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

Tue Feb 10 14:05:24 UTC 2004

At 09:49 PM 10/02/2004, you wrote:
>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.

The world contains different people I guess. I don't stress too much over 
my email, and I lose it periodically to crashes, job changes, etc. I know 
that I am abnormal in not caring too much about it though.

I salute your effort though, Eugen, no irony.

> > 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.

Good old OS X. I never used it, but I heard it was pretty good (far 
superior to Windows technologically). Pity.

> > (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.

I don't know about that. Professional programmers mostly do what needs 
doing in the time frame. I'd say that multiuser wasn't required at the 
time. Think SOHO, and home user. If you needed multi-user, you got 
something of the ilk of SCO Unix (boo hiss!!!).

>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.

Security for what? So you can do multiuser? This is kind of circular. By 
far and away for the majority of 80s PCs (and 90s PCs), computer security 
involved remembering to lock your front door when you went out. Did you 
experience a totally different 80s computer scene to me? I remember 
magazines with programs printed out for you to type in to your computer, 
and lots of faffing about with floppy disks. I was happy enough with single 
user access because I only had one monitor and keyboard (and, eventually, 
mouse).

> > 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.

I believe the quote was that a computer without a printer is a toy. 
Networks may be 60s to you, but they were oh so 1995 for most home users. 
iirc commercial ISPs didn't turn up until, what, after '91? I agree with 
Bill, you are looking at this stuff from 2004, and forgetting what it was 
like on the ground back then.

> > 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.

Not really. After all, there were competitors with these features (eg OS-X 
as you mentioned, and the Mac OS was advanced compared to Windows). But the 
market didn't flood in that direction.

> > 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.

And unfortunately it was state mandated that we buy this OS. Oh wait, no, 
there were competitors, I forgot. Quite a few of them. The market didn't 
just swallow what it was fed, it chose.

> > 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.

What evidence do you have that MS's coders were stupid?

> > 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>

Transhumanism, imo, is about people. The technology is our environment, but 
it's always and only the backdrop to the play.

Emlyn

>______________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat