Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #9228 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300 |
| Last post | 2015-10-31 04:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 89 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
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? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:11 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-11-04 22:29 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 16:44 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 23:04 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:34 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-11-05 10:30 +0300
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Chadfield <stephen@chadfield.com> - 2015-11-05 13:39 +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? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-01 01:33 -0300
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? 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? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 10:14 -0800
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? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-01 01:23 -0300
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? "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? 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? 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? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0100
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? "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
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 11:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1797226466.468345546.196614.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #9353 |
Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote: > In alt.folklore.computers gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >> "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/ >> >> >> Very well said. >> >> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a retina >> display, >> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can control >> from the >> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in >> 1971. >> >> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has >> progressed, I feel more >> and more divorced from the computers that I love. >> > > Plying devils advocate: much of software bloat is forced by > hardware. A simple example is hard dirives. Random access > time to hard drives improved maybe 5 times compared to 196x > era. At the same time sequential read speed improved about > 1000 times and capacity about 10^5 times. Note that simple > operation "read the whole drive" now takes _much more_ time > than in the past (capacity increased faster than read speed). > Basically, without disk cache and large block transfers you > will get speed only slightly better than PDP-11/20. > > If you look at USB you will see that the specification > actually forces rather complicated implementation. Some > folks are very critial about USB. But face it: USB can > do several transfers to different devices without any > CPU activity during transfers -- you set up transactions, > let USB do its work and then collect results. And USB > support wide range of peripherials, with ability to hot > plug and autoconfigure devices. Would you like to > run sysgen every time before you insert a USB gadget? > Or have a setup were USB socket number 1 is dedicated > to keyboard, number 2 to mouse, number 3 to your specific > pendrive, etc. and trying to insert different device or > inserting device in wrong slot does not work. > > In MSDOS era hardware drivers could be simple, because > driver frequently would take over machine for duration > of the whole operation. More advanced version would > work with interrupts. But taking an interrupt (or > several) for transfer would lead to very bad speed on > modern machines -- modern hard drives and network cards > can transfer several dectors (or packets) per interupt. > > On different level, users now demand computers working > in their native language. So you either have each > country developinig their own national software (clearly > unfeasible) or some configurables codepages (workable > but messy) or Unicode. Now, Unicode has more than 10^6 > potential characters and more than 10^5 assigned, with > useful charactes spread out in several blocks. The > old school text software would use tables with 128 > entries (one for each ASCII code) to make decision. > Even several tables fits in few kB of memory. Naively > using the same approach with Unicode leads to tens > of MB memory use. Worse, some tables may need to be > initialized at runtime and than it leads to huge > slowdown. So someting smarter is meeded. But this > leads to much more complicated code which is still > slower than ASCII version. And this is just at very > basic level. On top of that you need to handle > varying text directions, complicated sorting > rules, etc. Basically you need large tables to > describe rules of various languages and special > libraries. > > An extra anecdote: some time ago I looked why Linux kernel > after boot took that much memory (more than 10 MB). Then > I realised that to manage memory Linux has tables with > entries per each pago of physical memory. Compared to > memory present in the machine the tables are tiny. And > they were "always" present -- simply on small machines > kernel code took much larger percentage of available > memory and memory usage of tables did not stand out. > In old days operating sytem would take sizable part > of available memory, frequently more than half. Modern > Linux kernel takes only tiny part of memory, so > relative overhead is quite small. > OS/2 version 3 started allocating memory in large blocks to cut down on table sizes. The hardware still requires a PTE per page, so until there's some kind of paradigm shift this memory is locked in. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d9vbedFsgsvU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #9380 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:03:47 -0500, Peter Flass wrote: > Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote: >> In alt.folklore.computers gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >>> "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/ >>> >>> >>> Very well said. >>> >>> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a >>> retina display, >>> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can >>> control from the ground up, just as I did with my first experience of >>> a PDP-11/20 back in 1971. >>> >>> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has >>> progressed, I feel more and more divorced from the computers that I >>> love. >>> >>> >> Plying devils advocate: much of software bloat is forced by hardware. >> A simple example is hard dirives. Random access time to hard drives >> improved maybe 5 times compared to 196x era. At the same time >> sequential read speed improved about 1000 times and capacity about 10^5 >> times. Note that simple operation "read the whole drive" now takes >> _much more_ time than in the past (capacity increased faster than read >> speed). Basically, without disk cache and large block transfers you >> will get speed only slightly better than PDP-11/20. >> >> If you look at USB you will see that the specification actually forces >> rather complicated implementation. Some folks are very critial about >> USB. But face it: USB can do several transfers to different devices >> without any CPU activity during transfers -- you set up transactions, >> let USB do its work and then collect results. And USB support wide >> range of peripherials, with ability to hot plug and autoconfigure >> devices. Would you like to run sysgen every time before you insert a >> USB gadget? >> Or have a setup were USB socket number 1 is dedicated to keyboard, >> number 2 to mouse, number 3 to your specific pendrive, etc. and trying >> to insert different device or inserting device in wrong slot does not >> work. >> >> In MSDOS era hardware drivers could be simple, because driver >> frequently would take over machine for duration of the whole operation. >> More advanced version would work with interrupts. But taking an >> interrupt (or several) for transfer would lead to very bad speed on >> modern machines -- modern hard drives and network cards can transfer >> several dectors (or packets) per interupt. >> >> On different level, users now demand computers working in their native >> language. So you either have each country developinig their own >> national software (clearly unfeasible) or some configurables codepages >> (workable but messy) or Unicode. Now, Unicode has more than 10^6 >> potential characters and more than 10^5 assigned, with useful charactes >> spread out in several blocks. The old school text software would use >> tables with 128 entries (one for each ASCII code) to make decision. >> Even several tables fits in few kB of memory. Naively using the same >> approach with Unicode leads to tens of MB memory use. Worse, some >> tables may need to be initialized at runtime and than it leads to huge >> slowdown. So someting smarter is meeded. But this leads to much more >> complicated code which is still slower than ASCII version. And this is >> just at very basic level. On top of that you need to handle varying >> text directions, complicated sorting rules, etc. Basically you need >> large tables to describe rules of various languages and special >> libraries. >> >> An extra anecdote: some time ago I looked why Linux kernel after boot >> took that much memory (more than 10 MB). Then I realised that to >> manage memory Linux has tables with entries per each pago of physical >> memory. Compared to memory present in the machine the tables are tiny. >> And they were "always" present -- simply on small machines kernel code >> took much larger percentage of available memory and memory usage of >> tables did not stand out. >> In old days operating sytem would take sizable part of available >> memory, frequently more than half. Modern Linux kernel takes only tiny >> part of memory, so relative overhead is quite small. >> >> > OS/2 version 3 started allocating memory in large blocks to cut down on > table sizes. The hardware still requires a PTE per page, so until > there's some kind of paradigm shift this memory is locked in. <nitpick> One PTE per page, and one PDE per page of PTEs... </nitpick> -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 08:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3m36g.bf4.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #9380 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:03:47 -0500, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > OS/2 version 3 started allocating memory in large blocks to cut down on > table sizes. The hardware still requires a PTE per page, so until there's > some kind of paradigm shift this memory is locked in. > > I see you'll soon be able to buy OS/2 again to run on bare metal: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/03/os2_returns_arca_noae/ -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[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 | #9228 |
"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 | #9228 |
"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$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #9259 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> Wrote in message: > "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > > One thing is certain, and that is that your post will serve to identify > those who are the > real computer scientists and engineers, and those who are merely computer > programmsers enslaved to someone else's idea of what is a computer. > Thanks but I doubt it. There are lots of real computer scientists and engineers out there who finds the details chosen on their behalf to sit their purposes well enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 10:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n12ihm$vad$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9259 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > > One thing is certain, and that is that your post will serve to identify > those who are the > real computer scientists and engineers, and those who are merely computer > programmsers enslaved to someone else's idea of what is a computer. That identification will occur only based on your own point of view. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n12q2s$tkt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9262 |
"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message news:n12ihm$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 | #9259 |
"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] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web