10 Oct
2011
10 Oct
'11
3:45 p.m.
So, to completely avoid
vendor lock-in and "a PC for every function", I've used (and will
continue to use) X11.
I don't have any problem with X11 as long as you run a standards-compliant web browser
in an X11 window :-). Or an xterm. There's very little today I do in X11 that
isn't in a web browser or an xterm, don't you know :-)
X11 just does not satisfy me as a way to define a high-information-content user interface.
It's certainly capable of delivering a high-information-content user interface but it
doesn't define it.
The web by itself isn't too fancy but couple with Javascript, AJAX, SVG and other
high-information-value media of interchange, and boy is it fun to work in! With just a
little care, apps scale up enormously and deploy with so little effort on my part.
You might note I left out many common web standards as being high information value.
Tim.
10 Oct
10 Oct
4:04 p.m.
On 10/10/2011 03:45 PM, Shoppa, Tim wrote:
Which I do.
So, to
completely avoid vendor lock-in and "a PC for every
function", I've used (and will continue to use) X11.
I don't have any problem with X11 as long as you run a
standards-compliant web browser in an X11 window :-). Or an xterm. There's very little today I do in X11 that
isn't in a web browser or
an xterm, don't you know :-)
I do a whole lot of both as well, but I also run schematic capture
software, PCB routing software, PDF viewers, and image viewers, all
pretty much daily. More and more I run Xilinx ISE. When editing
anything "serious" (meaning I'll be in the editor for more than 20
seconds) I run emacs, almost always in X11 mode.
I also run the occasional user interface for "big" software like
NetBackup, but only every so often. Also the remotely-displayed user
interface for my logic analyzer.
X11 just does not satisfy me as a way to define a
high-information-content user interface. It's certainly capable of
delivering a high-information-content user interface but it doesn't
define it.
I agree with the latter, but for the former, it does satisfy me.
(that's not to say that I think it should satisfy you) There's really
nothing that can be done on a graphics display that X cannot do in one
way or another, in an almost entirely device- and
architecture-independent way. It's goal is not to "define" user
interfaces, but to provide a mechanism for creating them.
The web by itself isn't too fancy but couple with
Javascript, AJAX,
SVG and other high-information-value media of interchange, and boy is
it fun to work in! With just a little care, apps scale up enormously
and deploy with so little effort on my part.
Yes, some of the stuff they're abusing the protocols and bandwidth to
do are pretty impressive. Using them, however, TO ME, feels like riding
a bike with square wheels. X is a pretty "heavy" protocol in terms of
bandwidth utilization, but it's positively miserly when compared to XML
or JSON!
You might note I left out many common web standards as
being high
information value.
Noted and agreed!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
6:56 p.m.
On 10/10/11 4:04 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Errr... that's not quite as obvious as you imply. :)
The web offers massive opportunities for compression, that X11, RDP,
VNC, etc, can't match, in having a client side processing environment
and complete flexibility in data formats...
--T
...
That's too low level for most stuff, as the web has all but proven.
X11 just does not satisfy me as a way to define
a
high-information-content user interface. It's certainly capable of
delivering a high-information-content user interface but it doesn't
define it.
I agree with the latter, but for the former, it does satisfy me. (that's
not to say that I think it should satisfy you) There's really nothing
that can be done on a graphics display that X cannot do in one way or
another, in an almost entirely device- and architecture-independent way.
It's goal is not to "define" user interfaces, but to provide a mechanism
for creating them. The web by itself isn't too fancy but couple
with Javascript, AJAX,
SVG and other high-information-value media of interchange, and boy is
it fun to work in! With just a little care, apps scale up enormously
and deploy with so little effort on my part.
Yes, some of the stuff they're abusing the protocols and bandwidth to do
are pretty impressive. Using them, however, TO ME, feels like riding a
bike with square wheels. X is a pretty "heavy" protocol in terms of
bandwidth utilization, but it's positively miserly when compared to XML
or JSON! You might note I left out many common web
standards as being high
information value.
Noted and agreed!
-Dave
8:02 p.m.
On 10/10/2011 06:56 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
That's too low level for most stuff, as the web has all but proven.
I don't even know where to begin with this. It's a total apples vs.
oranges comparison.
"Proven"? How, exactly? "The web" isn't a replacement for a
windowing system any more than Windows is a replacement for an
oscilloscope. You're comparing apples and oranges, and while I don't
know you very well, I damn well know you know THAT. In fact, I've
concluded that you're just bored and know I won't let completely stupid
and/or patently false statements just float by.
Further, that low-level "mechanism, not policy" architecture of X is
one of its big points of existence. An X display can look and act like
ANYTHING.
There are too many respectable people on this list who DON'T know
much about this stuff to play with the possibility of misleading them here.
X11 was never designed to be used from one continent to another, and
the WWW was never designed to be the exclusive way that humans interact
with computers. That whole "wasn't designed for it" is precisely why
neither of them work very well in that capacity.
Errr... that's not quite as obvious as you imply. :)
The web offers massive opportunities for compression, that X11, RDP,
VNC, etc, can't match, in having a client side processing environment
and complete flexibility in data formats...
So your logic is that it's ok if it's bloated and inefficient,
because we can just compress it? That sounds like the Lispers'
arguments that the performance problems associated with Lisp have been
"solved" because computers are faster now.
And it's too bad those "opportunities" for compression aren't being
taken advantage of, save for the web servers with the Apache compression
option enabled. And there are, what, maybe six of those? The fact is,
that stuff CAN be compressed, since it's all fat inefficient text, but
it almost never IS compressed on the wire.
Next...will JSON and AJAX (etc, whatever the kids come up with next
week) really deal with compressed objects, or is this argument dependent
upon bandwidth providers handling that compression for you, by having to
build compression support into all of the end-user "routers" that are
terminating lines everywhere? At the server/browser level, then? (which
is probably the only practical place to do it, now that I've typed that)
Gads, man. I'm not talking about using X11 to somehow "replace" the
friggin' WWW. I'm talking about using it from DOWNSTAIRS.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
X11 just does not satisfy me as a way to define a
high-information-content user interface. It's certainly capable of
delivering a high-information-content user interface but it doesn't
define it.
I agree with the latter, but for the former, it does satisfy me. (that's
not to say that I think it should satisfy you) There's really nothing
that can be done on a graphics display that X cannot do in one way or
another, in an almost entirely device- and architecture-independent way.
It's goal is not to "define" user interfaces, but to provide a mechanism
for creating them. The web by itself isn't too fancy but couple with
Javascript, AJAX,
SVG and other high-information-value media of interchange, and boy is
it fun to work in! With just a little care, apps scale up enormously
and deploy with so little effort on my part.
Yes, some of the stuff they're abusing the protocols and bandwidth to do
are pretty impressive. Using them, however, TO ME, feels like riding a
bike with square wheels. X is a pretty "heavy" protocol in terms of
bandwidth utilization, but it's positively miserly when compared to XML
or JSON!
8:51 p.m.
On 10/10/11 8:02 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Errr... that's not quite as obvious as you imply. :)
The web offers massive opportunities for compression, that X11, RDP,
VNC, etc, can't match, in having a client side processing environment
and complete flexibility in data formats...
So your logic is that it's ok if it's bloated and inefficient, because
we can just compress it? That sounds like the Lispers' arguments that
the performance problems associated with Lisp have been "solved" because
computers are faster now.
(Lisp doesn't have any performance problem, but that's another thread...)
No, I am saying that the web is architecturally efficient, at least
potentially, because it allows complete flexibility in protocol and
front-end decoding. The protocol you like - doesn't.
On 10/10/2011 06:56 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
That's too low level for most stuff, as the web has all but proven.
I don't even know where to begin with this. It's a total apples vs.
oranges comparison.
"Proven"? How, exactly? "The web" isn't a replacement for a
windowing
system any more than Windows is a replacement for an oscilloscope.
You're comparing apples and oranges, and while I don't know you very
well, I damn well know you know THAT. In fact, I've concluded that
you're just bored and know I won't let completely stupid and/or patently
false statements just float by.
Further, that low-level "mechanism, not policy" architecture of X is one
of its big points of existence. An X display can look and act like
ANYTHING.
And that's the problem. For most uses, the detailed design of widgets
doesn't matter. You just want a CHECKBOX here, a TEXT field here, and a
SUBMIT button there. Good enough for Amazon, at least, which is a
non-trivial UI. Plenty of other examples too.
X11 just does not satisfy me as a way to define a
high-information-content user interface. It's certainly capable of
delivering a high-information-content user interface but it doesn't
define it.
I agree with the latter, but for the former, it does satisfy me. (that's
not to say that I think it should satisfy you) There's really nothing
that can be done on a graphics display that X cannot do in one way or
another, in an almost entirely device- and architecture-independent way.
It's goal is not to "define" user interfaces, but to provide a mechanism
for creating them.
There are too many respectable people on this list who DON'T know much
about this stuff to play with the possibility of misleading them here.
X11 was never designed to be used from one continent to another, and the
WWW was never designed to be the exclusive way that humans interact with
computers. That whole "wasn't designed for it" is precisely why neither
of them work very well in that capacity.
Remote computing on a intranet is interesting, less wasteful than big
desktops, but it hasn't exactly thrived as a model. For it to do so,
would resuscitate the idea of a "workgroup" or "departmental" server
with enough grunt to virtualise desktop apps.
Until the www shows itself too embarrassingly incapable of this, you are
going to be stuck with "cloud" app providers like Google.
The web by itself isn't too fancy but couple with
Javascript, AJAX,
SVG and other high-information-value media of interchange, and boy is
it fun to work in! With just a little care, apps scale up enormously
and deploy with so little effort on my part.
Yes, some of the stuff they're abusing the protocols and bandwidth to do
are pretty impressive. Using them, however, TO ME, feels like riding a
bike with square wheels. X is a pretty "heavy" protocol in terms of
bandwidth utilization, but it's positively miserly when compared to XML
or JSON!
And it's too bad those "opportunities" for compression aren't being
taken advantage of, save for the web servers with the Apache compression
option enabled. And there are, what, maybe six of those? The fact is,
that stuff CAN be compressed, since it's all fat inefficient text, but
it almost never IS compressed on the wire.
I'm not talking about gzip. I'm talking about compression *in general*
which means designing your vocabulary and operations to suit the domain
in question. X11 cannot do this, it's at least one level removed from
this flexibility - but systems like NeWS *can* too (at least to my
recollection), and they made X11 look crummy at the time.
Next...will JSON and AJAX (etc, whatever the kids come up with next
week) really deal with compressed objects, or is this argument dependent
upon bandwidth providers handling that compression for you, by having to
build compression support into all of the end-user "routers" that are
terminating lines everywhere? At the server/browser level, then? (which
is probably the only practical place to do it, now that I've typed that)
JSON is a compact format but not the only one possible.
Gads, man. I'm not talking about using X11 to somehow "replace" the
friggin' WWW. I'm talking about using it from DOWNSTAIRS.
Wifi sucks. :)
--Toby
-Dave
9:13 p.m.
Further, that
low-level "mechanism, not policy" architecture of X is one
of its big points of existence. An X display can look and act like
ANYTHING.
And that's the problem. For most uses, the detailed design of widgets
doesn't matter. You just want a CHECKBOX here, a TEXT field here, and a
SUBMIT button there. Good enough for Amazon, at least, which is a
non-trivial UI. Plenty of other examples too. Remote computing on a intranet is interesting, less
wasteful than big
desktops, but it hasn't exactly thrived as a model. For it to do so,
would resuscitate the idea of a "workgroup" or "departmental" server
with enough grunt to virtualise desktop apps.
I don't know where you work, but in the major hospitals I work for as a
physician, I'm connecting via Citrix to a remote server where I enter my
charting. The dummy terminal is back.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Greek tailor shop: "Euripedes?" "Yes -- Eumenides?"
------------------------
11 Oct
11 Oct
9:02 a.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/10/11 9:13 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Actually, I'd argue that the proliferation of pixel-precise layout strategies
like CSS2/3 proves the opposite, that people want low-level control over
layout and design in an interface. Otherwise, if we wanted a purely
utilitarian way of accessing resources and services over a network, we'd
be using Gopher++. Not that I'd mind that. :)
CSS was always designed to be a separate component which can be omitted,
so you can choose to micromanage or not.
And you can render HTML content to a console if you want.
Yes, some places it never left, or did come back, to some extent. But I
don't see it sweeping in as a dominant model - ignoring the web, of
course. Smaller clients such as netbooks, tablets, smart phones arguably
make the web look more of a remote computing service.
Now we have web browsers where the heavy lifting is done remotely and
pushed to a thin client (Opera Mini, Amazon Silk), and work is also
being done on streaming video for compute-heavy game graphics to devices
which are too small to render it realtime themselves. That could end up
being a popular model, even if it sounds odd at first, being such a
reversal of the "buy the biggest PC and graphics card you can" model.
None of the long haul uses X11... Sorry Dave.
--Toby
Further, that low-level "mechanism, not
policy" architecture of X is one
of its big points of existence. An X display can look and act like
ANYTHING.
And that's the problem. For most uses, the detailed design of widgets
doesn't matter. You just want a CHECKBOX here, a TEXT field here, and a
SUBMIT button there. Good enough for Amazon, at least, which is a
non-trivial UI. Plenty of other examples too. Remote computing on a intranet is interesting,
less wasteful than big
desktops, but it hasn't exactly thrived as a model. For it to do so,
would resuscitate the idea of a "workgroup" or "departmental" server
with enough grunt to virtualise desktop apps.
I don't know where you work, but in the major hospitals I work for as a
physician, I'm connecting via Citrix to a remote server where I enter my
charting. The dummy terminal is back.
2:18 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 09:02 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
Now we have web browsers where the heavy lifting is
done remotely and
pushed to a thin client (Opera Mini, Amazon Silk), and work is also
being done on streaming video for compute-heavy game graphics to devices
which are too small to render it realtime themselves. That could end up
being a popular model, even if it sounds odd at first, being such a
reversal of the "buy the biggest PC and graphics card you can" model.
None of the long haul uses X11... Sorry Dave.
No apologies necesary, the real data processing world is just lucky
that you don't know a whole lot about this. ;) Web browsers aren't
going to replace windowing systems anytime soon, sparky. Sorry.
Videogames and cell phones aren't the entire future of computing.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
5:24 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Dave McGuire wrote:
No apologies necesary, the real data processing world is just lucky that
you don't know a whole lot about this. ;) Web browsers aren't going to
replace windowing systems anytime soon, sparky. Sorry. Videogames and cell
phones aren't the entire future of computing.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
^^^^^^^^^^
Is that where those awesome trackballs are born? :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end.
5:48 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 05:24 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
Hey, you know, I've never checked! It's certainly possible. It was
the birthplace of Alcoa Aluminum (and the US aluminum industry), for one
thing.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
New
Kensington, PA
^^^^^^^^^^
Is that where those awesome trackballs are born? :)
6:09 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/11/2011 05:24 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
Hey, you know, I've never checked! It's certainly possible. It was the
birthplace of Alcoa Aluminum (and the US aluminum industry), for one thing.
I scored a new one a couple of months ago - they've added a "scroll
ring"
to the standard trackball (the one with the 2" ball). Unfortunately,
they've gone to optical tracking so you can't just drop a Que ball into
one any longer.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end.
New
Kensington, PA
^^^^^^^^^^
Is that where those awesome trackballs are born? :) 
12 Oct
12 Oct
1:46 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/11 4:24 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
No, I believe Logitech is based in Washington State.
Doc
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Dave McGuire wrote:
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
^^^^^^^^^^
Is that where those awesome trackballs are born? :)
2 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Doc Shipley wrote:
On 10/11/11 4:24 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
No, I believe Logitech is based in Washington State.
*snort* I've YET to see a trackball from Logitech that wouldn't be better
used as sling-shot ammo. :) They do make great mice though. :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Dave McGuire wrote:
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
^^^^^^^^^^
Is that where those awesome trackballs are born? :) 
11 Oct
11 Oct
6:05 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 11:18 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/11/2011 09:02 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
If you want real Neanderthal views, I don't think that the X / gui
interface is useful. Real heads down data entry still doesn't work as
fast on anything PC unless it is emulating a good old fashioned terminal.
we had people who could do data entry at full keying speed on our
systems with a Microdata Reality system running 32 terminal. Mind you
this was on a system with an 8 bit microprogrammed data base system,
virtual memory, and interpreted Basic as the system applications
implementation language.
That said, I had several of my keyers up to recently who have never seen
a system which didn't cause more pauses or keying errors than they had
on the keying system.
I don't mind this, but have to say that there are some applications
where the old way got it right, and none of the replacements could fully
come up to the original system.
web based access over direct session access of any sort will have
problems it cannot solve as well, etc.
Now we have web browsers where the heavy lifting
is done remotely and
pushed to a thin client (Opera Mini, Amazon Silk), and work is also
being done on streaming video for compute-heavy game graphics to devices
which are too small to render it realtime themselves. That could end up
being a popular model, even if it sounds odd at first, being such a
reversal of the "buy the biggest PC and graphics card you can" model.
None of the long haul uses X11... Sorry Dave.
No apologies necesary, the real data processing world is just lucky
that you don't know a whole lot about this. ;) Web browsers aren't
going to replace windowing systems anytime soon, sparky. Sorry.
Videogames and cell phones aren't the entire future of computing.
-Dave
7:12 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, jim s wrote:
we had people who could do data entry at full keying
speed on our systems
with a Microdata Reality system running 32 terminal. Mind you this was on a
system with an 8 bit microprogrammed data base system, virtual memory, and
interpreted Basic as the system applications implementation language.
The last place I worked used something similar, although we used UniVerse
on a Sparc 10 that hosted 40+ users. Our data entry application was
highly specialized - it was a strict top-down flow without so much as a
single screen addressed field. You started off entering the pro # from
the freight bill and cranked on through the whole thing and then entered
the pro # again as the last step. We had some astonishingly fast data
entry people.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end.
10:52 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 06:05 PM, jim s wrote:
If you want real Neanderthal views, I don't think
that the X / gui
interface is useful. Real heads down data entry still doesn't work as
fast on anything PC unless it is emulating a good old fashioned terminal.
we had people who could do data entry at full keying speed on our
systems with a Microdata Reality system running 32 terminal. Mind you
this was on a system with an 8 bit microprogrammed data base system,
virtual memory, and interpreted Basic as the system applications
implementation language.
That said, I had several of my keyers up to recently who have never seen
a system which didn't cause more pauses or keying errors than they had
on the keying system.
I don't mind this, but have to say that there are some applications
where the old way got it right, and none of the replacements could fully
come up to the original system.
That's not a "Neanderthal view", that's a practical productivity
view.
I know several professional accountants and a couple of EAs, and they
all say the same thing. Everything "went Windows" in their business a
few years ago, and their data entry efficiency dropped through the
floor. One of my best friends is a guy a few years older than me who
writes custom extensions for a large, well-known, big-company commercial
accounting package that is now Windows-only. He frequently gets
questions from his customers about about writing a character-based
interface for it. (his wife is an EA)
Now, before people like Toby latch onto that and scream at me for
"hating GUIs" or "hating anything modern" or whatever people like to
push my buttons about, I LOVE GUIs, and I LOVE modern things. It's just
that I love the concept of "using the right tool for the job" even more.
If that tool happens to have been introduced to the world at an
earlier time than some other tool, then so be it, it's still the right
tool for the job. Period.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
11:09 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 11/10/11 10:52 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/11/2011 06:05 PM, jim s wrote:
Lately you are ascribing to me a lot of positions, or anticipating
assertions, that I haven't made. For example, I never said you hate
GUIs, or hate anything modern. Most of what I was saying was defending
the web as a decent (if not perfect) implementation of remote computing
services. Some of my points blurred into the internet, admittedly (like
streaming video), but TCP/IP isn't perfect either. Nothing is perfect,
is it.
Try calming down a tad. I'm not the Antichrist. After all, I like Scheme. :)
If you want real Neanderthal views, I don't
think that the X / gui
interface is useful. Real heads down data entry still doesn't work as
fast on anything PC unless it is emulating a good old fashioned terminal.
we had people who could do data entry at full keying speed on our
systems with a Microdata Reality system running 32 terminal. Mind you
this was on a system with an 8 bit microprogrammed data base system,
virtual memory, and interpreted Basic as the system applications
implementation language.
That said, I had several of my keyers up to recently who have never seen
a system which didn't cause more pauses or keying errors than they had
on the keying system.
I don't mind this, but have to say that there are some applications
where the old way got it right, and none of the replacements could fully
come up to the original system.
That's not a "Neanderthal view", that's a practical productivity view.
I know several professional accountants and a couple of EAs, and they
all say the same thing. Everything "went Windows" in their business a
few years ago, and their data entry efficiency dropped through the
floor. One of my best friends is a guy a few years older than me who
writes custom extensions for a large, well-known, big-company commercial
accounting package that is now Windows-only. He frequently gets
questions from his customers about about writing a character-based
interface for it. (his wife is an EA)
Now, before people like Toby latch onto that and scream at me for
"hating GUIs" or "hating anything modern" or whatever people like to
push my buttons about, I LOVE GUIs, and I LOVE modern things. It's just
that I love the concept of "using the right tool for the job" even more.
If that tool happens to have been introduced to the world at an earlier
time than some other tool, then so be it, it's still the right tool for
the job. Period.
Many old ways were wonderful, I'm often the first to say so.
--T
-Dave
11:44 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 11:09 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
For that I apologize. Other people have claimed that of me, not you.
I am heartened to hear this.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
Now, before
people like Toby latch onto that and scream at me for
"hating GUIs" or "hating anything modern" or whatever people like to
push my buttons about, I LOVE GUIs, and I LOVE modern things.
Lately you are ascribing to me a lot of positions, or anticipating
assertions, that I haven't made. For example, I never said you hate
GUIs, or hate anything modern. Most of what I was saying was defending
the web as a decent (if not perfect) implementation of remote computing
services. Some of my points blurred into the internet, admittedly (like
streaming video), but TCP/IP isn't perfect either. Nothing is perfect,
is it. Try calming down a tad. I'm not the Antichrist.
After all, I like
Scheme. :)
:)
It's just
that I love the concept of "using the right tool for the job" even more.
If that tool happens to have been introduced to the world at an earlier
time than some other tool, then so be it, it's still the right tool for
the job. Period.
Many old ways were wonderful, I'm often the first to say so. 
12 Oct
12 Oct
5:01 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk
Now, before people like Toby latch onto that and
scream at me for
"hating GUIs" or "hating anything modern" or whatever people like to
push my buttons about, I LOVE GUIs, and I LOVE modern things. It's just
that I love the concept of "using the right tool for the job" even more.
If that tool happens to have been introduced to the world at an
earlier time than some other tool, then so be it, it's still the right
tool for the job. Period.
As an aside, there are 2 fundamental misconceptions that I see all the
time :
The fact that 'A' is better than 'B' for one application implies it must
be better for _all_ applications.
That fact that 'A' is bewer than 'B' means it must be better for all
applications.
We can all think of plenty of examples of that...
-tony
8:57 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk
On 12/10/11 5:01 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
But I haven't said anywhere that the web is 'better' than anything else
in particular. Just that it's decently useful, and maybe not quite as
horrible as Dave makes out.
Here you are, Dave - This just in, via the World Wide Web:
http://www.quora.com/How-has-the-world-changed-since-Quora-users-were-born/…
--T
Now,
before people like Toby latch onto that and scream at me for
"hating GUIs" or "hating anything modern" or whatever people like to
push my buttons about, I LOVE GUIs, and I LOVE modern things. It's just
that I love the concept of "using the right tool for the job" even more.
If that tool happens to have been introduced to the world at an
earlier time than some other tool, then so be it, it's still the right
tool for the job. Period.
As an aside, there are 2 fundamental misconceptions that I see all the
time :
The fact that 'A' is better than 'B' for one application implies it must
be better for _all_ applications.
That fact that 'A' is bewer than 'B' means it must be better for all
applications.
We can all think of plenty of examples of that...
-tony
13 Oct
13 Oct
3:56 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk
As an aside,
there are 2 fundamental misconceptions that I see all the
time :
The fact that 'A' is better than 'B' for one application implies it must
be better for _all_ applications.
But I haven't said anywhere that the web is 'better' than anything else
in particular. Just that it's decently useful, and maybe not quite as
horrible as Dave makes out.
12 Oct
12 Oct
5:05 p.m.
New subject: Web as generic UI, remote computing service - Re: Let's talk
If you want real Neanderthal views, I don't think
that the X / gui
interface is useful. Real heads down data entry still doesn't work as
fast on anything PC unless it is emulating a good old fashioned terminal.
Since an awful lot of what I do on a computer involves text entry
(writing docuemntion, programming, etc), I am perfectly happly with a
'green screen' text display.
I am very used to the 'virtual consoles' of linux, toggling between text
screens. In fact when I use a windowng syastem, I often prefer to have
the windos maximised, and then to toggle between them, rather than having
several visible at a time. I guess it's what I am used to.
-tony
11 Oct
11 Oct
10:06 a.m.
At 08:13 PM 10/10/2011, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I don't know where you work, but in the major
hospitals I work for as a
physician, I'm connecting via Citrix to a remote server where I enter my
charting. The dummy terminal is back.
And I bet a doughnut that "remote server" is a virtual appliance,
not a box to itself.
- John
11:48 a.m.
I don't
know where you work, but in the major hospitals I work for as a
physician, I'm connecting via Citrix to a remote server where I enter my
charting. The dummy terminal is back.
And I bet a doughnut that "remote server" is a virtual appliance,
not a box to itself. 
10:08 p.m.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 12 Oct 2011 at 20:00, Jules Richardson wrote:
Schrodinger's stove?
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
John Foust wrote:
Invisible refrigerator. And I bet a doughnut that "remote
server" is a virtual appliance,
What, like an imaginary toaster?
10 Oct
10 Oct
11:30 p.m.
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Toby Thain wrote:
I'm not talking about gzip. I'm talking about
compression *in general* which
means designing your vocabulary and operations to suit the domain in
question. X11 cannot do this, it's at least one level removed from this
flexibility - but systems like NeWS *can* too (at least to my recollection),
and they made X11 look crummy at the time.
That reminds me of something... Would it be practical to bring back
something like NeWS and Display Postscript? Could it even be done?
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
11 Oct
11 Oct
2:23 p.m.
On 10/10/2011 11:30 PM, David Griffith wrote:
MacOS X's native windowing system is pretty similar to Display
Postscript.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
I'm not
talking about gzip. I'm talking about compression *in general*
which means designing your vocabulary and operations to suit the
domain in question. X11 cannot do this, it's at least one level
removed from this flexibility - but systems like NeWS *can* too (at
least to my recollection), and they made X11 look crummy at the time.
That reminds me of something... Would it be practical to bring back
something like NeWS and Display Postscript? Could it even be done?
9:22 p.m.
New subject: Display PostScript - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 11/10/11 2:23 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/10/2011 11:30 PM, David Griffith wrote:
MacOS X's native windowing system is pretty similar to Display Postscript.
As is the web browser's SVG/Canvas imaging.
--Toby
I'm
not talking about gzip. I'm talking about compression *in general*
which means designing your vocabulary and operations to suit the
domain in question. X11 cannot do this, it's at least one level
removed from this flexibility - but systems like NeWS *can* too (at
least to my recollection), and they made X11 look crummy at the time.
That reminds me of something... Would it be practical to bring back
something like NeWS and Display Postscript? Could it even be done?
-Dave
15 Oct
15 Oct
9:54 p.m.
On 11 October 2011 04:30, David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Toby Thain wrote:
Well, Display Postscript evolved into Quartz, which I've read
described as essentially being "Display PDF". It's DPS with a lot of
simplification and uses an open standard that anybody can create code
to read and write without royalties to Adobe.
So DPS is not exactly dead or gone - its successor lives on and is the
basis of a widely-used, much-admired and loved GUI.
OTOH, NeWS sounded fascinating and I've love to see a modern, FOSS
reimplementation of it. I think that perhaps it might not be a very
good fit for the modern display pipeline though - of a very fast
multi-gigaHertz multicore CPU connected closely to a cluster of
high-performance very-parallel MIMD GPU cores.
Right now, usually, they're on a PCIe card, but AMD is showing the way
- its Llano and Bulldozer "Fusion" APUs integrate the GPU onto the
same die as the CPU cores. This is the way all CPUs *will* go; it's
just that the current Intel offerings have crappy GPUs.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
I'm not talking about gzip. I'm talking
about compression *in general*
which means designing your vocabulary and operations to suit the domain in
question. X11 cannot do this, it's at least one level removed from this
flexibility - but systems like NeWS *can* too (at least to my recollection),
and they made X11 look crummy at the time.
That reminds me of something... ?Would it be practical to bring back
something like NeWS and Display Postscript? ?Could it even be done?
16 Oct
16 Oct
2:05 a.m.
On 10/15/2011 09:54 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
OTOH, NeWS sounded fascinating and I've love to
see a modern, FOSS
reimplementation of it. I think that perhaps it might not be a very
good fit for the modern display pipeline though - of a very fast
multi-gigaHertz multicore CPU connected closely to a cluster of
high-performance very-parallel MIMD GPU cores.
Right now, usually, they're on a PCIe card, but AMD is showing the way
- its Llano and Bulldozer "Fusion" APUs integrate the GPU onto the
same die as the CPU cores. This is the way all CPUs *will* go; it's
just that the current Intel offerings have crappy GPUs.
Be careful with those "all CPUs" assertions; server processors are a
pretty big part of the market, and a GPU would be a very expensive
useless piece of silicon real estate there.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
6:58 a.m.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 02:05:00 -0400
Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
Be careful with those "all CPUs"
assertions; server processors are a
pretty big part of the market, and a GPU would be a very expensive
useless piece of silicon real estate there.
Depending on what type of service a
server provides, it may use the GPU
to do extensive math, offload en/decryption, complex database search
algorithms, transcoding of audio / video content on the fly, ...
GPUs will evolve into more general purpose coprocessors.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
17 Oct
17 Oct
12:15 p.m.
On 10/16/2011 06:58 AM, Jochen Kunz wrote:
Hmm yes, that's a good point. I've done some CUDA programming which
is one way to take advantage of otherwise-useless GPUs. I can easily
see (say) OpenSSL using them. Databases, well, that'd be a lot of work.
In order to not offend the sensibilities of overly anal people (such
as myself) there'd need to be some sort of standardized interface to an
OS- or library-provided "assists" system, like maybe hash generation,
regexp processing, or something like that, and the OS can provide those
functions as it's best able to in a given installation. Then, the
OS/library side can be set up to send those functions to coprocessors
(which may be implemented via GPUs) to speed things up.
I use a hardware crypto coprocessor on my big machine here; that's
pretty nice.
I can see this coming full-circle. For awhile there, the trend was
to dump EVERYTHING on the single slow-as-molasses-anyway x86 processor
in the box; clueless designers who couldn't see the big picture did
things like putting printer handling (all rasterization, etc) and modem
DSP in the host processor. Remember "winprinters" and "winmodems"?
Now
we're "inventing" distributed processing again. It's about time. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
Be careful
with those "all CPUs" assertions; server processors are a
pretty big part of the market, and a GPU would be a very expensive
useless piece of silicon real estate there.
Depending on what type of service a server provides, it may use the GPU
to do extensive math, offload en/decryption, complex database search
algorithms, transcoding of audio / video content on the fly, ...
GPUs will evolve into more general purpose coprocessors. 
4:33 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
I can see this coming full-circle. For awhile
there, the trend was to
dump EVERYTHING on the single slow-as-molasses-anyway x86 processor in
the box; clueless designers who couldn't see the big picture did things
like putting printer handling (all rasterization, etc) and modem DSP in
the host processor. Remember "winprinters" and "winmodems"? Now
we're
"inventing" distributed processing again. It's about time. ;)
Was that really 'clueless'? I always understood it to be a cost thing; a
hardware designer could implement a modem or printer for far less $$$ if
all the processing work was done by the host system's CPU - but they could
still sell it as a modem or printer indistinguishable on the packaging from
a better product (which did have its own local processing), so long as
their software would run under the host machine's OS.
I think they saw the big picture all too clearly, and saw a way of
maximizing returns by peddling junk that the public would happily buy
anyway (this goes back to our discussion about how people often seem to
*expect* computers to be buggy and sometimes slow down for no apparent
reason. They wouldn't necessarily associate it with the modem or printer,
and even if they did it'd be OK because "that's just the way computers
are").
cheers
Jules
18 Oct
18 Oct
2:08 a.m.
On Oct 17, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com>
wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
Yes, perhaps you're right, they were being sleazy rather than clueless. That's
just as depressing. :-(
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
I can see this coming full-circle. For awhile
there, the trend was to dump EVERYTHING on the single slow-as-molasses-anyway x86
processor in the box; clueless designers who couldn't see the big picture did things
like putting printer handling (all rasterization, etc) and modem DSP in the host
processor. Remember "winprinters" and "winmodems"? Now we're
"inventing" distributed processing again. It's about time. ;)
Was that really 'clueless'? I always understood it to be a cost thing; a hardware
designer could implement a modem or printer for far less $$$ if all the processing work
was done by the host system's CPU - but they could still sell it as a modem or printer
indistinguishable on the packaging from a better product (which did have its own local
processing), so long as their software would run under the host machine's OS.
I think they saw the big picture all too clearly, and saw a way of maximizing returns by
peddling junk that the public would happily buy anyway (this goes back to our discussion
about how people often seem to *expect* computers to be buggy and sometimes slow down for
no apparent reason. They wouldn't necessarily associate it with the modem or printer,
and even if they did it'd be OK because "that's just the way computers
are").
16 Oct
16 Oct
12:17 p.m.
On 16 October 2011 07:05, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 10/15/2011 09:54 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Alongside Jochen's post with its excellent points, I'd also say that,
yes, I reckon economies of scale will mean server CPUs too will end up
with onboard GPUs that will often go unused. Just as in many cases an
awful lot of servers don't use their onboard FPUs, either.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
OTOH, NeWS sounded fascinating and I've love to see a modern, FOSS
reimplementation of it. I think that perhaps it might not be a very
good fit for the modern display pipeline though - of a very fast
multi-gigaHertz multicore CPU connected closely to a cluster of
high-performance very-parallel MIMD GPU cores.
Right now, usually, they're on a PCIe card, but AMD is showing the way
- its Llano and Bulldozer "Fusion" APUs integrate the GPU onto the
same die as the CPU cores. This is the way all CPUs *will* go; it's
just that the current Intel offerings have crappy GPUs.
?Be careful with those "all CPUs" assertions; server processors are a pretty
big part of the market, and a GPU would be a very expensive useless piece of
silicon real estate there.
11 Oct
11 Oct
2:16 p.m.
On 10/10/2011 08:51 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Of course. But that's a website. We're talking about windowing
systems and local (or "slightly remote") apps.
Further, toolkits that sit ON TOP OF X give you all that
functionality. They starte with Xt, went through Motif, going all the
way up nowadays to gtk. CHECKBOX here, TEXT field there, and a SUBMIT
button there...except that it's actually fast, and looks a hell of a lot
better.
You haven't done much Lisp, have you. ;)
On that we agree!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
Further, that
low-level "mechanism, not policy" architecture of X is one
of its big points of existence. An X display can look and act like
ANYTHING.
And that's the problem. For most uses, the detailed design of widgets
doesn't matter. You just want a CHECKBOX here, a TEXT field here, and a
SUBMIT button there. Good enough for Amazon, at least, which is a
non-trivial UI. Plenty of other examples too. Until the www shows itself too embarrassingly
incapable of this, you are
going to be stuck with "cloud" app providers like Google.
*I* am? No, I'm not. I use OpenOffice (erm, "LibreOffice", thank
you Oracle) for stuff like that. Anyone who embraces the idea of
storing business-proprietary documents on someone else's network,
especially when they happen to be experts in large-scale data mining,
needs to have their head examined.
Besides, such "cloud apps" don't seem to have much market
penetration. I've had precisely one client ask about them, and when I
explained how they work (the whole "hand your documents to a search
engine company" angle), his response was something like "Oh wow...FUCK
THAT!"
So your logic
is that it's ok if it's bloated and inefficient, because
we can just compress it? That sounds like the Lispers' arguments that
the performance problems associated with Lisp have been "solved" because
computers are faster now.
(Lisp doesn't have any performance problem, but that's another thread...) No, I am saying that the web is architecturally
efficient, at least
potentially, because it allows complete flexibility in protocol and
front-end decoding. The protocol you like - doesn't.
Ha! That's like saying IDE is better than SCSI because IDE doesn't
require those pesky terminators and SCSI does. "The web" allows that
flexibility because, after a few lines of headers are sent, it's just a
raw TCP connection!
I'm not talking about gzip. I'm talking about
compression *in general*
which means designing your vocabulary and operations to suit the domain
in question. X11 cannot do this, it's at least one level removed from
this flexibility - but systems like NeWS *can* too (at least to my
recollection), and they made X11 look crummy at the time.
Ok, I understand your point now. On the point you weren't trying to
make, one thing I really liked was the Cisco compression PAM, but sadly
almost nobody bought it.
There were certainly windowing systems that had some technical
advantages over X11, but X11 won. It's ironic that the big negative
about X11 was always its bandwidth requirements, but web-based UIs'
bandwidth requirements are orders of magnitude worse, and nobody notices
this and complains about it because people with that much technical clue
nowadays are few and far between.
JSON is a compact format but not the only one
possible.
I wouldn't call it compact at all, but that's a relative matter. I
deal with lots of binary protocols.
Gads, man.
I'm not talking about using X11 to somehow "replace" the
friggin' WWW. I'm talking about using it from DOWNSTAIRS.
Wifi sucks. :)
9:32 p.m.
New subject: The web sucks, text formats suck, Lisp sucks, and wifi sucks - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 11/10/11 2:16 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
I'm not saying it's clever, or that I do it myself. But it is happening
on a massive scale.
Do you expect to be using X11 in *another* 20 years?
There's a lot of representations that binary isn't terribly good for. A
good use for binary is, as you mentioned, gzipping a text format. :)
Before you object - There are exceptions, of course, where binary is a
good idea...
--Toby
On that we agree!
-Dave
On 10/10/2011 08:51 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Of course. But that's a website. We're talking about windowing systems
and local (or "slightly remote") apps.
What's the difference between a web site (which blurs readily these days
into "web application"... Google Docs... GitHub... Twitter...) and a
"remote app"?
Further,
that low-level "mechanism, not policy" architecture of X is one
of its big points of existence. An X display can look and act like
ANYTHING.
And that's the problem. For most uses, the detailed design of widgets
doesn't matter. You just want a CHECKBOX here, a TEXT field here, and a
SUBMIT button there. Good enough for Amazon, at least, which is a
non-trivial UI. Plenty of other examples too.
Further, toolkits that sit ON TOP OF X give you all that functionality.
They starte with Xt, went through Motif, going all the way up nowadays
to gtk. CHECKBOX here, TEXT field there, and a SUBMIT button
there...except that it's actually fast, and looks a hell of a lot better.
Then why doesn't the web look just like Motif, since the web offers
everyone unprecedented aesthetic freedom??
Until the www shows itself too embarrassingly
incapable of this, you are
going to be stuck with "cloud" app providers like Google.
*I* am? No, I'm not. I use OpenOffice (erm, "LibreOffice", thank you
Oracle) for stuff like that. Anyone who embraces the idea of storing
business-proprietary documents on someone else's network, especially
when they happen to be experts in large-scale data mining, needs to have
their head examined.
Besides, such "cloud apps" don't seem to have much market penetration.
I've had precisely one client ask about them, and when I explained how
they work (the whole "hand your documents to a search engine company"
angle), his response was something like "Oh wow...FUCK THAT!"
You haven't done much Lisp, have you. ;)
Quite enough to know you're wrong on that. :)
And have you seen what they've done with JavaScript performance lately?
And noticed that all these supposedly exotic languages are often faster,
now, than old, boring C? Look around... Lisp family languages included.
Seen what Erlang can do? And, more importantly, they're much more
productive to develop in.
So your
logic is that it's ok if it's bloated and inefficient, because
we can just compress it? That sounds like the Lispers' arguments that
the performance problems associated with Lisp have been "solved" because
computers are faster now.
(Lisp doesn't have any performance problem, but that's another thread...) No, I am saying that the web is architecturally
efficient, at least
potentially, because it allows complete flexibility in protocol and
front-end decoding. The protocol you like - doesn't.
Ha! That's like saying IDE is better than SCSI because IDE doesn't
require those pesky terminators and SCSI does. "The web" allows that
flexibility because, after a few lines of headers are sent, it's just a
raw TCP connection!
I'm not talking about gzip. I'm talking
about compression *in general*
which means designing your vocabulary and operations to suit the domain
in question. X11 cannot do this, it's at least one level removed from
this flexibility - but systems like NeWS *can* too (at least to my
recollection), and they made X11 look crummy at the time.
Ok, I understand your point now. On the point you weren't trying to
make, one thing I really liked was the Cisco compression PAM, but sadly
almost nobody bought it.
There were certainly windowing systems that had some technical
advantages over X11, but X11 won. It's ironic that the big negative
about X11 was always its bandwidth requirements, but web-based UIs'
bandwidth requirements are orders of magnitude worse, and nobody notices
this and complains about it because people with that much technical clue
nowadays are few and far between. JSON is a compact format but not the only one
possible.
I wouldn't call it compact at all, but that's a relative matter. I deal
with lots of binary protocols. Gads,
man. I'm not talking about using X11 to somehow "replace" the
friggin' WWW. I'm talking about using it from DOWNSTAIRS.
Wifi sucks. :)
10:40 p.m.
New subject: The web sucks, text formats suck, Lisp sucks, and wifi sucks - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 09:32 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Of course. But that's a website. We're talking about windowing systems
and local (or "slightly remote") apps.
What's the difference between a web site (which blurs readily these days
into "web application"... Google Docs... GitHub... Twitter...) and a
"remote app"?
You are picking nits, because you are a troll. YOU know the
difference (at least I sure hope you do!), and you know that I know the
difference as well. Again you imply that I think the web sucks, X11 is
great, and X11 should replace the web, and that the web is actually
replacing X11. If this is in fact what you believe, you are incorrect
on all counts.
Again with the trolling. Nothing looks like Motif, but a whole lot
of web apps look just like GTK.
I'm not saying it's clever, or that I do it myself. But it is happening
on a massive scale.
People are moving to web-based word processors, spreadsheets, and
vertical-market software, replacing real software, on a massive scale?
Where, exactly? Prove it. Provide company names and number of seats.
"Test" installations and Utopian "future office" deployments don't
count.
Can't? Didn't think so. Ok, provide OS names and release numbers.
This would need to be OSs that people actually RUN, so Chrome doesn't count.
Quite enough to know you're wrong on that. :)
Ok, I'll trust you on that.
I have no idea. But you can damn well bet that I'll be a part of
guiding where it goes in the intervening time, because I'm not spending
my days floating along with whatever trendy, bloated,
buzzword-of-the-week thing the trenchcoat-wearing, clove-smoking kids
are programming...erm, I mean "writing scripts" in this week.
One thing you really need to get through your head is that I'm not
suggesting, nor did I ever suggest, nor WOULD I ever suggest, that X11
should replace web browsers. You asserted that X11 is somehow on its
way out (which it isn't) because everything is "moving to the web" (or
some such) now. That makes about as much sense as suggesting that nuts
and bolts are on their way out, because the world is moving to corn on
the cob.
There's a lot of representations that binary isn't terribly good for. A
good use for binary is, as you mentioned, gzipping a text format. :)
So make it all fat and inefficient, and let a compression algorithm
brute-force it back into smallness again. If you were working for me,
I'd fire you.
Further, that
low-level "mechanism, not policy" architecture of X is
one
of its big points of existence. An X display can look and act like
ANYTHING.
And that's the problem. For most uses, the detailed design of widgets
doesn't matter. You just want a CHECKBOX here, a TEXT field here, and a
SUBMIT button there. Good enough for Amazon, at least, which is a
non-trivial UI. Plenty of other examples too. Further,
toolkits that sit ON TOP OF X give you all that functionality.
They starte with Xt, went through Motif, going all the way up nowadays
to gtk. CHECKBOX here, TEXT field there, and a SUBMIT button
there...except that it's actually fast, and looks a hell of a lot better.
Then why doesn't the web look just like Motif, since the web offers
everyone unprecedented aesthetic freedom?? Until the www shows itself too embarrassingly
incapable of this, you are
going to be stuck with "cloud" app providers like Google.
*I* am? No, I'm not. I use OpenOffice (erm, "LibreOffice", thank you
Oracle) for stuff like that. Anyone who embraces the idea of storing
business-proprietary documents on someone else's network, especially
when they happen to be experts in large-scale data mining, needs to have
their head examined. (Lisp doesn't have any performance problem, but
that's another
thread...)
You haven't done much Lisp, have you. ;) And have you seen what they've done with
JavaScript performance lately?
And noticed that all these supposedly exotic languages are often faster,
now, than old, boring C? Look around... Lisp family languages included.
Seen what Erlang can do? And, more importantly, they're much more
productive to develop in.
Interpreted JavaScript has never been faster than C on the same
hardware. If you disagree, provide proof. JIT-compiled JavaScript has
the potential for being NEARLY as fast, but I have my doubts. It's an
object-oriented language running on hardware that is inherently
procedural in nature. Bridging that gap involves overhead.
The world is full of people who claim that their favorite language is
faster than everything else. Most of them are wrong.
And for the record, my favorite language, which is slower than just
about anything else but that's not why it's my favorite, is Scheme. I
don't develop in it professionally because it's...well, too damn slow!
There were
certainly windowing systems that had some technical
advantages over X11, but X11 won. It's ironic that the big negative
about X11 was always its bandwidth requirements, but web-based UIs'
bandwidth requirements are orders of magnitude worse, and nobody notices
this and complains about it because people with that much technical clue
nowadays are few and far between.
Do you expect to be using X11 in *another* 20 years? JSON is a compact format but not the only one
possible.
I wouldn't call it compact at all, but that's a relative matter. I deal
with lots of binary protocols. Before you object - There are exceptions, of course,
where binary is a
good idea...
This is the first sensible thing you've said in a week, with the
small modification of the exceptions being the rule. Computers are
binary things. Some computers, notably IBM mainframes and PDP-11s with
the CIS option installed, can operate on text efficiently. Most cannot,
and we pay for this overhead with poor performance and needing multi-GHz
machines to do the very simplest of things.
That's a very Microsoft-like attitude to be coming from you. I guess
you're not as anti-Microsoft as your rants would have us believe.
I have had enough of your trolling and your feigned cluelessness. I
believe that you actually do know quite a bit about this technology, but
you keep making unbelievably stupid assertions in an apparent effort to
stir up a fight. If you were here, I'd punch you in the mouth
repeatedly and send you home crying to your mommy. You're not, though,
so I'll just tell you to go fuck yourself until you want to talk about
classic computers.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
11:02 p.m.
New subject: The web sucks, text formats suck, Lisp sucks, and wifi sucks - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 11/10/11 10:40 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Again with the trolling. Nothing looks like Motif, but a whole lot of
web apps look just like GTK.
If the freedom is there, and Motif looks better, why doesn't it look
like Motif? Honest question, not trolling. I don't have time to take
that up as a new hobby.
I'm not saying it's clever, or that I do it myself. But it is happening
on a massive scale.
People are moving to web-based word processors, spreadsheets, and
vertical-market software, replacing real software, on a massive scale?
Where, exactly? Prove it. Provide company names and number of seats.
"Test" installations and Utopian "future office" deployments
don't count.
Yes, SMEs are. It began just over a decade ago.
Quite enough to know you're wrong on that. :)
Ok, I'll trust you on that.
There are several interesting cases where very high level languages
outperform C. But that's only one metric.
I have no idea. But you can damn well bet that I'll be a part of guiding
where it goes in the intervening time, because I'm not spending my days
floating along with whatever trendy, bloated, buzzword-of-the-week thing
the trenchcoat-wearing, clove-smoking kids are programming...erm, I mean
"writing scripts" in this week.
One thing you really need to get through your head is that I'm not
suggesting, nor did I ever suggest, nor WOULD I ever suggest, that X11
should replace web browsers.
No, I didn't think you said that. But you did seem to think the web was
an unpleasant step down from X11.
There's a lot of representations that binary isn't terribly good for. A
good use for binary is, as you mentioned, gzipping a text format. :)
So make it all fat and inefficient, and let a compression algorithm
brute-force it back into smallness again. If you were working for me,
I'd fire you.
Eh, okay, but you may have missed my point.
The PDP-11 popularised byte addressing, indeed. I own quite a few.
--T
On 10/11/2011 09:32 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
What's the difference between a web site (which blurs readily these days
into "web application"... Google Docs... GitHub... Twitter...) and a
"remote app"?
You are picking nits, because you are a troll. YOU know the difference
(at least I sure hope you do!), and you know that I know the difference
as well. Again you imply that I think the web sucks, X11 is great, and
X11 should replace the web, and that the web is actually replacing X11.
If this is in fact what you believe, you are incorrect on all counts.
X11 as a remote application server is almost gone, that's just the way
things went.
> Further, that low-level "mechanism, not
policy" architecture of X is
> one
> of its big points of existence. An X display can look and act like
> ANYTHING.
And that's the problem. For most uses, the detailed design of widgets
doesn't matter. You just want a CHECKBOX here, a TEXT field here, and a
SUBMIT button there. Good enough for Amazon, at least, which is a
non-trivial UI. Plenty of other examples too.
Of course. But that's a website. We're talking about windowing systems
and local (or "slightly remote") apps. Further,
toolkits that sit ON TOP OF X give you all that functionality.
They starte with Xt, went through Motif, going all the way up nowadays
to gtk. CHECKBOX here, TEXT field there, and a SUBMIT button
there...except that it's actually fast, and looks a hell of a lot
better.
Then why doesn't the web look just like Motif, since the web offers
everyone unprecedented aesthetic freedom?? Until the www shows itself too embarrassingly
incapable of this, you
are
going to be stuck with "cloud" app providers like Google.
*I* am? No, I'm not. I use OpenOffice (erm, "LibreOffice", thank you
Oracle) for stuff like that. Anyone who embraces the idea of storing
business-proprietary documents on someone else's network, especially
when they happen to be experts in large-scale data mining, needs to have
their head examined.
Can't? Didn't think so. Ok, provide OS names and release numbers. This
would need to be OSs that people actually RUN, so Chrome doesn't count.
Um. Web browsers run on more than Chrome. Even Microsoft admitted the
web was important ... 15 years ago.
(Lisp doesn't have any performance problem, but
that's another
thread...)
You haven't done much Lisp, have you. ;) And have you seen what they've done with
JavaScript performance lately?
And noticed that all these supposedly exotic languages are often faster,
now, than old, boring C? Look around... Lisp family languages included.
Seen what Erlang can do? And, more importantly, they're much more
productive to develop in.
Interpreted JavaScript has never been faster than C on the same
hardware. If you disagree, provide proof. JIT-compiled JavaScript has
the potential for being NEARLY as fast, but I have my doubts. It's an
object-oriented language running on hardware that is inherently
procedural in nature. Bridging that gap involves overhead.
The world is full of people who claim that their favorite language is
faster than everything else. Most of them are wrong.
That's not the point I'm making. It's also a very uninteresting contest.
And for the record, my favorite language, which is slower than just
about anything else but that's not why it's my favorite, is Scheme. I
don't develop in it professionally because it's...well, too damn slow!
We have something in common then; I like Scheme a lot. But to say it's
slow is silly. Many Schemes compile to C.
There were certainly windowing systems that had some
technical
advantages over X11, but X11 won. It's ironic that the big negative
about X11 was always its bandwidth requirements, but web-based UIs'
bandwidth requirements are orders of magnitude worse, and nobody notices
this and complains about it because people with that much technical clue
nowadays are few and far between.
Do you expect to be using X11 in *another* 20 years? You asserted that X11 is somehow on its way
out (which it isn't) because everything is "moving to the web" (or some
such) now. That makes about as much sense as suggesting that nuts and
bolts are on their way out, because the world is moving to corn on the cob.
X11 *as a remote computing service* is almost dead and buried. X11 in
general is on its way out, but quite slowly. Not that I care much, I
have spent the last decade mostly on more modern systems.
This discussion began with Display PostScript and NeWS, which showed X11
the door, 25 years ago.
JSON is a compact format but not the only one
possible.
I wouldn't call it compact at all, but that's a relative matter. I deal
with lots of binary protocols. Before you
object - There are exceptions, of course, where binary is a
good idea...
This is the first sensible thing you've said in a week, with the small
modification of the exceptions being the rule. Computers are binary
things. Some computers, notably IBM mainframes and PDP-11s with the CIS
option installed, can operate on text efficiently. Most cannot, and we
pay for this overhead with poor performance and needing multi-GHz
machines to do the very simplest of things.
That's a very Microsoft-like attitude to be coming from you. I guess
you're not as anti-Microsoft as your rants would have us believe.
I have had enough of your trolling and your feigned cluelessness. I
believe that you actually do know quite a bit about this technology, but
you keep making unbelievably stupid assertions in an apparent effort to
stir up a fight. If you were here, I'd punch you in the mouth repeatedly
and send you home crying to your mommy. You're not, though, so I'll just
tell you to go fuck yourself until you want to talk about classic
computers.
-Dave
11:42 p.m.
New subject: The web sucks, text formats suck, Lisp sucks, and wifi sucks - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 11:02 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
X11 as a remote application server is almost gone, that's just the
way things went.
Yes! Years ago! I never disputed that assertion, in fact I've
agreed with it several times. What I've DISagreed with is the notion
that the WWW is the end-all, be-all of user interfaces and windowing
systems that will replace everything.
If the freedom is there, and Motif looks better, why doesn't it look
like Motif? Honest question, not trolling. I don't have time to take
that up as a new hobby.
Probably because Motif doesn't look better! (seriously!) If web app
designers wanted their stuff to look like Motif, surely they'd do it.
While I liked Motif (the look and feel, not the programming...that part
sucked!) in the early 1990s, my tastes have evolved. ;)
I don't see any company names or desktop counts. I work in that
space now and then, and I've not seen or heard of a single one.
I'm not disputing the fact that the WWW is important. I never have.
I'm disputing your ridiculous notion that it will somehow replace all
user interfaces. That's patently absurd! But, you know what, let's
just wait and see.
"Speed is only one metric" is something that Lisp performance
apologists have been saying for decades.
But yes, I've seen those cases. The fact remains that the world's
non-pretty-UI devices and performance-sensitive things are still
programmed in C for a reason. I work in THAT space (embedded systems)
all day long, that's just the way it is there. The other side of the
company I work for does nothing but pretty UIs, and all their code is in
PHP and JavaScript...where performance doesn't matter.
There is more to computing than pretty user interfaces. The
microcontroller in your air conditioner wasn't programmed in JavaScript.
Or Lisp. And there are a lot more of those around than there are
desktop computers.
Yes, *programmatically generated* C. If you're smart enough to
understand the value of Scheme (and Lisp, and Erlang) you're certainly
smart enough to know what that brings with it.
No, I didn't think you said that. But you did seem to think the web
was an unpleasant step down from X11.
No, not at all! No more than corn on the cob is an unpleasant step
down from using nuts and bolts as fasteners. They are apples and
oranges, they are used in different places for different things, they
have different strengths and weaknesses...and your seeming dislike for
anything spurned by MacOS X (like X11) aside, neither of them is going
away anytime soon, at least not in the real data processing world.
Of course. We don't need that functionality anymore, except in very
rare cases.
As do I. I will try really hard to like you because of this. Really
hard.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
What's the difference between a web site (which
blurs readily
these days into "web application"... Google Docs... GitHub...
Twitter...) and a "remote app"?
You are picking nits, because you are a troll. YOU know the
difference (at least I sure hope you do!), and you know that I know
the difference as well. Again you imply that I think the web sucks,
X11 is great, and X11 should replace the web, and that the web is
actually replacing X11. If this is in fact what you believe, you
are incorrect on all counts. Then why doesn't the web look just like Motif,
since the web
offers everyone unprecedented aesthetic freedom??
Again with the trolling. Nothing looks like Motif, but a whole lot
of web apps look just like GTK. People are
moving to web-based word processors, spreadsheets, and
vertical-market software, replacing real software, on a massive
scale? Where, exactly? Prove it. Provide company names and number
of seats. "Test" installations and Utopian "future office"
deployments don't count.
Yes, SMEs are. It began just over a decade ago. Can't?
Didn't think so. Ok, provide OS names and release numbers.
This would need to be OSs that people actually RUN, so Chrome
doesn't count.
Um. Web browsers run on more than Chrome. Even Microsoft admitted the
web was important ... 15 years ago. Interpreted
JavaScript has never been faster than C on the same
hardware. If you disagree, provide proof. JIT-compiled JavaScript
has the potential for being NEARLY as fast, but I have my doubts.
It's an object-oriented language running on hardware that is
inherently procedural in nature. Bridging that gap involves
overhead.
There are several interesting cases where very high level languages
outperform C. But that's only one metric. And for the
record, my favorite language, which is slower than
just about anything else but that's not why it's my favorite, is
Scheme. I don't develop in it professionally because it's...well,
too damn slow!
We have something in common then; I like Scheme a lot. But to say
it's slow is silly. Many Schemes compile to C. Do you expect to be using X11 in *another* 20 years?
I have no idea. But you can damn well bet that I'll be a part of
guiding where it goes in the intervening time, because I'm not
spending my days floating along with whatever trendy, bloated,
buzzword-of-the-week thing the trenchcoat-wearing, clove-smoking
kids are programming...erm, I mean "writing scripts" in this week.
One thing you really need to get through your head is that I'm not
suggesting, nor did I ever suggest, nor WOULD I ever suggest, that
X11 should replace web browsers. You asserted
that X11 is somehow on its way out (which it isn't)
because everything is "moving to the web" (or some such) now. That
makes about as much sense as suggesting that nuts and bolts are on
their way out, because the world is moving to corn on the cob.
X11 *as a remote computing service* is almost dead and buried. X11 in general is on its way out, but quite slowly.
Wrong. ONE distribution of ONE desktop OS has talked about moving
away from it. One. Another one, MacOS X (only talking about its native
windowing system) is so brain-dead for anything other than pretty
pictures that one has to use VNC to get to it remotely.
Not that I care
much, I have spent the last decade mostly on more modern systems.
More...modern? Like what, exactly? MacOS X, perhaps, I might almost
go along with it if it were modern enough to know what a network
connection is.
This discussion began with Display PostScript and
NeWS, which showed
X11 the door, 25 years ago.
I think you mean that the other way around. Both Sun and SGI dumped
NeWS for X11. Display Postscript was never popular on anything other
than NeXT machines, and briefly as a server extension under X11. Sun
dumped it (I think) around SunOS3, and SGI went to X11 in IRIX v4.
This is the
first sensible thing you've said in a week, with the
small modification of the exceptions being the rule. Computers are
binary things. Some computers, notably IBM mainframes and PDP-11s
with the CIS option installed, can operate on text efficiently.
Most cannot, and we pay for this overhead with poor performance and
needing multi-GHz machines to do the very simplest of things.
The PDP-11 popularised byte addressing, indeed. I own quite a few.
12 Oct
12 Oct
9:27 a.m.
New subject: The web sucks, text formats suck, Lisp sucks, and wifi sucks - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 11/10/11 11:42 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Yes, *programmatically generated* C. If you're smart enough to
Do you find the results slow? For what purpose? I'm serious, can you
give examples? Not just "one example that's obviously terrible" but a
wide range of examples where you discovered that you couldn't possibly
use a high level language (like Scheme).
Mainly OS X, yes. I began using it personally at 10.0. But 10.5 and 10.6
are probably the end of the line for me, like you, I think.
Well, OpenWindows supported both, but NeWS just didn't take off. When I
say, "showed the door," I mean demonstrated a far more interesting
concept. But X11 stayed around like the drunken party guest who refuses
to leave.
On 10/11/2011 11:02 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
X11 as a remote application server is almost gone, that's just the
way things went.
Yes! Years ago! I never disputed that assertion, in fact I've agreed
with it several times. What I've DISagreed with is the notion that the
WWW is the end-all, be-all of user interfaces and windowing systems that
will replace everything.
If the freedom is there, and Motif looks better, why doesn't it look
like Motif? Honest question, not trolling. I don't have time to take
that up as a new hobby.
Probably because Motif doesn't look better! (seriously!) If web app
designers wanted their stuff to look like Motif, surely they'd do it.
While I liked Motif (the look and feel, not the programming...that part
sucked!) in the early 1990s, my tastes have evolved. ;)
I don't see any company names or desktop counts. I work in that space
now and then, and I've not seen or heard of a single one.
I'm not disputing the fact that the WWW is important. I never have. I'm
disputing your ridiculous notion that it will somehow replace all user
interfaces.
I am not saying that it will, or that it should, really. Just that it
works pretty well - which might partly explain its popularity - some
might ascribe that to "worse is better," or something.
What's the difference between a web site (which
blurs readily
these days into "web application"... Google Docs... GitHub...
Twitter...) and a "remote app"?
You are picking nits, because you are a troll. YOU know the
difference (at least I sure hope you do!), and you know that I know
the difference as well. Again you imply that I think the web sucks,
X11 is great, and X11 should replace the web, and that the web is
actually replacing X11. If this is in fact what you believe, you
are incorrect on all counts. Then why doesn't the web look just like Motif,
since the web
offers everyone unprecedented aesthetic freedom??
Again with the trolling. Nothing looks like Motif, but a whole lot
of web apps look just like GTK. People
are moving to web-based word processors, spreadsheets, and
vertical-market software, replacing real software, on a massive
scale? Where, exactly? Prove it. Provide company names and number
of seats. "Test" installations and Utopian "future office"
deployments don't count.
Yes, SMEs are. It began just over a decade ago.
Can't? Didn't think so. Ok, provide OS names and release numbers.
This would need to be OSs that people actually RUN, so Chrome
doesn't count.
Um. Web browsers run on more than Chrome. Even Microsoft admitted the
web was important ... 15 years ago. That's patently absurd! But, you know what,
let's just wait
and see.
"Speed is only one metric" is something that Lisp performance apologists
have been saying for decades.
It *is* only one metric, and it doesn't imply that any particular system
is "slow". Neglect of other metrics (like expressivity, modelling power,
and maintainability) is a longstanding plague on the software business.
Interpreted JavaScript has never been faster than C on the same
hardware. If you disagree, provide proof. JIT-compiled JavaScript
has the potential for being NEARLY as fast, but I have my doubts.
It's an object-oriented language running on hardware that is
inherently procedural in nature. Bridging that gap involves
overhead.
There are several interesting cases where very high level languages
outperform C. But that's only one metric.
But yes, I've seen those cases. The fact remains that the world's
non-pretty-UI devices and performance-sensitive things are still
programmed in C for a reason. I work in THAT space (embedded systems)
all day long, that's just the way it is there. The other side of the
company I work for does nothing but pretty UIs, and all their code is in
PHP and JavaScript...where performance doesn't matter.
Of course there are niches where C makes sense. I've written more C than
anything else over the years. But very little applications programming
requires C or is appropriate in C.
There is more to computing than pretty user interfaces. The
microcontroller in your air conditioner wasn't programmed in JavaScript.
Or Lisp. And there are a lot more of those around than there are desktop
computers.
I'm talking about general business/applications programming. And web
applications.
And for
the record, my favorite language, which is slower than
just about anything else but that's not why it's my favorite, is
Scheme. I don't develop in it professionally because it's...well,
too damn slow!
We have something in common then; I like Scheme a lot. But to say
it's slow is silly. Many Schemes compile to C. understand the value of Scheme (and Lisp, and Erlang)
you're certainly
smart enough to know what that brings with it.
Erlang has HiPE. And it really, honestly, is fast enough for what people
use it for. Or they would use something else. And the same is true of
Haskell, Ocaml, Common Lisp, etc.
I don't know about you, but I've seen half a dozen Common Lisp jobs turn
up this year - not to mention other interesting languages - and I'd
rather be doing that than PHP, wouldn't you?
...
Of course. We don't need that functionality anymore, except in very
rare cases.
Or, thank goodness, shell. :D
Moving to something new, as popular distributions plan, can be a good
thing, can't it? I'm not assuming it will be a disaster at this point.
You
asserted that X11 is somehow on its way out (which it isn't)
because everything is "moving to the web" (or some such) now. That
makes about as much sense as suggesting that nuts and bolts are on
their way out, because the world is moving to corn on the cob.
X11 *as a remote computing service* is almost dead and buried. X11 in general is on its way out, but quite
slowly.
Wrong. ONE distribution of ONE desktop OS has talked about moving away
from it. One. Another one, MacOS X (only talking about its native
windowing system) is so brain-dead for anything other than pretty
pictures that one has to use VNC to get to it remotely. Not that I care
much, I have spent the last decade mostly on more modern systems.
More...modern? Like what, exactly? MacOS X, perhaps, I might almost go
along with it if it were modern enough to know what a network connection
is. This discussion began with Display PostScript and
NeWS, which showed
X11 the door, 25 years ago.
I think you mean that the other way around. Both Sun and SGI dumped NeWS
for X11. Display Postscript was never popular on anything other
than
NeXT machines, and briefly as a server extension under X11. Sun dumped
it (I think) around SunOS3, and SGI went to X11 in IRIX v4.
As do I. I will try really hard to like you because of this. Really hard.
I need to cut back on the trolling so I have time to play with them
more. *runz*
--Toby
This is
the first sensible thing you've said in a week, with the
small modification of the exceptions being the rule. Computers are
binary things. Some computers, notably IBM mainframes and PDP-11s
with the CIS option installed, can operate on text efficiently.
Most cannot, and we pay for this overhead with poor performance and
needing multi-GHz machines to do the very simplest of things.
The PDP-11 popularised byte addressing, indeed. I own quite a few.
-Dave
4662
days inactive
4670
days old
42 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
doc＠vaxen.net -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
jws＠jwsss.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au -
tshoppa＠wmata.com