From: gavino
Subject: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <a255ee73-2fbd-4cb1-a807-eff0c64cc414@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
where is the lisp operating system?

If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
with a desktop and broswer?

From: Ali
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <740ed6a8-32c1-42d3-8d93-997b944023d0@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 5:37 am, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> where is the lisp operating system?
>
> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> with a desktop and broswer?

If you want, you can use Clisp as a login shell and StumpWM as window
manager in Linux.

If do both of the above, your desktop experience will be very hackable
in lisp.

For me I think this is a good compromise since although the Kernel is
in C, it's maintained and developed at a very impressive rate.

Here's a web browser: http://common-lisp.net/project/closure/
I'm not using it myself, so don't know how good it is.

And Emacs of course.
From: Andrew Reilly
Subject: Closure web browser (was Re: where is the lisp operating system?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <6joa0aF45pa0U1@mid.individual.net>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:28:48 -0700, Ali wrote:

> Here's a web browser: http://common-lisp.net/project/closure/ I'm not
> using it myself, so don't know how good it is.

Hey, that looks cool.  A web browser with a command line!  I also like 
the attempt to do nice paragraph formatting.

The news log stops in 2006 though: is this a "live" project?  Is anyone 
using closure as a day-to-day browser?

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew
From: gavino
Subject: Re: Closure web browser (was Re: where is the lisp operating system?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e951225-6495-43a5-93bb-6f8aef88a1fa@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 6:16 pm, Andrew Reilly <···············@areilly.bpc-
users.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:28:48 -0700, Ali wrote:
> > Here's a web browser:http://common-lisp.net/project/closure/I'm not
> > using it myself, so don't know how good it is.
>
> Hey, that looks cool.  A web browser with a command line!  I also like
> the attempt to do nice paragraph formatting.
>
> The news log stops in 2006 though: is this a "live" project?  Is anyone
> using closure as a day-to-day browser?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Andrew

google proves that if you make a product 5% nicer than the curent [and
you can copy the hell out of the current] everyone wil grab it and use
it
From: David Lichteblau
Subject: Re: Closure web browser (was Re: where is the lisp operating system?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrngdi83a.4g2.usenet-2008@radon.home.lichteblau.com>
On 2008-09-22, Andrew Reilly <···············@areilly.bpc-users.org> wrote:
> The news log stops in 2006 though: is this a "live" project?  Is anyone 
> using closure as a day-to-day browser?

Day-to-day browser?  Probably not.

But I'm using closure daily (okay, five days a week) to read mails and
RSS feeds.

So although it is not being developed actively, I would at least notice
if it had problems due to bit rot.


d.
From: Frank Buss
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <jnmqz4oi0sqa$.znfd0qoozfp2.dlg@40tude.net>
gavino wrote:

> where is the lisp operating system?

http://www.sts.tu-harburg.de/~r.f.moeller/symbolics-info/symbolics.html

-- 
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
From: namekuseijin
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <e5c83968-ffe1-489f-8e46-ee6fdb17fd1f@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
On 21 set, 01:37, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> where is the lisp operating system?
>
> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> with a desktop and broswer?

You can ask that about any modern language as well.  And the reason is
the same:  when all the rest of the world is written in C/C++,
writting it all by yourself is way too much work.

This is specially true in the case of smaller communities like Lisp,
or in dumber communities like Ruby.
From: Ali
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <35dd5cb9-dc22-410f-b31c-26c4c248d518@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 6:48 pm, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 set, 01:37, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > where is the lisp operating system?
>
> > If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> > with a desktop and broswer?
>
> You can ask that about any modern language as well.  And the reason is
> the same:  when all the rest of the world is written in C/C++,
> writting it all by yourself is way too much work.
>
> This is specially true in the case of smaller communities like Lisp,
> or in dumber communities like Ruby.

Tangentially, I think this shows a valid point. Although Lisp is like
sex, the early Lisp machine OS's were not portable between
architectures AFAIK.
In that way, C could have been superior as a language for writing the
OS. C also has superior speed.

But even then, if another language such as Lisp or erm Ruby could be
compiled portably to any machine with the speed of C, it would still
make sense to stick with C because of the vast amount of developers
programming in C.

namekuseijin, its pretty important to remember that whilst the Ruby
community make have its own reputation, the Lisp community does too.
It doesn't matter if you're technically correct or whether that's what
you think, saying it is another thing.
From: namekuseijin
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <95fdc3c7-3f05-4784-a6c3-369b6e01e55e@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
On 21 set, 15:42, Ali <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tangentially, I think this shows a valid point. Although Lisp is like
> sex, the early Lisp machine OS's were not portable between
> architectures AFAIK.

This is not fair.  The architectures C was ported to were essentially
the same von newmann machines of always.  C is a perfect high-level
assembly for that.  Languages using the lambda calculus model have a
hard time with it.  Was C ever ported for a Lisp machine?

> But even then, if another language such as Lisp or erm Ruby could be
> compiled portably to any machine with the speed of C, it would still
> make sense to stick with C because of the vast amount of developers
> programming in C.

My point exactly.  And Lisp at least can be compiled. ;)

> namekuseijin, its pretty important to remember that whilst the Ruby
> community make have its own reputation, the Lisp community does too.

Given the 6 people who voted 1 star for my post in GoogleGroups, I
imagine there are a lot of rubbers lurking in cll... or perhaps James
Ruby has several accounts... :)
From: Paul Donnelly
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87d4ix8a7r.fsf@plap.localdomain>
namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:

> On 21 set, 15:42, Ali <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tangentially, I think this shows a valid point. Although Lisp is like
>> sex, the early Lisp machine OS's were not portable between
>> architectures AFAIK.
>
> This is not fair.  The architectures C was ported to were essentially
> the same von newmann machines of always.  C is a perfect high-level
> assembly for that.  Languages using the lambda calculus model have a
> hard time with it.  Was C ever ported for a Lisp machine?

Wasn't it? In any case, it could have been, and the portability of
early Lisp machine OSes doesn't have anything to do with Lisp
itself. Any compiler needs to get architecture-specific at some point,
and C compilers are no exception. It's just that the work has already
been done. At the moment C probably leads Lisp in the
architecture-support department, but that certainly wasn't the case
before, say, 1972 or so. Writing the OS in C (had it existed at the
time) wouldn't have yielded portability unless there were as many C
compilers as there are today.
From: Tobias C. Rittweiler
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <871vzdf9sy.fsf@freebits.de>
namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:

>  Was C ever ported for a Lisp machine?

Symbolics did provide a C compiler. And from what I've read, Symbolics C
implementation was superb; it included incremental compilation, a
listener, runtime checks (no buffer overflows), getting into the
debugger on error, and probably much more.

  -T.
From: namekuseijin
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <aa9705cd-2b0e-46d2-ba48-b6d790eeff12@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
On 21 set, 18:50, "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <····@freebits.de.invalid>
wrote:
> namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
> >  Was C ever ported for a Lisp machine?
>
> Symbolics did provide a C compiler. And from what I've read, Symbolics C
> implementation was superb; it included incremental compilation, a
> listener, runtime checks (no buffer overflows), getting into the
> debugger on error, and probably much more.

I wonder if that was not simply a Lisp disguised under C syntax... ;)
From: Andrew Reilly
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6joaj4F45pa0U2@mid.individual.net>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:08:32 -0700, namekuseijin wrote:

> On 21 set, 18:50, "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <····@freebits.de.invalid>
> wrote:
>> namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
>> >  Was C ever ported for a Lisp machine?
>>
>> Symbolics did provide a C compiler. And from what I've read, Symbolics
>> C implementation was superb; it included incremental compilation, a
>> listener, runtime checks (no buffer overflows), getting into the
>> debugger on error, and probably much more.
> 
> I wonder if that was not simply a Lisp disguised under C syntax... ;)

Why wouldn't it be?  That would be the only sane way to make a C compiler 
for a machine for which lisp is the native tongue.  The main trickyness 
would be accommodating some of the uglier C type-punning techniques that 
are fairly common (loading data into byte (aka unsigned char) arrays and 
then reading it out as signed 32-bit integers, for example).  The modern 
versions of the standard don't actually require these sorts of techniques 
to work, but a C compiler that doesn't "work" with interesting existing C 
code will itself be considered not-very-interesting.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew
From: ·······@eurogaran.com
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <fb7a793d-283d-4f9a-9aab-88cd21e5d8d8@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
> > I wonder if that was not simply a Lisp disguised under C syntax... ;)
>
> Why wouldn't it be?  That would be the only sane way to make a C compiler
> for a machine for which lisp is the native tongue....

It was. I had lately the opportunity to test it, and I was amazed to
find -for the first time in my life- a good C interpreter!.
A curiosity note: Since only one function with the name 'main' is
allowed to exist, one has to either change packages, or rename the
main function in each C program (the latter being usually more
practical).
From: gavino
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6fc87c3a-6cc4-4f8f-b324-17168c27f10a@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 2:50 pm, "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <····@freebits.de.invalid>
wrote:
> namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
> >  Was C ever ported for a Lisp machine?
>
> Symbolics did provide a C compiler. And from what I've read, Symbolics C
> implementation was superb; it included incremental compilation, a
> listener, runtime checks (no buffer overflows), getting into the
> debugger on error, and probably much more.
>
>   -T.

ok so if it is inescapable to use say freebsd as the os........then
can lisp be more powerful for making lots of computers work in
parallel at a high level of abstraction than c?  or do good c
programmers have the ability to do abstraction as well as lisp?  so
then one goes back to simply learning c very well......
From: Scott Burson
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <8c9e4e8c-6cd6-4db0-9a73-761201f5021e@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 2:50 pm, "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <····@freebits.de.invalid>
wrote:
> namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
> >  Was C ever ported for a Lisp machine?
>
> Symbolics did provide a C compiler. And from what I've read, Symbolics C
> implementation was superb; it included incremental compilation, a
> listener, runtime checks (no buffer overflows), getting into the
> debugger on error, and probably much more.

But the first implementation was mine: Zeta-C.  It preceded Symbolics
C by some two years.  And yes, it had all those goodies.  And it ran
on LMI and TI LispMs as well, not just Symbolics.

I never did port it to the Ivory chip, though.  No demand.

-- Scott
From: Karol Skocik
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <09b41996-4a17-4dd5-8317-9f93e875769d@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 22, 6:21 pm, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2:50 pm, "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <····@freebits.de.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
> > >  Was C ever ported for a Lisp machine?
>
> > Symbolics did provide a C compiler. And from what I've read, Symbolics C
> > implementation was superb; it included incremental compilation, a
> > listener, runtime checks (no buffer overflows), getting into the
> > debugger on error, and probably much more.
>
> But the first implementation was mine: Zeta-C.  It preceded Symbolics
> C by some two years.  And yes, it had all those goodies.  And it ran
> on LMI and TI LispMs as well, not just Symbolics.
>
> I never did port it to the Ivory chip, though.  No demand.
>
> -- Scott

Any change we can get the code? ;)

Karol
From: Scott Burson
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <09a83275-1103-46e5-892a-781f4bc3c9b6@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 22, 11:51 am, Karol Skocik <············@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any change we can get the code? ;)
>
> Karol

I released it years ago.  See: http://www.cliki.net/Zeta-C

-- Scott
From: Alberto Riva
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <gb5o5l$fg38$1@usenet.osg.ufl.edu>
gavino wrote:
> where is the lisp operating system?
> 
> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> with a desktop and broswer?

They used to exist, before you were born. The world has moved on. So 
should you.

Alberto
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <48d6b9a8$0$5669$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Alberto Riva wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> 
>> where is the lisp operating system?
>>
>> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
>> with a desktop and broswer?
> 
> 
> They used to exist, before you were born. The world has moved on. So 
> should you.

Close. Operating systems have moved on. Or out of sight. Google has 
released Chrome. Unconnected software is pointless software. Feel free 
to move about the universe, absent The Asteroid*.

hth, kzo

* Or the resisant bacterium brought to you by Western medicine and 
doctors near you. k
From: gavino
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <cb1930bb-b0de-4dcb-952b-330210bc868f@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 2:16 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alberto Riva wrote:
> > gavino wrote:
>
> >> where is the lisp operating system?
>
> >> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> >> with a desktop and broswer?
>
> > They used to exist, before you were born. The world has moved on. So
> > should you.
>
> Close. Operating systems have moved on. Or out of sight. Google has
> released Chrome. Unconnected software is pointless software. Feel free
> to move about the universe, absent The Asteroid*.
>
> hth, kzo
>
> * Or the resisant bacterium brought to you by Western medicine and
> doctors near you. k

yeah connecting everything I think is why java is popular
From: gavino
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <06ef3e33-d880-4273-8202-4c341453c5f3@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 8:10 am, Alberto Riva <·····@nospam.ufl.edu> wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > where is the lisp operating system?
>
> > If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> > with a desktop and broswer?
>
> They used to exist, before you were born. The world has moved on. So
> should you.
>
> Alberto

yet why?
From: Anagram
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ur0Ck.7$qY6.4@fe091.usenetserver.com>
gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote in news:06ef3e33-d880-4273-8202-
············@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

> yet why?

The purpose of an OS is to make the hardware compatible with the software.  
It consists of low level interface code such as device drivers, virtual 
machine, etc.  Such code should be written in a low level language which 
does not use garbage collection.

The vast majority of all software should be at a much higher level than 
that.  That's where Lisp works best.  It can do almost anything, but needs 
some kind of VM as its foundation.
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <20080923165027.995@gmail.com>
On 2008-09-23, Anagram <·······@nearmonopolyirkswuss.com> wrote:
> gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote in news:06ef3e33-d880-4273-8202-
> ············@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
>> yet why?
>
> The purpose of an OS is to make the hardware compatible with the software.  
> It consists of low level interface code such as device drivers, virtual 
> machine, etc.  Such code should be written in a low level language which 
> does not use garbage collection.

This is a sadly common misconception. Actually two misconceptions in one.

Real device drivers (and other modules) in real operating systems make use of
dynamic memory and have to deal with pesky reclamation problems.

They in fact implement garbage collection, in ad-hoc ways. Firstly there is
manual collection: guessing, at coding, time where it's okay to insert calls
to functions which free memory. Then there are semi-automatic ways like
reference counting (praying that the count is properly balanced), hazard-based
pointer reclamation, read-copy-update, et cetera.

Just because you use a language which doesn't have built-in memory management
doesn't mean that the memory management has gone goes away. Its complexity is
merely shunted into the code.

The reliability and performance of operating system kernels could be improved
with automatic GC.

The second misconception is that Lisp always requires garbage collection. This
is false. Only certain constructs in Lisp give rise to that need; namely forms
which implicitly allocate memory. Code which doesn't call such forms doesn't
require garbage collection.

This is like C and C++. In C, the expression ``malloc(x)'' gives rise to the
question of storage reclamation, whereas the expression ``x + y'' does not.

If you are using C to write an operating system, you have to observe a myriad
conventions (many unique to that system). For instance, there are some things
which you cannot do in an interrupt service routine.  Or you might have the
rule that if a task holds a particular kind of lock, it
is not allowed to call into the scheduler to deschedule itself.

Well, you know, those things which you cannot do in certain situations,
they are still C.  You can in fact write them, compile them and run them.

Yet, we don't give up and declare that we cannot use C for the OS!

Lisp is no different from this. When coding inside a Lisp OS, there are going
to be some things which you can't do in certain situations.

> The vast majority of all software should be at a much higher level than 
> that.  That's where Lisp works best.  It can do almost anything, but needs 
> some kind of VM as its foundation.

You probably have never heard about Symbolics Lisp machines, which were
programmed in Lisp from the low level up.

Lisp can be compiled to machine code, and run on the real machine.

The need for run-time support doesn't automatically translate to the need for a
VM.
From: Vend
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <61cd4868-b9e9-4348-b527-6510464403cd@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On 24 Set, 02:19, Kaz Kylheku <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2008-09-23, Anagram <·······@nearmonopolyirkswuss.com> wrote:
>
> > gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote in news:06ef3e33-d880-4273-8202-
> > ············@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> yet why?
>
> > The purpose of an OS is to make the hardware compatible with the software.  
> > It consists of low level interface code such as device drivers, virtual
> > machine, etc.  Such code should be written in a low level language which
> > does not use garbage collection.
>
> This is a sadly common misconception. Actually two misconceptions in one.
>
> Real device drivers (and other modules) in real operating systems make use of
> dynamic memory and have to deal with pesky reclamation problems.

Why can't a device driver allocate every state variable on startup and
then use only the stack when serving system calls?
It's not like the set of data it manages is going to increase.

> They in fact implement garbage collection, in ad-hoc ways. Firstly there is
> manual collection: guessing, at coding, time where it's okay to insert calls
> to functions which free memory. Then there are semi-automatic ways like
> reference counting (praying that the count is properly balanced), hazard-based
> pointer reclamation, read-copy-update, et cetera.
>
> Just because you use a language which doesn't have built-in memory management
> doesn't mean that the memory management has gone goes away. Its complexity is
> merely shunted into the code.
>
> The reliability and performance of operating system kernels could be improved
> with automatic GC.

Perhaps, but I suppose it would be difficult to reasonably implement
GC at kernel level.

> The second misconception is that Lisp always requires garbage collection. This
> is false. Only certain constructs in Lisp give rise to that need; namely forms
> which implicitly allocate memory. Code which doesn't call such forms doesn't
> require garbage collection.

How can you program without calling such forms?

> This is like C and C++. In C, the expression ``malloc(x)'' gives rise to the
> question of storage reclamation, whereas the expression ``x + y'' does not.

But CONS and FUNCTION do allocate on the heap (in general).

> If you are using C to write an operating system, you have to observe a myriad
> conventions (many unique to that system). For instance, there are some things
> which you cannot do in an interrupt service routine.  Or you might have the
> rule that if a task holds a particular kind of lock, it
> is not allowed to call into the scheduler to deschedule itself.
>
> Well, you know, those things which you cannot do in certain situations,
> they are still C.  You can in fact write them, compile them and run them.
>
> Yet, we don't give up and declare that we cannot use C for the OS!
>
> Lisp is no different from this. When coding inside a Lisp OS, there are going
> to be some things which you can't do in certain situations.
>
> > The vast majority of all software should be at a much higher level than
> > that.  That's where Lisp works best.  It can do almost anything, but needs
> > some kind of VM as its foundation.
>
> You probably have never heard about Symbolics Lisp machines, which were
> programmed in Lisp from the low level up.
>
> Lisp can be compiled to machine code, and run on the real machine.
>
> The need for run-time support doesn't automatically translate to the need for a
> VM.
From: Vend
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <afefa364-04e1-4c4b-9a26-ba4e4f8618ee@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
On 1 Ott, 09:24, Vend <······@virgilio.it> wrote:
> On 24 Set, 02:19, Kaz Kylheku <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2008-09-23, Anagram <·······@nearmonopolyirkswuss.com> wrote:
>
> > > gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote in news:06ef3e33-d880-4273-8202-
> > > ············@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> yet why?
>
> > > The purpose of an OS is to make the hardware compatible with the software.  
> > > It consists of low level interface code such as device drivers, virtual
> > > machine, etc.  Such code should be written in a low level language which
> > > does not use garbage collection.
>
> > This is a sadly common misconception. Actually two misconceptions in one.
>
> > Real device drivers (and other modules) in real operating systems make use of
> > dynamic memory and have to deal with pesky reclamation problems.
>
> Why can't a device driver allocate every state variable on startup and
> then use only the stack when serving system calls?
> It's not like the set of data it manages is going to increase.

Ok, perhaps some drivers need to maintain session data between system
calls, but can this be managed on a per-process basis?
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3vdwf91h9.fsf@latakia.octopodial-chrome.com>
Anagram <·······@nearmonopolyirkswuss.com> writes:
>
> The purpose of an OS is to make the hardware compatible with the software.  
> It consists of low level interface code such as device drivers, virtual 
> machine, etc.  Such code should be written in a low level language which 
> does not use garbage collection.

Does it?  Certainly the code itself needs to be low-level bit-twiddling
stuff, and certainly for much of it garbage collection doesn't
necessarily make sense.

But wouldn't it be nice to have an OS which has a proper condition
system to recover from errors?

-- 
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
FWIH Alladvantage are heading for bankruptcy only slightly faster than
a perfectly-spherical teflon-coated elephant sliding down a greased
45-degree slope.                                           --Tanuki
From: George Neuner
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <j8m0e4d1s7rig2ks4a5bs851amv0e9jorn@4ax.com>
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:57:30 GMT, Anagram
<·······@nearmonopolyirkswuss.com> wrote:

>The purpose of an OS is to make the hardware compatible with the software.  
>It consists of low level interface code such as device drivers, virtual 
>machine, etc.  Such code should be written in a low level language which 
>does not use garbage collection.

Not necessarily.  The main impediment to bit banging is the use of
immediate type tags.  You can certainly design the language and GC
such that any necessary type tags are separate from the raw data.  It
just wastes some memory relative to immediate tagging, the cycles
charged to tags are shifted but roughly equivalent.  Both memory and
cycles are cheap and getting cheaper.

George
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2prmml0ed.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
George Neuner <········@comcast.net> writes:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:57:30 GMT, Anagram
> <·······@nearmonopolyirkswuss.com> wrote:
>
>>The purpose of an OS is to make the hardware compatible with the software.  
>>It consists of low level interface code such as device drivers, virtual 
>>machine, etc.  Such code should be written in a low level language which 
>>does not use garbage collection.
>
> Not necessarily.  The main impediment to bit banging is the use of
> immediate type tags.  You can certainly design the language and GC
> such that any necessary type tags are separate from the raw data.  It
> just wastes some memory relative to immediate tagging, the cycles
> charged to tags are shifted but roughly equivalent.  Both memory and
> cycles are cheap and getting cheaper.

I had some thoughts about a modern Lisp machine, minus the need to
design custom hardware from the ground up, a few months back.  One
thing that I discovered was that the x86-64 architecture currently
uses only 48 bits of its 64-bit pointers to address memory.  The high
16 bits must be copies of the highest significant bit to avoid the
processor raising an exception.  For me, this leads immediately to the
thought of using the high 16 bits for tagging.  Simply chop off
whichever bits are used in a given immediate object and sign-extend
what you have left and you are set, for integers, pointers, etc.

In reality, though, the motivation just isn't there to create a Lisp
operating system.  You lose out on all the existing software that you
can run already on current systems and you end up expending a great
deal of effort to get a system that gets you very few real advantages
over running a Lisp inside an existing OS.

That's why there is no Lisp OS: The cost outweighs the benefit.  It's
really that simple.
From: Cor Gest
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <878wta9rbv.fsf@atthis.clsnet.nl>
Some entity, AKA Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

> In reality, though, the motivation just isn't there to create a Lisp
> operating system.  You lose out on all the existing software that you
> can run already on current systems and you end up expending a great
> deal of effort to get a system that gets you very few real advantages
> over running a Lisp inside an existing OS.

One could say that (allbeit in an odd way) that there allready is such
a beast, we call it Emacs ;-) 

Cor

-- 
	Mijn Tools zijn zo modern dat ze allemaal eindigen op 'saurus'
        (defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
	     SPAM DELENDA EST       http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
                 1st Law of surviving a gunfight : Have a gun 
From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-57C9E1.09401930092008@news-europe.giganews.com>
In article <··············@atthis.clsnet.nl>, Cor Gest <···@clsnet.nl> 
wrote:

> Some entity, AKA Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com>,
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> 
> > In reality, though, the motivation just isn't there to create a Lisp
> > operating system.  You lose out on all the existing software that you
> > can run already on current systems and you end up expending a great
> > deal of effort to get a system that gets you very few real advantages
> > over running a Lisp inside an existing OS.
> 
> One could say that (allbeit in an odd way)
> that there allready is such
> a beast, we call it Emacs ;-) 

It is especially odd that it is (still) single threaded.
I don't think Emacs is an operating system and to
say so is a bit silly. It is some kind of
application environment with a programming language
and a user interface toolkit based on text buffers.
Which works for a lot of user interfaces - but in many
places it just looks odd, too. See for example
the preferences user interface, which is really really
odd.

> 
> Cor

-- 
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
From: tortoise
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <f4ddf387-f8bb-4538-9933-b8a1d6311680@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 30, 12:40 am, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> In article <··············@atthis.clsnet.nl>, Cor Gest <····@clsnet.nl>
> wrote:
>
> > Some entity, AKA Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com>,
> > wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> > (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
> > > In reality, though, the motivation just isn't there to create a Lisp
> > > operating system.  You lose out on all the existing software that you
> > > can run already on current systems and you end up expending a great
> > > deal of effort to get a system that gets you very few real advantages
> > > over running a Lisp inside an existing OS.
>
> > One could say that (allbeit in an odd way)
> > that there allready is such
> > a beast, we call it Emacs ;-)
>
> It is especially odd that it is (still) single threaded.
> I don't think Emacs is an operating system and to
> say so is a bit silly. It is some kind of
> application environment with a programming language
> and a user interface toolkit based on text buffers.
> Which works for a lot of user interfaces - but in many
> places it just looks odd, too. See for example
> the preferences user interface, which is really really
> odd.
>
>
>
> > Cor
>
> --http://lispm.dyndns.org/

How about an operating system extension, or possibly a meta-operating
system ?

It does have a "kernel", and it has a shell or two. It is possible to
pretty much live inside it. The newest X versions have a sophisticated
web and gui interface. It has
the capability of doing distributed computing in a couple ways at
least -- it has its own form of file sharing and communicates with a
lisp running on a remote host.

I thought at first, wait maybe it is mostly a user interface even
then. But what is an operating system really ? With an old mac I could
work in Forth without much in the way of that but who would want to ?

Can Emacs do multitasking process scheduling etc -- I don't recall
knowing, need an
emacs expert to comment there. Probably an OS expert too. But in user
space it
looks like a user interface to the user ...
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87wsgsoo5e.fsf@hubble.informatimago.com>
tortoise <··········@gmail.com> writes:

> Can Emacs do multitasking process scheduling etc -- I don't recall
> knowing, need an
> emacs expert to comment there. Probably an OS expert too. But in user
> space it
> looks like a user interface to the user ...

Yes, Emacs can be considered an OS as much as MacOS was considered an
OS.  It can do, and does multitasking process scheduling, only as the
MacOS, it's a non-preemptive scheduler.  And as the MacOS, yes, it
looks mostly like a user interface.

But it's not an OS that runs on bare hardware. (For this you'd have a
look at Movitz).  Emacs is an OS that runs on a unix VM.

http://www.informatimago.com/linux/emacs-on-user-mode-linux.html

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/

"I have challenged the entire quality assurance team to a Bat-Leth
contest.  They will not concern us again."
From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-6D7102.09075401102008@news-europe.giganews.com>
In article 
<····································@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
 tortoise <··········@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 30, 12:40�am, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> > In article <··············@atthis.clsnet.nl>, Cor Gest <····@clsnet.nl>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Some entity, AKA Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com>,
> > > wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> > > (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> >
> > > > In reality, though, the motivation just isn't there to create a Lisp
> > > > operating system. �You lose out on all the existing software that you
> > > > can run already on current systems and you end up expending a great
> > > > deal of effort to get a system that gets you very few real advantages
> > > > over running a Lisp inside an existing OS.
> >
> > > One could say that (allbeit in an odd way)
> > > that there allready is such
> > > a beast, we call it Emacs ;-)
> >
> > It is especially odd that it is (still) single threaded.
> > I don't think Emacs is an operating system and to
> > say so is a bit silly. It is some kind of
> > application environment with a programming language
> > and a user interface toolkit based on text buffers.
> > Which works for a lot of user interfaces - but in many
> > places it just looks odd, too. See for example
> > the preferences user interface, which is really really
> > odd.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Cor
> >
> > --http://lispm.dyndns.org/
> 
> How about an operating system extension, or possibly a meta-operating
> system ?
> 
> It does have a "kernel", and it has a shell or two. It is possible to
> pretty much live inside it. The newest X versions have a sophisticated
> web and gui interface. It has
> the capability of doing distributed computing in a couple ways at
> least -- it has its own form of file sharing and communicates with a
> lisp running on a remote host.
> 
> I thought at first, wait maybe it is mostly a user interface even
> then. But what is an operating system really ? With an old mac I could
> work in Forth without much in the way of that but who would want to ?
> 
> Can Emacs do multitasking process scheduling etc -- I don't recall
> knowing, need an
> emacs expert to comment there. Probably an OS expert too. But in user
> space it
> looks like a user interface to the user ...

I would describe Emacs as an 'extensible, customizable text editor'.

-- 
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3ljx872gq.fsf@latakia.octopodial-chrome.com>
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> In reality, though, the motivation just isn't there to create a Lisp
> operating system.  You lose out on all the existing software that you
> can run already on current systems and you end up expending a great
> deal of effort to get a system that gets you very few real advantages
> over running a Lisp inside an existing OS.

Well, eventually you'd have better stability, which is a good
advantage.  And it's a Simple Matter of Programming to implement a
compatibility layer to run existing software.

So yeah, you're right: the cost is not worth the benefit:-)

-- 
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
...continuing expansion of government/zoning board/HOA/school board/
corporate rule enforcement will result in something like a police
state.  Of course it'll be called 'Happy Fun Freedom Community Sphere.'
                                                  --Flying Guinea Pig
From: Alberto Riva
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <gbaqi0$9c1c$1@usenet.osg.ufl.edu>
gavino wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:10 am, Alberto Riva <·····@nospam.ufl.edu> wrote:
>> gavino wrote:
>>> where is the lisp operating system?
>>> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
>>> with a desktop and broswer?
>> They used to exist, before you were born. The world has moved on. So
>> should you.
>>
>> Alberto
> 
> yet why?

Why what? Why has the world moved on? Or why you should move on too?

Alberto
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6jsdq2F4s4tnU1@mid.individual.net>
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:22:08 -0400, Alberto Riva wrote:

> gavino wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 8:10 am, Alberto Riva <·····@nospam.ufl.edu> wrote:
>>> gavino wrote:
>>>> where is the lisp operating system?
>>>> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working
>>>> lispos with a desktop and broswer?
>>> They used to exist, before you were born. The world has moved on. So
>>> should you.
>>>
>>> Alberto
>> 
>> yet why?
> 
> Why what? Why has the world moved on? Or why you should move on too?

Do you get a kick out of talking to an early AI (or its intellectual 
equivalent?)

Tamas
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6jmptoF3t935U2@mid.individual.net>
gavino wrote:
> where is the lisp operating system?

There is no spoon.

-- 
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Ali
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <bd052699-a46b-46fc-aaa3-3100747711d1@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 12:36 pm, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > where is the lisp operating system?
>
> There is no spoon.
>
> --
> My website:http://p-cos.net
> Common Lisp Document Repository:http://cdr.eurolisp.org
> Closer to MOP & ContextL:http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/

It is only your mind
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87od2h1rhh.fsf@yoda.geddis.org>
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote on Sun, 21 Sep 2008:
> gavino wrote:
>> where is the lisp operating system?
>
> There is no spoon.

It is not the spoon that bends.  It is only yourself.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis                  http://don.geddis.org/               ···@geddis.org
From: gavino
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <2f3fbf68-3769-441e-84b1-afb08718ecbc@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 4:36 am, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > where is the lisp operating system?
>
> There is no spoon.
>
> --
> My website:http://p-cos.net
> Common Lisp Document Repository:http://cdr.eurolisp.org
> Closer to MOP & ContextL:http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/

weak attempt at humor
From: William James
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6a925888-5172-4514-acd3-1acb23d02ffa@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
gavino wrote:
> where is the lisp operating system?
>
> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> with a desktop and broswer?

Never stop vacillating, gavino.
From: gavino
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <af00ece1-6ee3-4bdf-a719-082839f29bfb@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 3:41 pm, William James <·········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > where is the lisp operating system?
>
> > If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> > with a desktop and broswer?
>
> Never stop vacillating, gavino.



Its the crappiness of the books....seriously....Im still a beginning
programmer and I can't stand how the books don't define their terms.
[most basic of any rule for teaching a subject] I am again slowing
goign through PCL since grahams book makes me wana burn houses down.
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <op.uhv14weeut4oq5@pandora.alfanett.no>
P� Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:28 +0200, skrev gavino <·········@gmail.com>:

> On Sep 21, 3:41�pm, William James <·········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> gavino wrote:
>> > where is the lisp operating system?
>>
>> > If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
>> > with a desktop and broswer?
>>
>> Never stop vacillating, gavino.
>
>
>
> Its the crappiness of the books....seriously....Im still a beginning
> programmer and I can't stand how the books don't define their terms.
> [most basic of any rule for teaching a subject] I am again slowing
> goign through PCL since grahams book makes me wana burn houses down.

Tried "Paradigms in AI programming" or "Practical Common Lisp"? Don't see  
much crappiness there.
But for beginners try:

Common Lisp - A Gentle Introduction To Symbolic Computation
Author(s) : David S. Touretzky, Carnegie Mellon University

--------------
John Thingstad
From: gavino
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <5b3903a5-3a5f-4da7-9118-acf4718959b7@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 22, 8:18 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> På Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:28 +0200, skrev gavino <·········@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Sep 21, 3:41 pm, William James <·········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> gavino wrote:
> >> > where is the lisp operating system?
>
> >> > If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
> >> > with a desktop and broswer?
>
> >> Never stop vacillating, gavino.
>
> > Its the crappiness of the books....seriously....Im still a beginning
> > programmer and I can't stand how the books don't define their terms.
> > [most basic of any rule for teaching a subject] I am again slowing
> > goign through PCL since grahams book makes me wana burn houses down.
>
> Tried "Paradigms in AI programming" or "Practical Common Lisp"? Don't see  
> much crappiness there.
> But for beginners try:
>
> Common Lisp - A Gentle Introduction To Symbolic Computation
> Author(s) : David S. Touretzky, Carnegie Mellon University
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad

ah wow I forgot about that one....thank you!
From: Alex Mizrahi
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <48d68253$0$90275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
 g> where is the lisp operating system?

 g> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
 g> with a desktop and broswer?

How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?

They need to do way instain mother> who kill thier babbys. becuse these 
babby cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who 
had kill her three kids. they are taking the three babby back to new york 
too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his children ; i am 
truley sorry for your lots 
From: gavino
Subject: Re: where is the lisp operating system?
Date: 
Message-ID: <dfd84e0e-e89f-430f-86cd-db475d3fc930@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 10:20 am, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
>  g> where is the lisp operating system?
>
>  g> If lisp is more powerful........then why is there not a working lispos
>  g> with a desktop and broswer?
>
> How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?
>
> They need to do way instain mother> who kill thier babbys. becuse these
> babby cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who
> had kill her three kids. they are taking the three babby back to new york
> too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his children ; i am
> truley sorry for your lots

crackhead