Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153592 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300 |
| Last post | 2015-11-03 11:24 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 216 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 13:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 10:28 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-30 09:05 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:25 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:32 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-01 20:01 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-31 08:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:01 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 17:34 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:49 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:23 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:59 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:19 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 03:52 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 06:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-07 10:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 06:20 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 09:16 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 07:38 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 10:13 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:04 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-10 22:48 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-10 15:09 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-11 12:21 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-11 07:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:24 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:37 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-12 11:45 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-12 17:47 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2015-11-15 22:58 +0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-10 19:45 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-11 10:41 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-11 16:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-11 14:18 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:41 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-11 21:29 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:27 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2015-11-12 12:34 +0200
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-12 09:11 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:40 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-12 11:47 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-12 15:32 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-13 12:05 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-13 15:24 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:36 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Ingo Paschke <ipaschke@lpclabs.de> - 2015-11-08 11:46 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:23 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-08 13:46 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-11-08 19:14 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-08 12:26 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-08 12:45 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 08:49 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-09 00:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 06:13 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-11-09 13:48 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 21:09 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-11-10 10:01 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 15:55 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-11-10 17:40 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-10 13:15 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-10 14:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 06:24 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-08 17:45 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-09 11:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-09 13:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:01 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 12:08 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 14:49 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 13:40 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 09:48 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:19 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-10 08:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-10 12:10 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-10 16:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-10 17:42 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-10 12:10 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 07:57 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-10 14:16 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:32 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-07 19:32 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 13:06 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 06:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:59 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-11-03 17:29 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2015-10-30 20:27 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-30 20:08 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-30 21:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 14:19 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 16:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-02 12:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 19:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 21:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-03 14:03 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 21:11 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 20:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-30 19:53 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:09 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-31 12:02 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-01 09:42 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-01 13:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:45 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:06 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-03 22:06 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:43 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-03 23:46 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-04 04:31 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-04 07:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:28 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 03:49 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:23 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 04:35 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:24 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-04 09:55 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 12:42 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 14:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 11:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 16:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:55 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 18:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 18:48 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 13:05 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 11:52 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 19:36 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:15 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 21:35 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2015-11-04 21:07 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:52 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 02:56 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 03:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:02 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-08 11:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-08 15:33 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 11:39 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-05 20:44 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 06:19 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-06 07:02 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 09:01 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-05 00:09 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 11:03 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-05 08:01 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 06:49 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 06:56 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 10:27 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-30 14:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 11:05 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-30 15:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 11:58 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:26 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:18 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-31 10:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 07:08 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 10:27 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 10:51 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-31 15:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 09:39 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 13:10 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 17:01 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:19 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:39 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-30 16:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:37 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:26 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-30 17:40 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 07:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 20:28 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 11:11 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-31 14:57 +0300
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 10:19 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 16:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:14 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2015-11-01 18:52 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 13:11 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-11-02 03:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 15:36 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:15 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 06:56 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-11-02 13:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-02 14:27 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 09:31 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-02 10:53 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 07:19 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-02 09:50 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 09:59 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-02 10:30 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Mike Lander <mkl2379@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:00 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 12:24 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-11 19:10 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 11:24 -0500
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <%QMYx.807$CP7.251@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #153611 |
Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> writes: >On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:05:05 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> >My software takes the hard work out of building neural network >applications. I did not have a problem with data handling. The problem >I had was multithreading on Linux. On Windows multithreading and >making the hardware run up to 8 threads is quite simple. I've been using pthreads (very extensively) on unix and linux since before POSIX 1003.4 was published[*]. They're very straightfoward (different from, and perhaps more flexible than Windows, IMO). Before that, various proprietary threading models starting in 1984 (Burroughs MCP/VS was multithreaded internally and ran on up to 4-way SMP mainframes). [*] Starting with SVR4.2/MP circa 1992/3. I'd be interested in further details of the difficulties you found vs. windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 17:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1706418232.467931456.119176.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153611 |
Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:05:05 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> writes: >> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:27:12 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Huh? >>>> >>>> Name one application. >>>> Been using Fvwm on Linux (now Fedora) for ages. >>>> Never encountered anything that wouldn't run in that environment. >>> >>> Not true. The cost of maintaining my software to work on Linux was so >>> much that I stopped trying! >> >> No idea what you're referring to or what your software did. >> The stuff I maintain has been working fine. >> >> At work I supported a large pile of software that ran on 6 or 7 >> platforms including Windows and z/OS. Linux was one of the >> easiest platforms to deal with. >> >> Even the DB part was easy. On other platforms we used DB2, Informix, >> Oracle. Adding MySQL was a breeze. GCC is a pleasure compared to >> the alternatives too. > > My software takes the hard work out of building neural network > applications. I did not have a problem with data handling. The problem > I had was multithreading on Linux. On Windows multithreading and > making the hardware run up to 8 threads is quite simple. > I hadn't noticed any particular problems. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hMMYx.806$CP7.89@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #153610 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> writes: > >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:27:12 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Huh? >>> >>>Name one application. >>>Been using Fvwm on Linux (now Fedora) for ages. >>>Never encountered anything that wouldn't run in that environment. >> >> Not true. The cost of maintaining my software to work on Linux was so >> much that I stopped trying! > >No idea what you're referring to or what your software did. >The stuff I maintain has been working fine. > >At work I supported a large pile of software that ran on 6 or 7 >platforms including Windows and z/OS. Linux was one of the >easiest platforms to deal with. > >Even the DB part was easy. On other platforms we used DB2, Informix, >Oracle. Adding MySQL was a breeze. GCC is a pleasure compared to >the alternatives too. DB2 and Oracle are both available for linux[*]. Informix used to be available on Solaris/Unixware; not sure about linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n109rp$vqp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153619 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> writes: >> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:27:12 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Huh? >>>> >>>>Name one application. >>>>Been using Fvwm on Linux (now Fedora) for ages. >>>>Never encountered anything that wouldn't run in that environment. >>> >>> Not true. The cost of maintaining my software to work on Linux was so >>> much that I stopped trying! >> >>No idea what you're referring to or what your software did. >>The stuff I maintain has been working fine. >> >>At work I supported a large pile of software that ran on 6 or 7 >>platforms including Windows and z/OS. Linux was one of the >>easiest platforms to deal with. >> >>Even the DB part was easy. On other platforms we used DB2, Informix, >>Oracle. Adding MySQL was a breeze. GCC is a pleasure compared to >>the alternatives too. > > DB2 and Oracle are both available for linux[*]. Informix used to be > available on Solaris/Unixware; not sure about linux. This was quite a few years ago, but I'm pretty sure Oracle was an option. We chose to go with the spirit of Linux and be as free (as in beer) as we could. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0LMYx.805$CP7.126@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #153605 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > >> There are small and light Linux distros out there already. The thing is, >> though, they're not the standard - and even Linux itself is pretty chaotic. A >> lot of Linux software seems to be aimed at one particular distro - like Ubuntu, >> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Still, open source is something that can be built >> on. > >Huh? > >Name one application. Synopsys, Cadence, Mentor Graphics EDA tools all are only _supported_ on specific Redhat (Centos/Scientific Linux) distributions. FlexLM is another example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n10779$it4$2@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153618 |
In article <0LMYx.805$CP7.126@fx11.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >> > >>> There are small and light Linux distros out there already. The thing is, >>> though, they're not the standard - and even Linux itself is pretty >chaotic. A >>> lot of Linux software seems to be aimed at one particular distro - >like Ubuntu, >>> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Still, open source is something that can >be built >>> on. >> >>Huh? >> >>Name one application. > >Synopsys, Cadence, Mentor Graphics EDA tools all are only >_supported_ on specific Redhat (Centos/Scientific Linux) >distributions. > >FlexLM is another example. FlexLM still gives me nightmares and has ever since the late 80's (IIRC) when I first saw it blow chunks and stop development cold until the server with the license manager for the compiler was rebooted. A clean restart of the process often didn't fix things. I was so pleased when gcc eliminated the need for the flexlm for most of my work and only the product development guys with compilers for embedded 68k boards needed to worry about flexlm. Bill -- -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LzOYx.14810$hD1.14392@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #153626 |
pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes: >In article <0LMYx.805$CP7.126@fx11.iad>, >Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >>Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>> >> >>>> There are small and light Linux distros out there already. The thing is, >>>> though, they're not the standard - and even Linux itself is pretty >>chaotic. A >>>> lot of Linux software seems to be aimed at one particular distro - >>like Ubuntu, >>>> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Still, open source is something that can >>be built >>>> on. >>> >>>Huh? >>> >>>Name one application. >> >>Synopsys, Cadence, Mentor Graphics EDA tools all are only >>_supported_ on specific Redhat (Centos/Scientific Linux) >>distributions. >> >>FlexLM is another example. > >FlexLM still gives me nightmares and has ever since the late 80's (IIRC) when I >first saw it blow chunks and stop development cold until the server with the >license manager for the compiler was rebooted. A clean restart of the process >often didn't fix things. > >I was so pleased when gcc eliminated the need for the flexlm for most of my >work and only the product development guys with compilers for embedded >68k boards needed to worry about flexlm. > Yes, per-seat licenses suck. All the EDA tools require them, sometimes several different licenses (one for design tools, one for layout tools, one for optimization tools, etc.).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n109nr$vqp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153618 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >> > >>> There are small and light Linux distros out there already. The thing is, >>> though, they're not the standard - and even Linux itself is pretty chaotic. A >>> lot of Linux software seems to be aimed at one particular distro - like Ubuntu, >>> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Still, open source is something that can be built >>> on. >> >>Huh? >> >>Name one application. > > Synopsys, Cadence, Mentor Graphics EDA tools all are only > _supported_ on specific Redhat (Centos/Scientific Linux) > distributions. > > FlexLM is another example. Can't find Symopsys. Cadence looks like the issue is "support" not will it work. Mentor looks like the same thing. They have a Novell version. FlexLM same deal, Linux or Solaris. Companies supplying binaries do have an issue. You build on Fedora 21 and the package ends up wanting shared libaries x.x. Other versions of the shared library may work fine, but you get complaints without the right version. Plenty of times, I just created a soft link and got the package to work fine. I ran some VPN software for years on Mandrake when the vendor insisted that only RedHat would do. So, I don't take "supported" to be the same thing as "aimed at", but I do agree that there is an issue. Someone trying to sell into the Linux market needs to keep a bunch of the major distros around and build for all of them if they really want to cover the market. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8DOYx.14811$hD1.2398@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #153632 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>> >> >>>> There are small and light Linux distros out there already. The thing is, >>>> though, they're not the standard - and even Linux itself is pretty chaotic. A >>>> lot of Linux software seems to be aimed at one particular distro - like Ubuntu, >>>> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Still, open source is something that can be built >>>> on. >>> >>>Huh? >>> >>>Name one application. >> >> Synopsys, Cadence, Mentor Graphics EDA tools all are only >> _supported_ on specific Redhat (Centos/Scientific Linux) >> distributions. >> >> FlexLM is another example. > >Can't find Symopsys. Try 'synopsys'. >Cadence looks like the issue is "support" not will it work. >Mentor looks like the same thing. They have a Novell version. >FlexLM same deal, Linux or Solaris. They distribute binaries. They won't support the binaries on arbitrary distributions, only on the listed ones. Any business using those tools _require_ vendor support, so they don't have the option of running on non-supported linux distributions. They're very expensive EDA tools. Sure, they may work, but when your designing a processor mask that costs over one million dollars, you don't shortcut the design tools. We just recently upgrated from redhat 5 to redhat 6.x, and it was painful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n10a2q015vj@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153592 |
On 2015-10-30, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: > Productivity demands that we junk everything comfortable, everything > safe, everything stable, set our faces to the wind, and explore the > unknown. Two words: learning curve. Time spent setting our faces to the wind and exploring the unknown is time not spent doing productive work. I'm the last one to denounce exploration, but there comes a point where the time spent exploring overcomes any productivity gain that might result. Remember that it's not just the IT departments that spend time on this. It's also every user who's forced to lay out money for new hardware and software and/or learn new procedures - some of which won't work as well as the old ones. Change for the sake of change is seldom a good thing - especially if it requires that you throw away an optimum solution that you already have. Indeed, much of what I see today is solutions searching for problems - and the creation of problems for these solutions. The ultimate solution is one that so disrupts things that the original problem doesn't exist anymore. Whether the new problems this inevitably creates are even worse is something we have to watch out for. In any event, I suspect that what's driving wanton change is not a desire to improve the lot of users, but merely the generation of sales for hardware and software vendors. (There, that should merge this thread with the one about psychopathic, viral corporations.) -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 07:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3r923.5q5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #153634 |
On Fri, 2015-10-30, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2015-10-30, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: > >> Productivity demands that we junk everything comfortable, everything >> safe, everything stable, set our faces to the wind, and explore the >> unknown. > > Two words: learning curve. Time spent setting our faces to the wind > and exploring the unknown is time not spent doing productive work. > I'm the last one to denounce exploration, but there comes a point > where the time spent exploring overcomes any productivity gain that > might result. Remember that it's not just the IT departments that > spend time on this. It's also every user who's forced to lay out > money for new hardware and software and/or learn new procedures - > some of which won't work as well as the old ones. > > Change for the sake of change is seldom a good thing - especially > if it requires that you throw away an optimum solution that you > already have. Indeed, much of what I see today is solutions searching > for problems - and the creation of problems for these solutions. > > The ultimate solution is one that so disrupts things that the original > problem doesn't exist anymore. Whether the new problems this inevitably > creates are even worse is something we have to watch out for. > > In any event, I suspect that what's driving wanton change is not a > desire to improve the lot of users, but merely the generation of sales > for hardware and software vendors. And generation of work and distractions for free software developers. "The Devil makes work for idle hands" is a phrase that springs to mind. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84971b2a-225d-4066-9b04-5aa93e5183a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153592 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:53:54 AM UTC-4, RS Wood wrote: > //clip > In practice, the growing sophistication of software has meant that > while computers certainly feel faster than they did thirty or forty > years ago, the difference - as far as our perceptions are concerned - > isn't nearly as great. Files might load a thousand times faster, but we > still experience a perceptible interval between selecting "Open..." and > being able to work on a file. Well, one must compare apples to apples to make such a comparison. Many times that is not possible. A secondary issue is economics. Hardware has dropped drmatically in price, so we can easily afford more powerful computers. In the early days of PC's, they weren't even "personal"--we had to share them. Anyway, the answer is "it depends". In the mainframe world, it is clear computers are much faster. Many mainframe jobs are old or even very old, so it is easy to compare run time of the same job today to that of years ago. For instance, a COBOL compilation that once needed 10 minutes wallclock is now done in 15-30 seconds. On the mainframe, part of the speed buildup isn't only faster hardware, but also more of it. In the old days, one might wait 0.5 to 24 hours to get that compile run since the machine was full, but now it's run immediately. In the PC world, the comparison is tougher because our progrmas keep changing. But I still use Word Ver 6 (which is old now), and it runs really fast. Old DOS programs (liked compiled QB4.5 stuff) really flies now. HOWEVER, most often people must use current versions of software, which have become bloated and use up all the new CPU cycles have our modern machines. > Thirty years ago, Ted Nelson, one of the great visionaries of > computing, said that our devices had to deliver a 'bingo effect' - as > soon as you reached out for a document, it should be there, ready to > edit. Today we open a document in Microsoft Word - even on a multi-Ghz > machine with a solid state disk and plenty of RAM - in a process that > always takes a few seconds. And it always has. Sure, it takes a few > less seconds than it may have back in 1986, using Microsoft Word on the > first Macintosh Plus, but where's that thousand-fold improvement from > Moore's Law? > A decade ago virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier noted the complexity > of software seems to outpace improvements in hardware, giving us the > sense that we're running in place. Our computers, he argued, have > become more complex and less reliable. We can see the truth of this > everywhere: Networked systems provide massive capacities but introduce > great vulnerabilities. Simple programs bloat with endless features. > Things get worse, not better. > Anyone who's built a career in IT understands this technical debt. > Legacy systems persist for decades. Every major operating system - > desktop and mobile - has bugs so persistent they seem more like > permanent features than temporary mistakes. Yet we constantly build > news things on top of these increasingly rickety scaffolds. We do more, > so we crash more - our response to that has been to make crashes as > nearly painless as possible. The hard lockups and BSODs of a few years > ago have morphed a momentary disappearance, as if nothing of real > consequence has happened. > Worse still, we seem to regard every aspect of IT with a ridiculous and > undeserved sense of permanence. We don't want to throw away our old > computers while they still work. We don't want to abandon our old > programs. Some of that is pure sentimentality - after all, why keep > using something that's slow and increasingly less useful? More of it > reflects the investment of time and attention spent learning a > sophisticated piece of software. > The processes that software encapsulates will inevitably be examined, > improved, refined, and repackaged as other processes. > Yet a commitment to obsolescence is the unspoken agreement for all > things IT. Yes, you may treasure that NetWare server with sixteen years > continuous uptime, but does it really have utility when everyone, > everywhere can access cloud-based data storage API? Embracing the new > requires us to loosen our grip on the old. > Some may well be thinking: that way lies madness. If we changed our > systems all the time, nothing would work. Consider: nearly every > organisation of any scale has legacy (but functioning) systems so old > they can no longer be upgraded or even maintained properly. Uptime has > become a god, and capacity has been sacrificed on its altar. > Another view is that the industry that creates disruption is ironically > terrified to disrupt itself. The biggest vendors cleverly act more as > psychiatrists than problem-solvers, soothing fears, reassuring IT > managers with gentle whispers of 'Everything will be alright,' as both > walk a garden path into irrelevance. > Embracing change means abandoning the false sense of stability IT has > offered management as part of its bargain to increase productivity. > Productivity is not a function of stability. It's about the wholesale > revision of business processes to meet or generate market needs. > Productivity demands that we junk everything comfortable, everything > safe, everything stable, set our faces to the wind, and explore the > unknown. The IT department that fails to heed this lesson fails the > business it serves. A recent quip from Saul Kaplan puts it best: > "Marginal cost of staying the same is rising. Think of it as inflation > eating away at your relevancy rather than capital." > Hostage to forces that want to contain its disruptive nature, IT has > become infrastructure where it should always be a strategic asset, > wielded like a blade, cutting a swath through markets and competitors. > How many IT departments can say they are the most important element of > the business? Not many. That's the sure sign that IT is itself ready to > be utterly disrupted. (R) > //--clip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 15:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9it83Fee55U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153592 |
"RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/ > > //--clip > In practice, the growing sophistication of software has meant that while > computers certainly feel faster than they did thirty or forty years ago, > the difference - as far as our perceptions are concerned - isn’t nearly as > great. Files might load a thousand times faster, but we still experience a > perceptible interval between selecting “Open...” and being able to work on > a file. Not anymore with plenty of well implemented systems. > Thirty years ago, Ted Nelson, one of the great visionaries of computing, > said that our devices had to deliver a ‘bingo effect’ - as soon as you > reached out for a document, it should be there, ready to edit. Today we > open a document in Microsoft Word - even on a multi-Ghz machine with a > solid state disk and plenty of RAM - in a process that always takes a few > seconds. Not here with the files I normally do in Word. > And it always has. Nope. > Sure, it takes a few less seconds than it may have back in 1986, using > Microsoft Word on the first Macintosh Plus, but where’s that thousand-fold > improvement from Moore’s Law? Sure. That doesn’t apply to a lot of things. > A decade ago virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier noted the complexity of > software seems to outpace improvements in hardware, giving us the sense > that we’re running in place. Our computers, he argued, have become more > complex Yes. > and less reliable. No. My smartphone and desktop PC are MUCH more reliable than they ever were in the past. > We can see the truth of this everywhere: Networked systems provide massive > capacities but introduce great vulnerabilities. But those vulnerabilities aren't hard to avoid. > Simple programs bloat with endless features. Things get worse, not better. Plenty of things get MUCH better like being able to tap on a phone number you see anywhere, in a browser, in facebook etc and have it call that number. Same with an address, just tap on it and have it navigate to there. > Anyone who’s built a career in IT understands this technical debt. Legacy > systems persist for decades. Every major operating system - desktop and > mobile - has bugs so persistent they seem more like permanent features > than temporary mistakes. Can't think of any persistent bug that causes me any problem. > Yet we constantly build news things on top of these increasingly rickety > scaffolds. I just don’t buy the claim that they are increasingly rickety. iOS is much LESS rickety than say Win is. > We do more, Yes. > so we crash more Nope, I crash a lot less than I ever did. > - our response to that has been to make crashes as nearly painless as > possible. The hard lockups and BSODs of a few years ago have morphed a > momentary disappearance, And that is a very significant advance. > as if nothing of real consequence has happened. It hasn’t if its only momentary. > Worse still, we seem to regard every aspect of IT with a ridiculous and > undeserved sense of permanence. We don’t want to throw away our old > computers while they still work. We don’t want to abandon our old > programs. Some of that is pure sentimentality - after all, why keep using > something that’s slow and increasingly less useful? Plenty don’t keep stuff like that. > More of it reflects the investment of time and attention spent learning a > sophisticated piece of software. > The processes that software encapsulates will inevitably be examined, > improved, refined, and repackaged as other processes. > Yet a commitment to obsolescence is the unspoken agreement for all things > IT. Yes, you may treasure that NetWare server with sixteen years > continuous uptime, I don’t. > but does it really have utility when everyone, everywhere can access > cloud-based data storage API? Embracing the new requires us to loosen our > grip on the old. And plenty discard the old very readily. > Some may well be thinking: that way lies madness. If we changed our > systems all the time, nothing would work. Consider: nearly every > organisation of any scale has legacy (but functioning) systems so old they > can no longer be upgraded or even maintained properly. Uptime has become a > god, and capacity has been sacrificed on its altar. Not here it hasn’t. > Another view is that the industry that creates disruption is ironically > terrified to disrupt itself. The biggest vendors cleverly act more as > psychiatrists than problem-solvers, soothing fears, reassuring IT managers > with gentle whispers of ‘Everything will be alright,’ as both walk a > garden path into irrelevance. > Embracing change means abandoning the false sense of stability IT has > offered management as part of its bargain to increase productivity. > Productivity is not a function of stability. It’s about the wholesale > revision of business processes to meet or generate market needs. And that keeps happening with everything from bill paying to the replacement of the use of checks with electronic transactions to tap and go cards to ApplePay and PayPal. > Productivity demands that we junk everything comfortable, everything safe, > everything stable, set our faces to the wind, and explore the unknown. And plenty of us are happy to do that. > The IT department that fails to heed this lesson fails the business it > serves. A recent quip from Saul Kaplan puts it best: “Marginal cost of > staying the same is rising. Think of it as inflation eating away at your > relevancy rather than capital.” > Hostage to forces that want to contain its disruptive nature, IT has > become infrastructure where it should always be a strategic asset, wielded > like a blade, cutting a swath through markets and competitors. How many IT > departments can say they are the most important element of the business? > Not many. That’s the sure sign that IT is itself ready to be utterly > disrupted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 11:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n127gt$pnm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153592 |
"RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... One thing is certain, and that is that your post will serve to identify those who are the real computer scientists and engineers, and those who are merely computer programmsers enslaved to someone else's idea of what is a computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 14:57 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <n12aap$909$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #153677 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> Wrote in message: > "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > > One thing is certain, and that is that your post will serve to identify > those who are the > real computer scientists and engineers, and those who are merely computer > programmsers enslaved to someone else's idea of what is a computer. > Thanks but I doubt it. There are lots of real computer scientists and engineers out there who finds the details chosen on their behalf to sit their purposes well enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 10:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n12ihm$vad$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153677 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > > One thing is certain, and that is that your post will serve to identify > those who are the > real computer scientists and engineers, and those who are merely computer > programmsers enslaved to someone else's idea of what is a computer. That identification will occur only based on your own point of view. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n12q2s$tkt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153687 |
"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message news:n12ihm$vad$1@dont-email.me... > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > >> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message >> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> One thing is certain, and that is that your post will serve to identify >> those who are the >> real computer scientists and engineers, and those who are merely computer >> programmsers enslaved to someone else's idea of what is a computer. > > That identification will occur only based on > your own point of view. My point of view is the one that matters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 04:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <news.Sat.20151031.041420.PDT.737@mariposabill.com> |
| In reply to | #153677 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > > One thing is certain, and that is that your post will serve to identify > those who are the > real computer scientists and engineers, and those who are merely computer > programmsers enslaved to someone else's idea of what is a computer. I don't catch your drift. -- Bill Evans / Box 1224 / Mariposa, CA 95338 / (209)742-4720 Mail-To: wje@acm.org -- PGP encrypted mail preferred. -- pgpkey.mariposabill.com for public key. Key #: 8D8B521B PGPprint: 0A9C 3545 8FFF 7501 6265 1519 40FF 76F9 8D8B 521B
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 18:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m30igc-iu4.ln1@murmur.very.softly> |
| In reply to | #153592 |
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
On 2015-10-30, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/
>
>
> //--clip
> In practice, the growing sophistication of software has meant that
> while computers certainly feel faster than they did thirty or forty
> years ago, the difference - as far as our perceptions are concerned -
> isn’t nearly as great. Files might load a thousand times faster, but we
> still experience a perceptible interval between selecting “Open...” and
> being able to work on a file.
That notion is allready well out of date.
In the last few years the increase of software load is no longer compensated
by the hardware speed increase.
I'd say - from my 30 year experience in IT and engineering - that we have
been going backwards for the last 3 years at least. And for litterally zero
increase of functionality or reliability. On that last point, we've lost a
lot.
There are types of software that have been doing the same type of work with
the same options for 10-15 years now. Because the companies want to earn a
living, they have to push out a new release every 2-3 years max. And
because there is nothing new to come up with, the interface is changed. And
because it's been changed for the sake of changing it, it has not been
improving...
As a matter of fact, in some weird cases we've lost things. I vaguely
remember that IBM had build voice recognition into it's multitasking OS/2.
Ran rather smoothly on a Pentium 75 MHz with 4MB RAM. Mickeysoft was still
in it's task switching Win95 but promised voice recognition in (still not
multitasking) Win98. Never saw the day of light. But their promise kept
people from making the step forward. And while there is voice recognition
soft, it's still not build into the base OS, and probably consumes a massive
cpu and ram load.
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9nv39Fn12nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153743 |
"Rikishi42" <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> wrote in message news:m30igc-iu4.ln1@murmur.very.softly... > ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.] > On 2015-10-30, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/ >> >> >> //--clip >> In practice, the growing sophistication of software has meant that >> while computers certainly feel faster than they did thirty or forty >> years ago, the difference - as far as our perceptions are concerned - >> isn’t nearly as great. Files might load a thousand times faster, but we >> still experience a perceptible interval between selecting “Open...” and >> being able to work on a file. > > That notion is allready well out of date. > In the last few years the increase of software load is no longer > compensated > by the hardware speed increase. I don’t buy that with smartphones alone. > I'd say - from my 30 year experience in IT and engineering - that we have > been going backwards for the last 3 years at least. I don’t buy that either with smartphones alone. > And for litterally zero increase of functionality or reliability. Or that either. > On that last point, we've lost a lot. Like hell we have with smartphones alone. > There are types of software that have been doing the same type of work > with > the same options for 10-15 years now. Yes, but we have also seen a lot of new ones too with smartphones alone. > Because the companies want to earn a living, they have to push > out a new release every 2-3 years max. And because there is > nothing new to come up with, the interface is changed. And with smartphones that has improved things out of sight. > And because it's been changed for the sake > of changing it, it has not been improving... That's a lie with smartphones doing what used to be done on desktops and laptops, allowing it to be done anywhere any time you need to do that. > As a matter of fact, in some weird cases we've lost things. Not very often. > I vaguely remember that IBM had build voice recognition > into it's multitasking OS/2. Ran rather smoothly on a > Pentium 75 MHz with 4MB RAM. And now runs fine any any old smartphone with even less power and ram. > Mickeysoft was still in it's task switching Win95 but promised voice > recognition in (still not multitasking) Win98. Never saw the day of > light. But has on smartphones instead. > But their promise kept people from making the step forward. I don’t buy that. > And while there is voice recognition > soft, it's still not build into the base OS, And it shouldn’t be. > and probably consumes a massive cpu and ram load. Nope, not on smartphones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web