So, what about the ents? It being Christmastime and all, could Merry and Pipping resist the temptation of putting a few lights and glimmer on ol' Treebeard?
Martin, who's looking forward to examining this with his own eyes
I'd rather this come to a close much sooner. I think Gates and Jackson should have a dual to settle this thing once and for all.
Let me give my friend Jerry a call. He has this talkshow...
Martin
Emacs integration with PGP and GPG: MailCrypt
on
GPG vs. PGP?
·
· Score: 1
Someone mentioned it in a longer post, so I think I'll just restate it in a more dedicated fashion.:-)
With MailCrypt for (X)Emacs it's not only possible but very practical to use both PGP and GPG alike. I use Gnus and have only good things to say about it, and that other guy seemed to say the same thing, but he used VM.
Now we just need Mozilla to support GPG/PGP, because that, after all, is going to be a very popular mailer, regardless of whether it's good or bad.
Didn't it come out not too long ago that shipments for Win2K were below expectations? This is a very clever way of making it *seem* like more people are using 2000 than actually are. The motivation here might be less to increase revenue, but rather simply to pad the usage stats for Windows 2000, as the large customers affected by this are likely to get a discount from M$ to placate them.
Yeah, it would really be neat if Microsoft could boast a 248% installed base on all new PCs.
I know bugger all about how my microwave works. If it went on the fritz, I wouldn't know the first thing to do. It'd hit the garbage, and I'd buy a new one. There's enough scary things in it that I *don't* want to muck about trying to repair it!
Heh... last time I and a couple o' guys wound up with an old high-voltage power supply and a bit of broken down equipment we ended up burning holes in bricks with the CO2-laser (linked page in Danish) we 'accidentally' built. I don't suppose anyone could spare a broken microwave for a particle accellerator?
Imagine robots what can manually alter the synapses in your brain to code knowledge while you sleep. Or remove unpleasant memories from your mind.
Interesting as this is I wouldn't want it to happen. Imagine if this were all really to happen: if something bad were to happen to you, you'd simply forget it; if you wanted to learn something you could do it overnight; what you do to your body would have little consequence, because it would repair itself very quickly.
When does all this get boring? What becomes of all the challenges? Life this way is too easy and would certainly spawn nihilism like we've never known it before, but then there'd probably also be nanites to keep us artificially sane. Ease of life is not the ultimate goal, if you ask me. We will always need to fight a few battles, because that is what brings a meaning to our lives. Take Bill Gates, for instance; he could just sit there in his mountains of money and despair, because now he can have anything he wants without having to work for it... but he doesn't, no, he is still fighting, because that's what defines him and that's a very large part of human nature in general.
You may have your Brave New World but I shall pass. Lobotomy has more than one form.
Hypothetical situation (but maybe someday reality): Free software is gaining ground rapidly and is well supported. The only hope for Microsoft would be to go open-source and gratis with a lot of their software, including OS'es and Internet software. Could MS survive this, or would it be a slow death, and why?
Just an aside, but nevertheless a thought that has puzzled me for years: Bill Gates is a very powerful figure, and the entity he represents, namely Microsoft, is a danger to so many people, and its presence has such a profound effect on the entire industrialised world, that it's discontinued presence would open up a lot of opportunities for a lot of people. With so many people wanting Microsoft out of the way, why is it that Bill has not been assassinated? Ballmer too. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like for anyone to be killed, but many powerful companies would have an interest in doing so. So why is it that no-one has put a bomb under his car? I'm just curious.
I think we're all overlooking the fact that the open source model of BO2K will actually greatly facilitate the job of MS programmers by pointing out security flaws. MS should be thanking the BO crew, in some strange and possibly perverted way. I do not condone the creation and use of tools that are intended to compromise security of any system, but if that's what it takes to make NT secure, then so be it.
It is true that the open source model of BO2K will allow similar programmes to be written that will avoid detection simply because they are different from BO2K, but the security exploits are still the same. If the security holes are patched there will be nothing to fear from the OSS model.
Strange how interpretation can erase the otherwise clear distinction between fact and fiction.
Janus appears to be able to handle quite an amount of processing power, but who needs that much power in a single spot these days?
There really is a need for massive computing along the lines of what Janus promises to deliver, but it must still be considered a highly specialised niche, where customers are few but powerful. I think that the primary purpose of "advertising" like this is to divert the audience's eyes from an important fact: while Janus might be able to run the most powerful clusters in the world, and that stably, it does not mean that it has any benefits at all to other operating systems when it leaves the domain in which it was tested as the best. The Mindcraft test and the events that followed clearly debunked the hitherto reigning sentiment of "better at this, better at everything", which is, by the way, a formal fallacy.
Maybe Linux will some day be able to whip Janus' hide in it's field, but what if it doesn't? The nature of Linux, as I see it, is to naturally fulfill the needs of the many, and those who need a highly specialised OS for a highly specialised task may tailor Linux to fit their needs. Janus is a giant that either fits or doesn't, and when it fits, it does its task well.
Take a university campus, for instance. Would I like to rely on the NT user interface there? No, because I would be severely restricted in my remote operation possibilities. I don't want to rely on a GUI, and especially not when I might be at a slow machine. Where does Janus have a benefit to traditional Unix in such an institution? Here reliability is more important on the individual machine. And what about the availability of user applications?
There's more to an OS than high-end clustering... and 128 nodes?!?
Let's put things in perspective, shall we? For every job there's a perfect tool, and if that tool doesn't exist, then we can make it. Universal tools are only so good.
Slashdot Mirror
Versxane tute ne. Sed li akiris lian 5+ Funny... kia Slashdote!
Martin
It's our market, and we wants it! :-)
Seriously, though, ESR is overreacting on this one, and a less derogatory and more reasonable tone never hurt anyone's case.
Martin
So, what about the ents? It being Christmastime and all, could Merry and Pipping resist the temptation of putting a few lights and glimmer on ol' Treebeard?
Martin, who's looking forward to examining this with his own eyes
What we want to show is that P = NP, right? Simple! P = NP <=> P/P = NP/P <=> 1 = N. There you have it!
Let me give my friend Jerry a call. He has this talkshow...
Martin
Someone mentioned it in a longer post, so I think I'll just restate it in a more dedicated fashion. :-)
With MailCrypt for (X)Emacs it's not only possible but very practical to use both PGP and GPG alike. I use Gnus and have only good things to say about it, and that other guy seemed to say the same thing, but he used VM.
Now we just need Mozilla to support GPG/PGP, because that, after all, is going to be a very popular mailer, regardless of whether it's good or bad.
Yeah, it would really be neat if Microsoft could boast a 248% installed base on all new PCs.
MartinHeh... last time I and a couple o' guys wound up with an old high-voltage power supply and a bit of broken down equipment we ended up burning holes in bricks with the CO2-laser (linked page in Danish) we 'accidentally' built. I don't suppose anyone could spare a broken microwave for a particle accellerator?
Martin
Interesting as this is I wouldn't want it to happen. Imagine if this were all really to happen: if something bad were to happen to you, you'd simply forget it; if you wanted to learn something you could do it overnight; what you do to your body would have little consequence, because it would repair itself very quickly.
When does all this get boring? What becomes of all the challenges? Life this way is too easy and would certainly spawn nihilism like we've never known it before, but then there'd probably also be nanites to keep us artificially sane. Ease of life is not the ultimate goal, if you ask me. We will always need to fight a few battles, because that is what brings a meaning to our lives. Take Bill Gates, for instance; he could just sit there in his mountains of money and despair, because now he can have anything he wants without having to work for it... but he doesn't, no, he is still fighting, because that's what defines him and that's a very large part of human nature in general.
You may have your Brave New World but I shall pass. Lobotomy has more than one form.
Hypothetical situation (but maybe someday reality): Free software is gaining ground rapidly and is well supported. The only hope for Microsoft would be to go open-source and gratis with a lot of their software, including OS'es and Internet software. Could MS survive this, or would it be a slow death, and why?
Martin
Just an aside, but nevertheless a thought that has puzzled me for years: Bill Gates is a very powerful figure, and the entity he represents, namely Microsoft, is a danger to so many people, and its presence has such a profound effect on the entire industrialised world, that it's discontinued presence would open up a lot of opportunities for a lot of people. With so many people wanting Microsoft out of the way, why is it that Bill has not been assassinated? Ballmer too. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like for anyone to be killed, but many powerful companies would have an interest in doing so. So why is it that no-one has put a bomb under his car? I'm just curious.
I think we're all overlooking the fact that the open source model of BO2K will actually greatly facilitate the job of MS programmers by pointing out security flaws. MS should be thanking the BO crew, in some strange and possibly perverted way. I do not condone the creation and use of tools that are intended to compromise security of any system, but if that's what it takes to make NT secure, then so be it.
It is true that the open source model of BO2K will allow similar programmes to be written that will avoid detection simply because they are different from BO2K, but the security exploits are still the same. If the security holes are patched there will be nothing to fear from the OSS model.
Strange how interpretation can erase the otherwise clear distinction between fact and fiction.
Janus appears to be able to handle quite an amount of processing power, but who needs that much power in a single spot these days?
There really is a need for massive computing along the lines of what Janus promises to deliver, but it must still be considered a highly specialised niche, where customers are few but powerful. I think that the primary purpose of "advertising" like this is to divert the audience's eyes from an important fact: while Janus might be able to run the most powerful clusters in the world, and that stably, it does not mean that it has any benefits at all to other operating systems when it leaves the domain in which it was tested as the best. The Mindcraft test and the events that followed clearly debunked the hitherto reigning sentiment of "better at this, better at everything", which is, by the way, a formal fallacy.
Maybe Linux will some day be able to whip Janus' hide in it's field, but what if it doesn't? The nature of Linux, as I see it, is to naturally fulfill the needs of the many, and those who need a highly specialised OS for a highly specialised task may tailor Linux to fit their needs. Janus is a giant that either fits or doesn't, and when it fits, it does its task well.
Take a university campus, for instance. Would I like to rely on the NT user interface there? No, because I would be severely restricted in my remote operation possibilities. I don't want to rely on a GUI, and especially not when I might be at a slow machine. Where does Janus have a benefit to traditional Unix in such an institution? Here reliability is more important on the individual machine. And what about the availability of user applications?
There's more to an OS than high-end clustering... and 128 nodes?!?
Let's put things in perspective, shall we? For every job there's a perfect tool, and if that tool doesn't exist, then we can make it. Universal tools are only so good.