_
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:38 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Google Operating System
Julia wrote:
Reply:
I get no more than 1 in 500 false
Julia wrote:
>
> Reply:
>
> I get no more than 1 in 500 false positives.
>
> I get no more than 1 in 1000 false negatives.
>
> It was more than that early on in my use of Gmail, I got one account in
> 2004, IIRC, and another in 2007. The more recent one, most of the false
> positives were from on
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
> I get no more than 1 in 500 false positives.
>
> I get no more than 1 in 1000 false negatives.
That is interesting. I am much more worried about false positives
(missing a real email) than I am about false negatives (seeing a few
spam emails
-Original Message-
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of John Williams
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 11:48 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Google Operating System
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensinger
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>> 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 jihad community
> happens:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:48 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensinger 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 fal
At 11:48 PM Thursday 7/9/2009, John Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensinger 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
positive
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensinger 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), a
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 o
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Bostwick"
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
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 no
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 stabi
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
>actua
At 10:35 PM Wednesday 7/8/2009, John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Rceeberger 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
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
> >
On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Who says M$ won't have users pay to play M$-Linux? It's possible
that the worse nightmare of the free-software jihad community
happens: M$ may embrace, extend and then extinguish Linux.
The way they "embraced and extended" the Web with Inter
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 bre
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
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 diffe
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
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
On 10/07/2009, at 12:53 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Charlie
Bell 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"
woul
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Charlie Bell 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 h
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 st
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Dave Land 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
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, an
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 Chr
On 09/07/2009, at 1:35 PM, John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Rceeberger
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 av
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 Chrom
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Rceeberger 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, al
On 7/8/2009 8:06:20 PM, Doug Pensinger (brig...@zo.com) wrote:
> Mauro wrote:
>
>
> So, any early adopters planning on switching over when it ships? I'm
> willing to at least give it a hard drive partition.
>
>
> Me too. I refuse to use Explorer and would jump on a new OS from Google
> especi
Mauro wrote:
>
>
> So, any early adopters planning on switching over when it ships? I'm
> willing to at least give it a hard drive partition.
>
Me too. I refuse to use Explorer and would jump on a new OS from Google
especially.
Doug
Chrome maru
___
ht
>From http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/08/technology/google_chrome/index.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/m2vf2p
Google launches OS - calls out Microsoft
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Google Inc. is planning to
hit Microsoft Corp. where it hurts by challenging the software
giant's dominance
32 matches
Mail list logo
