copyright law exists to give incentive to artists to create socially and culturally significant works. perpetual copyright gives no such incentive, instead it provides incentive to create works intended to do nothing but generate profit.
And when something can generate profit, the tendancy is to take it to the extreme. I could see corporations copyrighting everything, even down to short sentences, in perpetuity. It would be a land grab. This has already happened with patents. You can't write a computer program anymore without using algorithms that someone has been issued a patent for, even though you didn't even know their patent existed.
It was a love story with a sci-fi twist, borne of a relationship from the doctor's past, featuring a monster that, in the end, just wanted to live.
This sounds like the episode with creature that took human form but when alone with someone would revert to alien form and suck all the salt from their body. Can anybody confirm whether that's the same one?
not one industrial country has so far implemented a similar program for its children, which casts doubt as to what the pedagogical use for notebooks in class really is
One effect is to distract the students with email, instant messaging, games, web surfing, porn, cracking into other computers, anything but pay attention to the material which is, obviously,
not conducive to learning.
That was my first thought too. Google has the google search appliance but what does Microsoft have to compete in that space? Nothing that I've heard of.
Read my lips: History always repeats itself
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What? President George H. W. Bush got support for a big NASA budget to put men on Mars and then diverted the money to defense and energy contractors? Must've been a fluke. That could never happen again in a million years!
January 15, 2004:
President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
10 Million is a piddling amount for the big three automakers. For example, in 2005 GM reported 1.1 Billion in losses. The bad mouthing they would get from cynics like you (and me) would not be worth that small amount. However, each of the big three certainly own many small, supposedly innovative, subsidiaries, any one of which could collect the prize without anyone batting an eyelash.
The LSB has garnered support from all major vendors in the Linux Community including AMD, Asianux, CA, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Mandriva, Novell, RealNetworks, Red Flag, Red Hat, Turbolinux, Xandros and others.
Yes, this model is viable in the long term. My reasoning isn't based on how much they can make on a movie today but on how little it will cost to make a movie tomorrow. Computer generated effects have already cut the cost of making movies by reducing the number of extras, allowing production in settings that would not otherwise be possible, allowing complete "green screen" movies, and allowing completely CG movies. I feel certain that within fifteen years movies will routinely be made without human actors and the cost of production will be quite low. This will bring an explosion of creativity as hordes of amateurs try their hand at movie production.
The best beer I ever tasted was a special edition Belgium Black Ale from Fat Tire brewery. In fact every beer I've tasted from Fat Tire is awesome. I can't get it in my part of the country but every time I go to the Southwest on business I look for places that carry it. Do you know if Fat Tire will ever go national? If not, what is the reason? And are they a publicly held company? I would drop a few G's on their stock in a heartbeat. Between the high quality of their product and being green friendly, they are a model that other American companies should emulate.
Create a self-contained HTML form with the submission action being a mailto url addressed to you. They can store it on their desktop or even open it as an attachment from an email you sent them. Then you can keep track of the issues in your email client. You could even have the url cc your phone or pager.
Here is a page with good examples. Also note that you should ask them to test it once because there are combinations of browsers and email clients that don't work or at least there used to be back in the bad old days.
OK, the relativity postulate (local Lorentz invariance) says the measured speed of light is constant for all inertial observers.
I cannot get to the paper anymore (it has been removed) but I believe the author based his assumption of an 'incurred additional time delay' on the transverse path of the light beam relative to the path of the rocket since it would travel further from an inertial observers point of view as the rocket accelerated. That the author worked out a fudge factor of roughly the same magnitude as some anomolies we are seeing is mildly interesting but building a theory based on that reasoning is flawed.
As for my 'glaring error', what makes you think we need curved space to calculate the instantaneous time dilation of a uniformly accelerating object in rectilinear motion? Just pretend that the engines of our imaginary rocket cut out at exactly the same moment that you want to examine a quantity. Using the General Theory here would just muddy the waters. But obviously something causes the anomolies. And obviously Einstein's theories are not all encompassing or else we would not need Quantum Mechanics. Still, unless Mayer can greatly expound on bullet 4 then who would waste their time even looking at the rest of it?
However, the universe is a strange place and I love surprises, so let's assume that you are right. While believing that the orientation of a beam in an accelerated frame of reference could affect the speed of light seems a bit fantastic, thanks to the equivalence principle, proving or disproving it would only take recreating Michelson-Morley or something equivalent with the apparatus rotated ninety degrees from horizontal so that the spacetime curvature caused by the Earth would show the effect.
Now just to point out I'm not saying its junk, I havnt read it yet, just saying it appears to raise of a few of the warning flags.
I read it. It is junk. His mistake started at bullet #4 and everything after that is worthless since it is based on a false assumption.
The incurred additional time delay for the arrival of
each new light pulse implies that the arrival rate of
pulses is less than their emission rate.
The two clocks are in the same frame of reference. They do not see an additional time delay. They are at rest relative to each other. What the author did was to assume that because an inertial observer sees the pulses traveling further, that the moving observers would also see the same. But that could only happen if the speed of light were not constant for all frames of reference which directly contradicts the Special Theory of Relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment (not to mention a whole lot of later experiments which validate the Special Theory to a very high degree.)
The inertial observer would actually see the frequency of emitted pulses slow due to time dilation, in accordance with the Lorentz equation. The moving observers would see no difference at all. He took a well known Einstein thought experiment and changed a basic premise such that it no longer matches what we observe in the real world and then went off on a tangent from there. I'd bet this Stanford Associate is just an undergraduate student with dreams of grandeur. I think he needs to put down the marijuana cigarettes and start studying for his mid-terms. On the other hand, if he and Randall Mills of Blacklight Power were to combine their theories into one Grand Unified Theory of Everything... it might make an entertaining script for a Futurama episode.
That's a great idea. Let us put those savings in context.:-)
The percentages you came up with were 0.33%, assuming $1B revenues and average Open Source savings, and 0.11% for another company just below $1B but with average savings at the mid-sized company rate.
The net profit margin of the archetypal discount store, Wal-Mart, is
3.5%. If we assume the hypothetical $1B company has similar margins then an additional 0.33% would mean almost 10% higher profits. Sears, a typical large department store chain, has a profit margin of 1.6%. As you can see,
this is fairly typical in their class. So, 0.33% would mean an increase in profits of over 20% if our hypothetical company had financial numbers like Sears.
Obviously, if a CEO were to implement a POS system or somesuch that yielded a savings of 3.3 million dollars, he could expect investor confidence to rise and that would be reflected in his stock options. I am sure that most CEOs bonuses are based at least partly on profits, so he could expect to be rewarded for his wisdom in choosing Open Source solutions.
And while the other company in your analysis had only 0.11% of their total revenue in additional profits, think of a $50M revenue company that was saving 1.1 million. That would be a significant increase. And keep in mind that use of Open Source software by corporations is still quite limited. The savings are sure to multiply as more and more Open Source is phased in.
You mean right wing media. The same right wing media that never asked even obvious questions when the neo-cons beat the drums of war. The same right wing media that is owned by wealthy right wing individuals like Rupert Murdoch and heavily influenced by zionists. The same right wing media that broadcasts nine right wing radio shows to every one that questions establishment. Left wingers in the mainstream media are mostly low level cub reporters and when they don't toe the editorial line, they end up consigned to human interest stories about waterskiing squirrels and other such nonsense.
What I mean is that, without this alternative, Microsoft Office fans (who are also Apple operating system advocates) would be forced to look for an alternative. Maybe even a free open source alternative such as OpenOffice.org or selecting other free word editors?
If Microsoft were to drop MS Office on the Mac then they would be opening up about 4% of the OS market to the alternatives you mentioned. That is something they don't need right now because even their grip on the Windows Office market is loosening. How many hundreds of thousands of licenses have they lost worldwide to Star Office or Open Office. They aren't doing Apple any favors here. They are just trying to prolong their time on top.
I was wrong when I saw significant progress for desktop Linux, which was wishful thinking.
It depends on what he calls significant progress. If he is only looking at marketshare growing rapidly then he was right. If he was looking at a big vendor with an established channel getting behind desktop Linux then again he was right. (Novell Linux Desktop) Only if he predicted Linux taking a significant chunk of Windows share away would he be wrong. For that to have happened, desktop Linux would have had to grown by thousands of percent in one year when it has been growing at only about 25-30% annually.
My prediction: if we assume Linux has 3% marketshare on the desktop now and 25% annual growth then by the rule of 72 (you bean counters know what that is) Linux desktop marketshare will double approximately every three years. So in three years, 6%. In six years, 12%. By the time it hits that number, desktop Linux will have the respect it needs for ubiquitous support from virtually all hardware vendors and all but the most extreme Microsoft toadies on the software side.
And with another six years of development at Open Source's blistering pace, Linux will no longer be vulnerable to FUD. They can try to sling it, but it just won't stick. With industry pundits like Cringley seeing its potential and predicting big moves even last year, in six more years the general public will accept it on equal footing with Windows. At that point the biggest difference will be the price. Windows will still have some advantages such as compatability with legacy apps, but the lower price of Linux will be pretty seductive.
A client stores a first set of workspace data, and is coupled via a computer network to a global server. The client may be configured to synchronize portions of the first set of workspace data with the global server, which stores independently modifiable copies of the portions. The global server may also store workspace data which is not downloaded from the client, and thus stores a second set of workspace data. The global server may be configured to identify and authenticate a user seeking global server access from a remote terminal, and is configured to provide access to the first set or to the second set. Further, services may be stored anywhere in the computer network. The global server may be configured to provide the user with access to the services. The system may further include a synchronization-start module at the client site (which may be protected by a firewall) that initiates interconnection and synchronization with the global server when predetermined criteria have been satisfied.
1. To be allowed or permitted to: May I take a swim? Yes, you may.
2. Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon.
3. Used to express a desire or fervent wish: Long may he live!
4. Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
5. To be obliged; must. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents. See Usage Note at can1.
Some parts of the abstract appear to use (5), to be obliged, must. But other parts are ambiguous and sound as though they are possible but not necessary (2). 'Which may be protected by a firewall' certainly sounds optional.
If this patent is not thrown out as too broad or because it doesn't appear to have any innovation in it, then will patent attourneys argue in later cases that it is more general than what the patent examiner actually intended? They may. They may indeed.
Our main phone tech says, "you *are* going to have some problems w/ VOIP over the internet. As long as you keep it in-house, w/ the phone sys using a PRI (?) to the phone co, AND you have managed switches, you should be ok
PRI = Primary Rate Interface, basically a T-1 in the US and Canada or an E-1 anywhere else in the world. On a T-1 you get 24 64k channels, one of which is for control signals.
I guess he suggests managed switches so you can do QOS or segement off a VLAN which is a really good idea. Otherwise the next Microsft worm or virus that infects all your PCs will swamp your network taking out the phones too. But even on a separate VLAN if a worm does something that DOS's your switches or (much easier) the routers between remote offices then again down goes your phones. This happened to me with the Blaster worm. Luckily our VoIP on frame relay was not yet in production. Convergence of voice and data is making us put even more of our eggs in Microsoft's basket.
On a related note, the QOS almost seems silly when you learn that a voice call only uses about 11k of bandwidth. During testing I opened 4 calls simultaneously to a remote site which has a leased 56 line and the calls sounded as good as to other sites with Frac-T1's as large as 512k. Latency seems to be what causes problems, so going across the Internet for duplexed voice calls you really *are* going to have problems and there isn't anything you can do about that.
Why get rid of perfectly good equipment? The major reasons I have seen for PCs to run slowly is: 1. Spyware/adware. 2. Antivirus scanners/firewalls/spam filters taking up most of the RAM. 3. Unnecessary software getting loaded every time the user plugs in a new printer or USB device. You can't just load drivers anymore. The user is prompted to insert a CD which installs gobs of crap, many of which are not even full apps but trial versions. It is just submarine marketing. 4. Fragmentation. I still remember the good old days when Microsloth claimed that NTFS doesn't fragment. 5. "Upgrading" the system from the OS it was designed for to anything newer, i.e. 98 to 2000 or 2000 to XP.
A few years ago I loaded some version of DOS, WordPerfect, and Lotus 1-2-3 on an old 386/25 laptop. I was blown away by how fast it booted up and by how fast the apps ran. Recalculating a spreadsheet took a fraction of a second instead of the microseconds it takes on my new system, but scrolling around a sheet full of data went so fast that I couldn't even stop where I wanted to. Instead of scrolling over to column G for example I kept overshooting and ending up at like column AK. Windows and Windows apps seem designed to slowly bury your PC under an avalanche of bloat forcing you to upgrade the hardware just to stay even. If this gets modded redundant it's only because everyone knows it's true.
I just retired two servers that were with the company longer than me. They had NetWare 3.12 on them when I got there and NetWare 5.1 when I removed them from the tree. After about eight years of service they had only gone through two OS upgrades.
I've heard about this myself. A woman I used to date said it is absolutely true. I wonder if using the CD instead of an album would screw up the timing. I just looked up a page that describes the synchronicity in detail including when to start the album.
Novell has a very nice
proprietary client out now which runs on Suse 9.3, 10.0, and the Novell Linux Desktop. But it doesn't do IPX as far as I know. Also I don't know that it will run on Gentoo. If you get it to work you should submit a how-to to the Novell Cool Solutions site.
For older distributions and ones which aren't from Novell you can try the Open Source Novel Client for Linux which doesn't support Gentoo per se but might be made to work with minimal fiddling.
"Like all good myths, just because we disproved it doesn't mean that people will not believe it," Rees said. "A good story is a good story even if it isn't true."
Spreading rumours about Archimede's marvelous machines must have been a pretty good deterrent to invasion.
Slashdot Mirror
And when something can generate profit, the tendancy is to take it to the extreme. I could see corporations copyrighting everything, even down to short sentences, in perpetuity. It would be a land grab. This has already happened with patents. You can't write a computer program anymore without using algorithms that someone has been issued a patent for, even though you didn't even know their patent existed.
It was a love story with a sci-fi twist, borne of a relationship from the doctor's past, featuring a monster that, in the end, just wanted to live.
This sounds like the episode with creature that took human form but when alone with someone would revert to alien form and suck all the salt from their body. Can anybody confirm whether that's the same one?
One effect is to distract the students with email, instant messaging, games, web surfing, porn, cracking into other computers, anything but pay attention to the material which is, obviously, not conducive to learning.
That was my first thought too. Google has the google search appliance but what does Microsoft have to compete in that space? Nothing that I've heard of.
March 14, 1992: Vice President Dan Quayle, who heads the space council, made public a space policy directive approved by President Bush that assigns "major roles" to the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy...
What? President George H. W. Bush got support for a big NASA budget to put men on Mars and then diverted the money to defense and energy contractors? Must've been a fluke. That could never happen again in a million years!
January 15, 2004: President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.
10 Million is a piddling amount for the big three automakers. For example, in 2005 GM reported 1.1 Billion in losses. The bad mouthing they would get from cynics like you (and me) would not be worth that small amount. However, each of the big three certainly own many small, supposedly innovative, subsidiaries, any one of which could collect the prize without anyone batting an eyelash.
I sure hope Caldera is one of the others!
(SCOre: 5 Ironic)
Yes, this model is viable in the long term. My reasoning isn't based on how much they can make on a movie today but on how little it will cost to make a movie tomorrow. Computer generated effects have already cut the cost of making movies by reducing the number of extras, allowing production in settings that would not otherwise be possible, allowing complete "green screen" movies, and allowing completely CG movies. I feel certain that within fifteen years movies will routinely be made without human actors and the cost of production will be quite low. This will bring an explosion of creativity as hordes of amateurs try their hand at movie production.
The best beer I ever tasted was a special edition Belgium Black Ale from Fat Tire brewery. In fact every beer I've tasted from Fat Tire is awesome. I can't get it in my part of the country but every time I go to the Southwest on business I look for places that carry it. Do you know if Fat Tire will ever go national? If not, what is the reason? And are they a publicly held company? I would drop a few G's on their stock in a heartbeat. Between the high quality of their product and being green friendly, they are a model that other American companies should emulate.
Create a self-contained HTML form with the submission action being a mailto url addressed to you. They can store it on their desktop or even open it as an attachment from an email you sent them. Then you can keep track of the issues in your email client. You could even have the url cc your phone or pager. Here is a page with good examples. Also note that you should ask them to test it once because there are combinations of browsers and email clients that don't work or at least there used to be back in the bad old days.
I cannot get to the paper anymore (it has been removed) but I believe the author based his assumption of an 'incurred additional time delay' on the transverse path of the light beam relative to the path of the rocket since it would travel further from an inertial observers point of view as the rocket accelerated. That the author worked out a fudge factor of roughly the same magnitude as some anomolies we are seeing is mildly interesting but building a theory based on that reasoning is flawed.
As for my 'glaring error', what makes you think we need curved space to calculate the instantaneous time dilation of a uniformly accelerating object in rectilinear motion? Just pretend that the engines of our imaginary rocket cut out at exactly the same moment that you want to examine a quantity. Using the General Theory here would just muddy the waters. But obviously something causes the anomolies. And obviously Einstein's theories are not all encompassing or else we would not need Quantum Mechanics. Still, unless Mayer can greatly expound on bullet 4 then who would waste their time even looking at the rest of it?
However, the universe is a strange place and I love surprises, so let's assume that you are right. While believing that the orientation of a beam in an accelerated frame of reference could affect the speed of light seems a bit fantastic, thanks to the equivalence principle, proving or disproving it would only take recreating Michelson-Morley or something equivalent with the apparatus rotated ninety degrees from horizontal so that the spacetime curvature caused by the Earth would show the effect.
I read it. It is junk. His mistake started at bullet #4 and everything after that is worthless since it is based on a false assumption.
The two clocks are in the same frame of reference. They do not see an additional time delay. They are at rest relative to each other. What the author did was to assume that because an inertial observer sees the pulses traveling further, that the moving observers would also see the same. But that could only happen if the speed of light were not constant for all frames of reference which directly contradicts the Special Theory of Relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment (not to mention a whole lot of later experiments which validate the Special Theory to a very high degree.)
The inertial observer would actually see the frequency of emitted pulses slow due to time dilation, in accordance with the Lorentz equation. The moving observers would see no difference at all. He took a well known Einstein thought experiment and changed a basic premise such that it no longer matches what we observe in the real world and then went off on a tangent from there. I'd bet this Stanford Associate is just an undergraduate student with dreams of grandeur. I think he needs to put down the marijuana cigarettes and start studying for his mid-terms. On the other hand, if he and Randall Mills of Blacklight Power were to combine their theories into one Grand Unified Theory of Everything... it might make an entertaining script for a Futurama episode.
The percentages you came up with were 0.33%, assuming $1B revenues and average Open Source savings, and 0.11% for another company just below $1B but with average savings at the mid-sized company rate.
The net profit margin of the archetypal discount store, Wal-Mart, is 3.5%. If we assume the hypothetical $1B company has similar margins then an additional 0.33% would mean almost 10% higher profits. Sears, a typical large department store chain, has a profit margin of 1.6%. As you can see, this is fairly typical in their class. So, 0.33% would mean an increase in profits of over 20% if our hypothetical company had financial numbers like Sears.
Obviously, if a CEO were to implement a POS system or somesuch that yielded a savings of 3.3 million dollars, he could expect investor confidence to rise and that would be reflected in his stock options. I am sure that most CEOs bonuses are based at least partly on profits, so he could expect to be rewarded for his wisdom in choosing Open Source solutions.
And while the other company in your analysis had only 0.11% of their total revenue in additional profits, think of a $50M revenue company that was saving 1.1 million. That would be a significant increase. And keep in mind that use of Open Source software by corporations is still quite limited. The savings are sure to multiply as more and more Open Source is phased in.
You mean right wing media. The same right wing media that never asked even obvious questions when the neo-cons beat the drums of war. The same right wing media that is owned by wealthy right wing individuals like Rupert Murdoch and heavily influenced by zionists. The same right wing media that broadcasts nine right wing radio shows to every one that questions establishment. Left wingers in the mainstream media are mostly low level cub reporters and when they don't toe the editorial line, they end up consigned to human interest stories about waterskiing squirrels and other such nonsense.
If Microsoft were to drop MS Office on the Mac then they would be opening up about 4% of the OS market to the alternatives you mentioned. That is something they don't need right now because even their grip on the Windows Office market is loosening. How many hundreds of thousands of licenses have they lost worldwide to Star Office or Open Office. They aren't doing Apple any favors here. They are just trying to prolong their time on top.
It depends on what he calls significant progress. If he is only looking at marketshare growing rapidly then he was right. If he was looking at a big vendor with an established channel getting behind desktop Linux then again he was right. (Novell Linux Desktop) Only if he predicted Linux taking a significant chunk of Windows share away would he be wrong. For that to have happened, desktop Linux would have had to grown by thousands of percent in one year when it has been growing at only about 25-30% annually.
My prediction: if we assume Linux has 3% marketshare on the desktop now and 25% annual growth then by the rule of 72 (you bean counters know what that is) Linux desktop marketshare will double approximately every three years. So in three years, 6%. In six years, 12%. By the time it hits that number, desktop Linux will have the respect it needs for ubiquitous support from virtually all hardware vendors and all but the most extreme Microsoft toadies on the software side.
And with another six years of development at Open Source's blistering pace, Linux will no longer be vulnerable to FUD. They can try to sling it, but it just won't stick. With industry pundits like Cringley seeing its potential and predicting big moves even last year, in six more years the general public will accept it on equal footing with Windows. At that point the biggest difference will be the price. Windows will still have some advantages such as compatability with legacy apps, but the lower price of Linux will be pretty seductive.
A client stores a first set of workspace data, and is coupled via a computer network to a global server. The client may be configured to synchronize portions of the first set of workspace data with the global server, which stores independently modifiable copies of the portions. The global server may also store workspace data which is not downloaded from the client, and thus stores a second set of workspace data. The global server may be configured to identify and authenticate a user seeking global server access from a remote terminal, and is configured to provide access to the first set or to the second set. Further, services may be stored anywhere in the computer network. The global server may be configured to provide the user with access to the services. The system may further include a synchronization-start module at the client site (which may be protected by a firewall) that initiates interconnection and synchronization with the global server when predetermined criteria have been satisfied.
Which definition of may is being used here?
Some parts of the abstract appear to use (5), to be obliged, must. But other parts are ambiguous and sound as though they are possible but not necessary (2). 'Which may be protected by a firewall' certainly sounds optional.
If this patent is not thrown out as too broad or because it doesn't appear to have any innovation in it, then will patent attourneys argue in later cases that it is more general than what the patent examiner actually intended? They may. They may indeed.
Old programmers never die. Most are lost at C.
PRI = Primary Rate Interface, basically a T-1 in the US and Canada or an E-1 anywhere else in the world. On a T-1 you get 24 64k channels, one of which is for control signals.
I guess he suggests managed switches so you can do QOS or segement off a VLAN which is a really good idea. Otherwise the next Microsft worm or virus that infects all your PCs will swamp your network taking out the phones too. But even on a separate VLAN if a worm does something that DOS's your switches or (much easier) the routers between remote offices then again down goes your phones. This happened to me with the Blaster worm. Luckily our VoIP on frame relay was not yet in production. Convergence of voice and data is making us put even more of our eggs in Microsoft's basket.
On a related note, the QOS almost seems silly when you learn that a voice call only uses about 11k of bandwidth. During testing I opened 4 calls simultaneously to a remote site which has a leased 56 line and the calls sounded as good as to other sites with Frac-T1's as large as 512k. Latency seems to be what causes problems, so going across the Internet for duplexed voice calls you really *are* going to have problems and there isn't anything you can do about that.
Why get rid of perfectly good equipment? The major reasons I have seen for PCs to run slowly is:
1. Spyware/adware.
2. Antivirus scanners/firewalls/spam filters taking up most of the RAM.
3. Unnecessary software getting loaded every time the user plugs in a new printer or USB device. You can't just load drivers anymore. The user is prompted to insert a CD which installs gobs of crap, many of which are not even full apps but trial versions. It is just submarine marketing.
4. Fragmentation. I still remember the good old days when Microsloth claimed that NTFS doesn't fragment.
5. "Upgrading" the system from the OS it was designed for to anything newer, i.e. 98 to 2000 or 2000 to XP.
A few years ago I loaded some version of DOS, WordPerfect, and Lotus 1-2-3 on an old 386/25 laptop. I was blown away by how fast it booted up and by how fast the apps ran. Recalculating a spreadsheet took a fraction of a second instead of the microseconds it takes on my new system, but scrolling around a sheet full of data went so fast that I couldn't even stop where I wanted to. Instead of scrolling over to column G for example I kept overshooting and ending up at like column AK. Windows and Windows apps seem designed to slowly bury your PC under an avalanche of bloat forcing you to upgrade the hardware just to stay even. If this gets modded redundant it's only because everyone knows it's true.
I just retired two servers that were with the company longer than me. They had NetWare 3.12 on them when I got there and NetWare 5.1 when I removed them from the tree. After about eight years of service they had only gone through two OS upgrades.
Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd) - Wizard of Oz Synchronization
Novell has a very nice proprietary client out now which runs on Suse 9.3, 10.0, and the Novell Linux Desktop. But it doesn't do IPX as far as I know. Also I don't know that it will run on Gentoo. If you get it to work you should submit a how-to to the Novell Cool Solutions site. For older distributions and ones which aren't from Novell you can try the Open Source Novel Client for Linux which doesn't support Gentoo per se but might be made to work with minimal fiddling.
Spreading rumours about Archimede's marvelous machines must have been a pretty good deterrent to invasion.
So?