7 Aug
2006
7 Aug
'06
7:28 p.m.
On today's BBC "Analysis", there's a little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all better
get used to it.
Now, I don't think I"m a Luddite, but there's precious little to see on
television that I care to waste my time on (the dogs seem to appreciate the
noise, so I leave it on for them when I'm going to be out of the house for
an extended period). And I can't for the life of me read the screen on my
mobile and have to operate it in "blind" mode. Old eyes, but then, there
are a LOT of us. There's nothing worse than someone shoving their camera
phone in front one's face saying "look at this" and seeing nothing but a
tiny multicolored blur.
So, for someone who doesn't watch television and can't see the screen on a
mobile, is there any better platform than a desktop PC?
I don't know if this is off-topic because MS's announcement is supposedly
of Momentous Import and reflects a change in the way we do things.
Cheers,
Chuck
7 Aug
7 Aug
7:58 p.m.
On today's BBC "Analysis", there's a
little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all better
get used to it.
This whole "the Internet is the Platform" is rather amusing when you think
about it. It's basically Mainframe thinking. It's also about taking
control of peoples data away from them, and transferring ownership of that
data to the corporations.
Granted you have plenty of people that use computers to play games, surf,
do email, and *maybe* a little light word processing or spreadsheet usage.
They could care less about thier data or thier privicy.
OTOH, you have those of us that are writing software, articles, and books,
or creating music and video. You also have people with either very slow, or
no internet access. Plus there are the people that just value their
privacy.
While the first group might sucker into this "Internet is the Platform", how
many of the second group will?
For certain types of users, it might make sense, but one size does not fit
all. Take for example the computers available right now that are targeted
at home use. You have handhelds, mini-laptops, laptops, giant-laptops,
desktops, mini-systems, and power-user setups, video game consoles and
set-top boxes. Each of these is a computer, each has its own "niche".
While some can be replaced by others, others can't. For example very few
laptops come even close to being able to take the place of a "power-user
setup", yet a mini-system, video game console, and set-top box are largely
the same system and could largely be replaced by the "Internet is the
Platform" idea.
Am I making sense, or just rambling, who knows. All I know is that I'm not
the least bit interested in the "Internet is the Platform", and I'm beating
that there are a lot of other people that feel that way. At the same time I
fear the corporations and governments might just force this down our
throats.
Zane
8:14 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
[attribution lost]
It is the only "surefire" way to ensure the advertisers can get
IN YOUR FACE! :-/ Otherwise, you might elect to NOT expose
yourself to their nonstop drivel
(We hear complaints about how much of the cost of a new vehicle
is "wasted" on healthcare and employee benefits... I wonder how
much of the cost is spent on ADVERTISING? Likewise, for the
myriad other products out there that spend money advertising
their crappy products instead of throwing that money into
product IMPROVEMENTS!? :< )
On today's
BBC "Analysis", there's a little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all better
get used to it.
Am I making sense, or just rambling, who knows. All I know is that I'm not
the least bit interested in the "Internet is the Platform", and I'm
beating
that there are a lot of other people that feel that way. At the same time I
fear the corporations and governments might just force this down our
throats.
8:43 p.m.
On 8/7/2006 at 4:58 PM Zane H. Healy wrote:
While the first group might sucker into this
"Internet is the Platform",
how many of the second group will?
I've got to admit that when visiting a local high school and I see the
students strolling around with cell phones glued to their heads, I wonder
exactly what it is that they're talking about. I suspect that these are
the same people that the "new" "It's all about The Internet" will
appeal
to.
Cheers,
Chuck
10:05 p.m.
On 8/7/2006 at 4:58 PM Zane H. Healy wrote:
Yep, these are the same kids that are on Myspace, IM, etc. whenever they're
online as well (and a lot are likely tied into both on the Cell Phones).
Todays youth are being trained to ignore all thoughts of privacy, and those
that do think about it are finding they have a false sense of privacy when
it comes to sites like Myspace.
People really need to remember there is no such thing as a free lunch! The
closest thing to one is Open Source.
Zane
While the first group might sucker into this
"Internet is the Platform",
how many of the second group will?
I've got to admit that when visiting a local high school and I see the
students strolling around with cell phones glued to their heads, I wonder
exactly what it is that they're talking about. I suspect that these are
the same people that the "new" "It's all about The Internet" will
appeal
to.
Cheers,
Chuck 
11:21 p.m.
On Monday 07 August 2006 22:05, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Hey! some of us "youth" use IM because it's a lot less annoying than having
to
use a phone (and data packets are cheaper anyhow). I'm on AIM whenever I'm
in front of a computer, because it's about the only way to reliably get a
hold of me.
Oh, and did I say that I hate phones? On the other hand, I have no problem
talking to people in person. I just much rather compose my thoughts in email
or chat with someone over some IM network than talk on a phone, in real-time.
Also, it's easier to multiplex a few IM conversations and writing email while
doing other things at the same time, than it is to do with a phone call
(while paying attention to the person on the other end, anyhow).
On 8/7/2006 at
4:58 PM Zane H. Healy wrote:
I've got to admit that when visiting a local high school and I see the
students strolling around with cell phones glued to their heads, I wonder
exactly what it is that they're talking about. I suspect that these are
the same people that the "new" "It's all about The Internet" will
appeal
to.
Cheers,
Chuck
Yep, these are the same kids that are on Myspace, IM, etc. whenever they're
online as well (and a lot are likely tied into both on the Cell Phones). Todays youth are being trained to ignore all thoughts
of privacy, and those
that do think about it are finding they have a false sense of privacy when
it comes to sites like Myspace.
While I'm not someone who uses "Myspace," perhaps they have realised that
privacy for the sake of privacy just gets in the way of useful social
relationships sometimes.
People really need to remember there is no such thing
as a free lunch! The
closest thing to one is Open Source.
Or, working at a government job... best yet, a government job working on Open
Source. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
8 Aug
8 Aug
2:05 a.m.
At 11:21 PM -0400 8/7/06, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
Hey! some of us "youth" use IM because
it's a lot less annoying than having to
use a phone (and data packets are cheaper anyhow). I'm on AIM whenever I'm
in front of a computer, because it's about the only way to reliably get a
hold of me.
We use IM heavily at work. I'm of the opinion that it actually
decreases productivity. Some people are starting to turn it, email
and the phones off as the only way to get work done. There is such a
thing as being to available.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
11:38 a.m.
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 02:05, Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 11:21 PM -0400 8/7/06, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
I don't know, I find IM and email fairly easy to ignore, whether or not
I'm doing it on purpose.
I find that working from 12p to 8p ( or later), or in our machine room
at work, cuts down on the distractions a lot too.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
Hey! some of us "youth" use IM because
it's a lot less annoying than
having to use a phone (and data packets are cheaper anyhow). I'm
on AIM whenever I'm in front of a computer, because it's about the
only way to reliably get a hold of me.
We use IM heavily at work. I'm of the opinion that it actually
decreases productivity. Some people are starting to turn it, email
and the phones off as the only way to get work done. There is such a
thing as being to available. 
7 Aug
7 Aug
10:16 p.m.
Hi, gang,
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 07-Aug-06 at 16:58 Zane H. Healy wrote:
<SPLORRRFFF!!>
Here we go with the 'One Size Fits All' mentality again.
For my part: They can have my PC's, microcontrollers, servers, and my network when
they pry them from my rotting carcass. Seriously.
On today's
BBC "Analysis", there's a little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all
better
> get used to it. This whole "the Internet is the Platform" is
rather amusing when you think
about it. It's basically Mainframe thinking. It's also about taking
control of peoples data away from them, and transferring ownership of that
data to the corporations.
Which is one of many reasons I would never buy into it. I believe I can also speak for my
wife and several friends along those lines.
OTOH, you have those of us that are writing software,
articles, and books,
or creating music and video. You also have people with either very slow,
or no internet access. Plus there are the people that just value their
privacy.
While the first group might sucker into this "Internet is the Platform",
how many of the second group will?
Let me put it this way: Not only 'NO!' but 'FRELL, NO!!!'
For certain types of users, it might make sense, but
one size does not fit
all. Take for example the computers available right now that are targeted
at home use. You have handhelds, mini-laptops, laptops, giant-laptops,
desktops, mini-systems, and power-user setups, video game consoles and
set-top boxes...
<snippety>
Add to that special-purpose industrial systems and car-mounted PC's.
Am I making sense, or just rambling, who knows. All I
know is that I'm not
the least bit interested in the "Internet is the Platform", and I'm beating
that there are a lot of other people that feel that way. At the same time
I fear the corporations and governments might just force this down our
throats.
You're making plenty of sense, though the "beating" might get a bit messy
(did you mean 'betting?')
And "they" are going to have to do a LOT of forcing before I would ever give up
my right to run my own servers and domains. As long as my ISP keeps my line up, I'll
keep paying them to do so. Period.
If, further down the road, it turns out that I will need to buy something more powerful
than a DSL pipe to continue being self-hosted, then so be it. I ran a dialup FidoNet BBS
for nearly ten years, and I've been self-hosted for my 'net presence nearly as
long. I will NOT give it up without a fight!
Keep the peace(es).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner & Head Hardware Heavy,
Blue Feather Technologies -- http://www.bluefeathertech.com
kyrrin (at) bluefeathertech do/t c=o=m
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped with surreal
ports?"
11:28 p.m.
At 7:16 PM -0700 8/7/06, Bruce Lane wrote:
Agreed. As an author (and yes, I have had something published) there
is no way I'm allowing what I'm writing on an "Internet is the
Platform" setup.
I meant betting, but beating seems appropriate as that is what I fear
we'll be getting. Remember we're supposed to be good little zombies
lining the coffers of the corporations.
OTOH, you have
those of us that are writing software, articles, and books,
or creating music and video. You also have people with either very slow,
or no internet access. Plus there are the people that just value their
privacy.
While the first group might sucker into this "Internet is the Platform",
how many of the second group will?
Let me put it this way: Not only 'NO!' but 'FRELL, NO!!!' Am I making
sense, or just rambling, who knows. All I know is that I'm not
the least bit interested in the "Internet is the Platform", and I'm beating
that there are a lot of other people that feel that way. At the same time
I fear the corporations and governments might just force this down our
throats.
You're making plenty of sense, though the "beating" might get
a bit messy (did you mean 'betting?') And "they" are going to have to do a LOT of
forcing before I
would ever give up my right to run my own servers and domains. As
long as my ISP keeps my line up, I'll keep paying them to do so.
Period.
Hope your ISP is being as good about the FCC selling out to the phone
companies. Looks like I'll soon have one bill for my ISP and DSL
line, and that will be to Aracnet rather than Aracnet for the ISP
side and Verizon for the line.
If, further down the road, it turns out that I will
need to
buy something more powerful than a DSL pipe to continue being
self-hosted, then so be it. I ran a dialup FidoNet BBS for nearly
ten years, and I've been self-hosted for my 'net presence nearly as
long. I will NOT give it up without a fight!
Ditto. I've had my own server on the net for as long as there has
been DSL in the area, and I'm paying a lot extra to do this. I just
hope I don't have to switch to a business line in the future, as I'm
not sure I can afford that.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
8 Aug
8 Aug
4:17 p.m.
Rumor has it that Bruce Lane may have mentioned these words:
<SPLORRRFFF!!>
I concur wholeheartedly!
For my part: They can have my PC's,
microcontrollers, servers,
and my network when they pry them from my rotting carcass. Seriously.
Yup. Preachin' to the choir here... ;-)
Let me put it this way: Not only 'NO!'
but 'FRELL, NO!!!'
And if we're pulling John Crichton quotes: "Bill Gates can't guarantee
Windows; how you gonna guarantee my safety?"
And no, I won't let M$, Google or anyone else store my data. Even if I have
to go back to my Tandy CoCo3 to being my main machine!
And "they" are going to have to do a
LOT of forcing before I
would ever give up my right to run my own servers and domains. As long as
my ISP keeps my line up, I'll keep paying them to do so. Period.
If, further down the road, it turns out that I will need to buy
something more powerful than a DSL pipe to continue being self-hosted,
then so be it.
We're on the same wavelength yet again.... and I was thinking just before I
read this:
I ran a dialup FidoNet BBS for nearly ten years
I haven't, but I'd certainly start one to get the (or at least *a*) 'net
back to geek-only status... dammit, if ya don't wanna learn the difference
between a hard drive & a modem, you shouldn't be telecommunicating. [[ In
the car world: dammit, if ya don't wanna learn the difference between a
carburetor and a transmission, you shouldn't be rebuilding engines! ]]
I will NOT give it up without a fight!
Neither will I.
I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but maybe M$ & it's ilk _are_
the "New World Order???"
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy...
zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"
4:33 p.m.
Roger Merchberger wrote:
I got some claymore mines setup outside that only detonate when they see
Microsoft employees. By the way, I need a cardboard box to hide in while
I wait for some M$ employees to get close... then kill them!
Check my headers. I don't use Windows. We need a website descerning all
the horrible truth about Windows, in extravagant detail.
I wish there was still some BBSes left in my area... probably is, but I
can't find them.
--
The real problem with C++ for kernel modules is: the language just sucks.
-- Linus Torvalds
Rumor has it that Bruce Lane may have mentioned these
words:
I agree as well.
<SPLORRRFFF!!>
I concur wholeheartedly! For my part: They can have my PC's,
microcontrollers, servers,
and my network when they pry them from my rotting carcass. Seriously.
Yup. Preachin' to the choir here... ;-) Let me put it this way: Not only
'NO!' but 'FRELL, NO!!!'
And if we're pulling John Crichton quotes: "Bill Gates can't guarantee
Windows; how you gonna guarantee my safety?"
And no, I won't let M$, Google or anyone else store my data. Even if I
have to go back to my Tandy CoCo3 to being my main machine!
Google can store my pr0n. That's it. I don't mind that they'll probably
use their hands on things which are parts and not computer parts, but
damnit, I need more space for legitimate use.
And "they" are going to have to
do a LOT of forcing before I
would ever give up my right to run my own servers and domains. As long
as my ISP keeps my line up, I'll keep paying them to do so. Period.
If, further down the road, it turns out that I will need to
buy something more powerful than a DSL pipe to continue being
self-hosted, then so be it.
We're on the same wavelength yet again.... and I was thinking just
before I read this:
I ran a dialup FidoNet BBS for nearly ten years
I haven't, but I'd certainly start one to get the (or at least *a*) 'net
back to geek-only status... dammit, if ya don't wanna learn the
difference between a hard drive & a modem, you shouldn't be
telecommunicating. [[ In the car world: dammit, if ya don't wanna learn
the difference between a carburetor and a transmission, you shouldn't be
rebuilding engines! ]]
Cars are much akin to computers, I could start quoting similarties for
days on end. By the time I got done, I'd probably have mere seconds
before our expanding sun roasted my ass alive 5 billion years down the road.
I will NOT give it up without a fight!
Neither will I.
I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but maybe M$ & it's ilk
_are_ the "New World Order???"
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy...
zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"
6:01 p.m.
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 04:33 pm, Segin wrote:
We need a website descerning all the horrible truth
about Windows, in
extravagant detail.
Try microsuck.com. The tamer version of their name...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
5:59 p.m.
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 04:17 pm, Roger Merchberger wrote:
BigGov + BigCorp == BigOrg == Borg?
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
We're on the same wavelength yet again.... and I
was thinking just before I
read this:
I did, up until last October, but the callers were few and far between
towards the end. And dialup connecting would sure cost more than I can
afford.
I ran a dialup FidoNet BBS for nearly ten years
I haven't, but I'd certainly start one to get the (or at least *a*) 'net
back to geek-only status... dammit, if ya don't wanna learn the difference
between a hard drive & a modem, you shouldn't be telecommunicating. [[ In
the car world: dammit, if ya don't wanna learn the difference between a
carburetor and a transmission, you shouldn't be rebuilding engines! ]] I will NOT
give it up without a fight!
Neither will I.
I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but maybe M$ & it's ilk _are_
the "New World Order???" 
6:17 p.m.
On 8/8/2006 at 5:59 PM Roy J. Tellason wrote:
I did, up until last October, but the callers were few
and far between
towards the end. And dialup connecting would sure cost more than I can
afford.
I think I left off with Auntie, but had lots of other BBS hosting software
in the meantime. I was surprised the other day when I dug a hard drive out
of the pile and put it on a machine to see NT 4.0 boot and the BBS software
come right up. Still have the BBS distros for much of the stuff if
anyone's interested.
Cheers,
Chuck
11:52 p.m.
New subject: Geek-only net
At 4:17 PM -0400 8/8/06, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Bruce Lane may have mentioned these
words:
Let's see, there is HECnet, we've twenty some nodes online at the
moment. If you feel the need for a web browser, there is Freenet,
and I think one or two others.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
I ran a dialup FidoNet BBS for nearly ten years
I haven't, but I'd certainly start one to get the (or at least *a*)
'net back to geek-only status... dammit, if ya don't wanna learn the
difference between a hard drive & a modem, you shouldn't be
telecommunicating. [[ In the car
4:08 p.m.
On Monday 07 August 2006 07:58 pm, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Yah, that's something that billyboy has been trying to do for ages now. In
addition to changing the way things are done, it also creates a never-ending
revenue stream for "the providers" as well. We've already got a serious
disparity going on now between the traditional "content providers" and those
who can deal with the paradigm shift, and this is still on the "older" side
of things. And probably, in the long run, not going to be as successful as
they hope, even with those folks having legislation and such on their side.
On today's
BBC "Analysis", there's a little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all
better get used to it.
This whole "the Internet is the Platform" is rather amusing when you think
about it. It's basically Mainframe thinking. It's also about taking
control of peoples data away from them, and transferring ownership of that
data to the corporations. Granted you have plenty of people that use computers
to play games, surf,
do email, and *maybe* a little light word processing or spreadsheet usage.
They could care less about thier data or thier privicy.
OTOH, you have those of us that are writing software, articles, and books,
or creating music and video. You also have people with either very slow,
or no internet access. Plus there are the people that just value their
privacy.
Yes indeed.
While the first group might sucker into this
"Internet is the Platform",
how many of the second group will?
Not likely very many, and that group is getting bigger all the time.
For certain types of users, it might make sense, but
one size does not fit
all. Take for example the computers available right now that are targeted
at home use. You have handhelds, mini-laptops, laptops, giant-laptops,
desktops, mini-systems, and power-user setups, video game consoles and
set-top boxes. Each of these is a computer, each has its own "niche".
While some can be replaced by others, others can't. For example very few
laptops come even close to being able to take the place of a "power-user
setup", yet a mini-system, video game console, and set-top box are largely
the same system and could largely be replaced by the "Internet is the
Platform" idea.
Giant laptops? First I've heard of those. I woulnd't mind something that had
most of a "real" keyboard attached instead of those miniatureized abbreviated
ones they all seem to favor. The trend (that I've managed to observe, and I
surely don't claim to be on top of this stuff) seems to be to keep runtime at
an absurdly low number while continuing to add more features, more hardware,
and do other things to suck up any gains that might happen in terms of
improvements in battery technology or elsewhere.
Side note: If there's something out there that can be had either very cheap
or for free and that will run linux decently and that I can run in an
automotive environment for mapping and gps uses, I'd like to hear about it
offlist...
Am I making sense, or just rambling, who knows.
Makes perfect sense to me, and I suspect to many others on this list as well.
All I know is that I'm not the least bit
interested in the "Internet is the
Platform",
Nor am I.
and I'm beating that there are a lot of other
people that feel that way.
Not likely folks in here, anyway.
At the same time I fear the corporations and
governments might just force
this down our throats.
They'll likely do what they can manage to do to give them whatever advantage
they can in that sort of thing, because doing it that way really does seem
to suit _their_ interests better, but I don't think that in the long run
it's going to do them a whole lot of good, ultimately.
I hope. I suppose it's remotely possible that things might end up getting
really repressive instead, which some folks seem to think is what's coming.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
7:40 p.m.
At 4:08 PM -0400 8/8/06, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Giant laptops? First I've heard of those. I
woulnd't mind something that had
most of a "real" keyboard attached instead of those miniatureized abbreviated
ones they all seem to favor. The trend (that I've managed to observe, and I
surely don't claim to be on top of this stuff) seems to be to keep runtime at
an absurdly low number while continuing to add more features, more hardware,
and do other things to suck up any gains that might happen in terms of
improvements in battery technology or elsewhere.
By "Giant laptops" I mean those monster laptops that are supposed to
be desktop replacements. 17" screens and the like.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
7:18 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 16:58 -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Didn't you get the memo?
"The Network is the Computer"
:-)
David
On today's
BBC "Analysis", there's a little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all better
get used to it.
This whole "the Internet is the Platform" is rather amusing when you think
about it. It's basically Mainframe thinking. It's also about taking
control of peoples data away from them, and transferring ownership of that
data to the corporations.
7 Aug
7 Aug
10:33 p.m.
Quoth Chuck Guzis:
On today's BBC "Analysis", there's a
little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all better
get used to it.
Heh. I'm sure M$ and others would love nothing more than to make it so you
can store all your personal data on their remote servers for your
"access-your-data-from-anywhere" convenience... and pay that storage fee
every month, and that account-access fee every month, and buy into that
whole concept of "we'll store it for you, and by the way you'll have to
buy our specialty tools and processes to access them to their full
potential", and having all _my_ data subject to someone _else's_
potential system failures, and let's not even _contemplate_ the privacy
issues...
Nope. Not buying. I think the _idea_ of being able to access your data
remotely is nice, but this _method_ sounds boneheaded. I just hope to
whatever Gods there may be that the majority don't buy into this and make
it the next unfortunate "standard".
...Am I ranting? Oh, dear, I'm ranting. :)
-O.-
"...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
-A. Lincoln
"...but if you can fool them long enough to establish it as a new
standard, by the time they figure it out they'll be stuck with it."
-Edison
8 Aug
8 Aug
3:11 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On today's BBC "Analysis", there's a
little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all better
get used to it.
What I don't get is that even if a standard TV was of sufficient resolution to
support computer apps (AFAIK it's not, even with the high definition stuff
that's coming out), surely watching TV is typically a social activity whilst
using a computer tends to be a private one. Who the hell wants to sit in the
lounge using the TV to surf and read email, with other household members
peering over their shoulder?
Sure, a TV and a computer has a display (heck, can't even just say 'CRT' any
more), but that's about as far as the similarity goes.
Ahh well, fingers crossed MS will invest heavily in it, nobody will buy it,
and they'll go bankrupt ;) (more likely, MS will invest heavily in it,
everyone will buy it and because MS says it's good, and then everyone will be
pissed off but it'll be too late by then...)
I still can't get my head around anyone wanting a (low quality) camera on
their phone. Internet on the TV - you must be joking!
So, for someone who doesn't watch television and
can't see the screen on a
mobile, is there any better platform than a desktop PC?
SGI or Sun workstation [1] (assuming you mean 'PC' in the modern sense) :-)
[1] Although 'workstation' these days means a piece of wood that you put your
workstation on ;)
I don't know if this is off-topic because MS's
announcement is supposedly
of Momentous Import and reflects a change in the way we do things.
Remember the hype over thin clients? :-) (well, the second time around - X
terminals actually did that job pretty well, but the thin client nonsense of
the late 90's was bollocks)
cheers
Jules
4:35 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On today's BBC "Analysis", there's a
little segment on the issue of
personal computers being obsolete because of the rise of The Internet.
Supposedly, we're going to be using our televisions or mobile phones in
place of them. The whole segment hinges on the statement of MS that the
desktop PC is dead and that the future is The Internet and we'd all better
get used to it.
I can't play FPS games on my mobile phone or do my 3D rendering on The
Internet. In 20 years, sure. But for now, I'll stick with my desktop,
thanks.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
4:49 p.m.
Whine. Whine. Whine. Whine. Whine. Whine. Whine.
Whine. Whine. Whine.
Whine. Whine. Whine. Whine. Whine.
It is getting fucking boring, folks. I have scratchy records that
sound more interesting when they skip.
--
Will
6563
days inactive
6565
days old
23 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dholland＠woh.rr.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
kyrrin＠bluefeathertech.com -
ohh＠drizzle.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
rtellason＠verizon.net -
segin2005＠gmail.com -
THX1138＠dakotacom.net -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com -
zmerch-cctalk＠30below.com