Mmm.... that should keep the screeeept kiddies busy for a while, but maybe this is more challenging (and I'm aware I'm missing the point of the post I'm replying to):
You're right it doesn't (we'll it does as long as you like products two versions out of date), I was merely replying to a post which I interpreted as saying an easy to use UNIX had never existed.
Yes, carbon is good - the Rhapsody model was asking to much of developers and probably would've killed Apple, and I'm glad someone at Apple got hit with the cluestick(tm) and saw that it would never really work and should be replaced with a more sensible one.
Many people would love a Unix with an elegant visual interface. Ease of use with the opportunity to get down and dirty in a shell
I may get flamed for this.... but:
I use something like this every day - it's called IRIX. It's very easy to use (GUI config utilities etc) and in my opinion has a better interface than OS X (Apple should've just used the standard mac interface or even the Next interface.)
Ignoring of course the high price of entry.... $600 last time I checked for a copy of IRIX 6.5 (and the cost of hardware.)
Disclaimer: I also use Mac OS 8.6 (retro) every day and have played with DP3 & 4.
On Topic: Unix a lumbering dump truck.... wouldn't that be a better description of VMS!
There is a user group for UNIX and BSD, but no Linux.
Erm... linus didn't create Linux untill 1991.
Most disturbing is the net.suicide newsgroup, however. At first I thought it was there for some introspective views on the possible collapse of the internet they were on. Turns out to be a newsgroup where posters want to commit suicide. (When a poster no longer posts to the group, does that mean he's been successful?)
Open up an Usenet client and go look at alt.suicide.holiday, people have and will always want to commit suicide. I personally don't have a problem with that - perhaps it's better that they talk about it, maybe they'll change their mind or choose a method that won't leave them an invalid.
Awatmath.1400
net.jokes
utzoo!decvax!watmath!bstempleton
Fri Jan 8 01:31:59 1982
How many USENET people does it take to change a light bulb?
Well, it all depends. If the person decides to change it quietly,
only one. If he mentions it on the net however...
One to have a bulb that needs changing.
One to start up a group called net.lightbulbs.
Another to suggest it should be called net.bulb so subgroups can exist.
Another to post to net.lb and two more to yell at him/her.
Another to post to net.bulb
Mark to claim net.bulb is official.
Another to start up net.bulb.ge to discuss whether General Electric bulbs
are the best type.
Another to say that as news administrator of N machines, he should decide
the name of the newsgroup.
Two more to suggest that the whole issue of what kind of light bulbs to use
be discussed at USENIX.
Ten more to claim that many who won't be at USENIX still use bulbs and that
the net is the right place to discuss it.
One person to make a typo and post to net.bulbs.
Somebody in the midwest to claim that since they use exclusively LEDs that
their funders would not tolerate system resources being used to discuss
light bulbs, and that they will not take or forward net.bulb.
Three members of the ACLU to claim this is censorship and evil.
Two more to defend it as control of resources.
One to ask in net.unix-wizards if anybody has a DH driver that can control
an rs-232 lightbulb controller.
Another to insist that no DH on a 780 has lightbulbs attached.
Somebody from the ARPANET to insist that DCA will not fund discussion of
lightbulbs that are not DOD approved.
Matt and Mark again to suggest a usenet policy on bulbs.
As you might have guessed, the correct answer is infinite, cause it will
never end...
What strikes me as odd though is that I'm pretty sure Kursk is a boomer, that is, a strategic missle sub. It seems an odd choice to use a boomer to test a hunter/killer weapon.
Not quite, the Kursk is/was a 949A (AKA OSCAR II) class submarine, which is (IIRC) a guided missile submarine - in layman terms it is a hunter/killer thats primary role is the firing of cruise missiles via the torpedo tubes (with conventional or nuclear warheads) against surface ships and small targets such as ground forces.
The technology to continue Moore's law is already here. Clustering and SMP is the new revolutionary technologies. When we finally reach theoretical maximums that we can't get around, well just double the humber of proccessors a machine can hold every 18 months. Also, if intel if making the same chips for more than two years, it will find ways to make them cheaper. Stagination in one regard will only lead to proliferation in others. Also, redesigning chip architectures will make faster chips.
Read the article (or do three years of compsci)!
Moore's Law does not specifically have anything to do with processor speed, it actually refers to the observation (guess?) Moore made in the mid sixties that transistor density would double every twelve months (later revised to eighteen months.)
Slashdot Mirror
ack...
should have hit preview first!
s/Alan Turin/Alan Turing/
Why did GCHQ wait so long to release the specifications to Colosus II (or am I missing something?)
Hmm... I wonder if 'popular' computer science will pay more attention to Alan Turin from now on.
ach! watch that spelling.
HTML.... whatever.
Mmm.... that should keep the screeeept kiddies busy for a while, but maybe this is more challenging (and I'm aware I'm missing the point of the post I'm replying to):
84 8736 10920 12075 3680 3360 12075 3680 3104 3104 3584 12768 11514 11716 13456 14036 3872 3168 11286 11058 10864 3584 3488 11009 11716 12064 11544 11100 4400 1408 3136 11466 13572 3712 3360 12180 24708 24495 3680 3488 12099 12654 11514 3232 3168 10296 10088 10476 11664 10908 11110 11330 10815 11550 11330 3296 3712 12064 10088 10670 3520 2080 5395 5561 4891 5329 3358
You're right it doesn't (we'll it does as long as you like products two versions out of date), I was merely replying to a post which I interpreted as saying an easy to use UNIX had never existed.
Yes, carbon is good - the Rhapsody model was asking to much of developers and probably would've killed Apple, and I'm glad someone at Apple got hit with the cluestick(tm) and saw that it would never really work and should be replaced with a more sensible one.
I may get flamed for this.... but:
I use something like this every day - it's called IRIX. It's very easy to use (GUI config utilities etc) and in my opinion has a better interface than OS X (Apple should've just used the standard mac interface or even the Next interface.)
Ignoring of course the high price of entry.... $600 last time I checked for a copy of IRIX 6.5 (and the cost of hardware.)
Disclaimer: I also use Mac OS 8.6 (retro) every day and have played with DP3 & 4.
On Topic: Unix a lumbering dump truck.... wouldn't that be a better description of VMS!
Erm... linus didn't create Linux untill 1991.
Open up an Usenet client and go look at alt.suicide.holiday, people have and will always want to commit suicide. I personally don't have a problem with that - perhaps it's better that they talk about it, maybe they'll change their mind or choose a method that won't leave them an invalid.
Suicide can be a good thing
this is not a flame - just my 2 worth.
82.01.08_watmath.1400_net.jokes
Awatmath.1400
net.jokes
utzoo!decvax!watmath!bstempleton
Fri Jan 8 01:31:59 1982
How many USENET people does it take to change a light bulb?
Well, it all depends. If the person decides to change it quietly,
only one. If he mentions it on the net however...
One to have a bulb that needs changing.
One to start up a group called net.lightbulbs.
Another to suggest it should be called net.bulb so subgroups can exist.
Another to post to net.lb and two more to yell at him/her.
Another to post to net.bulb
Mark to claim net.bulb is official.
Another to start up net.bulb.ge to discuss whether General Electric bulbs are the best type.
Another to say that as news administrator of N machines, he should decide the name of the newsgroup.
Two more to suggest that the whole issue of what kind of light bulbs to use be discussed at USENIX.
Ten more to claim that many who won't be at USENIX still use bulbs and that the net is the right place to discuss it.
One person to make a typo and post to net.bulbs.
Somebody in the midwest to claim that since they use exclusively LEDs that their funders would not tolerate system resources being used to discuss light bulbs, and that they will not take or forward net.bulb.
Three members of the ACLU to claim this is censorship and evil.
Two more to defend it as control of resources. One to ask in net.unix-wizards if anybody has a DH driver that can control
an rs-232 lightbulb controller.
Another to insist that no DH on a 780 has lightbulbs attached.
Somebody from the ARPANET to insist that DCA will not fund discussion of lightbulbs that are not DOD approved.
Matt and Mark again to suggest a usenet policy on bulbs.
As you might have guessed, the correct answer is infinite, cause it will never end...
-Brad Templeton
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright© 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
Not quite, the Kursk is/was a 949A (AKA OSCAR II) class submarine, which is (IIRC) a guided missile submarine - in layman terms it is a hunter/killer thats primary role is the firing of cruise missiles via the torpedo tubes (with conventional or nuclear warheads) against surface ships and small targets such as ground forces.
Read the article (or do three years of compsci)!
Moore's Law does not specifically have anything to do with processor speed, it actually refers to the observation (guess?) Moore made in the mid sixties that transistor density would double every twelve months (later revised to eighteen months.)