7 ms·

By any chance were you there? I'm kind of curious as to why you would consider Dan Weinreb's account more creditable than Stallman's. I will say I used a Symbo

By any chance were you there? I'm kind of curious as to why you would consider Dan Weinreb's account more creditable than Stallman's. I will say I used a Symbolics machine for a few years and boy they were sweet. Both Weinreb and Stallman wrote some pretty awesome code

hga 17y ago
I was sort of there (in the larger social circle, worked at LMI, was a roommate of RMS after that, etc. etc.). If you'd spend a little time with both in that period you'd have absolutely no doubt who's more credible. As for the specific claims: I can't speak to how he did it and if he looked at Symbolics source code, but I do know that RMS only created a fraction of the software artifacts that the Symbolics team did on top of the existing code base (RMS is/was back then good, but only so good ... and very possibly below the average for the core AI Lab Lisp Machine team (note that average was very high indeed)). His effort concentrated on covering the very most important new core stuff ... the last thing I remember talking with him that he was doing before I exited the Lispm community was something like an exception system, but it's been way too long to remember any details. As for who "invented" TECO EMACS, everyone I talked to at the time said it was primarily Guy Steele, who then turned it over to others after a very short period. At the time, the effort was mostly to get the community to agree on a common set of key bindings, macros, etc. There were something like three popular sets which meant it could be very difficult to sit down at someone else's console to help them. I can well believe David Moon lent a significant hand there, he was one of the very top wizards (e.g. KL-10 (for ITS) and Lispm microcode) but one of the most quiet ones.
- bitdiddle 17y ago
  Interesting. I recall working a bit on Statice, which I believe Weinreb and Lamb? wrote. There was a phenomenal amount of code coming out of that lab, so it's not surprising that RMS was considered average within that group. I was as TJ Watson then, in math sciences. I recall IBM lawyers not letting RMS come speak at the lab, when one of the guys had invited him to talk about emacs. At the time IBM was quite shy of this "free software" business. I think the account in this article largely comes from the Sam Williams biography of Stallman. I actually own stock in Symbolics, if the company still exists. Last time I saw a statement it was worth $0.02 I was never able to get certificates, which I was hoping to have as a momento, to go with my symbolics mousepad. Thanks for sharing. This sheds a little more light on this piece of history.
lispm 17y ago
The people I talked to, from Symbolics, did not tell me the Stallman version. So at least I have a lot of doubt about the story that the article linked tells. Especially since Stallman and the FSF surrounds a lot of propaganda. Essentially Stallman was working for a government lab paid for mostly by the military (DARPA). DARPA wanted to see their investments applied to military software and created the commercial structure to do that. Stallman was living in his dream world thinking that all that money was coming for free and for the best of mankind and he could play there forever, working on editors and other stuff - when in fact the military wanted all kinds of advanced software for their projects, which then lead to 'Strategic Computing Project (SCP)' and 'SDI'. DARPA paid the whole show and had the goals - intelligent software for weapons, battle management, pilot training, logistics, etc.
- hga 17y ago
  The above is interesting, but I never felt it was a driver of any significance for RMS, especially since the AI Lab was so very far removed from the sharp end of the spear. A much better explanation someone told me was that one day RMS realized he no longer had anyone who'd go out to lunch or dinner with him (since they'd almost all gone to work at Symbolics and [you can fill in the rest]). Now, there were people working on that sort of thing, e.g. I did some customer support for an LMI CADR that was sold to MITRE in Virginia (as I recall) where they were trying to do what you might call "battlespace SIGINT with memory", i.e. help get around the switching your transmitter on and off and hopping frequencies fun. Very interesting problem, but it was very early level research, I think more a proof of concept than anything else. I.e. unclassified research, at least at the level I've described it (I certainly didn't have a clearance). And then there was the company that had Lispm's driving bulldozers (for maximum efficiency), but I was only told that 2nd or 3rd hand.
  - lispm 17y ago
    I don't know if Stallman was aware that he was working as a programmer in an early stage (basic research, tool building, ...) of a multi-year military project. All the stuff was basically paid for by DARPA (and related). Symbolics sold much of their initial production to SDI projects. It was thought that the SDI systems were extremely complex and that many Expert Systems were needed to design, deploy and maintain the space-based weapons and their infrastructure. The SCP projects were more down to earth: battle management, logistics, pilot training, etc. SCP was spending one billion dollar in ten years on AI - add to that the money that was spend on the AI-related parts of SDI. The background of SCP is told here: http://books.google.com/books?id=eD4taFgeTUYC http://books.google.com/books?id=eD4taFgeTUYC 'Strategic computing: DARPA and the quest for machine intelligence, 1983-1993'

hga 17y ago

I was sort of there (in the larger social circle, worked at LMI, was a roommate of RMS after that, etc. etc.). If you'd spend a little time with both in that period you'd have absolutely no doubt who's more credible. As for the specific claims: I can't speak to how he did it and if he looked at Symbolics source code, but I do know that RMS only created a fraction of the software artifacts that the Symbolics team did on top of the existing code base (RMS is/was back then good, but only so good ... and very possibly below the average for the core AI Lab Lisp Machine team (note that average was very high indeed)). His effort concentrated on covering the very most important new core stuff ... the last thing I remember talking with him that he was doing before I exited the Lispm community was something like an exception system, but it's been way too long to remember any details. As for who "invented" TECO EMACS, everyone I talked to at the time said it was primarily Guy Steele, who then turned it over to others after a very short period. At the time, the effort was mostly to get the community to agree on a common set of key bindings, macros, etc. There were something like three popular sets which meant it could be very difficult to sit down at someone else's console to help them. I can well believe David Moon lent a significant hand there, he was one of the very top wizards (e.g. KL-10 (for ITS) and Lispm microcode) but one of the most quiet ones.

bitdiddle 17y ago
Interesting. I recall working a bit on Statice, which I believe Weinreb and Lamb? wrote. There was a phenomenal amount of code coming out of that lab, so it's not surprising that RMS was considered average within that group. I was as TJ Watson then, in math sciences. I recall IBM lawyers not letting RMS come speak at the lab, when one of the guys had invited him to talk about emacs. At the time IBM was quite shy of this "free software" business. I think the account in this article largely comes from the Sam Williams biography of Stallman. I actually own stock in Symbolics, if the company still exists. Last time I saw a statement it was worth $0.02 I was never able to get certificates, which I was hoping to have as a momento, to go with my symbolics mousepad. Thanks for sharing. This sheds a little more light on this piece of history.

lispm 17y ago

The people I talked to, from Symbolics, did not tell me the Stallman version. So at least I have a lot of doubt about the story that the article linked tells. Especially since Stallman and the FSF surrounds a lot of propaganda. Essentially Stallman was working for a government lab paid for mostly by the military (DARPA). DARPA wanted to see their investments applied to military software and created the commercial structure to do that. Stallman was living in his dream world thinking that all that money was coming for free and for the best of mankind and he could play there forever, working on editors and other stuff - when in fact the military wanted all kinds of advanced software for their projects, which then lead to 'Strategic Computing Project (SCP)' and 'SDI'. DARPA paid the whole show and had the goals - intelligent software for weapons, battle management, pilot training, logistics, etc.

hga 17y ago
The above is interesting, but I never felt it was a driver of any significance for RMS, especially since the AI Lab was so very far removed from the sharp end of the spear. A much better explanation someone told me was that one day RMS realized he no longer had anyone who'd go out to lunch or dinner with him (since they'd almost all gone to work at Symbolics and [you can fill in the rest]). Now, there were people working on that sort of thing, e.g. I did some customer support for an LMI CADR that was sold to MITRE in Virginia (as I recall) where they were trying to do what you might call "battlespace SIGINT with memory", i.e. help get around the switching your transmitter on and off and hopping frequencies fun. Very interesting problem, but it was very early level research, I think more a proof of concept than anything else. I.e. unclassified research, at least at the level I've described it (I certainly didn't have a clearance). And then there was the company that had Lispm's driving bulldozers (for maximum efficiency), but I was only told that 2nd or 3rd hand.
- lispm 17y ago
  I don't know if Stallman was aware that he was working as a programmer in an early stage (basic research, tool building, ...) of a multi-year military project. All the stuff was basically paid for by DARPA (and related). Symbolics sold much of their initial production to SDI projects. It was thought that the SDI systems were extremely complex and that many Expert Systems were needed to design, deploy and maintain the space-based weapons and their infrastructure. The SCP projects were more down to earth: battle management, logistics, pilot training, etc. SCP was spending one billion dollar in ten years on AI - add to that the money that was spend on the AI-related parts of SDI. The background of SCP is told here: http://books.google.com/books?id=eD4taFgeTUYC http://books.google.com/books?id=eD4taFgeTUYC 'Strategic computing: DARPA and the quest for machine intelligence, 1983-1993'