation from my part.
>
> Too fucking bad. I did not like your stupidity, you do not like the way
> I slammed you for it. Catch a clue: this is Usenet.
The excuse recommended by 9 out of 10 assholes.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> RMS cast the pearl "We should all write and contribute great software
> and make it free." before us swine and now we are running around
> wondering where is the all the free software that somehow is just
> supposed to be Out There. (Psst: <oink><grunt> we are supposed to
> /write/ it! <grunt>).
Nobody did any such thing in this thread.
Larry Clapp wrote:
> On 2006-08-30, Javier <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > You're stupid and pretending from me what I'm doing: to tell you
> > fool idiot.
> > If I'm ask is because I don't know. Not all of every us was born
> > being the master of the universe as you are.
> > And this is the second time. And I see that you are doing this
> > exactly the same with everybody new. Even with people which aren't
> > new. You must have some kind of psicological problem, you're all the
> > time hoping a violent reaction from others to start a new flamewar.
>
> Kenny's just beating the drum to remind people that if they *give away
> their work for free*, then they shouldn't be surprised when they
> *can't afford the tools that would actually make their work easier, or
> even merely possible*.
People who decide to give there work away understands the implications
of it in terms of tools. What Kenny said was insulting because he
called the OP "cheap" for wanting to do this, despite a lack of
evidence that this was the OPs motivation.
Ok, so you presume that you are correcting me, that you are a master,
and that you have the right to treat everybody which hasn't got the
same opinion and logic as you to be insulted.
But lets go with your original message:
> > Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> > for a comercial compiler.
>
> Nonsense. You are just broke or cheap.
It is your logic that is broken, and take the right for insulting me.
There are several motivations for making a program free, and most of
them are very away from that things you say. I'm not going to tell
every of them (and there are a lot), but just take for example at any
company producing open source programs (almost any big software company
right now), and any person who makes open source programs too.
You must be confused and totally wrong about what you personally are,
as you write Cells, which is free software. Are you broke or cheap
anyway?
I'm going to think that you are, as you are producing free software and
you say that the motivations are only that being broke or cheap.
> You have this terrible problem because you are broke or cheap.
If you really intended to correct my post, this commentary hasn't got
anything to do. Unless, of course, and I think so, you tried to hurt
me, for your own reward.
> > * I didn't find any library for GUI development except LTK that works
> > on all the 3 major OS without issues.
>
> Missing cells-gtk and (understandably) celtk (its a demo project under
> Cells).
As I said before this, I need it to be nice good looking and quite
integrated into the original environment of every OS. Gtk, for the
moment, fails the second statment (it needs the user to install X11 on
OSX, which is an important barrier for me).
My doubt was any binding for TK, and that is because I do question.
There was no need to be so little polite and so much prepotent. But
you're always the same.
> >.. But LTK is based on TK, it is
> > slower,
>
> Nonsense. You'll be using it for the GUI, not protein-folding.
If I'm going to use real time equalizers and the environment is very
heavy, I'm going to need a fast GUI. I said it, but you were too much
bored trying to say how much cheap and broke and ignorant I am.
> > and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
> > to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on),
>
> Because you do not know anything about Tk.
Here I find your ignorance. LTK uses streams to communicate to a TK
server, and it might not be aducuate to real time application with lots
of 2D graphics and widgets moving all the time.
> > and
> > Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
> > application.
>
> Nonsense. Distribute the frickin DLLs with your app. <sigh>
Not in the case of LTK, as it needs a full TK server running.
> This is open source you are trying to do in a really cheap, shoddy way
> and you are worried about native widgets? You are the author of your own
> unhappiness.
These are the most irritating things about you. You always finish your
irritating comments with personal attacks and prepotent behavior.
And I've decided to answer this post because I believe you are not
always concious about what are you saying, and that your words have
both fatal consecuencies to you and others. You might be very
intelligent (as Erik was, and I have read some posts from him and
others), but you lack sociability and the correct use of logic. If you
are always saying that people need to be treated hard to learn,
somebody should treat you the same way to teach both. Beacuse I know
this it is quite difficult if not imposible at all, I'm going to dimiss
now. (I don't acttually have any relations to you except these posts,
so for me to avoid some hurt from you, it is the best decision.)
Aside from your comments to Kenny -which I sympatize with- a few other
points.
Javier wrote:
> > > and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
> > > to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on),
> >
> > Because you do not know anything about Tk.
>
> Here I find your ignorance. LTK uses streams to communicate to a TK
> server, and it might not be aducuate to real time application with lots
> of 2D graphics and widgets moving all the time.
That isn't really the problem. You can have any number and complexity
of Tk widgets you like in an application like this, they will all exist
within Tk which will take care of them fine. You'll get good
performance.
The problem is communications of data. Lets say you have a very simple
GUI that has a few buttons and one Canvas. Everything will work fine
until you want to move the graphics from the canvas to your program, in
that case everything will have to be converted to text and back again.
Another problem is dealing with problems with Tk. The way to print
graphics in Tk is to convert widgets to postscript and send them to a
printer. This works great in *nix. But in Windows it may be
inappropriate. Normally to solve this you would grab the hDC of the
window then print it using Windows calls. You can't do this through
the wish interface though, it must be done in the TCL end.
The above is my experience of using these type of Tk-through-wish
interfaces before, not of using ltk. I apologise if ltk has solved any
of these problems.
> > > and
> > > Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
> > > application.
> >
> > Nonsense. Distribute the frickin DLLs with your app. <sigh>
>
> Not in the case of LTK, as it needs a full TK server running.
It requires no less than a TCL wish shell running, but that isn't much
of a problem it can be crammed into one small executable. See my
previous post.
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > Here I find your ignorance. LTK uses streams to communicate to a TK
> > server, and it might not be aducuate to real time application with lots
> > of 2D graphics and widgets moving all the time.
> The problem is communications of data. Lets say you have a very simple
> GUI that has a few buttons and one Canvas. Everything will work fine
> until you want to move the graphics from the canvas to your program, in
> that case everything will have to be converted to text and back again.
Sorry if you didn't understood me or I was not clear, but somithing
like this is what I meant. 2D grafics (for moving real time graphical
equalizers and more) is very important in this kind of application.
> > Not in the case of LTK, as it needs a full TK server running.
> It requires no less than a TCL wish shell running, but that isn't much
> of a problem it can be crammed into one small executable. See my
> previous post.
I read them. I mean that the TCL wish shell is comunication thru
streams (acting as a server) with the main program.
Javier wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>
> > > Here I find your ignorance. LTK uses streams to communicate to a TK
> > > server, and it might not be aducuate to real time application with lots
> > > of 2D graphics and widgets moving all the time.
> > The problem is communications of data. Lets say you have a very simple
> > GUI that has a few buttons and one Canvas. Everything will work fine
> > until you want to move the graphics from the canvas to your program, in
> > that case everything will have to be converted to text and back again.
>
> Sorry if you didn't understood me or I was not clear, but somithing
> like this is what I meant. 2D grafics (for moving real time graphical
> equalizers and more) is very important in this kind of application.
Well, a real time graphical equlizer would probably be OK. You would
only need to send a few draw command to a Tk canvas to make one. The
overhead of copying through a port would be less than the overhead
inside X. What would be more of a problem would be something like
copying a "sheet" of music to a graphics file, or making a listbox
containing a great number of items.
I apologise if I'm labouring the point a little. Probably you
understand it.
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Well, a real time graphical equlizer would probably be OK. You would
> only need to send a few draw command to a Tk canvas to make one. The
> overhead of copying through a port would be less than the overhead
> inside X. What would be more of a problem would be something like
> copying a "sheet" of music to a graphics file, or making a listbox
> containing a great number of items.
>
> I apologise if I'm labouring the point a little. Probably you
> understand it.
Don't worry, I like to talk about this and we are doing in mutual
respect.
I agree to you up to a certain level. A real time equalizer would be
OK, but take a look into Cubase, Logic, or similar programs. First, the
typical compositions would need 10 to 30 channels, all sounding at the
same time. Each channel might need a window for itself, and each
channel does have several effects, which also needs a window for every
one. Normaly, only 10% of these windows are open at the same time,
which might be somewhat 10 windows. The problem is that these windows
are probably going to be very informative, so they must show lots of
widgets (which are all changing in real time), and they must present a
lot of information, like scores, equalizers, and more. A single
equalizer is not a problem, but imagine moving 10 equalizers, 100
widgets, 10 windows and more.
Now imagine that the application is already very stressed with all the
calculations it must make: effects, virtual instruments, real-time
reading and writing from disk, and more.
I'm afraid that TK would over-saturate the system, and there will be
not enough speed for the important part (the sound).
I could be wrong, that's because I do the question. I believe that TK
is very slow because I've been a user of it for some applications, and
have the sensation that it redraws slowly.
Javier wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>
> > Well, a real time graphical equlizer would probably be OK. You would
> > only need to send a few draw command to a Tk canvas to make one. The
> > overhead of copying through a port would be less than the overhead
> > inside X. What would be more of a problem would be something like
> > copying a "sheet" of music to a graphics file, or making a listbox
> > containing a great number of items.
> >
> > I apologise if I'm labouring the point a little. Probably you
> > understand it.
>
> Don't worry, I like to talk about this and we are doing in mutual
> respect.
>
> I agree to you up to a certain level. A real time equalizer would be
> OK, but take a look into Cubase, Logic, or similar programs. First, the
> typical compositions would need 10 to 30 channels, all sounding at the
> same time. Each channel might need a window for itself, and each
> channel does have several effects, which also needs a window for every
> one. Normaly, only 10% of these windows are open at the same time,
> which might be somewhat 10 windows. The problem is that these windows
> are probably going to be very informative, so they must show lots of
> widgets (which are all changing in real time), and they must present a
> lot of information, like scores, equalizers, and more. A single
> equalizer is not a problem, but imagine moving 10 equalizers, 100
> widgets, 10 windows and more.
> Now imagine that the application is already very stressed with all the
> calculations it must make: effects, virtual instruments, real-time
> reading and writing from disk, and more.
> I'm afraid that TK would over-saturate the system, and there will be
> not enough speed for the important part (the sound).
> I could be wrong, that's because I do the question.
See my post to Peter. On my Linux machine the ltk demo performs
poorly, despite not being that complex. I don't yet know if this is
ltk's fault.
> I believe that TK
> is very slow because I've been a user of it for some applications, and
> have the sensation that it redraws slowly.
There is Tk and there is Tk. The first problem is that TCL itself if
very slow, many Tk apps are slow because of this. The second is that
Tk under MS Windows used to rely on much pseudo X emulation, this was
nasty, but it now uses native widgets for buttons etc. Tk itself is
now reasonable regarding speed, with two exceptions: OSX Aqua Tk is
reputably quite slow, there are also some "performance perculiarities"
in the Tk canvas widget. I can tell you what they are if you want to
know.
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> I can tell you what they are if you want to know.
If you don't mind very much, please tell me.
As said before, the test is getting about 6% off my system tu run, on
Intel OSX. It does work ok.
Ok, another more testing: when pushing the Test button, it takes about
25% of the CPU to animate the graph very fast. So it is true: it is not
very good at 2D graphics.
I didn't emulated the behavior of a music application. If you've got
such kind of application, you may get an stimation of what I need and
perhaps give me some recommendations.
Javier wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > I can tell you what they are if you want to know.
>
> If you don't mind very much, please tell me.
Try not to delete(destroy) whole widgets, delete or change the things
in them instead. If you destroy a widget often the packer has to
repack the whole window. (GTK2 has a similar problem I hear)
If you use the canvas, be a little careful. Mostly it's OK, but the
canvas is intelligent it's not like a Windows DC for example, it's more
like a drawing program. Don't create a image by writing tens of
thousands of points, do it with the higher level stuff, images,
bitmaps, rectangles etc. The canvas keeps objects, even lines etc,
around so they can be manipulated later, so try not to generate a great
number of small items.
> As said before, the test is getting about 6% off my system tu run, on
> Intel OSX. It does work ok.
>
> Ok, another more testing: when pushing the Test button, it takes about
> 25% of the CPU to animate the graph very fast. So it is true: it is not
> very good at 2D graphics.
:) Still seems to work a lot better than on my Linux machine. Maybe my
config is screwed somewhere.
> I didn't emulated the behavior of a music application. If you've got
> such kind of application, you may get an stimation of what I need and
> perhaps give me some recommendations.
Sorry, I didn't emulate the behaviour of a music app either. I've
never written an application that deals with music.
Javier wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>
>> I can tell you what they are if you want to know.
>
>
> If you don't mind very much, please tell me.
>
> As said before, the test is getting about 6% off my system tu run, on
> Intel OSX. It does work ok.
>
> Ok, another more testing: when pushing the Test button, it takes about
> 25% of the CPU to animate the graph very fast. So it is true: it is not
> very good at 2D graphics.
>
> I didn't emulated the behavior of a music application. If you've got
> such kind of application, you may get an stimation of what I need and
> perhaps give me some recommendations.
>
As I wrote in my answer to Rob, the Ok button is to start a benchmarking
test, so it should take as much cpu as is there :). On OS X, you have to
carefully select the Tk you are using. The standard AquaTk looks very
nice, but has strange performance characteristics. There seems to be a
delay between changing the Tk state and the redraw on the screen.
Comparing the performance on a G3 iBook and a G5 iMac shows clearly,
that this is not cpu-bound. If you install an X11 based tk and use that
for output (set ltk:*wish-pathname* e.g. to /sw/bin/wish if its
installed by fink) you get way faster screen updated, though it is quite
ugly of course... So for running heavy interactive Ltk applications
(read games...) on my Mac, I prefer the X11 based Tk.
Peter
--
Ltk, the easy lisp gui http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/
Javier wrote:
> I agree to you up to a certain level. A real time equalizer would be
> OK, but take a look into Cubase, Logic, or similar programs. First, the
> typical compositions would need 10 to 30 channels, all sounding at the
> same time. Each channel might need a window for itself, and each
> channel does have several effects, which also needs a window for every
> one. Normaly, only 10% of these windows are open at the same time,
> which might be somewhat 10 windows. The problem is that these windows
> are probably going to be very informative, so they must show lots of
> widgets (which are all changing in real time), and they must present a
> lot of information, like scores, equalizers, and more. A single
> equalizer is not a problem, but imagine moving 10 equalizers, 100
> widgets, 10 windows and more.
> Now imagine that the application is already very stressed with all the
> calculations it must make: effects, virtual instruments, real-time
> reading and writing from disk, and more.
> I'm afraid that TK would over-saturate the system, and there will be
> not enough speed for the important part (the sound).
> I could be wrong, that's because I do the question. I believe that TK
> is very slow because I've been a user of it for some applications, and
> have the sensation that it redraws slowly.
>
Typically, a Ltk application should be way faster than a pure Tcl/Tk
one, because all the calculations behind the GUI are done in compiled
Lisp instead of really slow TCL. Furthermore, in the days of multiple
processors, Ltk has the nice advantage that the GUI and the program
behind it actually run in two different processes, so could utilize 2
cpus at the same time.
Anyway, the main advantage of Ltk is, that it is nice to use. You can
get started with it in minutes, no difficult setup required. IMHO it
feels very lispy, that makes for nice development. Finally, it has shown
to be quite robust, I have used it for several commercial projects.
Speed was never the main goal of the Ltk development, but in practice is
quite good. It is not suited for big animations, but just try the
ltktest program in the Ltk library, it shows that Ltk is good enough to
animate a star made from 100 lines. If you have more specific questions,
there is a Ltk mailing list.
Peter
Peter Herth wrote:
> Javier wrote:
> > I agree to you up to a certain level. A real time equalizer would be
> > OK, but take a look into Cubase, Logic, or similar programs. First, the
> > typical compositions would need 10 to 30 channels, all sounding at the
> > same time. Each channel might need a window for itself, and each
> > channel does have several effects, which also needs a window for every
> > one. Normaly, only 10% of these windows are open at the same time,
> > which might be somewhat 10 windows. The problem is that these windows
> > are probably going to be very informative, so they must show lots of
> > widgets (which are all changing in real time), and they must present a
> > lot of information, like scores, equalizers, and more. A single
> > equalizer is not a problem, but imagine moving 10 equalizers, 100
> > widgets, 10 windows and more.
> > Now imagine that the application is already very stressed with all the
> > calculations it must make: effects, virtual instruments, real-time
> > reading and writing from disk, and more.
> > I'm afraid that TK would over-saturate the system, and there will be
> > not enough speed for the important part (the sound).
> > I could be wrong, that's because I do the question. I believe that TK
> > is very slow because I've been a user of it for some applications, and
> > have the sensation that it redraws slowly.
> >
>
> Typically, a Ltk application should be way faster than a pure Tcl/Tk
> one, because all the calculations behind the GUI are done in compiled
> Lisp instead of really slow TCL. Furthermore, in the days of multiple
> processors, Ltk has the nice advantage that the GUI and the program
> behind it actually run in two different processes, so could utilize 2
> cpus at the same time.
> Anyway, the main advantage of Ltk is, that it is nice to use. You can
> get started with it in minutes, no difficult setup required. IMHO it
> feels very lispy, that makes for nice development. Finally, it has shown
> to be quite robust, I have used it for several commercial projects.
> Speed was never the main goal of the Ltk development, but in practice is
> quite good. It is not suited for big animations, but just try the
> ltktest program in the Ltk library, it shows that Ltk is good enough to
> animate a star made from 100 lines. If you have more specific questions,
> there is a Ltk mailing list.
I wanted to see how fast ltk was, so I did some simple testing.
First though, a little info about compatability. Here is a list of the
Lisps I have and those it works on:-
Linux CLisp 2.33.2 :- Fails on line 427 of ltk.lisp, probably a CLisp
bug
Linux CMUCL 19a :- Works, both when loaded with "load" or
"compile-file"
Linux ECL 0.9f :- Works, both compiled and interpreted
Linux GCL 2.6.7 cltl1 :- Doesn't work
Windows SBCL 0.9.12 "death kitten" :- Doesn't compile
Windows ECL 0.9h:- Works interpreted, can't check compiled because I
don't have compiler
Windows GCL 2.6.1 cltl1 :- Doesn't work
Windows CLisp 2.34 :- Works
TCL/Tk 8.4 was used in all cases. In the Windows case I used TCLkit
based on TCL8.4
Cltl1 GCL shouldn't work since the language is different, I didn't
really expect it to. SBCL 0.9.12 on Windows has too many bugs for this
purpose.
On Windows it is reasonably snappy. It draws the shape and it spins
OK. Pressing the "stop" button works fine, as do the other buttons.
Linux is a different story, it's incredibly unresponsive, pressing the
stop button leads to a delay of ~5 seconds before the disc stops
spinning. This seems to be independent of the CL used. It also seems
to provoke lots of garbage collection at the lisp end.
The question is why, normally Linux Tk is fast? Peter, does ltk
normally behave like this?
Rob Thorpe wrote:
>
> I wanted to see how fast ltk was, so I did some simple testing.
>
> First though, a little info about compatability. Here is a list of the
> Lisps I have and those it works on:-
>
> Linux CLisp 2.33.2 :- Fails on line 427 of ltk.lisp, probably a CLisp
> bug
> Linux CMUCL 19a :- Works, both when loaded with "load" or
> "compile-file"
> Linux ECL 0.9f :- Works, both compiled and interpreted
> Linux GCL 2.6.7 cltl1 :- Doesn't work
>
> Windows SBCL 0.9.12 "death kitten" :- Doesn't compile
> Windows ECL 0.9h:- Works interpreted, can't check compiled because I
> don't have compiler
> Windows GCL 2.6.1 cltl1 :- Doesn't work
> Windows CLisp 2.34 :- Works
>
> TCL/Tk 8.4 was used in all cases. In the Windows case I used TCLkit
> based on TCL8.4
>
> Cltl1 GCL shouldn't work since the language is different, I didn't
> really expect it to. SBCL 0.9.12 on Windows has too many bugs for this
> purpose.
>
> On Windows it is reasonably snappy. It draws the shape and it spins
> OK. Pressing the "stop" button works fine, as do the other buttons.
> Linux is a different story, it's incredibly unresponsive, pressing the
> stop button leads to a delay of ~5 seconds before the disc stops
> spinning. This seems to be independent of the CL used. It also seems
> to provoke lots of garbage collection at the lisp end.
>
> The question is why, normally Linux Tk is fast? Peter, does ltk
> normally behave like this?
>
Thank you for making such extensive tests! Yes, it is known that
Clisp 2.33 doesn't work, but fortunately newer ones fixed that bug.
I have no idea what caused your Linux problems, personally I am using
Ltk on Linux and Solaris for my commercial work and the Linux
performance is quite fine. Unless... there are two buttons to start the
rotation "Start" and "Ok", the latter does start "testrotation" which
rotates the shape a fixed amount of times and then prints out the time
taken to stdout via the time macro. I built that for rough benchmarking
of the redraw speed. Of course you cannot interrupt it and depending on
your machine it takes 2..4 seconds.
Peter
--
Ltk, the easy lisp gui http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/
Peter Herth wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >
> > I wanted to see how fast ltk was, so I did some simple testing.
> >
> > First though, a little info about compatability. Here is a list of the
> > Lisps I have and those it works on:-
> >
> > Linux CLisp 2.33.2 :- Fails on line 427 of ltk.lisp, probably a CLisp
> > bug
> > Linux CMUCL 19a :- Works, both when loaded with "load" or
> > "compile-file"
> > Linux ECL 0.9f :- Works, both compiled and interpreted
> > Linux GCL 2.6.7 cltl1 :- Doesn't work
> >
> > Windows SBCL 0.9.12 "death kitten" :- Doesn't compile
> > Windows ECL 0.9h:- Works interpreted, can't check compiled because I
> > don't have compiler
> > Windows GCL 2.6.1 cltl1 :- Doesn't work
> > Windows CLisp 2.34 :- Works
> >
> > TCL/Tk 8.4 was used in all cases. In the Windows case I used TCLkit
> > based on TCL8.4
> >
> > Cltl1 GCL shouldn't work since the language is different, I didn't
> > really expect it to. SBCL 0.9.12 on Windows has too many bugs for this
> > purpose.
> >
> > On Windows it is reasonably snappy. It draws the shape and it spins
> > OK. Pressing the "stop" button works fine, as do the other buttons.
> > Linux is a different story, it's incredibly unresponsive, pressing the
> > stop button leads to a delay of ~5 seconds before the disc stops
> > spinning. This seems to be independent of the CL used. It also seems
> > to provoke lots of garbage collection at the lisp end.
> >
> > The question is why, normally Linux Tk is fast? Peter, does ltk
> > normally behave like this?
> >
> Thank you for making such extensive tests! Yes, it is known that
> Clisp 2.33 doesn't work, but fortunately newer ones fixed that bug.
> I have no idea what caused your Linux problems, personally I am using
> Ltk on Linux and Solaris for my commercial work and the Linux
> performance is quite fine. Unless... there are two buttons to start the
> rotation "Start" and "Ok", the latter does start "testrotation" which
> rotates the shape a fixed amount of times and then prints out the time
> taken to stdout via the time macro. I built that for rough benchmarking
> of the redraw speed. Of course you cannot interrupt it and depending on
> your machine it takes 2..4 seconds.
The problem appears to have been my graphics driver. My graphics
hardware in on-board in the SiS chipset on my motherboard. If I run
the test using the SiS driver it behaves as I describe above, with a
huge delay between clicking "stop" and the stop actually occurring. If
I use the VESA framebuffer driver then it works much better, start and
stop respond instantly. So, probably a bug in the X SiS driver.
The "Ok" speed test takes ~10seconds and stutters quite a bit though
using either driver. This seems to be because of garbage collection,
probably because so many strings are generated to send to Wish.
Peter Herth wrote:
> Typically, a Ltk application should be way faster than a pure Tcl/Tk
> one, because all the calculations behind the GUI are done in compiled
> Lisp instead of really slow TCL. Furthermore, in the days of multiple
> processors, Ltk has the nice advantage that the GUI and the program
> behind it actually run in two different processes, so could utilize 2
> cpus at the same time.
> Anyway, the main advantage of Ltk is, that it is nice to use. You can
> get started with it in minutes, no difficult setup required. IMHO it
> feels very lispy, that makes for nice development. Finally, it has shown
> to be quite robust, I have used it for several commercial projects.
> Speed was never the main goal of the Ltk development, but in practice is
> quite good. It is not suited for big animations, but just try the
> ltktest program in the Ltk library, it shows that Ltk is good enough to
> animate a star made from 100 lines. If you have more specific questions,
> there is a Ltk mailing list.
Thanks, Peter.
I did run run the test, and your are right, it has decent performance.
It consumes about 6% of CPU on a Intel Core Duo 2,0Ghz. I don't know if
it is enough, I'll should make some tests.
Yes, I have used Ltk before for experimenting, and I think it is very
nice to program in
Something has eaten my sig, so here the link to the Ltk page where you
can find the mailing list too:
Ltk, the easy lisp gui http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/
Peter
Javier wrote:
> Ok, so you presume that you are correcting me, that you are a master,
> and that you have the right to treat everybody which hasn't got the
> same opinion and logic as you to be insulted.
> But lets go with your original message:
>
> > > Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> > > for a comercial compiler.
> >
> > Nonsense. You are just broke or cheap.
>
> It is your logic that is broken, and take the right for insulting me.
> There are several motivations for making a program free, and most of
> them are very away from that things you say. I'm not going to tell
> every of them (and there are a lot), but just take for example at any
> company producing open source programs (almost any big software company
> right now), and any person who makes open source programs too.
> You must be confused and totally wrong about what you personally are,
> as you write Cells, which is free software. Are you broke or cheap
> anyway?
> I'm going to think that you are, as you are producing free software and
> you say that the motivations are only that being broke or cheap.
There's a difference between writing free software and saying, "My
whole application is going to depend on large free-software packages."
You mentioned earlier that you use free software because you're able to
"modify it" and not because it's distributed free of charge. I think
this is baloney. How often have you had to modify a free software
package? If it was simply to fix a bug, ask yourself if that bug would
have been fixed more easily by a company than by a user - or whether
that bug would have been there at all. What kinds of modifications are
you looking to make?
Put another way, if SBCL and Lispworks cost the same amount of money,
which would you use? If Linux and OS X cost the same amount of money,
which would you use? The answer should be the better software package
- even if you have to pay for it. If SBCL or Linux were licensed such
that you could only participate in development if you purchased a
license, would you still be so keen on it? This is something you
should seriously think about. Lots of people claim that free software
wins because of freedom, but when you get right down to it, they just
don't feel like paying for software.
People have trouble seeing the costs of software because software isn't
something you can hold in your hand, like, say, a piece of steak. Had
RMS launched a "free steak" movement, he would have gotten nowhere.
Why? Because it would have been too expensive to produce steak without
recouping the costs. Likewise with software. Open-source coders
assume that cost themselves. But the fact is that making solid
software costs money. This is why SBCL and CMUCL are only where they
are today because CMU funded development for several years. Or why
Firefox is so complete (Netscape paid for it). Likewise with Apache,
parts of the Linux kernel. Software costs money; good software costs a
lot. Regardless of RMS's rhetoric, the reason most people are using
open-source is the "free beer" aspect of it. They put up with shoddy
implementations (e.g. Ruby's interpreter is notoriously slow, as it
runs progams directly off the parse tree. Why is this accepted?
Because it's free. No one would pay money for such a
bizarrely-implemented interpreter) and endure all kinds of shortcomings
simply to avoid paying. Perhaps I'm generalizing here - perhaps there
are more people in the free software movement than I imagine who are
actually in it for the "freedom." In my own experience, though, most
people would not choose Linux if it cost money - even if it cost money
to get the "free speech" aspects of it. It is the lack of upfront cost
of Linux that keeps people using it - and ironically costs them much
more in wasted time. Since switching to OS X, I find I can do lots
more with my computer. I always wanted to manage my money on my
computer, but the only programs available for Linux in this department
were gnucash and grisbi (I believe that was the name), neither of which
were very good. Now it's as simple as paying thirty bucks for Quicken
and getting that functionality. Similarly, I used to get by with SLIME
and SBCL. Both of these are well-done products, but they don't compare
to LispWorks. Why aren't people using LispWorks then? Mostly because
SLIME and SBCL cost nothing upfront (OK, OK, there are other reasons
too - SLIME is easily extended, SBCL's compiler is very helpful, etc.).
The next time you claim that the "free beer" aspect of free software
is unimportant to you, compare the software in question with its
commercial counterpart and ask yourself which you'd pay for if they
both cost the same amount of money.
Bill Atkins
Bill Atkins wrote:
> You mentioned earlier that you use free software because you're able to
> "modify it" and not because it's distributed free of charge.
I didn't said that. I did said that I *prefer* free software (and
preferencies are not mandatory) for two reasons: first because it is
free of charge and second because I can modify it and/or help to the
original author.
Said this, the rest of your message is based in false asumptions of
what I said, so there is no need to answer to it.
Javier wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
> > You mentioned earlier that you use free software because you're able to
> > "modify it" and not because it's distributed free of charge.
>
> I didn't said that. I did said that I *prefer* free software (and
> preferencies are not mandatory) for two reasons: first because it is
> free of charge and second because I can modify it and/or help to the
> original author.
> Said this, the rest of your message is based in false asumptions of
> what I said, so there is no need to answer to it.
Even if you don't care about these things there is another important
point: No-one really controls it.
If a vendor decides to leave the market, or change the way the software
works to make it more difficult to use then the user is left in the
lurch. If the software is FOSS then this situation is more manageable.
Bill Atkins wrote:
> Javier wrote:
> > Ok, so you presume that you are correcting me, that you are a master,
> > and that you have the right to treat everybody which hasn't got the
> > same opinion and logic as you to be insulted.
> > But lets go with your original message:
> >
> > > > Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> > > > for a comercial compiler.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. You are just broke or cheap.
> >
> > It is your logic that is broken, and take the right for insulting me.
> > There are several motivations for making a program free, and most of
> > them are very away from that things you say. I'm not going to tell
> > every of them (and there are a lot), but just take for example at any
> > company producing open source programs (almost any big software company
> > right now), and any person who makes open source programs too.
> > You must be confused and totally wrong about what you personally are,
> > as you write Cells, which is free software. Are you broke or cheap
> > anyway?
> > I'm going to think that you are, as you are producing free software and
> > you say that the motivations are only that being broke or cheap.
>
<snip direct question to Javier>
> Put another way, if SBCL and Lispworks cost the same amount of money,
> which would you use? If Linux and OS X cost the same amount of money,
> which would you use? The answer should be the better software package
> - even if you have to pay for it. If SBCL or Linux were licensed such
> that you could only participate in development if you purchased a
> license, would you still be so keen on it? This is something you
> should seriously think about. Lots of people claim that free software
> wins because of freedom, but when you get right down to it, they just
> don't feel like paying for software.
Not in my book. If SBCL and Lispworks both cost money then I'd start
writing my own Lisp, or use another FOSS one.
There are philosophical reasons for using Open-source software that go
beyond money, that's part of reason some people use it (including me).
There are also practical reasons beyond money, such as being tied to a
particular vendor.
> People have trouble seeing the costs of software because software isn't
> something you can hold in your hand, like, say, a piece of steak. Had
> RMS launched a "free steak" movement, he would have gotten nowhere.
> Why? Because it would have been too expensive to produce steak without
> recouping the costs. Likewise with software. Open-source coders
> assume that cost themselves.
Yes. This is essentially the philosophical argument for Free-software
in the first place. Putting a cost on things that cost money to
replicate, such as cows, is obviously fair. Putting a cost on things
that cost nothing to replicate isn't similar its a way of funding
development, but it's more akin to tax than selling products. Whether
you believe it's justified is right or not is up to you of-course.
> But the fact is that making solid
> software costs money.
Well, really it costs time. But time and money are closely related.
> This is why SBCL and CMUCL are only where they
> are today because CMU funded development for several years. Or why
> Firefox is so complete (Netscape paid for it). Likewise with Apache,
> parts of the Linux kernel. Software costs money; good software costs a
> lot. Regardless of RMS's rhetoric, the reason most people are using
> open-source is the "free beer" aspect of it.
Possibly. Do you have any evidence for this?
I wouldn't disagree that it's the motivation of most companies.
> They put up with shoddy
> implementations (e.g. Ruby's interpreter is notoriously slow, as it
> runs progams directly off the parse tree. Why is this accepted?
> Because it's free. No one would pay money for such a
> bizarrely-implemented interpreter) and endure all kinds of shortcomings
> simply to avoid paying.
I'm afraid I think users of the Perl/Python/Ruby scripting languages
simply don't know any better. They don't know that high performance
high level languages are possible. I don't have any concrete evidence
of this, but I don't think there is any concrete evidence that shows
they prefer Ruby just because it's free - by that logic they'd be using
SBCL.
> Perhaps I'm generalizing here - perhaps there
> are more people in the free software movement than I imagine who are
> actually in it for the "freedom." In my own experience, though, most
> people would not choose Linux if it cost money - even if it cost money
> to get the "free speech" aspects of it. It is the lack of upfront cost
> of Linux that keeps people using it - and ironically costs them much
> more in wasted time.
I don't see it as wasted time myself, more time invested in the future.
I would never buy OSX because it's so closely tied to hardware. I
wouldn't be able to respond if Apple decided to hike the price of
computers by 50% and I needed an upgrade. I also wouldn't be able to
respond if Apple decided to do things a certain way. For example I'm
told to use MS Outlook at work, which is very irritating because it's
features for plain text email are deliberately difficult to use in an
attempt to make people use HTML email.
> Similarly, I used to get by with SLIME
> and SBCL. Both of these are well-done products, but they don't compare
> to LispWorks. Why aren't people using LispWorks then? Mostly because
> SLIME and SBCL cost nothing upfront (OK, OK, there are other reasons
> too - SLIME is easily extended, SBCL's compiler is very helpful, etc.).
> The next time you claim that the "free beer" aspect of free software
> is unimportant to you, compare the software in question with its
> commercial counterpart and ask yourself which you'd pay for if they
> both cost the same amount of money.
To me at least, cost doesn't really come into it much.
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
> > Javier wrote:
> > > Ok, so you presume that you are correcting me, that you are a master,
> > > and that you have the right to treat everybody which hasn't got the
> > > same opinion and logic as you to be insulted.
> > > But lets go with your original message:
> > >
> > > > > Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> > > > > for a comercial compiler.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. You are just broke or cheap.
> > >
> > > It is your logic that is broken, and take the right for insulting me.
> > > There are several motivations for making a program free, and most of
> > > them are very away from that things you say. I'm not going to tell
> > > every of them (and there are a lot), but just take for example at any
> > > company producing open source programs (almost any big software company
> > > right now), and any person who makes open source programs too.
> > > You must be confused and totally wrong about what you personally are,
> > > as you write Cells, which is free software. Are you broke or cheap
> > > anyway?
> > > I'm going to think that you are, as you are producing free software and
> > > you say that the motivations are only that being broke or cheap.
> >
> <snip direct question to Javier>
>
> > Put another way, if SBCL and Lispworks cost the same amount of money,
> > which would you use? If Linux and OS X cost the same amount of money,
> > which would you use? The answer should be the better software package
> > - even if you have to pay for it. If SBCL or Linux were licensed such
> > that you could only participate in development if you purchased a
> > license, would you still be so keen on it? This is something you
> > should seriously think about. Lots of people claim that free software
> > wins because of freedom, but when you get right down to it, they just
> > don't feel like paying for software.
>
> Not in my book. If SBCL and Lispworks both cost money then I'd start
> writing my own Lisp, or use another FOSS one.
Do you really think you'd be able to write a Lisp on a level with SBCL
or Lispworks on your own? I don't mean this disrespectfully - do you
realize the immensity of that task?
> There are philosophical reasons for using Open-source software that go
> beyond money, that's part of reason some people use it (including me).
> There are also practical reasons beyond money, such as being tied to a
> particular vendor.
>
> > People have trouble seeing the costs of software because software isn't
> > something you can hold in your hand, like, say, a piece of steak. Had
> > RMS launched a "free steak" movement, he would have gotten nowhere.
> > Why? Because it would have been too expensive to produce steak without
> > recouping the costs. Likewise with software. Open-source coders
> > assume that cost themselves.
>
> Yes. This is essentially the philosophical argument for Free-software
> in the first place. Putting a cost on things that cost money to
> replicate, such as cows, is obviously fair. Putting a cost on things
> that cost nothing to replicate isn't similar its a way of funding
> development, but it's more akin to tax than selling products. Whether
> you believe it's justified is right or not is up to you of-course.
Well, what about books? If a book is put in electronic form, does it
automatically become wrong to restrict access to it, simply because
there are no raw physical materials going into it?
> > But the fact is that making solid
> > software costs money.
>
> Well, really it costs time. But time and money are closely related.
But money will get you different kinds of time than you can expect
developers to donate. For instance, producing software involves
extensive testing. Open-source developers will contribute toward
interesting problems, but how many want to sit around and click buttons
on five different configurations of machine to look for bugs?
Companies can get this done because they pay for it.
> > This is why SBCL and CMUCL are only where they
> > are today because CMU funded development for several years. Or why
> > Firefox is so complete (Netscape paid for it). Likewise with Apache,
> > parts of the Linux kernel. Software costs money; good software costs a
> > lot. Regardless of RMS's rhetoric, the reason most people are using
> > open-source is the "free beer" aspect of it.
>
> Possibly. Do you have any evidence for this?
> I wouldn't disagree that it's the motivation of most companies.
>
> > They put up with shoddy
> > implementations (e.g. Ruby's interpreter is notoriously slow, as it
> > runs progams directly off the parse tree. Why is this accepted?
> > Because it's free. No one would pay money for such a
> > bizarrely-implemented interpreter) and endure all kinds of shortcomings
> > simply to avoid paying.
>
> I'm afraid I think users of the Perl/Python/Ruby scripting languages
> simply don't know any better. They don't know that high performance
> high level languages are possible. I don't have any concrete evidence
> of this, but I don't think there is any concrete evidence that shows
> they prefer Ruby just because it's free - by that logic they'd be using
> SBCL.
Fair enough.
> > Perhaps I'm generalizing here - perhaps there
> > are more people in the free software movement than I imagine who are
> > actually in it for the "freedom." In my own experience, though, most
> > people would not choose Linux if it cost money - even if it cost money
> > to get the "free speech" aspects of it. It is the lack of upfront cost
> > of Linux that keeps people using it - and ironically costs them much
> > more in wasted time.
>
> I don't see it as wasted time myself, more time invested in the future.
> I would never buy OSX because it's so closely tied to hardware. I
> wouldn't be able to respond if Apple decided to hike the price of
> computers by 50% and I needed an upgrade. I also wouldn't be able to
> respond if Apple decided to do things a certain way. For example I'm
> told to use MS Outlook at work, which is very irritating because it's
> features for plain text email are deliberately difficult to use in an
> attempt to make people use HTML email.
But this is simply how life is. If I buy a Toyota Prius, the GPS unit
inside is tied to that car. Should that get me in a funk? Why should
it? There are hundreds of other examples of the same idea. Also,
hardware lock-in can be a good thing - it means your system is tested
and customized for your operating system. I can see how some might not
prefer that, but it is not completely bad.
Why would Apple increase their prices by 50%? There are economic
factors that keep Apple's prices exactly where they are and not
somewhere else. Increasing the price of Apple hardware so drastically
would cut down on their already puny market share. What would they
gain from this?
> > Similarly, I used to get by with SLIME
> > and SBCL. Both of these are well-done products, but they don't compare
> > to LispWorks. Why aren't people using LispWorks then? Mostly because
> > SLIME and SBCL cost nothing upfront (OK, OK, there are other reasons
> > too - SLIME is easily extended, SBCL's compiler is very helpful, etc.).
> > The next time you claim that the "free beer" aspect of free software
> > is unimportant to you, compare the software in question with its
> > commercial counterpart and ask yourself which you'd pay for if they
> > both cost the same amount of money.
>
> To me at least, cost doesn't really come into it much.
Bill Atkins wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > Bill Atkins wrote:
> > > Javier wrote:
> > > > Ok, so you presume that you are correcting me, that you are a master,
> > > > and that you have the right to treat everybody which hasn't got the
> > > > same opinion and logic as you to be insulted.
> > > > But lets go with your original message:
> > > >
> > > > > > Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> > > > > > for a comercial compiler.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense. You are just broke or cheap.
> > > >
> > > > It is your logic that is broken, and take the right for insulting me.
> > > > There are several motivations for making a program free, and most of
> > > > them are very away from that things you say. I'm not going to tell
> > > > every of them (and there are a lot), but just take for example at any
> > > > company producing open source programs (almost any big software company
> > > > right now), and any person who makes open source programs too.
> > > > You must be confused and totally wrong about what you personally are,
> > > > as you write Cells, which is free software. Are you broke or cheap
> > > > anyway?
> > > > I'm going to think that you are, as you are producing free software and
> > > > you say that the motivations are only that being broke or cheap.
> > >
> > <snip direct question to Javier>
> >
> > > Put another way, if SBCL and Lispworks cost the same amount of money,
> > > which would you use? If Linux and OS X cost the same amount of money,
> > > which would you use? The answer should be the better software package
> > > - even if you have to pay for it. If SBCL or Linux were licensed such
> > > that you could only participate in development if you purchased a
> > > license, would you still be so keen on it? This is something you
> > > should seriously think about. Lots of people claim that free software
> > > wins because of freedom, but when you get right down to it, they just
> > > don't feel like paying for software.
> >
> > Not in my book. If SBCL and Lispworks both cost money then I'd start
> > writing my own Lisp, or use another FOSS one.
>
> Do you really think you'd be able to write a Lisp on a level with SBCL
> or Lispworks on your own? I don't mean this disrespectfully - do you
> realize the immensity of that task?
Well, OK, I'd settle for something less powerful. That said, I
wouldn't have to really, since there are other FOSS lisps.
BTW Have you read the sources to ECL? Lisp are complex but they need
not be tremendously complex.
> > There are philosophical reasons for using Open-source software that go
> > beyond money, that's part of reason some people use it (including me).
> > There are also practical reasons beyond money, such as being tied to a
> > particular vendor.
> >
> > > People have trouble seeing the costs of software because software isn't
> > > something you can hold in your hand, like, say, a piece of steak. Had
> > > RMS launched a "free steak" movement, he would have gotten nowhere.
> > > Why? Because it would have been too expensive to produce steak without
> > > recouping the costs. Likewise with software. Open-source coders
> > > assume that cost themselves.
> >
> > Yes. This is essentially the philosophical argument for Free-software
> > in the first place. Putting a cost on things that cost money to
> > replicate, such as cows, is obviously fair. Putting a cost on things
> > that cost nothing to replicate isn't similar its a way of funding
> > development, but it's more akin to tax than selling products. Whether
> > you believe it's justified is right or not is up to you of-course.
>
> Well, what about books? If a book is put in electronic form, does it
> automatically become wrong to restrict access to it,
I think these questions about copyright are more complex, than either
of us have portrayed tham as. I haven't really made up my own mind on
them. Like all taxes, their fairness depends on how justified they
are.
But books are much different to software products. In the act of
reading a book the reader understands how it "works", not so with
binary software, which is opaque. Also, whereas creativity may be
universally good in writing, it isn't in software, building software on
proven foundations is just as important.
> > > But the fact is that making solid
> > > software costs money.
> >
> > Well, really it costs time. But time and money are closely related.
>
> But money will get you different kinds of time than you can expect
> developers to donate. For instance, producing software involves
> extensive testing. Open-source developers will contribute toward
> interesting problems, but how many want to sit around and click buttons
> on five different configurations of machine to look for bugs?
:) That's a very poor method of testing, those kind of things should be
automated.
> Companies can get this done because they pay for it.
Sure, but I look at the results. The linux machines I've run are by
far the most stable of any I've used. Good FOSS seems, to me at least,
to have less bugs than commercial software.
> > > Perhaps I'm generalizing here - perhaps there
> > > are more people in the free software movement than I imagine who are
> > > actually in it for the "freedom." In my own experience, though, most
> > > people would not choose Linux if it cost money - even if it cost money
> > > to get the "free speech" aspects of it. It is the lack of upfront cost
> > > of Linux that keeps people using it - and ironically costs them much
> > > more in wasted time.
> >
> > I don't see it as wasted time myself, more time invested in the future.
> > I would never buy OSX because it's so closely tied to hardware. I
> > wouldn't be able to respond if Apple decided to hike the price of
> > computers by 50% and I needed an upgrade. I also wouldn't be able to
> > respond if Apple decided to do things a certain way. For example I'm
> > told to use MS Outlook at work, which is very irritating because it's
> > features for plain text email are deliberately difficult to use in an
> > attempt to make people use HTML email.
>
> But this is simply how life is. If I buy a Toyota Prius, the GPS unit
> inside is tied to that car. Should that get me in a funk? Why should
> it? There are hundreds of other examples of the same idea.
Just because it's common doesn't mean it's good. What the manufacturer
of the car has done is a calculated move. As a customer you have to
decide if you're going to put up with it. Having to buy a new GPS unit
with a new car would be something I wouldn't find too irritating. I've
found from experience that companies with the commercial outlook
Microsoft (and Toyota to a lesser degree) are showing above generally
don't treat their customers well. I avoid them where I can.
> Also,
> hardware lock-in can be a good thing - it means your system is tested
> and customized for your operating system. I can see how some might not
> prefer that, but it is not completely bad.
That's true. Though, often hardware like that though is limited to
certain operating systems because it has bugs though.
> Why would Apple increase their prices by 50%? There are economic
> factors that keep Apple's prices exactly where they are and not
> somewhere else. Increasing the price of Apple hardware so drastically
> would cut down on their already puny market share. What would they
> gain from this?
Well, ~3 or so years ago a Mac with similar performance to a PC was
about 50% more. Now they're equal. I think that happened because
Apple were having problems at the time, but it shows that it can
happen.
Vendors have all kinds of different motivations. I once worked for a
company that did a lot of electromagnetic simulation. That company used
a very expensive package ~$70K per seat, and built up a lot of
knowledge of it and a lot of files in it's format. They realised this
and our deal became worse over time. The year before I left they
increased the support charge for the package to $30K/yr, forced the
company to upgrade to the latest version, which didn't work as well for
their problems and changed the licensing subtely so there were few
licenses available overall. That companie's previous investment in the
product left them open to being ripped off, which they were.
Bill Atkins wrote:
> You mentioned earlier that you use free software because you're able to
> "modify it" and not because it's distributed free of charge. I think
> this is baloney. How often have you had to modify a free software
> package?
It's not just about modification. I have spent over a year haggling
with a closed-source vendor's support staff to find a critical bug that
was causing daily server shutdowns, when if I'd had the source code I
could have found the bug myself in a day.
> If it was simply to fix a bug, ask yourself if that bug would
> have been fixed more easily by a company than by a user
see above
> - or whether
> that bug would have been there at all.
see above
> If Linux and OS X cost the same amount of money,
> which would you use?
For my desktop, Linux. I can't stand all the slick, useless crap that
commercial OS vendors pile on top of the bare bones. I can't even stand
the GUI crap that Fedora piles on.
I have no experience with OSX as a server, but Linux would certainly
have a lower total cost than Windows as a server, even if Linux sticker
price was much higher.
> Lots of people claim that free software
> wins because of freedom, but when you get right down to it, they just
> don't feel like paying for software.
Many people actually enjoy being part (even an inconsequential part) of
a community that's working together to create a body of useful work.
And many of us are so tired of living in a world where we're constantly
blitzed by corporate culture that we would rather deal with a few raw
edges if it means we can crawl out into the fresh air a little bit.
>
> People have trouble seeing the costs of software because software isn't
> something you can hold in your hand, like, say, a piece of steak. Had
> RMS launched a "free steak" movement, he would have gotten nowhere.
Many food coops exist. It's essentially the same -- I trade what I can
produce for what you can produce. The intangible nature of software
just multiplies what we receive in relation to what we can give.
> But the fact is that making solid
> software costs money.
No, it costs time. They are equivalent in some contexts, but not all.
> They put up with shoddy
> implementations (e.g. Ruby's interpreter is notoriously slow, as it
> runs progams directly off the parse tree. Why is this accepted?
> Because it's free. No one would pay money for such a
> bizarrely-implemented interpreter)
Please. Nobody went to Ruby because it was free. There were already
tons of free options available. They went to Ruby because they believed
Rails would cut down on their implementation time. True, no one would
have tried Rails if it cost what commercial Web application frameworks
cost. And that would be a shame for all of us, because whether you like
Rails or not, it has definitely contributed ideas to the field, which
would almost surely have been lost if its makers had tried to sell them
as closed source. (Unless you believe in the Market Fairy, who ensures
that good ideas always win.)
> Perhaps I'm generalizing here - perhaps there
> are more people in the free software movement than I imagine who are
> actually in it for the "freedom."
Take 5 minutes to look into this matter on the web.
> In my own experience, though, most
> people would not choose Linux if it cost money
"Most" is probably accurate, but a significant number of people do pay
for it.
> It is the lack of upfront cost
> of Linux that keeps people using it - and ironically costs them much
> more in wasted time.
Most people who use Linux at home start by replacing a commercial OS
they've already paid for. So clearly that has nothing to do with
up-front cost. As for businesses, there is rational reason to believe
that Linux has a lower TCO -- though that is of course disputed.
> Since switching to OS X, I find I can do lots
> more with my computer.
So what we're really talking about here is your preference for OSX.
That is a perfectly reasonable way to choose a computer. But please
stop assuming everyone feels the way you do. We're not all strictly
mercenary, and I can't get jack done on a Mac -- I wouldn't take one if
you gave it to me.
> I always wanted to manage my money on my
> computer, but the only programs available for Linux in this department
> were gnucash and grisbi (I believe that was the name), neither of which
> were very good. Now it's as simple as paying thirty bucks for Quicken
> and getting that functionality.
Sweet. That should help you save up the hundreds you'll be shelling out
for OS upgrades.
joh wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
>
> > You mentioned earlier that you use free software because you're able to
> > "modify it" and not because it's distributed free of charge. I think
> > this is baloney. How often have you had to modify a free software
> > package?
>
> It's not just about modification. I have spent over a year haggling
> with a closed-source vendor's support staff to find a critical bug that
> was causing daily server shutdowns, when if I'd had the source code I
> could have found the bug myself in a day.
>
> > If it was simply to fix a bug, ask yourself if that bug would
> > have been fixed more easily by a company than by a user
>
> see above
>
> > - or whether
> > that bug would have been there at all.
>
> see above
>
> > If Linux and OS X cost the same amount of money,
> > which would you use?
>
> For my desktop, Linux. I can't stand all the slick, useless crap that
> commercial OS vendors pile on top of the bare bones. I can't even stand
> the GUI crap that Fedora piles on.
>
> I have no experience with OSX as a server, but Linux would certainly
> have a lower total cost than Windows as a server, even if Linux sticker
> price was much higher.
>
> > Lots of people claim that free software
> > wins because of freedom, but when you get right down to it, they just
> > don't feel like paying for software.
>
> Many people actually enjoy being part (even an inconsequential part) of
> a community that's working together to create a body of useful work.
> And many of us are so tired of living in a world where we're constantly
> blitzed by corporate culture that we would rather deal with a few raw
> edges if it means we can crawl out into the fresh air a little bit.
>
> >
> > People have trouble seeing the costs of software because software isn't
> > something you can hold in your hand, like, say, a piece of steak. Had
> > RMS launched a "free steak" movement, he would have gotten nowhere.
>
> Many food coops exist. It's essentially the same -- I trade what I can
> produce for what you can produce. The intangible nature of software
> just multiplies what we receive in relation to what we can give.
>
> > But the fact is that making solid
> > software costs money.
>
> No, it costs time. They are equivalent in some contexts, but not all.
See my answer to Rob Thorpe.
> > They put up with shoddy
> > implementations (e.g. Ruby's interpreter is notoriously slow, as it
> > runs progams directly off the parse tree. Why is this accepted?
> > Because it's free. No one would pay money for such a
> > bizarrely-implemented interpreter)
>
> Please. Nobody went to Ruby because it was free. There were already
> tons of free options available. They went to Ruby because they believed
> Rails would cut down on their implementation time. True, no one would
> have tried Rails if it cost what commercial Web application frameworks
> cost. And that would be a shame for all of us, because whether you like
> Rails or not, it has definitely contributed ideas to the field, which
> would almost surely have been lost if its makers had tried to sell them
> as closed source. (Unless you believe in the Market Fairy, who ensures
> that good ideas always win.)
I'm sure Rails would have gotten along quite nicely had it been
closed-source and commercially-supported. Have you seen how excited
people are about it? Paying some money for what's claimed to be huge
productivity benefits is not ridiculous, as long as you think those
claims are backed up.
> > Perhaps I'm generalizing here - perhaps there
> > are more people in the free software movement than I imagine who are
> > actually in it for the "freedom."
>
> Take 5 minutes to look into this matter on the web.
>
> > In my own experience, though, most
> > people would not choose Linux if it cost money
>
> "Most" is probably accurate, but a significant number of people do pay
> for it.
>
> > It is the lack of upfront cost
> > of Linux that keeps people using it - and ironically costs them much
> > more in wasted time.
>
> Most people who use Linux at home start by replacing a commercial OS
> they've already paid for. So clearly that has nothing to do with
> up-front cost. As for businesses, there is rational reason to believe
> that Linux has a lower TCO -- though that is of course disputed.
>
> > Since switching to OS X, I find I can do lots
> > more with my computer.
>
> So what we're really talking about here is your preference for OSX.
No we aren't. Where did you get confused? I'm citing an example of a
professionally-written piece of software that beats its open-source
competitors.
> That is a perfectly reasonable way to choose a computer. But please
> stop assuming everyone feels the way you do. We're not all strictly
> mercenary, and I can't get jack done on a Mac -- I wouldn't take one if
> you gave it to me.
>
> > I always wanted to manage my money on my
> > computer, but the only programs available for Linux in this department
> > were gnucash and grisbi (I believe that was the name), neither of which
> > were very good. Now it's as simple as paying thirty bucks for Quicken
> > and getting that functionality.
>
> Sweet. That should help you save up the hundreds you'll be shelling out
> for OS upgrades.
$130 every two or three years? Am I really supposed to be worried
about that?
Bill Atkins wrote:
> joh wrote:
> > No, it costs time. They are equivalent in some contexts, but not all.
>
> See my answer to Rob Thorpe.
There is something to what you say there (that companies can buy work
people won't contribute), but I maintain that the history of open
source proves you wrong. It's the "... all bugs are shallow" thing.
Companies can pay QA people to slog through tests, but that turns out
to be a worse testing procedure than giving away your software to
anyone who's interested in it and letting them find (and often help
fix) errors.
And by the way, you claim that because corporations have contributed to
all the really high-profile open source projects, that shows great open
software can't be made without companies footing the bill. The same
evidence would support the view that open source is so much better than
what companies can do for themselves, that they invariably get involved
with good open source projects.
> I'm sure Rails would have gotten along quite nicely had it been
> closed-source and commercially-supported. Have you seen how excited
> people are about it? Paying some money for what's claimed to be huge
> productivity benefits is not ridiculous, as long as you think those
> claims are backed up.
Personally, I very much doubt it. I have seen a lot of commercial
products that claim exactly what Rails claims: to remove almost all the
work from development. Most of these fail to achieve any attention,
because no one believes their claims, and they won't shell out money
based on a self-interested claim that's highly doubtful. Being free
really helps you gain critical mass.
> > So what we're really talking about here is your preference for OSX.
>
> No we aren't. Where did you get confused? I'm citing an example of a
> professionally-written piece of software that beats its open-source
> competitors.
"Beats" how? There simply aren't objective criteria that show one OS,
or application, or software philosophy is better than another. It's a
matter of priorities, and often just of preference. The original poster
stated he was looking for open source -- you assume that he's somehow
deluded. Face it: we ARE talking about preference.
> > Sweet. That should help you save up the hundreds you'll be shelling out
> > for OS upgrades.
>
> $130 every two or three years? Am I really supposed to be worried
> about that?
That was a joke -- I'd just gotten through explaining that it's not
always about money -- apologies if it didn't come through as such.
joh wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
> > joh wrote:
> > > No, it costs time. They are equivalent in some contexts, but not all.
> >
> > See my answer to Rob Thorpe.
>
> There is something to what you say there (that companies can buy work
> people won't contribute), but I maintain that the history of open
> source proves you wrong. It's the "... all bugs are shallow" thing.
> Companies can pay QA people to slog through tests, but that turns out
> to be a worse testing procedure than giving away your software to
> anyone who's interested in it and letting them find (and often help
> fix) errors.
In my experience, I've noticed that exactly the opposite is the case.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
> And by the way, you claim that because corporations have contributed to
> all the really high-profile open source projects, that shows great open
> software can't be made without companies footing the bill. The same
> evidence would support the view that open source is so much better than
> what companies can do for themselves, that they invariably get involved
> with good open source projects.
Good point.
> > I'm sure Rails would have gotten along quite nicely had it been
> > closed-source and commercially-supported. Have you seen how excited
> > people are about it? Paying some money for what's claimed to be huge
> > productivity benefits is not ridiculous, as long as you think those
> > claims are backed up.
>
> Personally, I very much doubt it. I have seen a lot of commercial
> products that claim exactly what Rails claims: to remove almost all the
> work from development. Most of these fail to achieve any attention,
> because no one believes their claims, and they won't shell out money
> based on a self-interested claim that's highly doubtful.
Although I'm no Rails enthusiast, I do think Rails gets closer to
living up to these claims than other frameworks - mostly because other
frameworks are writting in Java. Rails does stand out from the crowd
as far as the amount of code it takes to do things, the lack of XML
configuration files, etc.
> Being free
> really helps you gain critical mass.
I agree. I think open source is a neat way of getting ideas out into
the world and a good way to play with ideas that probably can't be
sold. I just disagree that the alleged "freedom" always makes your
life better. In my experience, the immaturity of some open-source
programs makes getting certain things done so hassleful that it's just
not worth the time. A lot of these same things are done trivially with
commercial software. I think there is some truth to the idea that the
availablity of FLOSS software hurts the commercial sector. A company
now has to produce software that not only works, but works so well that
it beats free software that mostly works. IMO, this is taking the
software world (or at least our part of it) backwards. People are
settling for immature or buggy software because it's "free" (in either
sense of the word), so solid commercial software is harder to sell.
I once saw RMS speak in Manhattan. An audience member asked him if he
thought freedom or progress was more important. He answered,
"Freedom." If not for his authorship of Emacs, I would have lost all
respect for him on the spot. Freedom (in RMS's view) is an interesting
idea, but it certainly doesn't trump writing better and more powerful
software.
> > > So what we're really talking about here is your preference for OSX.
> >
> > No we aren't. Where did you get confused? I'm citing an example of a
> > professionally-written piece of software that beats its open-source
> > competitors.
>
> "Beats" how? There simply aren't objective criteria that show one OS,
> or application, or software philosophy is better than another. It's a
> matter of priorities, and often just of preference. The original poster
> stated he was looking for open source -- you assume that he's somehow
> deluded. Face it: we ARE talking about preference.
We are, but that was not the point of my entire post - and that's what
I interpreted your comment to mean. Sorry if that was my mistake.
To answer your question: OS X beats Linux in terms of ease-of-setup
(i.e. none), included (functional) software, the amount of compatible
and useful software, aesthetics, and hardware support (though better
hardware support is to be expected). This is indeed just my preference.
> > > Sweet. That should help you save up the hundreds you'll be shelling out
> > > for OS upgrades.
> >
> > $130 every two or three years? Am I really supposed to be worried
> > about that?
>
> That was a joke -- I'd just gotten through explaining that it's not
> always about money -- apologies if it didn't come through as such.
Oops. :-) Sorry.
Bill Atkins wrote:
<snipped>
>
> I agree. I think open source is a neat way of getting ideas out into
> the world and a good way to play with ideas that probably can't be
> sold. I just disagree that the alleged "freedom" always makes your
> life better.
IME, absolutism is bad for the soul.
> In my experience, the immaturity of some open-source
> programs makes getting certain things done so hassleful that it's just
> not worth the time. A lot of these same things are done trivially with
> commercial software.
To be perfectly honest, that sword cuts both
ways:
1. I've got to reinstall a windows XP pro machine; having
done this before I am putting it off until I have the
time to babysit the machine while it installs/configures/activates
itself. I also have to search for that damn product code that
it came with (who *knows* where I may have left it?) and
carefully type a 15 character code in. After that, I still
need to install my compilers and editors *one* *at* *a* *time*
because I haven't found a way to simply run unattended
installations for installshield crap.
which requires my to find an internet line or phone
a microsoft call centre.
2. I've just installed FreeBSD 6.1 on my laptop. Ran the
script I normally use to install the usual suspects (emacs,
vim, firefox, etc) from the second CD.
In #1 the commercial software is a pain in the rear to
install because of all the steps I have to take just
to setup, activate and install software on. That machine
has been standing inactive for almost 3 months now, as
I just don't have the energy to run through all the
manual steps involved.
In #2, A mere 10 minutes of my time is required (start it
up, go away, come back and type for 3 minutes, put in second
cd, start script and go away).
Sure, some things are done trivially with commercial software
and some things are a hassle with free software, but that
isn't the general rule.
> I think there is some truth to the idea that the
> availablity of FLOSS software hurts the commercial sector.
This is actually the point I wanted to respond to. You are
correct up to a point; there is some truth to that idea,
but it's not a universal TRUTH, it's more like a "sometimes,
under certain conditions" kinda truth (see below).
> A company
> now has to produce software that not only works, but works so well that
> it beats free software that mostly works. IMO, this is taking the
> software world (or at least our part of it) backwards. People are
> settling for immature or buggy software because it's "free" (in either
> sense of the word), so solid commercial software is harder to sell.
I'm not too sure that putting such companies under pressure
is such a bad idea. Would microsoft have continued development
if firefox had not arrived? I highly doubt it - their strategy
was to make sure that web-services were never viable and an
all-powerful IE would have lessened their monopoly power.
OTOH, I'm glad that companies like SCO are under pressure from
linux/freebsd. Their product sucked, their service was even
worse and their attitude was "well, you cannot get unix on
pc from anywhere else so we're going to ride you as hard as we
want to".
On the third hand, it is sad when a company goes under
because their is no practical way for it to compete
with cheap labour (although this is more prevalent
in import-friendly first-world countries).
Lastly, I've pointed out before (and doubtless I'll
be pointing out again in this ng) that more companies go
out of business due to commercial competitors rather than
FOSS competitors.
The natural state (in a capitalistic economy) of any industry
is a single company. As a company gets bigger, they acquire
more power and buy the smaller ones out until their are only
a few companies who then collude (cartel) to maintain
artificially high prices and keep out newcomers. These
cartels are then effectively a single company.
Business is a very cutthroat business.
<snipped>
goose,
--
Have I offended you? Send flames to ····@localhost
real email: lelanthran at gmail dot com
website : www.lelanthran.com
"Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> I once saw RMS speak in Manhattan. An audience member asked him if he
> thought freedom or progress was more important. He answered,
> "Freedom." If not for his authorship of Emacs, I would have lost all
> respect for him on the spot.
No doubt the Founding Fathers of the US and the anti-fascists of the
'30s would have agreed with RMS rather than you. Remember that the
fascists and statists of decades past promised greater progress at a
small cost--that cost being freedom.
> Freedom (in RMS's view) is an interesting idea, but it certainly
> doesn't trump writing better and more powerful software.
Freedom means being able to write 'better an more powerful software'; it
means removing the hurdles which prevent one from doing so.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
We're not even surprised that people are surprised that you're not surprised
when a macro virus hits. --Matt McLeod
Robert Uhl wrote:
> "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > I once saw RMS speak in Manhattan. An audience member asked him if he
> > thought freedom or progress was more important. He answered,
> > "Freedom." If not for his authorship of Emacs, I would have lost all
> > respect for him on the spot.
>
> No doubt the Founding Fathers of the US and the anti-fascists of the
> '30s would have agreed with RMS rather than you. Remember that the
> fascists and statists of decades past promised greater progress at a
> small cost--that cost being freedom.
>
> > Freedom (in RMS's view) is an interesting idea, but it certainly
> > doesn't trump writing better and more powerful software.
>
> Freedom means being able to write 'better an more powerful software'; it
> means removing the hurdles which prevent one from doing so.
>
> --
> Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
> We're not even surprised that people are surprised that you're not surprised
> when a macro virus hits. --Matt McLeod
No doubt the founding fathers, anti-fascists, and any other rational
person (then and now), would laugh at the idea that you're somehow more
free (in the real sense, and not Stallman's made up sense) because you
have source code. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I should have had an
overwhelming sense of freedom when my friend gave me his awesome recipe
for Lasagna.
Continue to drink the kool-aid though, while the rest of us take
freedom seriously.
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> I once saw RMS speak in Manhattan. An audience member asked him if he
>> thought freedom or progress was more important. He answered,
>> "Freedom." If not for his authorship of Emacs, I would have lost all
>> respect for him on the spot.
>
> No doubt the Founding Fathers of the US and the anti-fascists of the
> '30s would have agreed with RMS rather than you. Remember that the
> fascists and statists of decades past promised greater progress at a
> small cost--that cost being freedom.
>
I sometimes wonder what real progress there can be if it comes at the
cost of freedom? It seems that far to often, it is the freedom of one
group that is sacrificed for the progress of another.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X ha escrito:
> I sometimes wonder what real progress there can be if it comes at the
> cost of freedom? It seems that far to often, it is the freedom of one
> group that is sacrificed for the progress of another.
I'll try to explain:
When you are free to innovate, even if your work is based in another's
one, it is commonly accepted that you are free.
When you must pay to innovate, or even you are not allowed at all, it
is commonly accepted that you are subject to the decisions of others,
so you are not free.
Note that I'm talking about innovation, not marketing. An innovation
needs marketing to have success, but almost never the marketing needs
any innovation to success. So I believe that patents and non-free
software are just an excuse for limiting the user right of doing what
s/he ever want with the software s/he buy. But things are changing and
big companies have realised that they might be wrong all of these
years. Just take the example of IBM, SUN, Red Hat, Apple, and many many
more. There will be a time in which free software will be the
predominant one, I do not doubt it.
Now, is freedom a good thing? Experiences from the past has
demonstrated that it is. Take any place in this world in which freedom
is limited, and compare their status with the ones that are
significantly less limited. The differences are big and evident, in
almost any aspect.
(Note: I think that both fascism and cumunism are almost the same: in
one the society is controlled by big companies which owns most of the
patents and factories, and in the other is the government. They are,
both, against freedom.)
"Javier" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> When you must pay to innovate, or even you are not allowed at all, it
> is commonly accepted that you are subject to the decisions of others,
> so you are not free.
Even if you do not pay you are subject to the decision of others.
> needs marketing to have success, but almost never the marketing needs
> any innovation to success. So I believe that patents and non-free
Did you mean 'not necessarily'?
> software are just an excuse for limiting the user right of doing what
> s/he ever want with the software s/he buy. But things are changing and
> big companies have realised that they might be wrong all of these
> years. Just take the example of IBM, SUN, Red Hat, Apple, and many many
> more. There will be a time in which free software will be the
> predominant one, I do not doubt it.
What do you mean by 'just an excuse'? The patents do limit the
software user, but it would seem the final objective is other and
limiting the user is a way to achieve it. Now, if the user considers
that the software is worth his money and 'freedom', so be it.
> (Note: I think that both fascism and cumunism are almost the same: in
> one the society is controlled by big companies which owns most of the
> patents and factories, and in the other is the government. They are,
> both, against freedom.)
O.K., let me see if I understand. In fascism the goverment controls
the society, and in communism the companies control... oh no, wait. Do
you even know what is meant by fascism?
Benjamin
--
"Master your instrument, master the music, and then forget all that
bullshit and just play." -- Charlie Parker
Benjamin Tovar ha escrito:
> "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > When you must pay to innovate, or even you are not allowed at all, it
> > is commonly accepted that you are subject to the decisions of others,
> > so you are not free.
>
> Even if you do not pay you are subject to the decision of others.
Elsewhere, if it is opensourced, you are able to base your work on
their work, so you can modify it until you are satisfied.
> > needs marketing to have success, but almost never the marketing needs
> > any innovation to success. So I believe that patents and non-free
>
> Did you mean 'not necessarily'?
No, I meant almost never. Marketing is good at making you feel that you
need something and therefor to buy it, but 99% of marketing does not
promote something innovative, just something already invented which has
a place in the market. Even if that innovative things do not exists,
marketing can success.
> > software are just an excuse for limiting the user right of doing what
> > s/he ever want with the software s/he buy. But things are changing and
> > big companies have realised that they might be wrong all of these
> > years. Just take the example of IBM, SUN, Red Hat, Apple, and many many
> > more. There will be a time in which free software will be the
> > predominant one, I do not doubt it.
>
> What do you mean by 'just an excuse'? The patents do limit the
> software user,
And not only users, also to other developers.
> but it would seem the final objective is other and
> limiting the user is a way to achieve it.
Just a marketing issue, not an innovative one.
> Now, if the user considers
> that the software is worth his money and 'freedom', so be it.
Yes, but the user is sometimes not able to choose, When there are no
alternatives because of patents, and s/he needs the product, s/he is
forced to buy it.
> > (Note: I think that both fascism and cumunism are almost the same: in
> > one the society is controlled by big companies which owns most of the
> > patents and factories, and in the other is the government. They are,
> > both, against freedom.)
>
> O.K., let me see if I understand. In fascism the goverment controls
> the society, and in communism the companies control... oh no, wait. Do
> you even know what is meant by fascism?
No, please read it again, is the contrary way you say I said.
>From wikipedia:
"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines
elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism,
militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Coporatism is one of the ideas that fascism defend. Patents are very
convenient for them, and of course free software and liberalism are
contrary to their ideas.
"Javier" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> No, please read it again, is the contrary way you say I said.
>>From wikipedia:
>
> "Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines
> elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism,
> militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
>
> Coporatism is one of the ideas that fascism defend. Patents are very
> convenient for them, and of course free software and liberalism are
> contrary to their ideas.
I see. This is the definition I was aware of:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascism
Benjamin
--
"Master your instrument, master the music, and then forget all that
bullshit and just play." -- Charlie Parker
Benjamin Tovar wrote:
> oh no, wait. Do you even know what is meant by fascism?
Fascism (n)
The autocratic practice of releasing books in fascicles.
Example usage: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/taocp.html
:)
On 4 Sep 2006 07:13:13 -0700, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com>:
>But things are changing and
>big companies have realised that they might be wrong all of these
>years.
IBM can afford to invest 1 billion dollars in an idea, and wait a few
years to get some money back. Hopefully more than what they invested,
but if they get no money in return, it's just a little failure -- no
big deal.
Now, take a few guys who have an innovative idea for a piece of
software, and decide to create a company to make and sell that
software. If there's no good way to force each user to pay for the
software, you can be pretty sure that those guys won't earn a living.
In fact, they won't risk it, but instead try and find some work
elsewhere.
Sure, there are ways to make a living with free software, but you do
need a lot of money to start.
Fabien LE LEZ ha escrito:
> On 4 Sep 2006 07:13:13 -0700, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com>:
>
> >But things are changing and
> >big companies have realised that they might be wrong all of these
> >years.
>
> IBM can afford to invest 1 billion dollars in an idea, and wait a few
> years to get some money back. Hopefully more than what they invested,
> but if they get no money in return, it's just a little failure -- no
> big deal.
>
> Now, take a few guys who have an innovative idea for a piece of
> software, and decide to create a company to make and sell that
> software. If there's no good way to force each user to pay for the
> software, you can be pretty sure that those guys won't earn a living.
> In fact, they won't risk it, but instead try and find some work
> elsewhere.
>
> Sure, there are ways to make a living with free software, but you do
> need a lot of money to start.
There is still a great posibility. A lot of software are made for
particular problems and for being used only inside a particular
company. Small and hired developers are then paid to resolve this
particular problem and not anything else. This contrast with more
general purposes software and libraries, in which I believe open source
is the way.
Another posibility is that these developers may be paid for supporting
the already existing open source projects to fit a particular problem,
and even for technical support.
Also, when the developers work in these open source projects, they can
actually prove that they have the knowledge to do so, and can be easily
hired for resolving related particular problems of such companies.
I think this is the actual model of how things are made in corporations
today. Java is an example. While not being totally open sourced yet (it
will soon), it is used almost at any corporation, a lot of programmers
are hired to programm on it, and are resolving only particular
problems. And there are a lot of consultants for which open source is
very convenient.
joh wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
>
>>joh wrote:
>>I'm sure Rails would have gotten along quite nicely had it been
>>closed-source and commercially-supported. Have you seen how excited
>>people are about it? Paying some money for what's claimed to be huge
>>productivity benefits is not ridiculous, as long as you think those
>>claims are backed up.
>
>
> Personally, I very much doubt it. I have seen a lot of commercial
> products that claim exactly what Rails claims: to remove almost all the
> work from development. Most of these fail to achieve any attention,
> because no one believes their claims, and they won't shell out money
> based on a self-interested claim that's highly doubtful. Being free
> really helps you gain critical mass.
I think there's something else going on as well: even the
opinions of *users* of closed-source products are
suspect, which is not the case for OSS. Most commercial
products can't be tested by just anyone who wants to test them;
you almost always have to buy a license before you can excercise
all the capabilities of the products. Once you've done that,
you will be perceived to have a vested interest in promoting
the product (whether that is actually the case or not), since
it is human nature to (a) want not to have wasted their money,
and (b) want lots of other folks to use the same product, so
that a useful community grows up around it. Therefore, the
positive opinions of users who have payed for a closed-source
product often have a faint odor of self-service.
In contrast, any old shmoe can try out a fully-decked-out
OSS product, and when those people, who have no particular
reason to prefer the product, extol its virtues, people
tend to pay more attention. Those opinions are somehow
perceived as more "pure" than similar opinions expressed
about closed products. In this regard, time != money,
because folks who spend time evaluating OSS products
rarely count the cost; or at least they're not *perceived*
to have expended anything that would tend to make them
loyal to the supplier. I'm not saying that opinions of
OSS users are more accurate than those of closed-system
users, only that they're often seen that way. I think that
complex of perceptions has something (though surely not
everything) to do with Rails's success.
-- JK
On 31 Aug 2006 07:37:14 -0700, "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> You [referring to Javier] mentioned earlier that you use free software
> because you're able to "modify it" and not because it's distributed free
> of charge. I think this is baloney. How often have you had to modify a
> free software package? If it was simply to fix a bug, ask yourself if
> that bug would have been fixed more easily by a company than by a
> user - or whether that bug would have been there at all. What kinds of
> modifications are you looking to make?
OK. I'm a CLISP user, and I have modified CLISP, not to fix a bug, but
to integrate a patch for a feature that I needed. Am I disqualified
from your argument, because I'm also a "developer"? Is Javier a "developer"
or a "user"?
IOW, don't conflate the meaning of user in the context of what Javier
wants to do just so you can try to make this argument. The fact that
most end-users don't have the expertise (or the interest, frankly) in
fixing software problems themselves is not the point -- the point is
that someone else can establish a business for themselves to serve
that market -- but only if the source is available.
Also, there are many, many examples of companies allowing important
bugs to go unfixed for long periods of time. The commercial nature
of a software package confers no advantage to users when the vendor
lacks motivation. For example, when two companies merge, reducing
competition in their market, prices tend to go up while service and
quality tend to go down.
And don't get me started on the claim "would the bug have been
there at all?" Commercial developers aren't super-heroes; their
company infrastructure often impedes the good people from getting
work done as much as help ensure quality. That claim is patently
ridiculous.
--
Jack Unrue
Jack Unrue wrote:
> IOW, don't conflate the meaning of user in the context of what Javier
> wants to do just so you can try to make this argument.
> [...]
I completely agree with your coment, and add my personal opinion:
It is somewhat hypocrite to critice others for wanting to make more
open source applications when themselves have already done that.
I suspect that it is some kind of self-egoism and protectionism about
their work; for inexplicable reasons (perhaps only psicology can
explain it) they might feel that motivating others to do free software
might push them out of the attention center. They might feel the same
with newcomers.
c.l.l is a very strange place and I'm trying to understand it yet.
Elsewhere there are wonderful people here, too.
Javier wrote:
>
<snipped>
>
> c.l.l is a very strange place and I'm trying to understand it yet.
> Elsewhere there are wonderful people here, too.
I wouldn't worry about it, really; cll can be immensely
useful to those with a killfile :-).
See, there are a bunch of folk who frequent this newsgroup
who post helpful, thoughtful and reasoned responses.
There is also the peanut gallery who seems starved
of attention. Sadly, even if you ignore Kenny Tilton
(and others like him), they won't go away.
Comp.lang.lisp is, for this second group, their
personal soapbox to espouse their ideological and
political goals. They are lucky; in here they have
a captive audience. Should they blather on their
own website (where one can go voluntarily go to
reinforce the KT groupthink) they would have a severe
lack of readers.
Anyway, from a lisp and cll newbie, welcome to cll.
Try to ignore the personal insults.
goose,
goose wrote:
> I wouldn't worry about it, really; cll can be immensely
> useful to those with a killfile :-).
I'm still not using (for just the comodity of using google), and hope
not having to.
> See, there are a bunch of folk who frequent this newsgroup
> who post helpful, thoughtful and reasoned responses.
I see, and appreciate very much them. I've got a lot to learn, and I'm
glad to learn it from all them good people.
> There is also the peanut gallery who seems starved
> of attention. Sadly, even if you ignore Kenny Tilton
> (and others like him), they won't go away.
(I unfortunaly agree)
> Anyway, from a lisp and cll newbie, welcome to cll.
Thanks.
> Try to ignore the personal insults.
I'll try until they reach the point of "tolerable".
Jack Unrue wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2006 07:37:14 -0700, "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snipped>
>
> And don't get me started on the claim "would the bug have been
> there at all?" Commercial developers aren't super-heroes; their
> company infrastructure often impedes the good people from getting
> work done as much as help ensure quality. That claim is patently
> ridiculous.
>
Indeed it is; most of us have worked in a commercial
company writing software for shipping to the end-user.
I've yet to come across a company that will fix
a known bug *unless* that bug will lose them money.
Corps aren't human, they are in business to make money
and the market has shown us all repeatedly that buggy
and/or inferioriority(sp?) will not be penalised.
goose,
Jack Unrue wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2006 07:37:14 -0700, "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You [referring to Javier] mentioned earlier that you use free software
> > because you're able to "modify it" and not because it's distributed free
> > of charge. I think this is baloney. How often have you had to modify a
> > free software package? If it was simply to fix a bug, ask yourself if
> > that bug would have been fixed more easily by a company than by a
> > user - or whether that bug would have been there at all. What kinds of
> > modifications are you looking to make?
>
> OK. I'm a CLISP user, and I have modified CLISP, not to fix a bug, but
> to integrate a patch for a feature that I needed. Am I disqualified
> from your argument, because I'm also a "developer"? Is Javier a "developer"
> or a "user"?
But even with all that handy freedom, CLISP still doesn't have threads.
Threading is nontrivial to add, but certainly not inhumanly possible.
But it hasn't been done because a lot of work for people to take on in
their free time. This is, in my opinion, simply the nature of open
source.
> IOW, don't conflate the meaning of user in the context of what Javier
> wants to do just so you can try to make this argument. The fact that
> most end-users don't have the expertise (or the interest, frankly) in
> fixing software problems themselves is not the point -- the point is
> that someone else can establish a business for themselves to serve
> that market -- but only if the source is available.
>
> Also, there are many, many examples of companies allowing important
> bugs to go unfixed for long periods of time. The commercial nature
> of a software package confers no advantage to users when the vendor
> lacks motivation. For example, when two companies merge, reducing
> competition in their market, prices tend to go up while service and
> quality tend to go down.
>
> And don't get me started on the claim "would the bug have been
> there at all?" Commercial developers aren't super-heroes; their
> company infrastructure often impedes the good people from getting
> work done as much as help ensure quality. That claim is patently
> ridiculous.
YMMV. In my experience, except for a few big-name projects (like
Linux, Firefox, or Emacs), open-source software has been consistently
buggier than the commercial software I now use (I don't use Windows).
If you find a difficult-to-kill bug that's not likely to affect a lot
of people, I'd say you're in the same position with OSS or commercial
software. With open-source software, you have to convince some wizard
to figure out what the problem is or become intimately familiar with
the code. Neither of these are very practical. With a commercial
company, you still have to convince them to take care of the bug -
except now they stand to lose your business if they ignore you. You're
of course correct that companies can still choose to ignore bugs.
> --
> Jack Unrue
On 31 Aug 2006 11:38:38 -0700, "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jack Unrue wrote:
> >
> > OK. I'm a CLISP user, and I have modified CLISP, not to fix a bug, but
> > to integrate a patch for a feature that I needed. Am I disqualified
> > from your argument, because I'm also a "developer"? Is Javier a "developer"
> > or a "user"?
>
> But even with all that handy freedom, CLISP still doesn't have threads.
> Threading is nontrivial to add, but certainly not inhumanly possible.
> But it hasn't been done because a lot of work for people to take on in
> their free time. This is, in my opinion, simply the nature of open
> source.
I don't think you're in any position to know what kind of time
people have to spend on any given project; this is an unfortunate
stereotype.
It's also easy to cherry-pick well-known features not getting
done and point to them as evidence of the so-called nature of
open-source, without really analyzing the situation. I'll grant
you that it's a complicated issue, though. CLISP threading is
a great example. As you say, it's non-trivial. On the other hand,
no one appears to want it badly enough that they are willing to
pitch in to help finish it off or pay the CLISP developers to
do that[1]. It's a market supply-and-demand issue.
Commercial vendors make the *same* choices. They just
communicate their decisions differently, such as "we don't have
enough customers asking for that feature to justify spending
resources on it" or "releasing that feature would communicate
the wrong message to analysts, we need to maintain our position
in Gartner's Magic Quadrants."
> > And don't get me started on the claim "would the bug have been
> > there at all?" Commercial developers aren't super-heroes; their
> > company infrastructure often impedes the good people from getting
> > work done as much as help ensure quality. That claim is patently
> > ridiculous.
>
> YMMV. In my experience, except for a few big-name projects (like
> Linux, Firefox, or Emacs), open-source software has been consistently
> buggier than the commercial software I now use (I don't use Windows).
> If you find a difficult-to-kill bug that's not likely to affect a lot
> of people, I'd say you're in the same position with OSS or commercial
> software. With open-source software, you have to convince some wizard
> to figure out what the problem is or become intimately familiar with
> the code. Neither of these are very practical. With a commercial
> company, you still have to convince them to take care of the bug -
> except now they stand to lose your business if they ignore you. You're
> of course correct that companies can still choose to ignore bugs.
There is risk to the open-source developer, too -- that unhappy people
will fork your project. E.g., CMUCL -> SBCL; or XFree86 -> X.org;
or 386BSD -> FreeBSD; just to name a few examples. But forking is a
feature, not a bug! Have you ever worked for a small start-up that
unfortunately went down in flames, had some ideas for taking the
startup's product in a slightly different direction that might be
workable, but had those ideas shot down because the money people want
that IP to stay "on the shelf and off the market" ?
I agree, mileage does vary.
--
Jack Unrue
[1] In case you weren't aware, there is threading code in CLISP that
needs more work and especially more testing.
Jack Unrue wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2006 11:38:38 -0700, "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jack Unrue wrote:
> > >
> > > OK. I'm a CLISP user, and I have modified CLISP, not to fix a bug, but
> > > to integrate a patch for a feature that I needed. Am I disqualified
> > > from your argument, because I'm also a "developer"? Is Javier a "developer"
> > > or a "user"?
> >
> > But even with all that handy freedom, CLISP still doesn't have threads.
> > Threading is nontrivial to add, but certainly not inhumanly possible.
> > But it hasn't been done because a lot of work for people to take on in
> > their free time. This is, in my opinion, simply the nature of open
> > source.
>
> I don't think you're in any position to know what kind of time
> people have to spend on any given project; this is an unfortunate
> stereotype.
Fair enough - a lot of OSS development goes beyond "free time" work.
> It's also easy to cherry-pick well-known features not getting
> done and point to them as evidence of the so-called nature of
> open-source, without really analyzing the situation. I'll grant
> you that it's a complicated issue, though. CLISP threading is
> a great example. As you say, it's non-trivial. On the other hand,
> no one appears to want it badly enough that they are willing to
> pitch in to help finish it off or pay the CLISP developers to
> do that[1]. It's a market supply-and-demand issue.
>
> Commercial vendors make the *same* choices. They just
> communicate their decisions differently, such as "we don't have
> enough customers asking for that feature to justify spending
> resources on it" or "releasing that feature would communicate
> the wrong message to analysts, we need to maintain our position
> in Gartner's Magic Quadrants."
My point is simply that all the commercial Lisps, and commercial
languages like Java or C#, support threading. It is simply a matter of
applying labor and time - if you have a payroll department, it is
easier to obtain these two commodities. I do see a lot of posts around
here looking for threading in CLISP. I've used CLISP in the past and
the lack of threading (and the ensuing hassles relating to using SLIME
and Araneida at the same time) were an important factor in moving on to
other implementations.
But you see things like this all over. I mentioned accounting software
in a previous post. None of the FLOSS software I tried supported
automatic synchronization with banks. Quicken does. Or you take some
of the common scripting languges. None of these have native compilers,
yet every commercial Lisp and every Lisp that came out of a large
academic institution does. Without some kind of instution guiding
development, some OSS software reaches the point where it gets the job
done and then stops. This is not the case with all software, but it
happened enough that I finally abandoned Linux. I had constantly been
settling for inferior software without even realizing it. I think this
happens a lot in the FLOSS community.
> > > And don't get me started on the claim "would the bug have been
> > > there at all?" Commercial developers aren't super-heroes; their
> > > company infrastructure often impedes the good people from getting
> > > work done as much as help ensure quality. That claim is patently
> > > ridiculous.
> >
> > YMMV. In my experience, except for a few big-name projects (like
> > Linux, Firefox, or Emacs), open-source software has been consistently
> > buggier than the commercial software I now use (I don't use Windows).
> > If you find a difficult-to-kill bug that's not likely to affect a lot
> > of people, I'd say you're in the same position with OSS or commercial
> > software. With open-source software, you have to convince some wizard
> > to figure out what the problem is or become intimately familiar with
> > the code. Neither of these are very practical. With a commercial
> > company, you still have to convince them to take care of the bug -
> > except now they stand to lose your business if they ignore you. You're
> > of course correct that companies can still choose to ignore bugs.
>
> There is risk to the open-source developer, too -- that unhappy people
> will fork your project. E.g., CMUCL -> SBCL; or XFree86 -> X.org;
> or 386BSD -> FreeBSD; just to name a few examples. But forking is a
> feature, not a bug! Have you ever worked for a small start-up that
> unfortunately went down in flames, had some ideas for taking the
> startup's product in a slightly different direction that might be
> workable, but had those ideas shot down because the money people want
> that IP to stay "on the shelf and off the market" ?
What does this anecdote have to do with the discussion? What does
FLOSS have to do with your managers' decision not to release IP?
> I agree, mileage does vary.
>
> --
> Jack Unrue
>
> [1] In case you weren't aware, there is threading code in CLISP that
> needs more work and especially more testing.
On 31 Aug 2006 15:03:04 -0700, "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What does this anecdote have to do with the discussion? What does
> FLOSS have to do with your managers' decision not to release IP?
You're right, strike that anecdote.
--
Jack Unrue
"Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> My point is simply that all the commercial Lisps, and commercial
> languages like Java or C#, support threading. It is simply a matter of
> applying labor and time - if you have a payroll department, it is
> easier to obtain these two commodities. I do see a lot of posts around
> here looking for threading in CLISP. I've used CLISP in the past and
> the lack of threading (and the ensuing hassles relating to using SLIME
> and Araneida at the same time) were an important factor in moving on to
> other implementations.
On the other hand, if threads were really needed, they would have been
implemented in clisp a long time ago. 90% of what you do with threads,
you can do with linux:|fork|.
(That said, with the advent of multicore processors, I'd bet clisp
will get threads soon enough (thanks magical free software fairy :-)).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
WARNING: This product warps space and time in its vicinity.
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries
Date:
Message-ID: <m1odu0nkpx.fsf@vestre.net>
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> On the other hand, if threads were really needed, they would have been
> implemented in clisp a long time ago. 90% of what you do with threads,
> you can do with linux:|fork|.
Hmm. 99.99% of what I have done in lisp the last 10 years involves
multiple threads manipulating shared lisp data (I also worked with
single-threaded lisps 18-12 years ago, and it was fine, but that was
mainly academic software. I heard the lispm guys talk about how
inferior single-threaded lisps were, but at that time I didn't fully
grasp how fundamental and radical the difference really was).
--
(espen)
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> "Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > My point is simply that all the commercial Lisps, and commercial
> > languages like Java or C#, support threading. It is simply a matter of
> > applying labor and time - if you have a payroll department, it is
> > easier to obtain these two commodities. I do see a lot of posts around
> > here looking for threading in CLISP. I've used CLISP in the past and
> > the lack of threading (and the ensuing hassles relating to using SLIME
> > and Araneida at the same time) were an important factor in moving on to
> > other implementations.
>
> On the other hand, if threads were really needed, they would have been
> implemented in clisp a long time ago.
I'm sure you realize that doesn't actually follow. Smart people
needing them would simply move on to an implementation that had them.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
"Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Without some kind of instution guiding development, some OSS software
> reaches the point where it gets the job done and then stops. This is
> not the case with all software, but it happened enough that I finally
> abandoned Linux. I had constantly been settling for inferior software
> without even realizing it. I think this happens a lot in the FLOSS
> community.
You could, of course, _improve_ the inferior software. That's the whole
point of free software: you the user are empowered to better your
situation yourself, as opposed to having to rely on someone else to do
so. If you want a feature, add it.
The situation is similar the Seigenthaler situation on Wikipedia: rather
than complaining, _do_ something!
Institutions make valuable contributions because they are a source of
large amounts of cheap labour in the form of students--those students
have the luxury of spending time getting things working, whereas those
of us on the larger market often don't.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
There's nothing in human experience compared to which a sendmail
config file could be considered simple.
Bill Atkins wrote:
> should seriously think about. Lots of people claim that free software
> wins because of freedom, but when you get right down to it, they just
> don't feel like paying for software.
One reason why I like the BSD-family of licenses. Take the software,
do what you want with it, just don't slap on a warranty or remove
original copyrights.... pretty much.
> actually in it for the "freedom." In my own experience, though, most
> people would not choose Linux if it cost money - even if it cost money
> to get the "free speech" aspects of it. It is the lack of upfront cost
> of Linux that keeps people using it - and ironically costs them much
It was a great way to learn Unix and systems programming. But you are
right, buying an AT&T license for Unix code would have done the same
thing, and with support too.
> more in wasted time. Since switching to OS X, I find I can do lots
> more with my computer. I always wanted to manage my money on my
I am *stunned* at how much more I can get done. Not having to go edit
/etc/rc.conf or bring up some monolithic system database viewer to make
a few changes. Not to mention how easy it is to organize my music
collection during a system build. ;-)
> computer, but the only programs available for Linux in this department
> were gnucash and grisbi (I believe that was the name), neither of which
> were very good. Now it's as simple as paying thirty bucks for Quicken
I bought MYOB, but haven't started using it yet. I agree, though,
gnucash ticked me off every time I tried to use it.
> and getting that functionality. Similarly, I used to get by with SLIME
> and SBCL. Both of these are well-done products, but they don't compare
> to LispWorks. Why aren't people using LispWorks then? Mostly because
Wait a second. I have to hear more about this. Better than SLIME?
Details, please. I'd try it, but they don't have one out yet for
OSX-Intel yet, AFAIK.
Javier wrote:
> Suppose that I have in mind to write an application for normal users,
> not programmers, and not system administrators. For example, I like
> music applications, so supose that I'm going to write something similar
> to Cubase or Logic.
> (Actually this is just a desire, I know that making such a kind of
> applicattion is quite difficult and requires a lot of work.)
Indeed.
> Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> for a comercial compiler. Elsewhere, I need speed, as it is going to be
> a real-time application, and of course it requires to do very efficent
> floating point calculations.
> My application is intended to run on MacOSX, Windows, and Linux. It is
> primary going to be designed, edited and debuged using OSX, and then
> ported to other plattforms.
OSX is historically quite difficult for CL development.
> So my only alternative is SBCL, and praid to heaven for the Windows
> version to be avaiable some day.
I don't think so, you could also use CMUCL or ECL. CLisp may also be
OK.
Even GCL may work, though CFFI doesn't work on GCL currently AFAIK.
> I've been navigating thru cliki.net to see all the libraries avaiable
> for this issue, and I'm confussed.
>
> * I didn't find any library for GUI development except LTK that works
> on all the 3 major OS without issues.
I can't comment on that, I haven't tested them.
> But LTK is based on TK, it is
> slower, and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
> to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on),
I don't know if it would either.
Note to Kenny: LTK is not like celtk, it doesn't communicate through
CFFI. Instead it works by piping input in the form of TCL commands to
the TCL shell. This works fine in general, the problem is if a large
amount of data needs to be passed. That data must be converted from
in-memory values to text, the parsed and converted back again. I've
used these systems before, they mean trouble.
> and
> Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
> application.
You can just include it with your app. If you have a pre-built binary
of your app include a pre-built binary of TCL/Tk with it. You can
compile all the bits of TCL you'll need into a single binary file of
~1MB if you like. Search the web for TCLKit, an example of this and
something that maybe could be used.
> I also would like the library to produce nice-looking
> widgets for the users; this is very important. Using a GTK binding
> gives me a great headache: it works very nice on Linux, but there is
> not native OSX widgets yet (it uses X11 and most people just don't
> know/ want to install and/or use it), and for windows something similar
> happens.
It works OK on Windows, I use GIMP with GTK+ widgets all the time. The
only problem is that it's slow, it's slow on Linux too, but not so
slow. Windows users don't have to install X11, you can include the
GTK+ libs in the installer/zip file. The bigger problem is Mac users.
Note of Qq while we're at it...
Qt 4 for Windows is absolutely gigantic ~50MB if I remember right.
Make sure your application doesn't look at all like virus or users will
be wary of downloading it :)
> So this is my frustation with Lisp. I hope anyone here can bring me up
> some hope. I like Lisp as a language, and would like to use it for
> practical and real world applications, but there is little help from
> avaiable libraries. I hope I'm wrong.
I here you. Please post any good solutions you find on comp.lang.lisp,
I at least would be interested.
Thanks
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Javier wrote:
> > So my only alternative is SBCL, and praid to heaven for the Windows
> > version to be avaiable some day.
>
> I don't think so, you could also use CMUCL or ECL. CLisp may also be
> OK.
CMUCL doesn't work on Windows.
Rob Thorpe <·············@antenova.com> wrote:
+---------------
| CMUCL doesn't work on Windows.
+---------------
Yet. Or more actually, "mostly works[1] but isn't 100% finished yet".
IIUIC, most of the remaining bugs have to do with corner cases in
the handling of asynchronous interrupts, which are *very* different
on Windows than on Linux/Unix.
Someday, someday...
-Rob
[1] Specifically, is to the point of being self-hosting on Windows.
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock wrote:
> Rob Thorpe <·············@antenova.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | CMUCL doesn't work on Windows.
> +---------------
>
> Yet. Or more actually, "mostly works[1] but isn't 100% finished yet".
> IIUIC, most of the remaining bugs have to do with corner cases in
> the handling of asynchronous interrupts, which are *very* different
> on Windows than on Linux/Unix.
>
> Someday, someday...
Oh good, thanks for the work.
Rob Thorpe <·············@antenova.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Rob Warnock wrote:
| > Rob Thorpe <·············@antenova.com> wrote:
| > +---------------
| > | CMUCL doesn't work on Windows.
| > +---------------
| >
| > Yet. Or more actually, "mostly works[1] but isn't 100% finished yet".
| > IIUIC, most of the remaining bugs have to do with corner cases in
| > the handling of asynchronous interrupts...
|
| Oh good, thanks for the work.
+---------------
Yikes! Don't thank *me*!! Carl Shapiro is the one doing the porting.
I'm just passing on my understanding of the state of things, which
might not even be correct [which is why I said "IIUIC" == "If I
Understand It Correctly"] since it's been a while since I've gotten
an update.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
I wouldn't know where to start with recommending a GUI for any particular
Lisp. Although I note this language does have a strong link to the sound
community. Audacity, I think Cakewalk, and the highly respected Snd
package.
Javier wrote:
> Suppose that I have in mind to write an application for normal users,
> not programmers, and not system administrators. For example, I like
> music applications, so supose that I'm going to write something similar
> to Cubase or Logic.
> (Actually this is just a desire, I know that making such a kind of
> applicattion is quite difficult and requires a lot of work.)
>
> Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> for a comercial compiler. Elsewhere, I need speed, as it is going to be
> a real-time application, and of course it requires to do very efficent
> floating point calculations.
> My application is intended to run on MacOSX, Windows, and Linux. It is
> primary going to be designed, edited and debuged using OSX, and then
> ported to other plattforms.
> So my only alternative is SBCL, and praid to heaven for the Windows
> version to be avaiable some day.
>
> I've been navigating thru cliki.net to see all the libraries avaiable
> for this issue, and I'm confussed.
>
> * I didn't find any library for GUI development except LTK that works
> on all the 3 major OS without issues. But LTK is based on TK, it is
> slower, and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
> to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on), and
> Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
> application. I also would like the library to produce nice-looking
> widgets for the users; this is very important. Using a GTK binding
> gives me a great headache: it works very nice on Linux, but there is
> not native OSX widgets yet (it uses X11 and most people just don't
> know/ want to install and/or use it), and for windows something similar
> happens.
> * For sound libraries is even worse. Almost all libraries are old and
> beta versions. I think that there is not even a single library that
> just makes sound to work on all OS. Some recomendations are welcome
> here.
>
> So this is my frustation with Lisp. I hope anyone here can bring me up
> some hope. I like Lisp as a language, and would like to use it for
> practical and real world applications, but there is little help from
> avaiable libraries. I hope I'm wrong.
On 2006-08-30 02:13:22 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
> Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> for a comercial compiler.
This doesn't follow. You can very well use a commercial lisp
and still open source *your* code, stating that whoever wants
to contribute has to use compiler so and so.
> * For sound libraries is even worse. Almost all libraries are old and
> beta versions. I think that there is not even a single library that
> just makes sound to work on all OS. Some recomendations are welcome
> here.
This is not really a language issue because, unless you want
to perform sound editing/playing with your own algorithms (and
welcome the amount of work!) your output (and input as the case
might be) will most probably be provided by your host OS (CoreAudio
in the case of OS X, and whatever are the Linux/Win32 equivalents)
Which boils down to using some FFI to link to them, in a very
similar way as you would, using any other language.
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-08-30 02:13:22 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> > for a comercial compiler.
>
> This doesn't follow. You can very well use a commercial lisp
> and still open source *your* code, stating that whoever wants
> to contribute has to use compiler so and so.
The problem here is that I believe that open source is not only the
program to be free of charge, but also the ability for others to modify
it. It might still be posible for others to modify my work, but then
they are forced to buy a license or to make even more work to adapt it
to open source compilers.
> This is not really a language issue because, unless you want
> to perform sound editing/playing with your own algorithms (and
> welcome the amount of work!) your output (and input as the case
> might be) will most probably be provided by your host OS (CoreAudio
> in the case of OS X, and whatever are the Linux/Win32 equivalents)
Yes, you're right. Elsewhere some existing bindings would be nice.
"Javier" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> verec wrote:
>> On 2006-08-30 02:13:22 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> > Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
>> > for a comercial compiler.
>>
>> This doesn't follow. You can very well use a commercial lisp
>> and still open source *your* code, stating that whoever wants
>> to contribute has to use compiler so and so.
>
> The problem here is that I believe that open source is not only the
> program to be free of charge, but also the ability for others to modify
> it. It might still be posible for others to modify my work, but then
> they are forced to buy a license or to make even more work to adapt it
> to open source compilers.
Neat! You're going to distribute your program with a free computer
and electricity voucher. Where do I sign up?
On 2006-08-30 22:56:16 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
>> This doesn't follow. You can very well use a commercial lisp
>> and still open source *your* code, stating that whoever wants
>> to contribute has to use compiler so and so.
>
> The problem here is that I believe that open source is not only the
> program to be free of charge, but also the ability for others to modify
> it. It might still be posible for others to modify my work, but then
> they are forced to buy a license or to make even more work to adapt it
> to open source compilers.
I don't really want to go into this, but free-to-modify-one-you*OWN*
and free-to-get-because-of-no-cost are two separate issues.
The very computer used to make those modifucations is *not* in
the free-to-get category nor is the somewhat expansive quality
audio-equipment needed (MIDI keyboard, high fidelity mike, and
all assortments of *physical* musical instruments if your tool
is going to allow mixing/processing natural sound: last time
I checked, neither Finder nor Gibson were giving away their
guitars for free, nor do Steinway or Bosendorfer.
I would gladly pay for a tool that saves me time in doing
whatever it is that I want to do, because time is the only
commodity I have for sale ... YMMV, of course.
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-08-30 22:56:16 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> This doesn't follow. You can very well use a commercial lisp
> >> and still open source *your* code, stating that whoever wants
> >> to contribute has to use compiler so and so.
> >
> > The problem here is that I believe that open source is not only the
> > program to be free of charge, but also the ability for others to modify
> > it. It might still be posible for others to modify my work, but then
> > they are forced to buy a license or to make even more work to adapt it
> > to open source compilers.
>
> I don't really want to go into this, but free-to-modify-one-you*OWN*
> and free-to-get-because-of-no-cost are two separate issues.
I know it, but my desire is to reach both.
> I would gladly pay for a tool that saves me time in doing
> whatever it is that I want to do, because time is the only
> commodity I have for sale ... YMMV, of course.
I do too, and have paid for several programs. But remember that it
doesn't have to be always that way, and if I can avoid to paid and
being able to modify the program, much better. I also like to make some
programs for money, and some others not, it all depends on personal
tastes.
verec wrote:
> On 2006-08-30 22:56:16 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> This doesn't follow. You can very well use a commercial lisp
> >> and still open source *your* code, stating that whoever wants
> >> to contribute has to use compiler so and so.
> >
> > The problem here is that I believe that open source is not only the
> > program to be free of charge, but also the ability for others to modify
> > it. It might still be posible for others to modify my work, but then
> > they are forced to buy a license or to make even more work to adapt it
> > to open source compilers.
>
> I don't really want to go into this, but free-to-modify-one-you*OWN*
> and free-to-get-because-of-no-cost are two separate issues.
>
> The very computer used to make those modifucations is *not* in
> the free-to-get category nor is the somewhat expansive quality
> audio-equipment needed (MIDI keyboard, high fidelity mike, and
> all assortments of *physical* musical instruments if your tool
> is going to allow mixing/processing natural sound: last time
> I checked, neither Finder nor Gibson were giving away their
> guitars for free, nor do Steinway or Bosendorfer.
>
> I would gladly pay for a tool that saves me time in doing
> whatever it is that I want to do, because time is the only
> commodity I have for sale ... YMMV, of course.
The point is though, if you make something "open source" rather than
just freely downloadable then you're doing it for one of two reason.
Either you believe software should be like that, or you want others to
help you augment the program.
I think the OP falls into the 2nd category. If this is the case it
doesn't help in getting others to help you if they have to pay to buy
some other tools to do so.
On 2006-08-31 11:36:37 +0100, "Rob Thorpe" <·············@antenova.com> said:
>> I would gladly pay for a tool that saves me time in doing
>> whatever it is that I want to do, because time is the only
>> commodity I have for sale ... YMMV, of course.
>
> The point is though, if you make something "open source" rather than
> just freely downloadable then you're doing it for one of two reason.
> Either you believe software should be like that, or you want others to
> help you augment the program.
>
> I think the OP falls into the 2nd category. If this is the case it
> doesn't help in getting others to help you if they have to pay to buy
> some other tools to do so.
Isn't it a bit disturbing that you might be right?
What does it tell us about the kind of tool that you can't get
help with, unless it is free-as-in-beer?
In what other kind of human endehavour do people "help" each
other? Is that always in a free-as-in-beer context?
Another interesting view is when you reverse the argument:
"I want help only from people who are so serious about it
that they will want to pay good money to use it first"
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-08-31 11:36:37 +0100, "Rob Thorpe" <·············@antenova.com> said:
>
> >> I would gladly pay for a tool that saves me time in doing
> >> whatever it is that I want to do, because time is the only
> >> commodity I have for sale ... YMMV, of course.
> >
> > The point is though, if you make something "open source" rather than
> > just freely downloadable then you're doing it for one of two reason.
> > Either you believe software should be like that, or you want others to
> > help you augment the program.
> >
> > I think the OP falls into the 2nd category. If this is the case it
> > doesn't help in getting others to help you if they have to pay to buy
> > some other tools to do so.
>
> Isn't it a bit disturbing that you might be right?
>
> What does it tell us about the kind of tool that you can't get
> help with, unless it is free-as-in-beer?
>
> In what other kind of human endehavour do people "help" each
> other? Is that always in a free-as-in-beer context?
I don't follow. We're not talking about free-as-in-beer here are we?
> Another interesting view is when you reverse the argument:
>
> "I want help only from people who are so serious about it
> that they will want to pay good money to use it first"
Some people have tried that for various purposes. I remember someone I
met who ran a free TV channel in the UK. He asked people who
volunteered to help him to agree to a minimum amount of work or not
volunteer at all.
verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
>
> In what other kind of human endehavour do people "help" each other? Is
> that always in a free-as-in-beer context?
Many. One of my hobbies is mediaeval re-creation; it's very
common--indeed, the norm--to find folks teaching skills for no
remuneration; often they'll even cover the cost of materials themselves.
Another of my hobbies is weapons collecting; the site www.myarmoury.com
is run for free (although donations are solicited, similarly to many
F/OSS projects).
Indeed, I imagine that most hobbies are founded upon helping newbies.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Dilbert: Not more than ten minutes ago you beat a man senseless.
Alice: He was senseless before I beat him.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:24:29 +0100, verec <·····@mac.com>:
>> Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
>> for a comercial compiler.
>
>This doesn't follow. You can very well use a commercial lisp
>and still open source *your* code, stating that whoever wants
>to contribute has to use compiler so and so.
BTW, IBM has proved that you can spend enormous amounts of money to
make open-source code.
Fabien LE LEZ wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:24:29 +0100, verec <·····@mac.com>:
>
> >> Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> >> for a comercial compiler.
> >
> >This doesn't follow. You can very well use a commercial lisp
> >and still open source *your* code, stating that whoever wants
> >to contribute has to use compiler so and so.
>
> BTW, IBM has proved that you can spend enormous amounts of money to
> make open-source code.
I think IBM have spent rather less writing code than they make out.
They once said they would spend "a billion dollars on Linux". When
people looked into it more closely though they found that what they
really meant was they were going to spend a billion dollars promoting
Linux and their software for it, providing technical support, etc.
Only a small portion of the total was on writing code.
That said, they've still spent an enormous amount on it, as have SGI.
Rob Thorpe <·············@antenova.com> wrote:
+---------------
| I think IBM have spent rather less writing code than they make out.
...
| Only a small portion of the total was on writing code.
| That said, they've still spent an enormous amount on it, as have SGI.
+---------------
Most of what SGI spent on Linux *code* [as opposed to the PR & support
stuff you mentioned for IBM] was in *porting* existing code -- or at
least, the tricky bits of the algorithms -- from Irix, that they had
already spent 100's of man-years on, especially the fine-grained multi-
processor locking stuff that lets the operating system scale somewhat
reasonably to 100's or 1000+ CPUs, e.g.:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060815/sftu043.html?.v=67
SGI Brings Real-Time Performance and Streamlined Cluster
Management to Open Source Linux With SGI ProPack 5
Tuesday August 15 [2006]
...
The latest release of SGI ProPack brings SGI's REACT Real-Time
Extension for Linux to a standard Linux distribution for the
first time enabling real- time capabilities and support on an
unmodified version of the open-source kernel. REACT guarantees
interrupt response times of no more than 30 microseconds in
configurations of 2 to 64 Intel Itanium 2 processors.
"REACT" existed on Irix years ago.
SGI ProPack 5, in conjunction with SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
10, provides another industry first: support for systems running
1,024 processors under a single copy of Linux. By driving the
capabilities of SGI Altix and 64- bit Linux to record heights,
SGI continues to push the boundaries of what even the most
demanding high-performance computing (HPC) customers can expect
from Linux.
But here again, they were doing this with *Irix* [on MIPS CPUs]
almost a decade ago.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On 31 Aug 2006 09:10:17 -0700, "Rob Thorpe"
<·············@antenova.com>:
>> BTW, IBM has proved that you can spend enormous amounts of money to
>> make open-source code.
>
>[...]
>That said, they've still spent an enormous amount on it, as have SGI.
It'd be interesting to compare the amount of money that IBM has spent
on developing Linux, to the amount Microsoft has spent on developing
Windows.
On 2006-08-30 02:13:22 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
>
Yuu might want to have a look at
http://impromptu.moso.com.au/
which is a scheme based OS X application: this might give you
an idea about the level at which you may need to compete :-)
The thing is: if there's already a tool that does what you
want (and probably more) why write another one?
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-08-30 02:13:22 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
> >
> Yuu might want to have a look at
>
> http://impromptu.moso.com.au/
>
> which is a scheme based OS X application: this might give you
> an idea about the level at which you may need to compete :-)
>
> The thing is: if there's already a tool that does what you
> want (and probably more) why write another one?
It is very interesting, but the program you show me is not like the one
I citated (Cubase, Logic, Cake Walk...). But it would be nice to
examine the code.
The reasons might be that I'd like to writte a program of this kind, to
learn Lisp. I know the amount of work it is. But imagine that Linus
Torwards said the same when first created the Linux kernel... (and
then, other OS might have no sense at all (FreeBSD, OpenBSD...) if
their original authors just thougth that "why write another one").
On 2006-08-30 23:07:41 +0100, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> said:
>> http://impromptu.moso.com.au/
>>
>> which is a scheme based OS X application: this might give you
>> an idea about the level at which you may need to compete :-)
>>
>> The thing is: if there's already a tool that does what you
>> want (and probably more) why write another one?
>
> It is very interesting, but the program you show me is not like the one
> I citated (Cubase, Logic, Cake Walk...). But it would be nice to
> examine the code.
> The reasons might be that I'd like to writte a program of this kind, to
> learn Lisp. I know the amount of work it is. But imagine that Linus
> Torwards said the same when first created the Linux kernel... (and
> then, other OS might have no sense at all (FreeBSD, OpenBSD...) if
> their original authors just thougth that "why write another one").
Been there done that :-)
20-ish years ago, when MIDI was the new-new thing, I embarked
in a project based on 6502 assembly, UCSD Pascal on an Apple II.
That was very fun until I realized that what I was doing was
_technology_, but *not* music! Fast forward to 2006, We've got
Garage Band, Finale, Impromptu ... Unless you're the kind of
bloke who craves working for people like IRACM (You could start
here: http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/analyse-synthese/sdif/)
and the making of the tool is more important than your planned
use of it, then I would seriously consider other areas to apply
my wit :)
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> Been there done that :-)
>
> 20-ish years ago, when MIDI was the new-new thing, I embarked
> in a project based on 6502 assembly, UCSD Pascal on an Apple II.
> That was very fun until I realized that what I was doing was
> _technology_, but *not* music! Fast forward to 2006, We've got
> Garage Band, Finale, Impromptu ... Unless you're the kind of
> bloke who craves working for people like IRACM (You could start
> here: http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/analyse-synthese/sdif/)
> and the making of the tool is more important than your planned
> use of it, then I would seriously consider other areas to apply
> my wit :)
I'm also an old user of such programs (I've been using Cubase for more
than 10 years for my own creative fun), and I know that the
complexities of these programs are big. But if you examine them
carefully, they are mainly based on plugins (VST, AU, etc) on top of a
MIDI and an audio editor. What I suggest is to build a more creative
interface, compatible with that old plugins, and the ability to extend
it using CL. I have some ideas in my mind collected from all these
years being a user.
It would be interesting to hear about that other areas you suggest, I
am not only limited to music composition programs. :)
On 29 Aug 2006 18:13:22 -0700, "Javier" <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So this is my frustation with Lisp. I hope anyone here can bring me up
> some hope. I like Lisp as a language, and would like to use it for
> practical and real world applications, but there is little help from
> avaiable libraries. I hope I'm wrong.
Javier, if there is one key point that I hope you can take away
from Kenny's replies, it is that (and I say this respectfully)
I really don't believe you have enough experience yet to be able
to conclude that there is little help from available libraries.
My suggestion: make some initial choices of CL implementation
and libraries (knowing full well they might not last long in
your toolset) and get some initial prototyping done. Then
step back and re-evaluate. Ask informed questions, get answers.
Write some more code. Repeat.
And post screenshots while you're at it! Everybody loves
screenshots :-)
--
Jack Unrue
Jack Unrue wrote:
> Javier, if there is one key point that I hope you can take away
> from Kenny's replies, it is that (and I say this respectfully)
> I really don't believe you have enough experience yet to be able
> to conclude that there is little help from available libraries.
At least for newbies there might not, as it seems to me that they are
very caothic, with little or no documentation (not in all cases), some
of them outdated, and poorly ported to different architectures. This is
my conclusion as a newbie and after being investigating for some months
(not very deeply, it is true). I'm not acusing anybody of this, I'm
just commenting on.
Ah! Another thing, asdf is a hell too! :)
> My suggestion: make some initial choices of CL implementation
> and libraries (knowing full well they might not last long in
> your toolset) and get some initial prototyping done. Then
> step back and re-evaluate. Ask informed questions, get answers.
> Write some more code. Repeat.
Thanks, that's what I'm pretending! But I need to start, and that's
what I'm doing. :)
> And post screenshots while you're at it! Everybody loves
> screenshots :-)
Javier wrote:
> Jack Unrue wrote:
> > Javier, if there is one key point that I hope you can take away
> > from Kenny's replies, it is that (and I say this respectfully)
> > I really don't believe you have enough experience yet to be able
> > to conclude that there is little help from available libraries.
>
> At least for newbies there might not, as it seems to me that they are
> very caothic, with little or no documentation (not in all cases), some
> of them outdated, and poorly ported to different architectures. This is
> my conclusion as a newbie and after being investigating for some months
> (not very deeply, it is true). I'm not acusing anybody of this, I'm
> just commenting on.
> Ah! Another thing, asdf is a hell too! :)
>
> > My suggestion: make some initial choices of CL implementation
> > and libraries (knowing full well they might not last long in
> > your toolset) and get some initial prototyping done. Then
> > step back and re-evaluate. Ask informed questions, get answers.
> > Write some more code. Repeat.
>
> Thanks, that's what I'm pretending! But I need to start, and that's
> what I'm doing. :)
>
> > And post screenshots while you're at it! Everybody loves
> > screenshots :-)
Probably Java, Perl, Python, Ruby or some of the other fantastic
languages
offer what you are looking for (running on all platforms, free, open
source, great
gui lib and great sound lib, plus you can use it).
Maybe they have Cubase or Logic-like applications you are looking for,
are open
source and you can study. For sure.
And, no, you should not use Common Music and OpenMCL. Don't do that.
Don't even try to impress Pierre Boulez with a Lisp application.
http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/cmdist/2005-September/002604.html
That you already fail with ASDF should really say something to you.
Don't use Lisp.
Please. No honestly, if a tool is too difficult, use an easier one.
·······@gmail.com writes:
If I can, I'll just give you a feedback with my own app (cl-wav-synth).
It's not a real time application. I've used McCLIM and I develop it
under GNU/Linux (clisp/sbcl/cmucl) or MacOS X (idem) and I've test it
under MSWindow (clisp).
> Suppose that I have in mind to write an application for normal users,
> not programmers, and not system administrators. For example, I like
> music applications, so supose that I'm going to write something similar
> to Cubase or Logic.
> (Actually this is just a desire, I know that making such a kind of
> applicattion is quite difficult and requires a lot of work.)
>
> Because my program is probably going to be Open Source, I cannot pay
> for a comercial compiler. Elsewhere, I need speed, as it is going to be
> a real-time application, and of course it requires to do very efficent
> floating point calculations.
> My application is intended to run on MacOSX, Windows, and Linux. It is
> primary going to be designed, edited and debuged using OSX, and then
> ported to other plattforms.
> So my only alternative is SBCL, and praid to heaven for the Windows
> version to be avaiable some day.
>
As others said before: and what about clisp ?
> I've been navigating thru cliki.net to see all the libraries avaiable
> for this issue, and I'm confussed.
>
> * I didn't find any library for GUI development except LTK that works
> on all the 3 major OS without issues. But LTK is based on TK, it is
> slower, and I'm not so sure that it is going to respond OK when trying
> to add new widgets (like piano-rolls, score-editors, and so on), and
> Windows users needs to install TCL/TK previus to install my
> application. I also would like the library to produce nice-looking
> widgets for the users; this is very important. Using a GTK binding
> gives me a great headache: it works very nice on Linux, but there is
> not native OSX widgets yet (it uses X11 and most people just don't
> know/ want to install and/or use it), and for windows something similar
> happens.
>
TK is really fine and vey nice to program in.
Another choise is McCLIM. cl-wav-synth can draw a 5 minutes sample
(~40Mo) at an acceptable speed and it can handle a lots of events in a
song. So maybe it can feed your needs.
For the X11 problem, you can package it with your application: the
user doesn't need to know that it use X11 (I've tried this with the
clisp binary under Windows and Xming. At least it's works on my box).
I think you can do both for Windows and MacOS.
> * For sound libraries is even worse. Almost all libraries are old and
> beta versions. I think that there is not even a single library that
> just makes sound to work on all OS. Some recomendations are welcome
> here.
>
Here, you can write or choose a library and go with it with uffi/cffi.
For my own use, I let the choise to an external program to play sounds
but you can look to library like SDL (it' really easy to play sounds
with it) or OpenAL or fmod or ...
> So this is my frustation with Lisp. I hope anyone here can bring me up
> some hope. I like Lisp as a language, and would like to use it for
> practical and real world applications, but there is little help from
> avaiable libraries. I hope I'm wrong.
>
Well, try and code :)
--
Philippe Brochard <···········@SPAM_free.fr>
http://hocwp.free.fr