Subject: Re: 3 Lisps, 3 Ways of Specifying OS
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:13:43 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Doug Alcorn
| In conclusion, yes, linux compatibility isn't as cut and dry as you might
| want it to be.  No, it doesn't have to be impossible.  Obviously, the
| more interaction you do with the OS the more dependent you are on the
| distro.  However, I would think most service type applications could be
| fairly immune to distro variances.

  One of the things I keep wondering about when reading all this weird
  stuff and FUD-like propaganda against Linux stability is "How come _Perl_
  can run so well on all those _wildly_ differing systems?"  Perl includes
  more operating system interaction than any other language around -- that
  interaction is half its raison d'etre -- and yet it manages to provide
  both a specific and a general interface to the operating system that
  remains portable and stable between releases of Linux kernels and glibc.
  Or at least so it appears.  I realize that building Perl from scratch on
  any given system queries so many properties of the system that one has to
  marvel at the collective pain that its developers must have suffered, but
  this indicates that autoconf and similar GNU tools actually _do_ manage
  to collect and destill all the painful collective experience in porting
  code and building applications under the many and varied Unices.  This
  experience should be eminently exploitable internally by vendors, too --
  using these tools does not "GNUtaminate" the product as far as I can tell.

  The United Nations before and after the leadership of Kofi Annan are two
  very different organizations.  The "before" United Nations did not deserve
  much credit and certainly not a Nobel peace prize.  The "after" United
  Nations equally certainly does.  I applaud the Nobel committee's choice.