zach95's comments

I kind of agree. It was definitely a combination of those factors and a few others. I think there was an inflection point in the past ten years where performance became less of an issue, allowing us to say now that performance isn't the issue it used to be. I still think that logic programming will be rediscovered as the language paradigm for the "killer app" to manage "big data."

Ultimately, it felt like less of a speed problem or even a design and personnel problem than a simple matter of taste. In other words, the reason why prolog isn't more widely used is because no one _wanted_ to train people to use it, the way they trained people to use scheme, c,c++,java, and now python. For some reason, logic and logic programming was distasteful to some influential people and many unfavorable conclusions were drawn about it without much foundation, whereas similar issues in other programming paradigms tended to be glossed over.

[edit] AFAIK those Japanese FG guys dispersed into academia and industry. But in the meantime, there was a development of being able to use multi-paradigm programming in a variety of languages including Java, so it's possible they are using other languages where appropriate parts of programs are written in the logic programming paradigm.

You wrote: "Do you think he would consider clicking on adverts free? I don't think so because clicking on them results in a transfer of money somewhere. Unless his definition of free is that he himself did not pay out of his own pocket for it? (someone else pays for it). If this were the case, If someone bought him a copy of windows as a gift would he use it."

I think the previous reply was right to point out you were confusing free as in beer with free as in liberty.

I agree that's the stated reason but I don't agree that was the real reason why it was considered a failure. Here are my reasons, reading between the lines, for why they considered it a failure in my opinionated order of importance:

1.) The Japanese bubble economy collapsed. They realized they'd have to stop funding it, and put their ambition to be the biggest AI power in the world aside.

2.) Logicist AI was losing ground to probabilistic AI.

3.) Special purpose machines were much more expensive to design and build than running the same programs on commodity general purpose machines. The Lisp machines ultimately suffered the same fate as the Japanese PIM machines.

4.) They weren't ready to deploy concurrent prolog. They hadn't worked it all out even theoretically. They were hoping that running it concurrently would speed it up, but probably realized that smarter algorithms and optimized implementations in individual programs would have a greater effect.

5.) They rushed the project, rolling out machines and languages before they had been fully worked out. The rushing mentality caused them to increase the expense of their mistakes and to make more mistakes than they might have if they didn't rush.

Also, I disagree that prolog hasn't been a commercial success. For example, Prolog is the right language for solving finite domain contraints and there is a mini-industry around this.

As far as shifting programmers, they had quite a few skilled prolog programmers and they weren't recruiting from the ranks of the then COBOL business programmers.

Applying his principles, he wouldn't have a problem with the app store model, but he happens to have a problem with Apple's app store since they also restrict the freedoms of users: http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#25_October_20...

Restricting the freedom of users is not necessarily part of an app store though.

I have no problem with agreeing to disagree, but it's clear you just aren't understanding the word "freedom." So you think you disagree, while I understand what you are saying and can see clearly you just don't understand. I don't think I can disagree with you under these circumstances.

To get you to think more carefully, as a computer engineer can you tell me the difference between a computer and a microwave oven or a car as finite state machines? Which regular languages does a computer accept that a car does not?

Also, can you tell me the the difference between software and the licensing of the software?

I think getting clear on those two questions will go along way towards clearing up your confusion.

You might also think about how RedHat recently made a billion dollars.

>>It seems unhackerish (if that's a word) to just accept circumstances rather than to try to build your way out of them. I'd gladly use a FHF motherboard/CPU for the next box I build if they were decent -- and if they existed!

As I mentioned above, they do exist: http://orsoc.se/127/langswitch_lang/en/

Even the bus architecture is open and the processor itself can be debugged or modified. As other people have mentioned, there is coreboot (coreboot.org) for a number of other platforms.

Instead of responding to things that might be factually inaccurate, let me just save time and reframe the debate between ESR and RMS.

ESR thinks that open source makes good business sense since open source is better than closed source. Computing is something that extends our ability to get things done, but isn't an end in itself. We need to be pragmatic about what businesses want, and how the business world works in order to perform our role of helping people do business.

RMS doesn't care so much about what the business world wants or the fact that open-source is indeed better.

He sees hacking and computing as one of the greatest achievments of mankind. Because it's a great achievement of mankind (like writing, or alphabets, or language itself) he thinks that it should be made available to everyone, and never closed off. In other words, for the people who live in it, spending their lives working on it and in it, software is culture. It's not just an application that you use like a word processor. And in the hacker culture, there needs to be a free flow of ideas like there is in the scientific community.

This is reflected in the different licenses. The GPL "restricts" people from trying to close off one of the greatest achievements of human kind for the sake of some people who want to earn some more money off of it. The BSD-style licenses consider themselves more practical in that they allow for better commercial exploitation by eventually imposing restrictions. This is why Apple is so heavily involved in converting FreeBSD away from GPL code Currently I think it's about 50% GPL and OpenBSD is more like 60%. They plan to replace the GPL code with BSD licensed code so they don't have to contribute to the project eventually.

Clearly some code isn't the equivalent of Shakespearean drama, and it won't matter that humanity is deprived of it. Microsoft word comes to mind. But for the really amazing software, the software that involves the cutting edge free flowing of ideas, and I would argue that the linux kernel falls into this category, GPL gives it the ability to serve as a lasting monument to human ingenuity, as well as a way of transmitting culture. It's no coincidence that the linux kernel powers nearly all web servers, smartphones and supercomputers.

I have to grant you a few points. #1: I've heard RMS complain about his lemote netbook, about it being slow and with a small screen, although I supposed he could attach an external monitor. As far as the lemote netbook, I wouldn't buy one because lemote is an arm of the Chinese government and the loongson processor already has design flaws, and is licensed from MIPS. It beats me why he doesn't use an OpenRISC platform if he wants something just for cli editing with emacs.

#2: RMS seems to have stopped hacking software, so his computing requirements seem to be limited to what's necessary to produce his writing. He also seems to be getting support and service from other people's computers/servers and other people. I'm not sure that any average person would want or be able to do things exactly like him. Since he is trying to be a role model, he should model something that everyone could do and would want to do.

#3: Instinctively I want to say you're probably right that hackers should use the best tools available, and most of them do. However, I've known too many Russian/Finnish hackers who grew up with computers like clones of the sinclair zx80 who would surely not have been as awesome had they started off on supercomputers. Something about the easy availability of resources and lack of simplicity seems to spoil some of the fun. This is why I think so many hackers are drawn to simpler devices like ardunio or embedded microcontrollers.

This general argument pioneered by ESR against RMS is something that you hear a lot: the idea that open source software is just better. (And it is that too!)

#1: it's too hard to say whether the free software movement would have evolved without RMS. We do know that Linux was able to bootstrap from GNU which was founded some 7 years earlier and without that, it probably wouldn't have taken off the way it did. By the time Linus came around, the only thing missing from GNU was its kernel. The Berkeley people got bogged down with the BSDi lawsuit, and you might ask yourself how that happened if their license was so freedom preserving. If it wasn't for that, I imagine that BSD would be in the place linux is now.

#2: People say it's divisive not to have one way of thinking about open source, but why this need to do it one way only? Surely there is a place for the GPL for some projects, and RMS isn't forcing anyone to GPL their software. The FSF counts lots of other licences as GNU-compatible.

RMS just wants people to understand that if they license their software restrictively they're not doing the hacker community any great service, even if they claim otherwise.

#3: "To rms, one ought to act ethically, and anyone who does not do so is essentially evil." That's not just RMS who thinks that. You're going to have a hard time justifying why unethical people who harm others are essentially good. You make it seem like it's radical to stand on the side of ethical behavior. Maybe it is.

"I personally don't know how he can get any work done on a tiny netbook. I use two 1080p 24 inch monitors."

And unix was originally written on a machine with less than 144 kilobytes of RAM using a teletypewriter...

What amazing contributions to the world's software have these enormous screens allowed you to make?

You're right. He forgot to mention that Amazon keeps ambulances parked outside of its fulfillment centers because it's too cheap to aircondition them in the heat of the summer or allow its workers to take water breaks. Note: Employees pay for their hospitalizations from heat stroke.

Sorry, but I don't think you get it.

To use your car analogy. The analogy would be correct if the only way to legally service your car would be to use the dealership's mechanic. Any attempt by you to rebuild your engine or use after-market parts would be illegal. Forget about improving your car in any way. That's illegal too. No new car stereo for you unless you upgrade to a whole new car.

Most people are fine with this because they know nothing about cars, and only care if they work. You hear them saying "as long as I get to drive it, I don't care. I have better things to do than service my own car."

But the restrictions go deeper. You aren't allowed to operate the cars the way you want. It's a huge revenue stream for the car companies to place restrictions on how you use your car. Want to drive somewhere new? Apply to the company and wait for them to hear back. You're not a big customer so you speak to someone in India and the wait is 6 months. Most applications are bungled and you have to resubmit it repeatedly. Still people don't complain saying "most of the places I need to drive are allowed by the car company. Only very strange and extremist people want to drive to some place new."

Now suppose you want to lend your car to a friend. You can't, unless they pay a hefty sum to the car company for an "additional driver license." The standard license allows two adults as drivers and up to two passengers, but if you want to carry more passengers, there's a fee for that too. Some people grumble, but they've been taught since an early age that sharing your car or giving unauthorized people rides is immoral.

Lots of people don't obey these laws, and there is a huge media campaign to call them "car Pirates" and an illegal movement called "hackers" who want to fix their own cars when they break, and add new features or drive to new places. They are often sued and the media goes nuts deriding them, calling them wackos and extremists.

When the car company goes bust and most of them do, you can continue to use the car for as long as it will run, but when anything breaks, you need to scrap the car and buy a new one with a different but equally incompetent company.

This is the situation of proprietary software extended to cars.

"He wants these at the expense of the freedoms of the people that wrote the software."

Huh? These are the freedoms that the people who wrote the software should enjoy.

And, I never said "with none of the technological advances", I meant the hacker culture. I think that was pretty clear. If you want to understand the culture read the book "Hackers."

I understand that it's hard for some people to understand that software can be more than something to commercialize. I suspect that even though this site is called hacker news, most of the people here are not hackers and don't really respect the culture.

I don't understand the hostility to RMS here in hackrerland. RMS is trying to recreate the best hacker environment that ever existed bar none: MIT's AI lab in the 1970's. I was alive then and knew some people there and it was all true--it was hacker nirvana. It got blown apart by his friends going off and founding some lisp machine companies that killed off lisp as a commerical language when those companies died from infighting.

What does RMS want? Four freedoms that businesses want to take away from you: the ability to read, modify, share, and run the programs that you or hackers like you write. There's nothing purist about wanting control over your own program, or for it not to be closed off from you against your will. That's what happened in the 1980's, and what continues to happen with proprietary software.

Obviously, as the leader of this movement RMS has to stay especially pure or no one would follow him. RMS may have his idiosyncracies, but you have to give him credit for not being hypocritical, which is more than you can say about virtually any other leader out there.

I'm a really proud supporter of RMS and what he stands for because I've spent half my life being burned by proprietary software, and I'd love to go back to the garden of eden that was MIT's AI lab in the 70's and early 80's.