Lisp Machine Hate Thread

???
So like OP?
UNIX, POSIX, and LISP is all a shit.

I am comfy with my POSIX machine.

I'm not.

...

*users

useless

anyways i'm going to stop. this thread a shit.

Please leave

It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken.

It Takes a Tough Guy to Make a Tender Chicken Cooking chicken badly is easy. (Search for the "Rubber ChickenCircuit.") In large family reunions at my grandmother's, preparations forbarbecuing the chicken started months before, with gathering the woodout in the trees. (Yes, you could just pick up wood on the day of thebarbecue. Wood that had seasoned by lying on the ground. It wouldn'tmake good coals, or any coals at all, really. You'd end up withchicken that was half burnt and half raw.) So you gathered green wood months/years before, and put it where itwould season properly. You gathered real wood, instead of buyingcharcoal briquets, because it flavored the chicken better. You also chopped the wood into small enough chunks to make coals ofthe right size to spread across the bottom of the barbecue and heat allthe food evenly. You also got up before dawn to light the seasonedwood and partly cover it so that it would make good coals. It wouldtake hours for the wood to burn down to coals, but anything cooked onthem would not taste of lighter fluid. And you had to watch the woodso that nothing went wrong. The coals would be taken from the open pit where they had beenprepared and put into closeable barbecue pits for the actual cooking.(Moving lit coals is not something you should undertake lightly.) Barbecuing would start about 10:00am, or earlier, to have the foodready at 1:00pm, or later. That's how long it took to cook chicken,etc, to be tender and juicy. (Just cooking the food that long wasn'tenough, remember. The coals had to be right so that the food didn'tovercook or undercook.) The proper way to barbecue chicken so that it's not rubbery I neverlearned properly. It's probably too long to relate here anyway.

Why would I hate technology that I never, in any way, interacted with?

I hate how with LISP machines I can hit the help button and click on a gui element to bring up the documentation for that element. Why should the machine try to treat me like someone who has a small brain or something. Since I have a larger than average brain, the system should be as cryptic as possible so that I can flaunt my mental superiority by showing that I know how to use it.

Attached: Space-Cadet_keyboard_2.jpg (2003x813, 189.39K)

...

All high IQ people spends years memorizing as many esoteric commands and flags as possible on Unix. Asking for helping is what brainlets do.

If none of that counts as UNIX then nearly nobody on this board uses UNIX. And if that's the case then why do you spam unix.haters copypastas all day long?

Yes user thats what we need more GUI.

because apropos exists and so do man

Do you want more people that don't know how to use a computer shitting everything up? Why not shill Apple instead then?

Are you in favor of having no documentation at all then? Maybe if we gave them documentation they would then know how to use a computer.
Why would I praise a weenix like operating system?

lisp machines stands for the faggy lisp those people have lol
Gradually, I realized that the Social Democratic press was conducted predominantly by Jews. But I did not put anyspecial significance on this circumstance because the conditions were exactly the same in the other papers. Only onefact was obvious: there was not a single paper with Jews present on it that could be designated as truly national, at leastaccording to my education and conceptions.When I mastered myself enough to read these kinds of Marxist press productions, the aversion grew to such proportionsthat I now sought to get to know about the manufacturers of these thrown together villainies.From publishers on down, they were all Jews.I gathered all the obtainable Social Democratic brochures and sought out the names of their authors: Jews. I noted thenames of almost all the leaders: they were in by far the greatest part also members of the “Chosen People,” whetheracting as members of the parliament or in the secretariats of the trade unions, heads of organizations, or streetagitators. It was always the same uncanny picture. The names Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellenbogen, etc. will remaineternally in my memory.One thing had become clear to me: the leadership of the Party, with whose petty members I had been carrying on aviolent battle for months, lay almost exclusively in the hands of an alien people. For that the Jew was no German I nowknew to my inner satisfaction and with finality.Only now did I learn to know the seducers of our people completely.A year of my sojourn in Vienna had sufficed for me to become convinced that no worker could be so stubborn as to bebeyond better knowledge and better explanations. Slowly I mastered their doctrine and employed it as a weapon in thestruggle for my own inner convictions.Almost always now I was victorious.The great mass was to be saved but only after the heaviest sacrifices of time and patience.Never, however, was a Jew to be freed from his viewpoint.I was still childlike enough at that time to want to make the madness of their doctrine clear to them; I talked my tonguesore and my throat hoarse and thought that I must succeed in convincing them of the harmfulness of their Marxistinsanity. In fact, I achieved just the opposite. It seemed as though the mounting insight into the nihilistic effect of SocialDemocratic theories and their realization only served to strengthen them in their determination.The more I argued with them the more I learned their dialectic. At first they calculated on the stupidity of their adversary.Then, when they could find no other way out, they played stupid themselves. ...Whenever you attacked one of theapostles, your hand closed around slimy matter which immediately separated and slipped through the fingers and thenext moment reconstituted itself. If you struck such an annihilating blow that, observed by the audience, he had nochoice but to agree with you, and thus you thought you had taken one step forward, the next day your amazement wouldbe great. The Jew knew nothing at all about yesterday and repeated his same old twaddle as though nothing hadhappened; if you angrily challenged him on this, he could not remember a thing other than he had demonstrated thecorrectness of his assertions on the previous day.Many times I stood there astonished.I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: their verbal agility or their art in lying.Gradually, I began to hate them.

Based post, fellow MAGApede

Checked!
And THIS.
How can we hate what we never used?
Many may hate *NIX, but it's there, it's being used. This is infinitely better than not have anything at all.

That's a bullshit excuse.

"Eunuchs" and the "(C)rap" programming language were mistakes.
Proof:
hooktube.com/watch?v=6VmJVNYfxDc
hooktube.com/watch?v=LIGt5OwkoMA
hooktube.com/watch?v=gV5obrYaogU
(Unfortunately they're too big to post here as a webm - scrape them with a streamcatcher).

Attached: document.webm (640x360, 14.57M)

C is shit but Lisp is slow.

C is a quick hack of a compiled language that has grown exponentially by adding adipose crap to it, it has "ANSI" "standards" to make the language sound legitimate, but is generally fast. If you want a replacement for C, we already have it; It's Pascal (Ada is good too).

"The designers of Pascal were aware of this problem and "fixed" it by storing a byte count in the first byte of the string. These are called Pascal Strings. They can contain zeros and are not null terminated. Because a byte can only store numbers between 0 and 255, Pascal strings are limited to 255 bytes in length, but because they are not null terminated they occupy the same amount of memory as ASCIZ strings. The great thing about Pascal strings is that you never have to have a loop just to figure out the length of your string. Finding the length of a string in Pascal is one assembly instruction instead of a whole loop. It is monumentally faster.

The old Macintosh operating system used Pascal strings everywhere. Many C programmers on other platforms used Pascal strings for speed. Excel uses Pascal strings internally which is why strings in many places in Excel are limited to 255 bytes, and it's also one reason Excel is blazingly fast.
For a long time, if you wanted to put a Pascal string literal in your C code, you had to write:

char* str = "\006Hello!";

Yes - you had to count the bytes by hand, yourself, and hardcode it into the first byte of your string. Lazy programmers would do this, and have slow programs:

char* str = "*Hello!"; str[0] = strlen(str) - 1;

Notice in this case you've got a string that is null terminated (the compiler did that) as well as a Pascal string. Also, since strcat has to scan through the destination string looking for null terminators each time, again and again, C strings were much slower than they needed to be, didn't scale well, and were obsolete.

Well thats real great. Have fun with your real language that cant even have a kilobyte piece of text.

web.archive.org/web/20170223042420/https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/12/11/back-to-basics/

Shlemiel gets a job as a street painter, painting the dotted lines down the middle of the road. On the first day he takes a can of paint out to the road and finishes 300 yards of the road. “That’s pretty good!” says his boss, “you’re a fast worker!” and pays him a kopeck.
The next day Shlemiel only gets 150 yards done. “Well, that’s not nearly as good as yesterday, but you’re still a fast worker. 150 yards is respectable,” and pays him a kopeck.
The next day Shlemiel paints 30 yards of the road. “Only 30!” shouts his boss. “That’s unacceptable! On the first day you did ten times that much work! What’s going on?”
“I can’t help it,” says Shlemiel. “Every day I get farther and farther away from the paint can!”

...

I like a macro challenge. I think this should work for any compiler that supports literal concatenation.
#define PASCAL_STR(X,S)\ char __PASCAL_ ## X[sizeof(S)+1] = " " S; __PASCAL_ ## X[0] = sizeof(S); char * X = __PASCAL_##X+1; PASCAL_STR(test,"This is a test\n") for(int i = 0; i < test[-1]; i++) fputc(test[i],stdout);

Damn right a kernel isn't UNIX. And GNU is literally an acronym for GNU'S Not UNIX.

An operating system is "software that securely abstracts and multiplexes physical resources" (Tanenbaum, 1987). Sure sounds like Linux to me. While we're at it, quoted from The Design of the UNIX Operating System:
The operating system interacts directly with the hardware, providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel, emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make assumptions about the underlying hardware.
All GNU programs are userspace and non-essential. Richard is just using this as propaganda and you idiots are falling for it.

Stallman and his foot fungus was really the worst thing to happen to free software.

True. Something a lot people don't know: Stallman TOOK James Gosling's code to make GNU Emacs. Same with gcc - he copy-pasted code from the Pastel compiler. When Gosling made his (previously unlicensed) version of Emacs proprietary, they told Stallman to remove what he stole. He went apoplectic. This happened on at least two other occasions, where Stallman took code and was asked to stop later, further enraging him. In fact, he set out to destroy Symbolics by cloning their software. Originally he was stealing it directly out of the source code until they locked him out. Later, he cloned it based on the documentation. This is also what gave him the impetus to make his communist license. Later, when he failed to make a kernel before Linus, he gave up programming and went purely into activism. He was angry at Linus, and set out to make sure everyone knew it should really be called GNU/Linux - and that Linux was only "a single program." Also, you know as well as I do that Stallman would be in court for cloning their software identically and giving it away today. Everything he's done is just a pathetic/petty defense mechanism.

Haskell machines when

Jesus fuck man at that point just make a struct.

We already have the spineless tagless g-machine.

protip: free software works exactly like this, you fork software to make it do new things that the upstream project doesn't do.

They literally were not free software. He was just stealing.

All software was free software by default during that time. This is how all computing and all software worked at the beginning of computers. It worked this way until the 70's when developers decided that software should be controlled and restricted rather than be free.

Really user? Where was the document where the developers waved copyright?

You should go check your history books. Even when RMS started to reimplement stuff based off reading from the documentation he still copy and pasted some code from Symbolics (albeit from what I remember it was only some minor stuff). What happened at the MIT AI lab was one tipping points of RMS creating the free software movement.

Are you retarded? code is and always has been copyrighted by default, unless you explicitly license it as free software. Even the FSF will say this on their website.

None. When I buy a lawnmower and lend it to a friend, do I create a proof of ownership certificate and get my friend to sign a lease contract before making it happen? This kind of thing doesn't happen between friends. Likewise at the beginning of computing, the computer engineers and mathematicians wrote software and shared the software freely with one other. Sometimes they forked the software to make it do new things that the parent software didn't do and all this happened freely.

Stallman started the free software movement because there was a political attack on his community: the attack that software should be hoarded and users be required to capitulate to the owners of the software. He did this because his community was a community that lived by freely sharing software and this was the norm from the beginning of computers up until that point.

You can hate copyright law all you want. It existed back then, it exists now. Software was copyrighted all the same.

Yes I see keeping the secrets of what you made to yourself is an attack.

Guess who did that. It was Symbolics. The MIT AI Lab and Symbolics had a legal agreement that stated that MIT AI Lab was able to get access to the changes to the lisp machine that they made, BUT they could not redistribute these changes to anyone else.

Sad! MIT made a voluntary agreement with a company and that is somehow an attack on the MIT community!

Software was copyrighted in that time but there were no violations of copyright law. The copyright holders gave implicit permission to share and redistribute the software.

The Symbolics company was just one part of the problem of proprietary software, they were not the only problem. The political attack on Stallman's community was a much wider problem. The attack is on the very idea that users ought to be free in the software and Symbolics weren't the only people who were advocating the idea of proprietary software to the public at large.

Bullshit. Almost all software has always been proprietary. We had proprietary Fortran code bases starting in 1957, proprietary COBOL 1959, shit ton of assembly before both of those. The idea it was all commie freedom land is totally inaccurate.

People never gave "implicit permission", it was a violation of copyright law. In the example that was originally mentioned, the copyright holder also understood and observed what RMS did as a violation of copyright law. The copyright holders did not give implicit permission to redistribute the software by distributing their own copyrighted software for free.

People did give implicit permission, you simply went to the person who wrote the software and asked for a copy. Your peers would then come to you and ask for a copy. This was the normal way for software at the beginning of software. This also happened in Gosling's Emacs - it was freely shared at the beginning. This state of affairs was changed when he decided that Emacs will be completely controlled by himself. What Gosling didn't understand is that you cannot take back what was already put into the public, you can only restrict new publications of works.

If I put some software on my website with the source code available that DOES NOT MEAN I am giving up copyright to it.

Yes.

And if I give you a copy that does not mean I have given up copyright

Yes.

Attached: Aaaaah.jpg (1000x559, 50.14K)

Year of the microkernel desktop when?

There are better streamcatchers than youtube-dl, like quvi, cclive, and rtmpdump.

In theory. In practice you then become maintainer and run at risk of your fork breaking at some point with what it depends on. Happens so often it's silly in so-called pro environments where people dick around with that one part from npm and few months or even weeks later start getting unexpected behavior that's hard to debug.

No they are not, youtube-dl offers full range of formats to download and integrates with ffmpeg to wrap them up to whatever you want.

unironically recomending the downloader jewgle themselves took over and crippled the functionality of to (((respect copyright))) and download slowly from jewgle's personal servers by shoahing patchsets to bypass throttles

Why not streamlink?

What? I'm getting max speeds with it.

GPL is most capitalistic license that exists. It allows you to hire whoever you want to modify your software, instead of being at mercy of whoever originally wrote propriety software.

inb4 developer freedom is more important than user freedom

Its sad that lisp machines have no meaningful security and are really the opposite of a microkernel.

By the original developer I do believe you mean the capital owner.

They are single user machines. You can trust all the code that is running on it.
How so? I could see an analog being made that about how the LISP interpreter is the microkernel and the lisp code for managing the hardware are the equivalent of the userland drivers.

Really the it being an insecure piece of shit is a feature guys!

Except those userland drivers are not userland. Its all one uni stack.

When Google starts pushing more for Fuchsia.
Its sad that it's gonna take botnet meanies to bring us the year of the microkernel desktop though >_<

What you're saying is the only reason Lisp machines are trustable security-wise is that they aren't networked?
umm... thats not how it works. You could say that about anything.

so in second pic related, does it look more like left or right?

Attached: l4-microkernel-design-overview-9-638.jpg (708x915 47.39 KB, 56.85K)

Its user mode vs kernel mode that matters. If you run all your code in the kernel level its not a micro kernel.

They were networked though. They supported both Chaosnet and ethernet. Chaosnet was pretty much a very early LAN at MIT. Since the LISP machine was written in lisp, you don't see the same type of vulnerabilities that you would get with a system made with C. Of course it was possible to write software that was vulnerable over the network, but then it's kind of your fault for doing so.
It looks more like the right. See pic related.

Attached: microkernelvslispm.png (1000x479, 143.45K)

What does the "rub out" key do?

Backspace?

correct

It preforms a backspace. (moves the cursor back one and deletes the character) Some later keyboards for LISP machines also included a BS key. For those keyboards rub out and BS were equivalent.

Do you have literally any evidence that its structured that way.

What part of it are you skeptical about? Once you tell me, I'll try to find a source pertaining to the claim.

Lisp being slow was true enough in the 70s and earlier. But in the 80s it had dedicated hardware to run on and today SBCL is almost a third the speed of C for trivial programs, which makes it much faster than Python or Java, for example.

That's a laugh. When I was programming in LISP, my program would take 6 hours to complete. In C, that time was 2 minutes.

That the LISP operating system is at all comparable to a micro kernel.

Yes user I have no doubt that your slow language can be faster than other languages known to be slow.

Just take a look at the picture. The Microkernel based Operating System and LISP based Operating System look similar for a reason. A key similarity is the fact that the arrow connects two things that are on the same layer unlike the monolithic kernel operating system which communicates only vertically.

I can see the picture user. Now why do think that represents the lisp OS at all. Having an interpreter somewhere does not magically make that the architecture.

The file driver was written in lisp. Device drivers were written in lisp. The code for scheduling the applications was written in lisp. When an application wants to interface with for example the disk it calls a method in the file driver to do so. All of this is running on the same lisp interpreter.

Yes user and on my Linux machine the file driver is written in C, the drivers are written in C, the scheduler is written in C. That does not make Linux a microkernel.

If these are all isolated userspace implementations then that would be a microkernel. Thats not how it works on shitty lisp machines. They have no user / kernel space isolation.

LISP is nil terminated. Freaks.

And? You going to bring up the fact that it uses cons cells?

LISP is nil terminated.

and?

And therein lies their brilliance.

...

They were single user machines intended for experts. Security was not
a design consideration. You'll find that this was pretty well the norm at the time,
since even though computers could be networked, they were rarely used
by lay-people and intentionally malicious code was almost unheard of.

I agree, any program should be able to crash the entire machine. The software will be such amazing quality that this can never happen.

That typically didn't happen though since everything is written in lisp and the parts of the device drivers that invoked low level instructions were small. Worst case, the debugger popped up giving you options such as aborting or restarting the process.