Re: Google Operating System
On Jul 8, 2009, at 8:35 PM, John Williams wrote: My prediction is that Chrome OS will never gain significant market share for high-powered computers, but it may make some inroads in netbooks (which are in between a notebook and a smart phone in terms of power). Of course, the google says Chrome OS is still a year or more from release, which is a long time in computer years Best comments so far about Chrome OS are from Fake Steve Jobs, who really nails it: http://bit.ly/1m1rVP or, if you prefer full-blooded URLs: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html It's brilliant start to finish, but I especially liked: Trying to make an OS out of Chrome is like saying you're going to turn a Pontiac Aztek into a stretch limousine. I suppose it could be done, but why? and Honestly, Google, is there anyone in charge over there? Is there anyone who knows how to criticize anything in that fucked up little Montessori preschool of yours? I mean I guess it's nice that you all get to spend 20 percent of your time dreaming up useless shit, and I guess you have to use the Montessori method and tell everyone that whatever little piece of shit they've created is just so wonderful and perfect and beautiful -- but really, as I've told Eric before, that doesn't mean you have to release everything these bozos dream up. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On 09/07/2009, at 1:35 PM, John Williams wrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: I don't see how turning your PC into a dumb terminal could be considered an advance. I'm not storing my stuff on Google's servers. My impression is that the Chrome OS will allow you to avoid just what you say above. It is an actual OS, although probably OS lite would be a better term. ...and Google already have one. It's called Android, plus there's gOS which Google had hefty input into. And there are miriad other Linuces and BSDs to try, up to and including Darwin/OSX. So I'm with Will (you can pick yourselves up at your leisure). Don't see the point of Chrome, except to leverage Google's brand and no doubt increase the amount of data they have to analyse on the way we use PCs... Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
Charlie Wrote ...and Google already have one. It's called Android, plus there's gOS which Google had hefty input into. And there are miriad other Linuces and BSDs to try, up to and including Darwin/OSX. So I'm with Will (you can pick yourselves up at your leisure). Don't see the point of Chrome, except to leverage Google's brand and no doubt increase the amount of data they have to analyse on the way we use PCs... To (eventually) give PC users a _real_ alternative to Windows? If Google can't do it no one can. And who doesn't want an alternative to PoS windows? Do we think that Microsoft and Apple aren't scrutinizing their data? Personally, I think Google has made the net a better place. The Spam filter on Gmail is a thing of beauty; very close to infallible in this particular data point. I love Picassa, and Google News is my favorite way to find news from a wide variety of sources. Then there's stuff like this: http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/about-the-prize and this: http://www.google.org/index.html What would worry me would be some entity trying to shut down or restrict Google. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
John Williams wrote: My impression is that the Chrome OS will allow you to avoid just what you say above. It is an actual OS, although probably OS lite would be a better term. It will be able to run programs on your own CPU, provided they conform to whatever API google is coding, and it will be able to store files locally on your computer. Persian: This is Madness! Leonidas: No, THIS IS LINUX!!! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Dave Landdml...@gmail.com wrote: http://bit.ly/1m1rVP or, if you prefer full-blooded URLs: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html It's brilliant start to finish, but I especially liked: Trying to make an OS out of Chrome is like saying you're going to turn a Pontiac Aztek into a stretch limousine. I suppose it could be done, but why? Because if competition is good, more competition is better? I use MacOS, three different flavors of Linux, and a couple of different versions of Windows, depending on whether I'm at work (and if so, at which computer), or at home, or out and about with my wife's laptop, and depending on exactly what I'm doing at the time (I have some old games that only run error-free on Windows ME, if you can believe it). I like what Google did to e-mail with GMail, and expect that they might have some new bright ideas to bring to the table in terms of operating systems. and Honestly, Google, is there anyone in charge over there? Is there anyone who knows how to criticize anything in that fucked up little Montessori preschool of yours? asideAs someone who works at a school and is married to a teacher, I can tell you that Montessori works, and a group of people are currently trying to adapt the Montessori approach to work all the way through high school, because it gets results./aside -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html It's brilliant start to finish, but I especially liked: Trying to make an OS out of Chrome is like saying you're going to turn a Pontiac Aztek into a stretch limousine. I suppose it could be done, but why? Because if competition is good, more competition is better? I use MacOS, three different flavors of Linux, and a couple of different versions of Windows, depending on whether I'm at work (and if so, at which computer), or at home, or out and about with my wife's laptop, and depending on exactly what I'm doing at the time (I have some old games that only run error-free on Windows ME, if you can believe it). I like what Google did to e-mail with GMail, and expect that they might have some new bright ideas to bring to the table in terms of operating systems. Since it's pretty clear that Chrome OS is going to be built on a Linux distro of some form or another (not sure which one, or whether they plan to fork an existing distro into their own development track like Darwin was forked from FreeBSD), Google's part of the job is mainly going to be the GUI. If they make it better than Gnome or KDE or X11, they'll probably at least be able to get a foothold in the market. But Google does GUI's well. I'm kind of curious to see what they do with this. :) (As far as why .. well, it's possible that Google has taken notice that Microsoft has been promoting Bing pretty heavily, and this is a shot across their bow. If Chrome OS succeeds, and evolves into something that can displace Windows as a full-functioning OS, there's a possibility that Microsoft has bitten off more than it can chew in picking this particular fight. If Google is successful enough with this, it may finally push MS into a position where it has little choice but to migrate to a Unix-based core and GUI model like *everyone* else in the market. At a time not of their choosing, unlike Apple's beautifully timed migration from OS 9 to OS X.) When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening family life, which would include health care, education, and retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and sentence structure. And one on fractions. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Charlie Bellchar...@culturelist.org wrote: On 09/07/2009, at 1:35 PM, John Williams wrote: My impression is that the Chrome OS will allow you to avoid just what you say above. It is an actual OS, although probably OS lite would be a better term. ...and Google already have one. It's called Android, plus there's gOS which Google had hefty input into. And there are miriad other Linuces and BSDs to try, up to and including Darwin/OSX. So I'm with Will (you can pick yourselves up at your leisure). Don't see the point of Chrome, except to leverage Google's brand and no doubt increase the amount of data they have to analyse on the way we use PCs... Isn't Android build for mobile phones? And gOS is pretty limited, from what I understand. As for the point of Chrome OS, maybe Google won't overtake any of the existing major OSes overnight, but then Honda didn't become a major car manufacturer overnight when it decided it wanted to make more than motorcycles. -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On 10/07/2009, at 12:53 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Charlie Bellchar...@culturelist.org wrote: On 09/07/2009, at 1:35 PM, John Williams wrote: My impression is that the Chrome OS will allow you to avoid just what you say above. It is an actual OS, although probably OS lite would be a better term. ...and Google already have one. It's called Android, plus there's gOS which Google had hefty input into. And there are miriad other Linuces and BSDs to try, up to and including Darwin/OSX. So I'm with Will (you can pick yourselves up at your leisure). Don't see the point of Chrome, except to leverage Google's brand and no doubt increase the amount of data they have to analyse on the way we use PCs... Isn't Android build for mobile phones? Originally, but it was supposed to be cross-platform as OSX is (desktops, notebooks, iPhone, iPod Touch...). It was supposed to be on netbooks next... And gOS is pretty limited, from what I understand. It's a linux. *shrug* It's as limited or not as any other. As for the point of Chrome OS, maybe Google won't overtake any of the existing major OSes overnight, but then Honda didn't become a major car manufacturer overnight when it decided it wanted to make more than motorcycles. Yeah, fair enough. But I still think it's just Google being Google... C. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: (As far as why .. well, it's possible that Google has taken notice that Microsoft has been promoting Bing pretty heavily, and this is a shot across their bow. If Chrome OS succeeds, and evolves into something that can displace Windows as a full-functioning OS, there's a possibility that Microsoft has bitten off more than it can chew in picking this particular fight. If Google is successful enough with this, it may finally push MS into a position where it has little choice but to migrate to a Unix-based core and GUI model like *everyone* else in the market. At a time not of their choosing, unlike Apple's beautifully timed migration from OS 9 to OS X.) I am not a business person, but I don't quite understand Microsoft's foray into territory that Google so clearly OWNS, nor Google's foray into territory that Microsoft so clearly OWNS, other than to say to the other A-HA! Your wall is not so high or wide that I cannot breach it! I think each will obtain a following, each will cannibalize less than 10% of the other's market share in their respective spaces, and everybody else will go on using the tool that they prefer. I am not like our friend Mario with his 57 Varieties approach to operating systems. I use Mac OS X almost exclusively because operating system fit and finish matter to me. (This is not a statement of superiority to Mario, merely noting a difference. I am left-handed, too, but I don't hold that over him, either. I become competent in pretty much any OS you toss me into in a short time, but given a preference, I'll drive a Honda with a manual transmission and use Mac OS X.) I use Windows pretty much only when I have to (which is still all too often) in order to test our web sites on IE6/7/8. I consider Linux an interesting side-show, but I'm damned happy it's there, because I / can/ have an alternative to Windows on X86 hardware. As long as I'm flaunting my biases all over the place, I love my Blackberry (I'm on my fifth one since 1999 or so), but if I didn't have such a long history with it, I'd buy an iPhone in a heartbeat. I lust after its browsery goodness. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
Bruce Bostwick wrote: (As far as why .. well, it's possible that Google has taken notice that Microsoft has been promoting Bing pretty heavily, and this is a shot across their bow. If Chrome OS succeeds, and evolves into something that can displace Windows as a full-functioning OS, there's a possibility that Microsoft has bitten off more than it can chew in picking this particular fight. If Google is successful enough with this, it may finally push MS into a position where it has little choice but to migrate to a Unix-based core and GUI model like *everyone* else in the market. At a time not of their choosing, unlike Apple's beautifully timed migration from OS 9 to OS X.) That would be chaos!!! Linux and Linux-likes are safe now because since 90% of desktops runs Windows, 99.9% of the virus-spam mafia targets Windows. If M$ moves to Linux, then Linux will never be safe again :-( Not to mention that changing Windows virtual monopoly to *Nix monopoly is _very bad_ for the development of new techs. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Jul 9, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Dave Land wrote: I am not like our friend Mario with his 57 Varieties approach to operating systems. I use Mac OS X almost exclusively because operating system fit and finish matter to me. (This is not a statement of superiority to Mario, merely noting a difference. I am left-handed, too, but I don't hold that over him, either. I become competent in pretty much any OS you toss me into in a short time, but given a preference, I'll drive a Honda with a manual transmission and use Mac OS X.) Well, I'll admit it -- I'm biased. I grew up with Macs from the original 128K Classic on up, had way too much fun with ResEdit from the moment it was first released until OS 9 became obsolete, have been using OS X since Public Beta rolled out, and am currently working on wrapping my head around Cocoa, so that's where most of my experience lies. I've had to use NT and XP for work, found both somewhat counterintuitive to use and more than a little unstable even with very little if any third party software installed and every possible protection against viruses, and generally only use Windows nowadays when I absolutely have to (see below). So I'll take Mac OS any day, because my experience with it is that it works, its interface makes perfect sense to me, and it's stable enough to run for *months* without even a logout/login. The longest I've seen a Windows machine stay up without needing a reboot is maybe a few days. I use Windows pretty much only when I have to (which is still all too often) in order to test our web sites on IE6/7/8. I consider Linux an interesting side-show, but I'm damned happy it's there, because I /can/ have an alternative to Windows on X86 hardware. I'm interested in Linux mainly for its server capabilities. LAMP is still the de facto standard web server platform, and while i can run MySQL as a root process in Darwin on my dev machine, alongside PHP 5, I'm pushing the boundaries a bit with that and it works better, and more reliably, on an actual server build of something like Debian (and would allow me to add Python and PostGreSQL to the LAMP stack). When it comes to servers and configurable routers and other stuff that's not directly end-user-facing, Linux is about the best game in town. At the risk of being flamed, I might also point out that NASA has long since forbidden any primary functionality on ISS from running on Windows platforms because of stability concerns -- if it's onboard and actually has to do with life support, maneuvering, or station operations, it's running on Linux. They only allow Windows for non- mission personal use and, in some cases, non-mission-critical experiment support. That says a lot, to me. And you've got to ask yourself, if no one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed? -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Bruce Bostwick wrote: (As far as why .. well, it's possible that Google has taken notice that Microsoft has been promoting Bing pretty heavily, and this is a shot across their bow. If Chrome OS succeeds, and evolves into something that can displace Windows as a full-functioning OS, there's a possibility that Microsoft has bitten off more than it can chew in picking this particular fight. If Google is successful enough with this, it may finally push MS into a position where it has little choice but to migrate to a Unix-based core and GUI model like *everyone* else in the market. At a time not of their choosing, unlike Apple's beautifully timed migration from OS 9 to OS X.) That would be chaos!!! Linux and Linux-likes are safe now because since 90% of desktops runs Windows, 99.9% of the virus-spam mafia targets Windows. If M$ moves to Linux, then Linux will never be safe again :-( Not to mention that changing Windows virtual monopoly to *Nix monopoly is _very bad_ for the development of new techs. Alberto Monteiro How would migrating to a larger user base for *nix be bad for the development of new techs? Other than by breaking the M$ pay to play licensing paradigm and leveling the playing field for open source developers? There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey. -- John Ruskin ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
Bruce Bostwick wrote: Not to mention that changing Windows virtual monopoly to *Nix monopoly is _very bad_ for the development of new techs. How would migrating to a larger user base for *nix be bad for the development of new techs? Because Monopoly is Evil. Other than by breaking the M$ pay to play licensing paradigm and leveling the playing field for open source developers? Who says M$ won't have users pay to play M$-Linux? It's possible that the worse nightmare of the free-software sjihad/s community happens: M$ may embrace, extend and then extinguish Linux. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Who says M$ won't have users pay to play M$-Linux? It's possible that the worse nightmare of the free-software sjihad/s community happens: M$ may embrace, extend and then extinguish Linux. The way they embraced and extended the Web with Internet Explorer? Oh, wait, that didn't work out so well, did it? .. It is the mark of a higher culture to value the little unpretentious truths which have been discovered by means of rigorous method more highly than the errors handed down by metaphysical and artistic ages and men, which blind us and make us happy. -- Nietszche ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On 8 Jul 2009 at 23:43, Doug Pensinger wrote: Charlie Wrote ...and Google already have one. It's called Android, plus there's gOS which Google had hefty input into. And there are miriad other Linuces and BSDs to try, up to and including Darwin/OSX. So I'm with Will (you can pick yourselves up at your leisure). Don't see the point of Chrome, except to leverage Google's brand and no doubt increase the amount of data they have to analyse on the way we use PCs... To (eventually) give PC users a _real_ alternative to Windows? If Google can't do it no one can. And who doesn't want an alternative to PoS windows? Do we think that Microsoft and Apple aren't scrutinizing their data? Personally, I think Google has made the net a better place. The Spam filter on Gmail is a thing of beauty; very close to infallible in this particular data point. I love Picassa, and Google News is my favorite way to find news from a wide variety of sources. The spam filter on Pegaus Mail works fine for me, and it's mine rather then being in the control of a company which is going to scan my emails. I've yet to find (and this includes gmail) another filter which is more than 90% accurate for me. And yes, I know Microsoft aren't looking at my data. Regardless of the OS, I'll require a program from a third party sitting across the net connection monitoring, logging and asking for permission as appropriate for me, and a router logging network connections as well. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Mention of David Brin
snip (considerable) On the other hand, also coming into my screen today was a blog entry from The Oildrum, specifically ahttp://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485#more guest blog under the byline of Gail the Actuary in which an expert on space-based solar power explained how a new approach to the launch of vehicles may be able to cut the cost enough that space-based solar energy would become an answer, even the answer, to our future energy problems. Space-based solar arrays are one of those technologies that are always somewhere over the horizon, and some would say over the rainbow. If you take a few minutes to read this blog, and again the comments, you find the dissonance on full display. On the one hand you have a person saying that there may be an energy answer after fossil fuels. On the other hand you have lots of people not only saying it is not possible, but directly arguing that a human die-back is more desirable than cheap energy. And so it goes. At the end of the http://www.tapsns.com/blog/index.php/2009/06/world-on-fire-notes-and-impressions-from-fire-2009/Fire 2009 conference, an audience member said he felt depressed, that the environmental problems discussed there seemed too large and the time seemed to late to respond. David Brin, the great science fiction writer, also in the audience, responded that we have to hope that humans come up with the breakthroughs, technological and social and values-based, that enable the enterprise of civilization to continue. The alternative is despair. I thought this summed up things quite well. http://www.futurist.com/2009/06/15/energy-and-the-future-space-based-power-and-cognitive-dissonance/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
At 10:35 PM Wednesday 7/8/2009, John Williams wrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: I don't see how turning your PC into a dumb terminal could be considered an advance. I'm not storing my stuff on Google's servers. My impression is that the Chrome OS will allow you to avoid just what you say above. It is an actual OS, although probably OS lite would be a better term. It will be able to run programs on your own CPU, provided they conform to whatever API google is coding, and it will be able to store files locally on your computer. I believe you are thinking of the google apps, which behave as you write above. But I'm guessing that the google apps will be able to be easily ported to the Chrome OS API, and then run locally on a Chrome OS computer. My prediction is that Chrome OS will never gain significant market share for high-powered computers, but it may make some inroads in netbooks (which are in between a notebook and a smart phone in terms of power). Of course, the google says Chrome OS is still a year or more from release, which is a long time in computer years Yep. I think it's premature to decide anything until it's out of the vaporware stage . . . Wait And See Maru . . . ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Mention of David Brin
At 07:07 PM Thursday 7/9/2009, hkhenson wrote: snip (considerable) On the other hand, also coming into my screen today was a blog entry from The Oildrum, specifically ahttp://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485#more guest blog under the byline of Gail the Actuary in which an expert on space-based solar power explained how a new approach to the launch of vehicles may be able to cut the cost enough that space-based solar energy would become an answer, even the answer, to our future energy problems. Space-based solar arrays are one of those technologies that are always somewhere over the horizon, and some would say over the rainbow. If you take a few minutes to read this blog, and again the comments, you find the dissonance on full display. On the one hand you have a person saying that there may be an energy answer after fossil fuels. On the other hand you have lots of people not only saying it is not possible, but directly arguing that a human die-back is more desirable than cheap energy. And as I always ask folks who express similar ideas, how many of them volunteered to start it by being the first to go right now? . . . ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On 7/9/2009 11:15:40 AM, Bruce Bostwick (lihan161...@sbcglobal.net) wrote: At the risk of being flamed, I might also point out that NASA has long since forbidden any primary functionality on ISS from running on Windows platforms because of stability concerns -- if it's onboard and actually has to do with life support, maneuvering, or station operations, it's running on Linux. They only allow Windows for non- mission personal use and, in some cases, non-mission-critical experiment support. That says a lot, to me. I have to respond to this. I've worked at Mission Control at Johnson and have been in every single room in the building. Not kidding an iota. What you say here is basically true, but misleading. There are Windows machines all over NASA and they are being used for your typical business applications. Nasa is extremely vested in UNIX because they are running Science applications on computers that predate the PC. (As you might guess there is some kludge around some of the older units) The ground floor of MSC is pretty much a giant room with hundreds of mainframes and those are the computers that are actually mission critical. The Linux machines are mostly special purpose machines designed to perform specific tasks and Linux is used because for nix interoperability and hardly any of this equipment approaches what you would call general purpose. It is quite similar to the 'nix cores being used in building management systems, used because it is easy to strip down to the needed essentials with no extra frills involved. It is these stripped down cores that actually do all the work for NASA because the simpler the design the greater it's reliability. xponent Lives One Mile From NASA-JSC Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Rceeberger wrote: On 7/9/2009 11:15:40 AM, Bruce Bostwick (lihan161...@sbcglobal.net) wrote: At the risk of being flamed, I might also point out that NASA has long since forbidden any primary functionality on ISS from running on Windows platforms because of stability concerns -- if it's onboard and actually has to do with life support, maneuvering, or station operations, it's running on Linux. They only allow Windows for non- mission personal use and, in some cases, non-mission-critical experiment support. That says a lot, to me. I have to respond to this. I've worked at Mission Control at Johnson and have been in every single room in the building. Not kidding an iota. What you say here is basically true, but misleading. There are Windows machines all over NASA and they are being used for your typical business applications. Nasa is extremely vested in UNIX because they are running Science applications on computers that predate the PC. (As you might guess there is some kludge around some of the older units) The ground floor of MSC is pretty much a giant room with hundreds of mainframes and those are the computers that are actually mission critical. The Linux machines are mostly special purpose machines designed to perform specific tasks and Linux is used because for nix interoperability and hardly any of this equipment approaches what you would call general purpose. It is quite similar to the 'nix cores being used in building management systems, used because it is easy to strip down to the needed essentials with no extra frills involved. It is these stripped down cores that actually do all the work for NASA because the simpler the design the greater it's reliability. xponent Lives One Mile From NASA-JSC Maru rob Sounds like you might know the right people to ask for a tour*. ;) (*one not involvng Space Center Houston..) I believe ... that if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade. And try to find somebody who's life gives them vodka, and have a party. -- Ron White ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
- Original Message - From: Bruce Bostwick lihan161...@sbcglobal.net To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Google Operating System Sounds like you might know the right people to ask for a tour*. ;) (*one not involvng Space Center Houston..) That is about the only tour one can get at NASA these days. You have to be a VIP to get to see the MOCR or any of the good stuff that just anyone could see back in the early 90s. But you do get to see Bldg 9 where I did a good bit of work once upon a time. (That's the building with the shuttle mockups and such.) I believe ... that if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade. And try to find somebody who's life gives them vodka, and have a party. -- Ron White I grew up just a few miles from where Ron White grew up. Never met him though. A guy I used to work with went to school with Bill Hicks, may his soul rest in peace. xponent The Heat Death Of Yours Truly Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
Andrew wrote: The spam filter on Pegaus Mail works fine for me, and it's mine rather then being in the control of a company which is going to scan my emails. I've yet to find (and this includes gmail) another filter which is more than 90% accurate for me. I'd estimate the efficiency of my gmail filter is 99% or better. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I'd estimate the efficiency of my gmail filter is 99% or better. That is a particularly uninformative statistic. Much more interesting would be two figures: probability of false positives ( number of real marked as spam / number of real), and probability of false negatives (number spam passed as real / number of spam). ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
At 11:48 PM Thursday 7/9/2009, John Williams wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I'd estimate the efficiency of my gmail filter is 99% or better. That is a particularly uninformative statistic. Much more interesting would be two figures: probability of false positives ( number of real marked as spam / number of real), and probability of false negatives (number spam passed as real / number of spam). Yep. I can tell you how to easily guarantee that you will never get //any// spam on your mail account . . . . . . ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:48 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I'd estimate the efficiency of my gmail filter is 99% or better. That is a particularly uninformative statistic. Much more interesting would be two figures: probability of false positives ( number of real marked as spam / number of real), and probability of false negatives (number spam passed as real / number of spam). For a one week period 0/150, 1/150, approximately. I may have had one or two false positives this year. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
