From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262344AbTJ3KXI (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:23:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262345AbTJ3KXI (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:23:08 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]:55494 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262344AbTJ3KXB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:23:01 -0500 From: Thorsten =?iso-8859-1?q?K=F6rner?= To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Things that Longhorn seems to be doing right Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:27:00 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <3F9F7F66.9060008@namesys.com> <16288.24913.844699.956689@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <20031030013418.GD3094@digitasaru.net> In-Reply-To: <20031030013418.GD3094@digitasaru.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310301037.14609.t.koerner@123tk.com> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hallo Joseph Am Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2003 02:34 schrieb Joseph Pingenot: > From Neil Brown on Thursday, 30 October, 2003: > >On Wednesday October 29, trelane@digitasaru.net wrote: > >> Regardless, it's an interesting idea, and one which might be > >> fruitful. I give you then two bits: our treatment of the tech > >> and the reality of their tech: > >> 00: ISVAPOR | TAKESEROUSLY > >> 01: ISVAPOR | IGNORE > >> 10: NOTVAPOR | TAKESERIOUSLY > >> 11: NOTVAPOR | IGNORE > >> If we come up with a working implementation and it *is* just > >> vaporware, then we're ahead. > >> We're way ahead. > >> If we merely dismiss it as vaporware and it turns out to be, > >> no net change. > > > >...snip... > > > >> Conclusion: best to take it seriously and work on it; those > >> two cases are the most optimal. > > > >Sounds like the same argument that is used in "Pascal's Wager" > > for belief in God, and I seriously don't think the argument > > works in either case. (note that I'm not making a statement > > about the conclusion in either case, only about the arguement). > > "Sounds like?" Sure. It kind of does, now that you mention it. > > Regradless of the similarities and the validity of Pascal's > argument, my argument, I think, stands. I outlined the four > potential futures. We have control over only one bit, Microsoft > has the other. The tech sounds nice, it is an interesting avenue > to persue, Pascal aside. You are absolutley right. It seems to be more than just an interesting tech. It sounds like a really outstanding idea. And noone should say it's a bad idea, because it's from Microsoft (tm). They have had many good ideas (also many bad implementations of them). > > I don't see any reason why we *shouldn't* look at the problem and > try to do it. What reasons do you see for not persuing the > problem to its inevitible implementation? ACK CU Thorsten - -- Thorsten Körner | e-Commerce-Consulting Dannenkoppel 51 | D-22391 Hamburg Tel.: 040/536 308 27 | Fax.: 040/536 308 26 mailto:t.koerner@123tk.com | http://www.123tk.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/oOd0s5R35vLkl/cRAp20AJ9PmBjKqnX5f8l9CaQZGGPBEa0vSQCgqEP3 O+OPB2lVef6BGSc3Ay672Ew= =sZjd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----