Linux-Advocacy Digest #431, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The Windows guy.
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Richard E.
Silverman)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
101 uses for a Kulkis.. (woof)
Re: 101 uses for a Kulkis.. (woof)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Bob Hauck)
Re: Competition: How many punches could Kulkis take? (woof)
Re: The Windows guy. ("ne...")
Re: State of linux distros (Bob Hauck)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Donn Miller)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Peter Hayes)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Tim Limbert)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Hayes)
Re: State of linux distros (Peter Hayes)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Peter Hayes)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:03:29 -0000
On 23 Feb 2001 02:21:06 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:46:12 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>>This is a problem that ppes are fully able to solve:
>>
>>program_that_wont_finish | head -3
>>
>>pipes can solve that problem if multitasking is used. They can not if
>>single tasking is used. Therefore single tasking pipes have only a subset
>>of the functionality of mltitasking. Therefore in order to solve all
>>computations that pipes are able to solve, multitasking is required.
>
>This does not imply that pipes require multitasking. It merely shows that
>a pipe with multitasking has more functionality than a pipe without
What DOS does really isn't a pipe. It fails to conform
to the metaphor implied. It's really more of a bucket.
[deletia]
Instead of
Process -> Process
it's
Process -> intermediate storage -> Process
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Silverman)
Date: 23 Feb 2001 12:03:25 -0500
For the second time: please take this thread *off* comp.security.ssh. It
no longer has anything to do with SSH.
--
Richard Silverman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:09:23 -0000
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:41:37 -0500, Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>>
>> Despite your squirming, Sean, there is simply no way that Windows can
>> have two versions of the same library available simultaneously. This is
>> the subtle but key point which this discussion revolves around.
>>
>
>This "key point" is completely false, Troll M., and I suspect you know that
>but would rather lie than agree with someone who doesn't want Microsoft
>blown off the face of the planet. Aside from file naming conventions and
>Windows' lack of symbolic link support - at the OS level - DLLs work exactly
>the same way in Windows as shared libraries work in any modern Unix-like OS.
>Two different processes may use two different versions of a given library,
"may" perhaps, "do" not likely.
That's the greater issue here. Unix has a longer culturaly
history of attempting to follow sane guidelines and a
longer history of useful tools actually being in place
(like long filenames).
[deletia]
The legacy of WinDOS extends back to when the only filesystem
available to it was FAT16, and it really shows at times.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: woof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 101 uses for a Kulkis..
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:10:23 GMT
Well i know the guys an idiot but i was thinking there must be some use
for him. hmm maybe...
Arse Wipe - He could work in public toilets offering to clean the arses
of incontinent men or even gays who get turned on by that
any others?
woof da dog
------------------------------
From: woof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 101 uses for a Kulkis..
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:12:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Well i know the guys an idiot but i was thinking there must be some use
> for him. hmm maybe...
>
> Arse Wipe - He could work in public toilets offering to clean the arses
> of incontinent men or even gays who get turned on by that
>
> any others?
>
> woof da dog
>
Friend to the mentally deranged - He could work in mental hospitals and
befriend the mongies in there. That
would work well for both parties
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:11:29 GMT
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:14:22 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:53:50 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >IE would have won on it's merits, without ISP agreements.
BTW, the Findings of Fact quote MS executives to the effect that they
did not belive this.
>> >> Then why did MS spend millions to secure such agreements?
>> >
>> >Because Netscape was doing the same thing.
>>
>> No, they weren't, and never did.
>
>NS did in fact have many exclusive contracts with ISP's. I know, I was
>forced to pay for "startup kits" which included NS and was told by my ISP
>they were required by contract to provide them to all customers.
You were misinformed then. The deals Netscape offered gave an ISP the
right to distribute Navigator for either a per-copy price or to
distribute unlimited copies to their user base for a period of time by
paying a flat fee. I can understand that a company which had paid $5
million to Netscape would not be interested in discussing other
browsers, but the contracts did not prohibit that.
I ran an ISP from mid-1994 until early 2000, and I clearly recall that
ISP's were not allowed to distribute Netscape without paying, even
though individuals could download it for free (technically for a 30-day
trial period). Netscape was certainly not giving their browser away in
return for an exclusivity deal prior to MS starting to give IE away.
They were trying to make money on the browser during this time. It was
only after MS killed that revenue model that they switched to trying to
sell servers and made the browser free.
See the Findings of Fact <http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html>
starting from paragraph 250 or so for a discussion of who done what. I
apparently did mis-remember one thing. The exclusive deals were to get
listed on the Connection Wizard Referral Server, not just to distribute
IE. The IE/IAK deals only called for IE to be the "preferred" browser.
However, the ISP's who got listed on the Referral Server had about 80%
of the user base.
The reason that MS spent millions to convince ISP's to give away IE was
because both ISP's and MS executives believed that Netscape was the
better product. According to the FoF, MS executives themselves believed
that IE could not win on merit alone. IE may or may not be better
_now_, but nobody thought it was better _then_.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: woof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Competition: How many punches could Kulkis take?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:14:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Roll up roll up!
> Here is the competition of the week!
> How many times do you think you could punch Kulkis hard in the head
> before he falls over?
>
> My guess: 2
> Once to know the attitude out of him then a second to make him fall over
errr typo ^^ meant to say knock
> Any body else?
>
> Woof
> The artist formerly known as Meow
>
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:18:50 GMT
On Feb 23, 2001 at 13:55, Donovan Rebbechi eloquently wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:46:03 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>>pipes can solve that problem if multitasking is used. They can not if
>>>>single tasking is used. Therefore single tasking pipes have only a
>>>>subset of the functionality of mltitasking. Therefore in order to solve
>>>>all computations that pipes are able to solve, multitasking is required.
>>>
>>> This does not imply that pipes require multitasking. It merely shows
>>> that a pipe with multitasking has more functionality than a pipe without
>>> multitasking. If you're using shell syntax and sending the input of one
>>> job to the output of another as a definition, then even dos pipes
>>> satisfy the definition.
>>
>>[in th context of shell piping]
>>
>>No it doesn't because the emulation of pipes proveides a subset of the
>>functionality,
>> so they are not pipes. You could say a 286 was a pentium
>>because it provides a subset of the functionality, but that is false. So
>>it is false that DOS pipes are UNIX pipes. Since what UNIX has is pipes,
>>what dos has can not be pipes.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>One could use precisely the same logic to prove that a VW Beetle is not
>a car. Here goes --
>
>Fact: A VW Beetle cannot travel at more than 200mph
>Fact: A Lambourghini Countach (spelling?) can travel at more than 200mph
Not so. 178mph max if I recall correctly. OTOH, McLaren F1 230mph+.
[...]
--
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
Your wise men don't know how it feels
To be thick as a brick.
-- Jethro Tull, "Thick As A Brick"
12:14pm up 18 days, 14:49, 6 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:19:10 GMT
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:48:45 GMT, Reefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ah, but C'MON.....like i said before; this is the year 2001, and
> anyone running a 'puter with less than a PII 300 (or compatible) and
> 128 MB RAM in it, need some serious reality check
Bite me. Stick to spending your own money.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:20:01 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Mike wrote:
> What's next? More transistors. More power. More speed. At this year's ISSCC,
> Patrick Gelsinger predicted that the processor of 2010 will contain 1B
> transistors, run at 20-30GHz, and perform over 1T operations per second (it
> will also consume in excess of 10kW of power).
And they thought 68,000 transistors were a lot (don't know when this
was, but it was when the MC68000 was first designed). Yes, the MC 68000
is named for the number of transistors it contains! I believe this
processor could address 16M of RAM; correct me if I'm wrong. I read a
book (c. 1983) written about the MC68k, and it considered addressing 16M
of RAM a whopping amount of memory, "more than enoough to run most
applications". Indeed, that must've been an incredible amount back in
the day.
Ironically, the MC68000 is still used for a lot of embedded
applications, which goes to show you that old technologies never become
obsolete: they just find new uses. Hmmm... I wonder if Microsoft
believes this?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:20:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Brent R
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:16:06 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>mlw wrote:
>>
>> I just posted about how I have 1000 times more RAM than my first PC/XT. not
>> mentioning my CP/M machine.
>
>Isn't it CB/M? Actually I think you're right.
I remember it as CP/M, although I've never used it. Emulators still
exist, BTW.
Its main claim to fame, as I recall, is that one had to login to a
floppy disk in order to use it. The concept has mutated, but still
exists in Linux if one doesn't use mtools, only now it's "mounting"
(the rationale being that a floppy is the same as a removable hard
drive and Unix/Linux wants to be able to cache blocks before write,
for efficiency's sake).
As I recall, the original PC/XT had 4.77 MHz. I don't know how
many MIPS or MFLOPS -- probably not many. (However, it still beat
out the "Elf" microcomputer, which checked in as a blazingly fast
1.7897725 Mhz (half the color comb filter frequency), and had
8 cycles per fetch, 2 fetches per instruction. That one might win
a race against Charlie Babbage's Analytical Engine, but that's
about it. :-) AFAIK, Harris still manufactures the chips -- they may
be brain-dead by modern standards, but they're simple to wire up;
that was the entire point of the Elf in the first place.
But I don't expect it to run Linux anytime soon.)
As another data point, the original Amiga 1000 had a 7.15909 Mhz
clock rate (double the color comb filter frequency). This was
back in the mid-80's, probably 1985.
Ah, history. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 18d:15h:45m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:24:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:26:26 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Feb 2001 20:54:25 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >: On 20 Feb 2001 23:49:33 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >: wrote:
>> >
>> >:> I want to be able to SEE the layout of the code.
>> >
>> >: You want Python. <http://www.python.org/>
>> >
>> >No, I don't want python, because I don't like enforced indenting
>> >rules.
>>
>> Everyone says that until they use it.
>
>What, the monty python?
Heh...no, the language Python. Mind you, I've not used it -- one of these
days I'll have to get around to tinkering with it. I suspect it's
a lot smarter than Tcl, and more well-known than Guile.
(Tcl is so dumb that one has to write statements correctly. The
if statement, for example, has to be written
if {expression} {
instead of
if {expression}
{
Not sure if one should call this a bug or a feature.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 18d:15h:54m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:23:01 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:22:10 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
> >
> > > Germany's foray into Yugoslavia. US/British bombing of Kosovo (part of
> > > Yugoslavia).
> > >
> > > Basically, the effectiveness of air superiority is at its maximum in
> > > flat, open desert terrain.
> >
> > And the sea, which is why a sea based invasion is difficult with out air
> > superiority.
>
> The RAF did not have air superiority over the Channel at that time.
> In fact, the Luftwaffe had air superiority over Britain during the
> Battle of Britain up until some RAF bomber dumped a load on Berlin,
> and Hitler sought revenge by concentrating solely upon London.(*)
> (*)
> It could be that the bombload dumped on Berlin was specifically
> designed to provoke the Luftwaffe into bombing London.
AIUI, a German bomber in trouble dumped its load of bombs over what they
thought was open country, but was in fact blacked-out London. Bombing
civilians was against Hitler's explicit orders, and the aircrew concerned
were punished for it. Churchill was incandescent, and retaliated in kind,
thus starting the indescriminate bombing of civilians that ended with
Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki (for WW2, that is).
> If they
> Germans had stayed on the original plan (bombing the aircraft
> production infrastructure) for another 2 weeks, the RAF would
> have collapsed. As more and more aircraft production facilities
> were destroyed, fewer and fewer fighters would be repaired,
> let alone replaced, and England would have been in a VERY
> difficult position.
When the Battle of Britain ended in September (15th?) 1940, Britain had no
backup resources, everything was in the air or on the runway waiting for
"Scramble".
Hitler decided it was time to invade Russia, the Russian winter was fast
approaching and he wanted his blitzkreig to reach Moscow before the weather
closed in.
> The evacuation of Dunkirk succeeded because Doenitz said he could
> handle it without the Luftwaffe, so Hitler told Goering to hold off.
Hitler still fostered the idea of an Anglo-German alliance running the
world, which explains his seemingly strange decisions. There were Panzas 10
miles inland that were held back which otherwise would have seen off the
BEF.
<mega sigsnip>
--
Peter
55�25"N 4�44'W
------------------------------
From: Tim Limbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:21:06 -0600
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, S P Arif Sahari Wibowo wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>
>>science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>>is not science.
>
>This not accurate. Science is based on *consistency*. A theory need not to
>be repeatable to be considered science, but it need to be consistent with
>other theory and observations.
>
>For example, the Big Bang theory, obviously not repeatable, but consistent
>with existing theory and observation.
>
Not sure I agree with this. A Theory is not, in itself, repeatable, but the
experiments performed to test the theory are. When one says that science must
be repeatable, one means that if a good experiment is performed to test the
theory, the same (or consistent) results will be obtained every time,
regardless of who is performing the experiment. These repeatable results
reinforce the vailidity of the theory.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:23:02 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:54:25 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > > *SOME* gun deaths are entirely legitimate, by the way....such
> > > as when a bystander, or victim, shoots a perpetrator.
> >
> > A bystander? Not sure I'd agree with that being taken as anything other
> > than murder. Criminals still have rights, even when they abuse the rights
> > of others.
Unfortunately, the concept that victims have rights is rapidly disappearing
- Farmer Martin is a typical case in point.
> >This is because we live in (what we like to think of as) a
> > free society, and is IMHO one of the main features of one...
Yes, it's rapidly becoming a free society for the villain, but the victim's
suffering, which can last a lifetime, is regarded as irrelevent.
> Did you know that when coming into a situation in progress, the
> police shoot the WRONG person about 40% of the time. Conversely,
> armed-bystanders kill the wrong person less than 5% of the time.
A natural consequence of gun law.
So what happens to the cop? Are they suspended? Charged with
murder/manslaughter? Given a ticking off and put on traffic duty for a
fortnight?
In the UK, there's very, very few occasions when the police shoot even the
criminal, let alone innocent bystanders. And it's usually after all
peaceful attempts at resolving the situation have failed,
Far more innocent bystanders are killed by cops chasing joy-riders.
And before you ask, the answer is no, I don't propose the abolition of the
motor car, they're a useful, perhaps essential adjunct of modern life, guns
aren't.
<mega sigsnip>
--
Peter
55�25"N 4�44'W
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:23:03 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:07:55 +0100, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> My entire department's mail (about 100 people) is being happily handled
> by a P100 - it was running kernel 2.0.36 until a few days ago. It also
> has about 40 user accounts. I alone get about 4000 mails a day,
4000 a day. Strewth. Assuming a 12 hour working day, excluding meals,
comfort breaks, whatever, that means you need to look a 5 e-mails a minute
continuously just to keep up, and that's doing no other work.
Confirms what's been known for some time that e-mail is one of today's
productivity killers.
--
Peter
55�25"N 4�44'W
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 23 Feb 2001 17:17:52 GMT
In article <kpwl6.6147$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's just part of the reason why blaming ActiveX for the security problems
> of the underlying OS is like blaming the mailman for the damage caused by a
> letterbomb. ActiveX is just a packaging format and delivery mechanism for
> native binary code.
Which is why it's utterly inappropriate as a plugin mechanism for browsers.
BTW, I'm going to remove comp.security.ssh from further followups. Ciao.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:23:04 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:15:55 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> > It has been an amazing 16 years of computing.
>
> I'll agree. Computers in another 16 years will be frightening. 30 GHZ
> processors are in the works, but either they use a very, very unreliable
> fabrication technique or they use an unreliable fabrication technique and
> need supercooling.
16 years time?
The office computer will still have keyboard and mouse, but the actual pc
will be built into the light emitting polymer (LEP) display. All linked to
a central server via gigaherz rf or fibre optic cable links. Voice
operation isn't a good idea in an office environment, but handwriting
recognition will be well nigh perfect.
The home pc will be a pad, like those in "Star Trek", linked via gigahertz
rf circuits to a central machine. Hard drives no longer exists, just
gigabytes of flash memory. Gigahertz rf links to LEP displays ensure full
portability without trailing wires. Internet access will be via gigahertz
rf links or fibre cable to local nodes, replacing current ADSL, modem or
cable circuits. Sufficient trans-continental fibre circuits will exist so
you can tap a document icon on a server halfway round the world and it will
open instantly on your pad-computer while you sit in the garden soaking up
the sun (some things won't change).
Pads will be collapsable, take anywhere devices, permanently connected to
your central machine via microwave circuits in the same way that your
mobile phone works at present.
Speech recognition will be universal, as will be pen input. IR linked
keyboards will be available for those who prefer or need to type. The mouse
will be an optional extra, stylus or touch-screen input will be more
popular.
Microsoft will be a footnote in history. Operating systems will be built
into the processor, which will be much more than just a CPU. It will
contain graphics, sound and network interfaces plus the ancillary ports
like speech and pen input. Since these hardware devices are tightly
specified, the OS will be streamlined to run these devices at peak
efficiency, rather than having to cater for a wide variety of architectures
and peripherals as at present. With open source OSs like Linux,
manufacturers can create the best environment for their hardware designs.
This will produce far more stable systems. Embedded OSs are inherently very
stable and robust.
The only addition to the processor core will be flash memory, gigabytes of
ram and eeprom, storing data and applications. The .NET idea survives only
in the server - workstation architecture of the office and domestic pc.
Archiving will be by mini-cd sized disks containing multi (16 or 32) layer
rewriteable media, storing terabytes per disk. Alternatively, a near
instant dump of encrypted data via the gigabyte internet fibre link will be
possible.
With relatively few components, the computer of 2017 will cost the same as
a CPU at today's prices. Power consumption will be dramatically lower than
at present, allowing "always-on" operation. The gigahertz rf link will
consume the most power, but it will operate in burst mode, being on only
when needed.
Game playing will, of course, be full 3D headset based, or perhaps
holographic video will have been developed by 2017. Multi-way gaming via
the gigabit/sec internet link will be universal. Some more lurid
developments in this area are perhaps best left to the imagination...
The computer will be keyed to its owner, by DNA testing or some other
unique identity tests, making it unuseable by anyone else. Security can be
burnt into the machine through irreversible links, like the old fusible
link proms, at the time of purchase. Since this becomes a one person
machine it should be possible to virtually eliminate viruses and trojan
attacks.
Multi processor clusters containing millions of systems will be possible.
This will allow the development of AI systems having the intellegence of a
cat or dog. There'll still be a long way from the intellegence of a
chimpanzee or a human.
As to whether all this computing power will improve the human condition is
debateable.
Peter
--
Peter
55�25"N 4�44'W
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:23:05 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:08:45 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just posted about how I have 1000 times more RAM than my first PC/XT. not
> mentioning my CP/M machine.
>
> Lets face it: we are all running supercomputers. It is simply amazing how much
> computer power we have?
Yes, and I still find my 80186 DOS based HP200LX palmtop computer the
easiest to use for my home accounts (Pocket Quicken). I can enter my day's
transactions in the time my K6-2 400 supercomputer takes to boot.
--
Peter
55�25"N 4�44'W
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 23 Feb 2001 17:38:27 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:03:29 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 23 Feb 2001 02:21:06 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:46:12 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>>This does not imply that pipes require multitasking. It merely shows that
>>a pipe with multitasking has more functionality than a pipe without
>
> What DOS does really isn't a pipe. It fails to conform
> to the metaphor implied. It's really more of a bucket.
I agree that DOS doesn't support pipes (see my other post where I
cite "The Dinosaur".) I'm criticising the argument, not the conclusion.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
