A name for this OS
Thu, 8 May 1997 13:44:26 -0500 (CDT)
> From email@example.com Thu May 8 12:40:26 1997
> Resent-Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 13:07:20 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-Id: <199705081710.KAA17991@bell.Franz.COM>
> To: LispOS <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: A name for this OS
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 May 1997 02:51:42 CDT."
> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 10:10:43 -0700
> From: Kelly Murray <email@example.com>
> Resent-Message-ID: <"MY6P3.0.5b2.7XWSp"@euclid>
> Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> X-Mailing-List: <email@example.com> archive/latest/878
> X-Loop: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: email@example.com
> I guess SilkOS has been rejected? I think the simple fact that it
> is something unknown will attract more interest than "LispOS",
> which many people will immediately reject as uninteresting or having
> already failed without looking further. But if people don't agree this
> is a problem or issue, then "LispOS" is the best name in my opinion.
I still like Los, next I like SilkOS. LispOS is just so flat. "I know,
let's call our new OS in Lisp - LispOS!" really imaginative... sheesh
> On a related note, I believe RMS has very much impedded our potential
> progress by the restrictions he has helped encumber upon
> an enourmous body of software in the world.
> I've always wanted to start a "Knu" project -- which is what Gnu should
> have been -- writing truly free software that can be used to serve
> the interests of everyone, both public and private, hacker and corporation.
Well, I wonder how much of that "enormous body of software" would exist
without the GNU project. Surely, the amount of freeware generated under
GPL is very small compared to the total amount of freeware generated.
But, somehow, the GNU project organized freeware efforts, focused them,
made GOOD, extensible, free software toward a common purpose. I think
what happens with other good freeware is that someone comes along and
says "hey, this is neat, but it really needs these extra features and ...
hey, if I did that I could sell this for a lot of money!", while with
GPL stuff it goes more like "hey, this is neat, but it really needs these
extra features so I'll just do it and add the improvements back into the
GNU project since I can't sell it...". Some people are discouraged from
ever starting with GNU software because of this restriction, but those who
need the GNU software with extra features add to the body of GNU software.
I can think of several commercial organizations that did extensions to
GNU software because THEY needed it and added to the body of GNU software.
I have NO DOUBT that had that software not been GPL'd that those changes
would have stayed with the organization that wrote them, locked up tight
by copyright and possibly patent. So, this isn't just theory, I've seen it
So, rather than encumber an enormous body of software (which presupposes that
the software exists) you can think of it as the encumberances brought about
an enormous body of software.
> -Kelly Edward Murray