http://goo.gl/qs5Ld

<quote>
A Google-branded Chrome OS notebook will be launched by Inventec, with Acer 
and Hewlett-Packard following suit thereafter, according to a report.

The DigiTimes report puts the launch date of the Inventec notebook in 
November, with Acer and HP launching theirs a month later, in December.

Interestingly, the report did not cite Dell, which has said it would explore 
a Chrome OS device alongside Windows.

A source close to Google said this week that the Web giant is still on track 
to launch its Chrome OS by the end of the year, as well as its Chrome app 
store.

Google's Chrome OS is expected to be an ultrathin client on top of the 
Chrome browser, with the idea that the majority of activities will take 
place on the Web or within the cloud. A report erroneously suggested that 
Chrome OS devices would launch at Computex, with a second report stating 
that they would launch within the fourth quarter.

DigiTimes characterized the products as "smartbooks," using the ARM 
processor instead of a more common X86 chip from AMD or Intel. Those 
products would compete against netbooks from Asus or Acer, and perhaps the 
new Apple MacBook Air.
</quote>

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

On Nov 3, 9:20=A0am, Robin T Cox <nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
> http://goo.gl/qs5Ld
>
> <quote>
> A Google-branded Chrome OS notebook will be launched by Inventec, with Ac=
er
> and Hewlett-Packard following suit thereafter, according to a report.
>
> The DigiTimes report puts the launch date of the Inventec notebook in
> November, with Acer and HP launching theirs a month later, in December.
>
> Interestingly, the report did not cite Dell, which has said it would expl=
ore
> a Chrome OS device alongside Windows.
>
> A source close to Google said this week that the Web giant is still on tr=
ack
> to launch its Chrome OS by the end of the year, as well as its Chrome app
> store.
>
> Google's Chrome OS is expected to be an ultrathin client on top of the
> Chrome browser, with the idea that the majority of activities will take
> place on the Web or within the cloud. A report erroneously suggested that
> Chrome OS devices would launch at Computex, with a second report stating
> that they would launch within the fourth quarter.
>
> DigiTimes characterized the products as "smartbooks," using the ARM
> processor instead of a more common X86 chip from AMD or Intel. Those
> products would compete against netbooks from Asus or Acer, and perhaps th=
e
> new Apple MacBook Air.
> </quote>
>
> --
> Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

Doesn't Google intend to control the software you use, and to do
automatic updates when they think it needs replacing?  This is not
something geeks will like but it may appeal to business types, since
it will mean high security and essentially no malware.

Anyway, it will help people get the idea that computers !=3D Windows,
which is a good  thing.

nessuno wrote:

> Doesn't Google intend to control the software you use, and to do
> automatic updates when they think it needs replacing?  This is not
> something geeks will like but it may appeal to business types, since
> it will mean high security and essentially no malware.
> 
> Anyway, it will help people get the idea that computers != Windows,
> which is a good  thing.

I could well be wrong in this, and if so please shout, but I am under the 
impression that the idea is:-

- An OS (linux) and a browser (Chrome!), and very little more on the device.

- That OS and browser in effect "burned in".

- At switch-on, a check against the Google repository.
   Any conflict => an upgrade.

- Thus, the entire of your "local" S/W is about as secure as your BIOS is 
now - probably more so, since there is no other S/W available to tinker with 
it.

As for the S/W that you can use (Word Processor etc.) this is all web-based 
apps - thought not of necessity Google Apps?

I certainly go along with your "not for geeks" sentiment, but I can't help 
thinking that the consumer could find the whole concept very compelling.
So many people now seem to use a browser most of the time they are on the 
computer, *and* use web-based e-mail.
I can't help wondering even if the banks at some point in the future might 
start to insist that such a device be used for Internet banking 
transactions!

I'm a bit lost as to how you scan or print, etc.  
Presumably one can read/store files locally?
That apart, it might just fly (imo) !

On 2010-11-03, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:

> I'm a bit lost as to how you scan or print, etc.  
> Presumably one can read/store files locally?
> That apart, it might just fly (imo) !

You print web pages now that aren't "stored" on your computer. Complete
with formatting, colors, graphics, etc. Why not other documents as
well?

-- 
This library isn't safe - I just stumbled on an idea.
Aspire One, Peppermint Ice
Friends don't let friends use Windows

Sinister Midget III wrote:

> On 2010-11-03, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
> 
>> I'm a bit lost as to how you scan or print, etc.  
>> Presumably one can read/store files locally?
>> That apart, it might just fly (imo) !
> 
> You print web pages now that aren't "stored" on your computer. Complete
> with formatting, colors, graphics, etc. Why not other documents as
> well?

So where are the printer drivers?
You see, I've got this impression that you can't install *any* software on 
these devices.  In fact, I thought that I'd seen something about Google 
coming up with "Cloud Printing", whereby one can print on any "Cloud 
Registered" device.

Anything that you know about Chrome OS I'd be glad to read - information 
seems to have been very sparse.

Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:
> Sinister Midget III wrote:
>> On 2010-11-03, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
>> 
>>> I'm a bit lost as to how you scan or print, etc.  Presumably one can
>>> read/store files locally?  That apart, it might just fly (imo) !
>> 
>> You print web pages now that aren't "stored" on your computer.
>> Complete with formatting, colors, graphics, etc. Why not other
>> documents as well?
>
> So where are the printer drivers?

http://code.google.com/apis/cloudprint/docs/overview.html

> You see, I've got this impression that you can't install *any*
> software on these devices.  In fact, I thought that I'd seen something
> about Google coming up with "Cloud Printing", whereby one can print on
> any "Cloud Registered" device.
>
> Anything that you know about Chrome OS I'd be glad to read -
> information seems to have been very sparse.

They're keeping pretty tight-lipped about it, but it seems they are
close to a release:

[quote]
Google Chrome Operating System is launching on netbooks soon, according
to source code in Google Docs' that points to Google Cloud Print, the
printing technology for Chrome OS.

More evidence that Google Chrome Operating System is launching on
netbooks soon came from source code in Google Docs' that alluded to the
arrival of Google Cloud Print.

Chrome OS is a Web operating system Google is building as an alternative
to computers running traditional operating systems, such as Microsoft's
Windows and Apple's Mac.

Google Cloud Print is the de facto print medium for Chrome OS, allowing
any application print to any printer from any computing device using
Google's cloud computing infrastructure.

Google created the technology because it did not want to build printer
drivers for every computing device and operating system.

Google Operating System Nov. 2 detected this message in the Google Docs
code: "Coming soon: Third party applications, cloud printers, and sync
devices."

The idea is to move every available computing practice to Google's cloud
computing infrastructure. Google has been testing Cloud Print internally
and hopes to make it available in the coming months after testing it
with printer makers.

The bigger news is the imminent arrival of Chrome OS.
[/quote]

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Printers/Google-Chrome-OS-Cloud-Print-Code-in-Docs-428497/

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 20 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

On Nov 4, 10:03=A0am, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Sinister Midget III wrote:
> > On 2010-11-03, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:

> Anything that you know about Chrome OS I'd be glad to read - information
> seems to have been very sparse.

Google has been giving Previews of Chrome for a while now.  LXF
Magazine had a version for Intel this summer.

The Linux system was Ubuntu, but would have worked with any Linux
distribution.

Has a hyperfast boot - using a quick boot ultrafast probe, and modules
that load instantly.  This reduces the boot time from 30-45 seconds
down to about 6-10 seconds.

It's the same Linux kernel, but the probes are limited to known ARM
"Computer on a chip hardware" - but since USB devices don't have to be
detected to boot, it can be fully functional without having to wait
for every device to complete it's probes and initializations.

Key features include:

Chrome browser as the main browser - also used for browsing files.
You can still get to the desktop and install and run applications, but
the Chrome browser gives you a really nice interface for a lot more
chores.

Google Gadgets - hundreds were already available - and most already
worked with Linux quite well.  A few were Windows-only but were
competing with multi-platform products that got better community
support.

Google Docs - If you haven't used this with a team, it's really worth
looking at.  You can put spreadsheets, word documents, and even
presentations on google docs - either creating them there, or doing
imports.  Then the team can interactively update the document - and
you can see who is updating what.  I used it for keeping statistics on
a large team and their results.  As is so often the case, an hour
before the cut-off time, there would be 3-4 people putting in their
statistics - at the same time.  You can also export these documents to
OpenOffice or Microsoft Office formats.  And it's trivial to print and
update.  Much like printing a web page.

Gmail and Google-talk - of course - the easiest way to access was
using the Chrome brower to access these apps.  But you could also set
up browsers to connect using IMAP.

On 2010-11-04, Sinister Midget III <fardblossom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-11-03, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
>
>> I'm a bit lost as to how you scan or print, etc.  
>> Presumably one can read/store files locally?
>> That apart, it might just fly (imo) !
>
> You print web pages now that aren't "stored" on your computer. Complete
> with formatting, colors, graphics, etc. Why not other documents as
> well?

    The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on something
to be there again when you go back for it. So the idea of just "leaving
it in the cloud" lis a little absurd. It doesn't work out very well in
practice for a number of reasons.

    That's why I despise the lack of proper print/save functionality in
the iPad.

-- 
	vi isn't easy to use.				 |||
							/ | \
	vi is easy to REPLACE.

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> writes:

> On Nov 4, 10:03 am, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sinister Midget III wrote:
>> > On 2010-11-03, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
>
>> Anything that you know about Chrome OS I'd be glad to read - information
>> seems to have been very sparse.
>
> Google has been giving Previews of Chrome for a while now.  LXF
> Magazine had a version for Intel this summer.


Come, come Rexx. Dont let facts get in the way of one of Gruff's
laboured pipe dream posts where he hints at a deeper knowledge of things
he is clearly clueless about.

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2010-11-04, Sinister Midget III <fardblossom@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-11-03, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
>>
>>> I'm a bit lost as to how you scan or print, etc.  
>>> Presumably one can read/store files locally?
>>> That apart, it might just fly (imo) !
>>
>> You print web pages now that aren't "stored" on your computer. Complete
>> with formatting, colors, graphics, etc. Why not other documents as
>> well?
>
>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on something
> to be there again when you go back for it. So the idea of just "leaving
> it in the cloud" lis a little absurd. It doesn't work out very well in
> practice for a number of reasons.

You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb error.

>
>     That's why I despise the lack of proper print/save functionality in
> the iPad.

LOL. Poor Jed.

On 2010-11-05, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>> On 2010-11-04, Sinister Midget III <fardblossom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-03, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
>>>
>>>> I'm a bit lost as to how you scan or print, etc.  
>>>> Presumably one can read/store files locally?
>>>> That apart, it might just fly (imo) !
>>>
>>> You print web pages now that aren't "stored" on your computer. Complete
>>> with formatting, colors, graphics, etc. Why not other documents as
>>> well?
>>
>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on something
>> to be there again when you go back for it. So the idea of just "leaving
>> it in the cloud" lis a little absurd. It doesn't work out very well in
>> practice for a number of reasons.
>
> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb error.

   No. I am just staying on topic.

[deletia]

   You seem to have a problem with that sort of thing...

-- 
	vi isn't easy to use.				 |||
							/ | \
	vi is easy to REPLACE.

On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on something
>> to be there again when you go back for it. So the idea of just "leaving
>> it in the cloud" lis a little absurd. It doesn't work out very well in
>> practice for a number of reasons.
>
> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb error.

Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this should
be good...)

-- 
You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
	~ Bullet Tooth Tony

Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>
>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb error.
>
> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this should
> be good...)

Damn. And I'm all out of popcorn.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 22 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

TomB stated in post 20101105182450.0@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/5/10 10:26 AM:

> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>> 
>>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on something
>>> to be there again when you go back for it. So the idea of just "leaving
>>> it in the cloud" lis a little absurd. It doesn't work out very well in
>>> practice for a number of reasons.
>> 
>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb error.
> 
> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this should
> be good...)

The Web (World Wide Web or WWW) is a subset of the Internet that uses the
HTTP (or related) protocols and is generally viewed through a web browser.
The Internet is that plus a lot more - such as all of the other Internet
protocols.   


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>
>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb error.
>>
>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this should
>> be good...)
>
> Damn. And I'm all out of popcorn.

How about, roughly, the Web is all the info conveyed by HTTP and HTTPS,
while the Internet is that plus all the info conveyed by FTP, SSH, the
various peer-to-peer protocols, the various multimedia protocols...?

Of course, it tends to run together in people's minds.

-- 
What hath Bob wrought?

On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>>> error.
>>>
>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>>> should be good...)
>>
>> Damn. And I'm all out of popcorn.
>
> How about, roughly, the Web is all the info conveyed by HTTP and
> HTTPS, while the Internet is that plus all the info conveyed by FTP,
> SSH, the various peer-to-peer protocols, the various multimedia
> protocols...?
>
> Of course, it tends to run together in people's minds.

Exactly: it tends to run together, and not only in people's minds.
Many things that have nothing to do with the original world wide web
concept run over http/https these days. Including many 'cloud'
applications. It's no longer the 'web' as we knew it, but it
definitely still is the 'web'.

-- 
We should start referring to processes which run in the background by
their correct technical name... paenguins.
	~ Kevin M. Bealer

Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>>
>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>>> error.
>>>
>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>>> should be good...)
>>
>> Damn. And I'm all out of popcorn.
>
> How about, roughly, the Web is all the info conveyed by HTTP and
> HTTPS, while the Internet is that plus all the info conveyed by FTP,
> SSH, the various peer-to-peer protocols, the various multimedia
> protocols...?
>
> Of course, it tends to run together in people's minds.

However, the comment "Hadron" responded to was about accessing Cloud
services, which AFAIK is predominantly an HTTP affair (i.e. the Web).

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 22 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>
>>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on something
>>> to be there again when you go back for it. So the idea of just "leaving
>>> it in the cloud" lis a little absurd. It doesn't work out very well in
>>> practice for a number of reasons.
>>
>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb error.
>
> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this should
> be good...)

You really don't know??????????????????????

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:

> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>>
>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb error.
>>>
>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this should
>>> be good...)
>>
>> Damn. And I'm all out of popcorn.
>
> How about, roughly, the Web is all the info conveyed by HTTP and HTTPS,
> while the Internet is that plus all the info conveyed by FTP, SSH, the
> various peer-to-peer protocols, the various multimedia protocols...?
>
> Of course, it tends to run together in people's minds.

I'm sure TomB is pleased to have had such clear and helpful replies.

TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>>>> should be good...)
>>>
>>> Damn. And I'm all out of popcorn.
>>
>> How about, roughly, the Web is all the info conveyed by HTTP and
>> HTTPS, while the Internet is that plus all the info conveyed by FTP,
>> SSH, the various peer-to-peer protocols, the various multimedia
>> protocols...?
>>
>> Of course, it tends to run together in people's minds.
>
> Exactly: it tends to run together, and not only in people's minds.

Clearly in yours.

But its a difference worth discussing and keeping in mind when talking
about "Cloud".

> Many things that have nothing to do with the original world wide web
> concept run over http/https these days. Including many 'cloud'
> applications. It's no longer the 'web' as we knew it, but it
> definitely still is the 'web'.

On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>
>>>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on
>>>>     something to be there again when you go back for it. So the
>>>>     idea of just "leaving it in the cloud" lis a little absurd.
>>>>     It doesn't work out very well in practice for a number of
>>>>     reasons.
>>>
>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>> error.
>>
>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>> should be good...)
>
> You really don't know??????????????????????

Apparently you don't know. JEDIDIAH was talking about cloud services
in the context of the web. Since the majority of cloud based stuff is
indeed web oriented*, he was spot on.

You however think he's confused, so I wonder where that idea is based
on.

* Think Google Docs, Ubuntu One, Amazon's Cloud Services, etc...

-- 
If The Flintstones has taught us anything, it's that pelicans
can be used to mix cement.
	~ Homer J. Simpson

Op 6-11-2010 13:45, TomB schreef:
> On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> TomB<tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com>  writes:
>>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  writes:
>>>>
>>>>>      The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on
>>>>>      something to be there again when you go back for it. So the
>>>>>      idea of just "leaving it in the cloud" lis a little absurd.
>>>>>      It doesn't work out very well in practice for a number of
>>>>>      reasons.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>>> error.
>>>
>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>>> should be good...)
>>
>> You really don't know??????????????????????
>
> Apparently you don't know. JEDIDIAH was talking about cloud services
> in the context of the web. Since the majority of cloud based stuff is
> indeed web oriented*, he was spot on.
>
> You however think he's confused, so I wonder where that idea is based
> on.
>
> * Think Google Docs, Ubuntu One, Amazon's Cloud Services, etc...
>
I admire you for your positive way of thinking.

Do you seriously believe "Hadron" can be reasoned with?

Wow! just ignore the truth, good vibrations and Jah Rastafari.

-- 
|_|0|_| Marti T. Van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| ML2MST Phoenix (Telnet BBS)
|0|0|0| ml2mst.dyndns.org

TomB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on
>>>>>     something to be there again when you go back for it. So the
>>>>>     idea of just "leaving it in the cloud" lis a little absurd.
>>>>>     It doesn't work out very well in practice for a number of
>>>>>     reasons.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>>> error.
>>>
>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>>> should be good...)
>>
>> You really don't know??????????????????????
>
> Apparently you don't know.

Any old jerk can respond with:

>> You really don't know??????????????????????

> JEDIDIAH was talking about cloud services in the context of the web. Since
> the majority of cloud based stuff is indeed web oriented*, he was spot on.
>
> You however think he's confused, so I wonder where that idea is based on.
>
> * Think Google Docs, Ubuntu One, Amazon's Cloud Services, etc...

You really don't know??????????????????????

-- 
QOTD:
	"It's a cold bowl of chili, when love don't work out."

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:

> TomB pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on
>>>>>>     something to be there again when you go back for it. So the
>>>>>>     idea of just "leaving it in the cloud" lis a little absurd.
>>>>>>     It doesn't work out very well in practice for a number of
>>>>>>     reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>>>> should be good...)
>>>
>>> You really don't know??????????????????????
>>
>> Apparently you don't know.
>
> Any old jerk can respond with:
>
>>> You really don't know??????????????????????

You really are a creepy little weenie. Did you know that? WWW <>
Internet. Simple. The difference was posted. Do you expect me to repeat
that post?

>
>> JEDIDIAH was talking about cloud services in the context of the web. Since
>> the majority of cloud based stuff is indeed web oriented*, he was spot on.
>>
>> You however think he's confused, so I wonder where that idea is based on.
>>
>> * Think Google Docs, Ubuntu One, Amazon's Cloud Services, etc...
>
> You really don't know??????????????????????

This is not the issue. The WWW is NOT the Internet. How many more times
does it have to be explained to you? Just because you're a sycophantic
little suck up it doesnt mean you have to defend the indefensible.

You really sink lower with each and every post.

Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> TomB pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on
>>>>>>     something to be there again when you go back for it. So the
>>>>>>     idea of just "leaving it in the cloud" lis a little absurd.
>>>>>>     It doesn't work out very well in practice for a number of
>>>>>>     reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>>>> should be good...)
>>>
>>> You really don't know??????????????????????
>>
>> Apparently you don't know.
>
> Any old jerk can respond with:
>
>>> You really don't know??????????????????????
>
>> JEDIDIAH was talking about cloud services in the context of the web.
>> Since the majority of cloud based stuff is indeed web oriented*, he
>> was spot on.
>>
>> You however think he's confused, so I wonder where that idea is based
>> on.
>>
>> * Think Google Docs, Ubuntu One, Amazon's Cloud Services, etc...
>
> You really don't know??????????????????????

You "any old jerk", you. :)

As a matter of interest, what's the etymology of "jerk" as a derogatory
term? I assume it's either something to do with spasmodic behaviour,
reactionaryism, or masturbation (or possibly all three, which might
possibly be the most disturbing image I had in a long time).

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 22 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>
> This is not the issue. The WWW is NOT the Internet. How many more times
> does it have to be explained to you?

Rofl, it was Chris who came up with a very accurate description in the
first place.

Silly man.

-- 
Een vrouw in haren blote, dat is een monument.
Maar ne vent in zijne pure is en bleft nen blote vent.
	~ Katastroof

Hadron pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
>
>> Any old jerk can respond with:
>>
>>>> You really don't know??????????????????????
>
> You really are a creepy little weenie. Did you know that? WWW <>
> Internet. Simple. The difference was posted. Do you expect me to repeat
> that post?

Of course not.  *I* posted "the difference" in the first place.

*LMAO*

Already well into dipping his whiskers into strong brews!  :-D

>> You really don't know??????????????????????
>
> This is not the issue. The WWW is NOT the Internet. How many more times
> does it have to be explained to you? Just because you're a sycophantic
> little suck up it doesnt mean you have to defend the indefensible.
>
> You really sink lower with each and every post.

Pffft.  "Hadron" always get pissed off when I answer his questions.
Drunk bastard.

-- 
I'll defend to the death your right to say that, but I never said I'd
listen to it!
		-- Tom Galloway with apologies to Voltaire

TomB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>
>> This is not the issue. The WWW is NOT the Internet. How many more times
>> does it have to be explained to you?
>
> Rofl, it was Chris who came up with a very accurate description in the
> first place.
>
> Silly man.

Drunk man, I'd wager.  I'd term him a "happy drunk" if he wasn't such
a shrilling bastard.  :-D

"Hadron" thinks the Web isn't part of the Internet?  WTF?

-- 
"Why must you tell me all your secrets when it's hard enough to love
you knowing nothing?"
		-- Lloyd Cole and the Commotions

On 2010-11-06, TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2010-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>     The web is infact very unreliable. You can never depend on
>>>>>     something to be there again when you go back for it. So the
>>>>>     idea of just "leaving it in the cloud" lis a little absurd.
>>>>>     It doesn't work out very well in practice for a number of
>>>>>     reasons.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to confuse the Internet with the Web. A typical nOOb
>>>> error.
>>>
>>> Explain to us in detail the difference, oh educated one. (this
>>> should be good...)
>>
>> You really don't know??????????????????????
>
> Apparently you don't know. JEDIDIAH was talking about cloud services
> in the context of the web. Since the majority of cloud based stuff is

    Exactly. I was referring specifically to content on the web that
tends to be rather transient. "Bookmarks" make for a rather poor method
of "preserving" such data. Plus you have all of the availability issues
that come with stuff being "out there" somewhere on a network you don't
control. A single failure anywhere between you and your data will cause
an outtage.

   This is pretty commonplace with the web as it is even now.

   That particular problem also is relevant for any other non-web content.

> indeed web oriented*, he was spot on.
>
> You however think he's confused, so I wonder where that idea is based
> on.
>
> * Think Google Docs, Ubuntu One, Amazon's Cloud Services, etc...
>

    Yes. I don't think anyone speaks of Gopher or FTP anymore...

    Although we are arguing about it here on Usenet. '-)

-- 
	The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals           ||| 
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs           / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.

On 2010-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of JEDIDIAH:
>
>     Yes. I don't think anyone speaks of Gopher or FTP anymore...
>
>     Although we are arguing about it here on Usenet. '-)

All network dinosaurs, including usenet itself ;-)
I *love* network dinosaurs!

-- 
Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead.
	~ Butch