which would you prefer?

a) Make something very useful, but it is never released because the firm you work for cannot use it for profit at the time being, and it is sealed away to prevent it from being used by competition, forever.

b) Make something that is free and available, but is useless and not used by anyone, forever.

c) Make something that is free and available, and very useful, but too different to interface with the technology people use, and is not used by anyone, forever.

>>12
An advanced and revolutionary general purpose computer architecture that can't emulate a faster better version of what is currently in use is not really advanced at all. That's not what "advanced" means. If a thing is better than other things, then it is better, if you call it better but it's not really better, then it is not better. That's a tricky concept to understand for an adolescent who is still ears deep in magical thinking, sure.

Also, things that really are better have no problems finding users, even when they are really different, like GPUs for example. That's another aspect of lispfags and other followers of technologies "too good for this shitty world" -- how they manage to ignore all the success stories.