4 ms·

How is that a joke? The third paragraph of the 1983 GNU project announcement (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initi

by jecel 9y ago

How is that a joke? The third paragraph of the 1983 GNU project announcement (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.en.html) said: "GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, filename completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will have network software based on MIT's chaosnet protocol, far superior to UUCP. We may also have something compatible with UUCP."

SllX 9y ago
Not many people today would think of their "GNU/Linux" system as a Lisp machine anymore than anybody thinks of their Chromebook as a JavaScript machine, nor is it really comparable to the Lisp Machines of the past.
- jecel 9y ago
  I fully agree that GNU/Linux is nothing like a Lisp Machine, but that is because things didn't go according to the original plan (otherwise we would be talking about GNU/Trix).
lispm 9y ago
But not 'via Emacs'. A Lisp Machine is not an Emacs OS.
- jecel 9y ago
  A bit picky, but fair enough. One interesting thing about the original plan is that Unix was essentially text only back then. Part of the idea of making it more Lisp Machine-like was to have a GUI, so when Unix got that (with X11 eventually winning) this part of the plan became less urgent. I suppose an Emacs OS would be sort of a GUI but not quite?
  - lispm 9y ago
    The MIT derived Lisp Machines had all an Emacs called Zmacs. But that was just one application among dozens others. Applications usually were not based on Zmacs, with only a few exceptions: on a Symbolics: Zmail and the Concordia documentation editor application frame. Other tools were not Zmacs based: Listener/REPL, the debugger, the directory editor, the font editor, the PEEK tool to view system details, the document examiner, the tape tool, ...

by jecel 9y ago

SllX 9y ago

Not many people today would think of their "GNU/Linux" system as a Lisp machine anymore than anybody thinks of their Chromebook as a JavaScript machine, nor is it really comparable to the Lisp Machines of the past.

jecel 9y ago
I fully agree that GNU/Linux is nothing like a Lisp Machine, but that is because things didn't go according to the original plan (otherwise we would be talking about GNU/Trix).

lispm 9y ago

But not 'via Emacs'. A Lisp Machine is not an Emacs OS.

jecel 9y ago
A bit picky, but fair enough. One interesting thing about the original plan is that Unix was essentially text only back then. Part of the idea of making it more Lisp Machine-like was to have a GUI, so when Unix got that (with X11 eventually winning) this part of the plan became less urgent. I suppose an Emacs OS would be sort of a GUI but not quite?
- lispm 9y ago
  The MIT derived Lisp Machines had all an Emacs called Zmacs. But that was just one application among dozens others. Applications usually were not based on Zmacs, with only a few exceptions: on a Symbolics: Zmail and the Concordia documentation editor application frame. Other tools were not Zmacs based: Listener/REPL, the debugger, the directory editor, the font editor, the PEEK tool to view system details, the document examiner, the tape tool, ...