[extropy-chat] Software exposure: was Re: Eugen Leitl, you got Klez

[Eugen Leitl]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:54:01PM +0930, emlyn on nagero wrote:
> 
> eeek

Allright, if I was a computer professional I'd store my email in a database,
and automatically replicate it across multiple machines. I'd still use Mutt,
though. And there's nothing wrong with vim (used to use Emacs, but switched
for overhead and keystroke miminization reasons).

Storing email in a centralised place and accessing it remotely via ssh is a
tolerable tradeoff. It's the only way I can instantly access some 40 kEmails
(it'd scale to >>100 k, though I've never had reason to find out) with 
regexp searches, procmail, signatures, instant delivery, mixmaster
access, etc.

> Multitasking was always a sad omission, although hard on the hardware imo 

It isn't. I had better multitasking in 1987 than I do now. It's better on OS
X, and presumably it'd came close on x86 if was bored enough to tweak hardware,
system parameters, and switching to a different kernel branch.

Life's too short for that.

> (although Apple seemed to manage something close). Multiuser... what for? 

It isn't hard (though context switch is cheaper on PowerPC than x86). It's
just about being able to hire intelligent programmers, and care enough to do
so.

Multiuser? Because my computers typically get used by several people, and
nothing helps to debug security than to have your system survive some 100
semianonymous, malicious users.

> TCP/IP stack... what for? How could the home user/small business user of 

Because being exposed to millions of malicious users is harsher still. And
computers without a network are just glorified calculators and typing
machines. Networks are so 1960s.

> the eighties possibly use this stuff? And at what expense; what would they 
> sacrifice for it?

Why do you automatically assume a zero or a negative-sum game? There wouldn't
be any expense in an end-1980s machine, it would be completely lost in the
overhead. It would have considerable strategic advantages.

> I don't agree. The market for which they were developing didn't want a full 

The market didn't want anything. The market took whatever came along,
blindly. It wasn't the market's fault. It was the fault of those bearded
idiots and Gates/Allen, to first purchase a broken product, and then
perpetuate the brain damage by wrapping compatibility layers around it.

> strength OS, it wanted maximum performance for minimum $. The unscrupulous 

Hiring competent or incompetent people doesn't result in a visible price
difference in the product price tag. Of course, it's hard if you're an idiot
to start with, and don't know shit from shinola.

> bit is something I can't argue against :-)
> 
> It's almost never about technology.

Transhumanism is always about the technology. The business part is just a
vehicle.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040210/00814efb/attachment.bin>