I remember reading about the never-ending story of Xanadu in a 1992 issue of Dr Dobbs Journal, which my local newsagent had to order specially for me... no web in those days. Imagine: there will be developers reading this who weren't even born when it was already vapourware!
The Web existed in 1992 (invented 1989) just not for you. Gopher also existed by then (1991) and you maybe see the problem: The real world gave people something usable long before Xanadu could even begin to get off the ground. The same thing happened with the Internet versus OSI: The Internet protocol suite rendered the OSI protocols mostly irrelevant to the point people now insist OSI is just a model and the protocols are never mentioned. Insisting that we all think in terms of a seven-layer model while using SMTP instead of X.400 for email is some delicate mix of funny and infuriating otherwise known only to the parents of small children.
Maybe it's just me, but it feels like Xanadu was always vaporware for a very important reason: It never had a specification concrete enough to implement because its chief architect always came off like a schizophrenic. I can't be alone in thinking that. No one who's read any of the numerous papers and books surrounding this fiasco can walk away thinking it's author is sane. There's just something about that "stream of consciousness" style of all Ted Nelson's papers that point to there being something fundamentally wrong with him.
I say all this not to be a dick, mind you, but to point out that when something has been vapoware for decades that maybe it's time to ignore the guy who's at the heart of it and, if there's anything useful in it, move on without him. The world did that as far as hypertext goes. Now if only the world could do that with GNU.
There's a fine line between schizophrenia and creative genius and Nelson walks that line enormously all things considered. Project Xanadu aside Computer Lib and his work on HyperText systems in the 1960's are still incredibly ahead their time. Nelson is a pioneer on the same level as McCarthy, Kay, or Minsky but he didn't come up the way that they did. He's firstly a filmmaker; I think a lot of people miss this.
It's worth noting that Brenda Laurel, Alan Kay, Nelson, and Seymour Papert had, "art" backgrounds. The future of computing will effectively be led by people with these cross-sectional skills. There's a reason programmers are shitty at designing software.
Everyone does the color-rays thing first, because that's the easy part. At the heart of his vision are several non-trivial, unsolved problems. Most of these are still non-trivial & unsolved. Instead of clearly identifying & expanding upon these problems, one-by-one, & posting a bounty, he blames his programmers. The man does not like programmers.
It is ridiculous. Going by the "Computer Lib" book, and when it was published, it's obvious that Ted knows enough about how computers work, and has had more than enough time to write the thing all by himself--if his only problems were programming ones.
In a way, I am glad he failed. A Google-scale Google is bad enough. Adding a Google-scale Elsevier into the mix is not a plus.
In all fairness, there's a reason why Ted had a grudge against programmers, and he spelled it out in Computer Lib/Dream Machines. When he grew up, programmers were still generally the High Priests of the Machine, dressed in their business suits and working for the Man.
Also, Xanadu was always intended to be a federated network of individually owned backend servers, not a centralised network. So neither the Google nor the Elsevier model. The idea behind including micropayments was to attempt to encourage existing rightsholders to participate in the pre-granted permission transcoopyright ecosystem so that people can easily make remixes using the majority of our culture that is currently locked up, not just the portion of it available under permissive licences.
They're still high priests of the machine, but now dressed in free t-shirts & warby parkers. I also dislike programmers, but they are the least of his problems.
Going by his own writings, his zealous consistency on trademark/copyright/credit, the limits of the technology (until blockchain) at the time... any micro-payments system coming out of that was destined to be more Lexis-Nexis than anything resembling decentralization, regardless of whatever Ted's intentions are.
And most of that "locked up" culture is garbage in the first place--the 100th starwars novel, the 25th tom clancy book, the latest nutrition or psychology paper that has been p-hacked to hell and back for the benefit of some commercial interest. Money doesn't attract creativity. Money attracts whores. So in addition to "SEO Experts" optimizing PageRank, we'd have Xanadu Experts gaming that system as well, and it would be just as full of garbage as Google is. Money would surely change hands, but to the pewds & mr beasts of XanaduSpace.
I'm not clear: Linux and FreeBSD are GNU products? I didn't know! I scoured www.gnu.org, and couldn't find either there. (GNU/Linux refers to a GNU userland coupled with Linux, you know.)
I've been using Emacs happily for going on 40 years. Thanks for alerting me that Emacs is Generally Not Usable. I didn't know.
His statement is too out there to be credible. It is immediately and trivially falsifiable but if you discuss it with him he'll likely continue to argue about it in perpetuity.
It happens on the Internet. Don't feed the trolls, not everything merits a response
You know precisely that Linux and FreeBSD both depend upon GNU utilities. ("GNU/Linux refers to a GNU userland coupled with Linux") Don't be obtuse. If Emacs works for you then that's great, but if you are at all interested in having a system that works then you should be prepared to hear that for other people your preferred solution doesn't work, and why, be prepared to acknowledge that, and accept that something should be done to fix that. Responding with hostility is not at all productive and is precisely why GNU remains unusable for the majority.
Clearly your first statement is incorrect: Android is an example of a Linux system that doesn't expose a GNU userland. As for “the majority”. I don't know what you mean by that. The vast majority of computer users don't have any experience of anything that is released by the Free Software Foundation; they just use applications, some of which are released under the GPL (e.g., Audacity or VLC), and most of which are not. So what is the population of which the majority is unable to use GNU products?
Re Emacs: there is a substantial community of Emacs users. These people have not found it unusable. That other people use vim, VScode, or something else, or have no use for a text editor, doesn't undercut this fact.
GNU the project may be non-optimally managed (I have no opinion), but that doesn't have much impact on its products.
GNU the set of software packages is clearly not broken nor unusable. The vast majority of people who would use them, do use them, generally quite successfully.
GNU the software licensing model is quite popular and has its pragmatic and political proponents. Not universally loved, but clearly not broken nor unusable.
GNU provides a set of tools that are useful to people who make software. Most people don't make software, so GNU doesn't target their needs. There's other software for most users.
Most people can't play the guitar, but that doesn't mean guitars "don't work" and "something should be done to fix" them. The people who want to make music spend the requisite time to learn them, then they make music. People who just want to hear that music can buy it without having to own or learn guitar.
> You know precisely that Linux and FreeBSD both depend upon GNU utilities.
I'm reasonably sure FreeBSD, being a BSD, depends upon BSD utilities rather than GNU utilities (unless you're running some distro of GNU/kFreeBSD, but in that case your soul is already probably too thoroughly damned to warrant further comment).
"It never had a specification concrete enough to implement because its chief architect always came off like a schizophrenic"
My takeaway was, that it never went anywhere, because the chief architect is a non technical person, not understanding the technical limits, but having a great ego and therefore was very hard to work with.
I do admire the basic vision (minus royalty), but I think it would take a new, clean and clear approach of designing, to make it actual usable. The way it is, it looks to me like a very early proof of concept, which is not much after all of those years.
Ted wrote a book ("Computer Lib/Dream Machines", 1974). He still sells it! Ted has known how computers work, in high detail, for longer than most of us have been alive.
Hm, I have not read that book yet, but from what I gathered, it confirmed my view - that he has a generalist understanding of computers(and the sociological impact), but lack the details and don't know how to programm himself.
As someone who has read that book, & owns it, I can attest to the fact that Ted knows more about how computers work than most people who call themselves professional programmers (I know, I know, low bar..., but even so).
If this were a forum, instead of a plantation, I could post selections from it, and you could see for yourself.
> its chief architect always came off like a schizophrenic
do you realize it's our economic system and the perversion of technology to literally criminalize cooperation and the sharing of information (intellectual property regime (read the book Abolish Silicon Valley by Wendy Liu for more) for one of two groups of people (workers and owners)?
> Maybe it's just me
normalization of an anti-human economy starts from day -9 months (i.e. health/ill-health of the human organism starts and depends on the health of the mother). what has the 'modern world' got to offer those who don't have clean drinking water due to imperialist systems?
Note the classic troll: Making idiotic statements without backing, and constantly teasing that they're going to back them while making further idiotic statements along the way. This troll never backed anything they said, of course, and the moderators here will never be intelligent enough to sanction this behavior.
At the time Ted conceived his visionary ideas, the magazines were full of pictures of guys in suits standing in front of secretaries typing into screenless hardware, and business machines with racks of IBM tape-reels. There was little non-corporate networking (except for the beginnings of PLATO), and only dreamers talked of making all information available to everyone. Wikipedia is a kludge by comparison.
For someone born after it was already a vapourwave, can anyone explain how issues with such deep interlinking were supposed to be solved? Like, what is supposed to happen if the linked host dies, or if the content becomes paywalled, copyrighted, or distributed illegaly in the first place? Or if somebody highly referenced gets hacked and a malicious code gets injected into the referenced text?
The design always included replication of the content. When information is originally published, you can request that "n" copies are sent to other back-end hosts that are advertising they have available storage. I believe we intended n to be at least 3. In addition, when someone requests content that is not already available locally and especially when they transclude the content, the back-end they are using is encouraged to make a local copy. So that answers "what if the linked host dies".
All content is already copyrighted by the author(s), and in order to publish it on the Xanadu network they have to agree to publish it under transcopyright which grants prior permission to transclude it. That does not preclude also offering the same content elsewhere under different license terms, but revoking the original license agreement would require the content be removed from the Xanadu network. IANAL but I suspect people might have some rights to rely on the original license unless properly notified that the rightsholder had revoked it.
All Xanadu content is append-only versioned, so if someone gets hacked and content is changed, nobody is obligated to transclude from the altered version. They can continue to transclude earlier versions.
The simplest way is to store everything locally, as was proposed by V Bush in 1945. His Memex included an output (on microfilm) of all the relevant pages, along with the annotation trails.
If you have a local copy of everything referenced, none of your links break.
