Re: Google Operating System

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:48 PM, John Williams wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > > I'd estimate the efficiency of my gmail filter is 99% or better. > > That is a particularly uninformative statistic. > > Much more interesting would be two figures: probability of fal

Re: Google Operating System

At 11:48 PM Thursday 7/9/2009, John Williams wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > I'd estimate the efficiency of my gmail filter is 99% or better. That is a particularly uninformative statistic. Much more interesting would be two figures: probability of false positive

Re: Google Operating System

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > I'd estimate the efficiency of my gmail filter is 99% or better. That is a particularly uninformative statistic. Much more interesting would be two figures: probability of false positives ( number of real marked as spam / number of real), a

Re: Google Operating System

Andrew wrote: > > The spam filter on Pegaus Mail works fine for me, and it's mine > rather then being in the control of a company which is going to scan > my emails. I've yet to find (and this includes gmail) another filter > which is more than 90% accurate for me. > I'd estimate the efficiency o

Re: Google Operating System

- Original Message - From: "Bruce Bostwick" To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Google Operating System > > Sounds like you might know the right people to ask for a tour*. ;) > > (*one not involvng "Space Center Houston"..

Re: Google Operating System

On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Rceeberger wrote: On 7/9/2009 11:15:40 AM, Bruce Bostwick (lihan161...@sbcglobal.net) wrote: "At the risk of being flamed, I might also point out that NASA has long since forbidden any primary functionality on ISS from running on Windows platforms because of stabi

Re: Google Operating System

On 7/9/2009 11:15:40 AM, Bruce Bostwick (lihan161...@sbcglobal.net) wrote: >"At the risk of being flamed, I might also point out that NASA has long >since forbidden any primary functionality on ISS from running on >Windows platforms because of stability concerns -- if it's onboard and >actua

Re: Mention of David Brin

At 07:07 PM Thursday 7/9/2009, hkhenson wrote: snip (considerable) On the other hand, also coming into my screen today was a blog entry from The Oildrum, specifically a guest blog under the byline of "Gail the Actuary" in which an expert on space-bas

Re: Google Operating System

At 10:35 PM Wednesday 7/8/2009, John Williams wrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Rceeberger wrote: > I don't see how turning your PC into a dumb terminal could be considered an advance. > I'm not storing my stuff on Google's servers. My impression is that the "Chrome OS" will allow you to

Mention of David Brin

snip (considerable) On the other hand, also coming into my screen today was a blog entry from The Oildrum, specifically a guest blog under the byline of "Gail the Actuary" in which an expert on space-based solar power explained how a new approach to

Re: Google Operating System

On 8 Jul 2009 at 23:43, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Charlie Wrote > > ...and Google already have one. It's called Android, plus there's gOS which > > Google had hefty input into. And there are miriad other Linuces and BSDs to > > try, up to and including Darwin/OSX. So I'm with Will (you can pick > >

Re: Google Operating System

On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Who says M$ won't have users pay to play M$-Linux? It's possible that the worse nightmare of the free-software jihad community happens: M$ may embrace, extend and then extinguish Linux. The way they "embraced and extended" the Web with Inter

Re: Google Operating System

Bruce Bostwick wrote: > >> Not to mention that changing Windows virtual monopoly to *Nix >> monopoly is _very bad_ for the development of new techs. > > How would migrating to a larger user base for *nix be bad for the > development of new techs? > Because Monopoly is Evil. > Other than by bre

Re: Google Operating System

On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Bruce Bostwick wrote: (As far as why .. well, it's possible that Google has taken notice that Microsoft has been promoting Bing pretty heavily, and this is a shot across their bow. If Chrome OS succeeds, and evolves into something that can

Re: Google Operating System

On Jul 9, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Dave Land wrote: I am not like our friend Mario with his "57 Varieties" approach to operating systems. I use Mac OS X almost exclusively because operating system fit and finish matter to me. (This is not a statement of superiority to Mario, merely noting a diffe

Re: Google Operating System

Bruce Bostwick wrote: > > (As far as why .. well, it's possible that Google has taken notice > that Microsoft has been promoting Bing pretty heavily, and this is a > shot across their bow. If Chrome OS succeeds, and evolves into > something that can displace Windows as a full-functioning OS

Re: Google Operating System

On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: (As far as why .. well, it's possible that Google has taken notice that Microsoft has been promoting Bing pretty heavily, and this is a shot across their bow. If Chrome OS succeeds, and evolves into something that can displace Windows as a

Re: Google Operating System

On 10/07/2009, at 12:53 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 09/07/2009, at 1:35 PM, John Williams wrote: My impression is that the "Chrome OS" will allow you to avoid just what you say above. It is an actual OS, although probably "OS lite" woul

Re: Google Operating System

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 09/07/2009, at 1:35 PM, John Williams wrote: >> My impression is that the "Chrome OS" will allow you to avoid just >> what you say above. It is an actual OS, although probably "OS lite" >> would be a better term. > > ...and Google already h

Re: Google Operating System

On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html It's brilliant start to finish, but I especially liked: Trying to make an OS out of Chrome is like saying you're going to turn a Pontiac Aztek into a st

Re: Google Operating System

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Dave Land wrote: >    http://bit.ly/1m1rVP > > or, if you prefer full-blooded URLs: > > >  http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html > > It's brilliant start to finish, but I especially liked: > >    Trying to make an OS out of

Re: Google Operating System

John Williams wrote: > > My impression is that the "Chrome OS" will allow you to avoid just > what you say above. It is an actual OS, although probably "OS lite" > would be a better term. It will be able to run programs on your own > CPU, provided they conform to whatever API google is coding, an

Re: Google Operating System

Charlie Wrote ...and Google already have one. It's called Android, plus there's gOS which > Google had hefty input into. And there are miriad other Linuces and BSDs to > try, up to and including Darwin/OSX. So I'm with Will (you can pick > yourselves up at your leisure). Don't see the point of Chr

Re: Google Operating System

On 09/07/2009, at 1:35 PM, John Williams wrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Rceeberger wrote: I don't see how turning your PC into a dumb terminal could be considered an advance. I'm not storing my stuff on Google's servers. My impression is that the "Chrome OS" will allow you to av