Newer thinking about computers has arrived ( GOOGLE'S CHROME) - Slackware

This is a discussion on Newer thinking about computers has arrived ( GOOGLE'S CHROME) - Slackware ; Dan C wrote: > > You *are* Alan Connor! The dip**** who made his presence known here not > long ago as "Tom Newton". Yup. You can't resist using your trademark > phrases, can you? Dammit, I was hoping to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 74

Thread: Newer thinking about computers has arrived ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

  1. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Dan C wrote:
    >
    > You *are* Alan Connor! The dip**** who made his presence known here not
    > long ago as "Tom Newton". Yup. You can't resist using your trademark
    > phrases, can you?


    Dammit, I was hoping to sucker a "sock puppet" comment from him to verify
    that it wasn't just some other idiot. It seems too soon for him to return
    to the group again....

    - Kurt

  2. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:04:20 -0500, ~kurt wrote:

    >> You *are* Alan Connor! The dip**** who made his presence known here not
    >> long ago as "Tom Newton". Yup. You can't resist using your trademark
    >> phrases, can you?


    > Dammit, I was hoping to sucker a "sock puppet" comment from him to verify
    > that it wasn't just some other idiot. It seems too soon for him to return
    > to the group again....


    He'll still do it. He can't help himself.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  3. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Sidney Lambe wrote:

    >>>It occurs to me that it might be possible to create this ideal Internet
    >>>by leasing channels on satellites.
    >>>I hope that makes sense.

    >>
    >> No. Think about the ping

    >
    > Seriously, isn't that possible?


    Yes, it's possible, but surely not for interactive use.
    Doing some calculus: Alice send a ping to Bob via Sego
    (Sego is the geostationnary satellite).
    Alice pingreq -> Sego ~ 100ms
    Sego -> Bob ~ 100ms
    Bob reply -> Sego ~ 100ms
    Sego -> Alice ~ 100ms
    misc ground infrastructures ~ 20ms

    Whe are already at 420ms for a ping, right ? And without
    any channel arbitration delay in account. Just for a ping.
    Going up in the stack, you have protocols, eg: ack for TCP,
    handshack for FTP, and so on...

    > I know that some of the big ISPs offer Internet connections
    > via satellite.


    Whe have that in Europe, most of the case, this is only the
    Internet->customer who is on air. Other way is going via
    phone lines. It's only usable for bulk transfert, with help
    of proxies at the final endpoint. Nor really usable for
    interactive use like ssh or IRC.

    > And radio stations lease channels on them,
    > like Sirius. Might mean forming a corporation, but that's just paperwork.


    Radio channels are mostly "one way" to

    --
    No sig available.

  4. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    tTh wrote:
    > Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >
    >>>>It occurs to me that it might be possible to create this ideal Internet
    >>>>by leasing channels on satellites.
    >>>>I hope that makes sense.
    >>>
    >>> No. Think about the ping

    >>
    >> Seriously, isn't that possible?

    >
    > Yes, it's possible, but surely not for interactive use.
    > Doing some calculus: Alice send a ping to Bob via Sego
    > (Sego is the geostationnary satellite).
    > Alice pingreq -> Sego ~ 100ms
    > Sego -> Bob ~ 100ms
    > Bob reply -> Sego ~ 100ms
    > Sego -> Alice ~ 100ms
    > misc ground infrastructures ~ 20ms
    >
    > Whe are already at 420ms for a ping, right ? And without
    > any channel arbitration delay in account. Just for a ping.
    > Going up in the stack, you have protocols, eg: ack for TCP,
    > handshack for FTP, and so on...


    I see! You weren't joking at all. Half a second for a ping!

    >
    >> I know that some of the big ISPs offer Internet connections
    >> via satellite.

    >
    > Whe have that in Europe, most of the case, this is only the
    > Internet->customer who is on air. Other way is going via
    > phone lines. It's only usable for bulk transfert, with help
    > of proxies at the final endpoint. Nor really usable for
    > interactive use like ssh or IRC.
    >
    >> And radio stations lease channels on them,
    >> like Sirius. Might mean forming a corporation, but that's just paperwork.

    >
    > Radio channels are mostly "one way" to[o]


    This is really valuable information. Thanks, tTh.

    Take interactive away and what do you have left?

    NNTP - SMTP/POP - Basic HTTP - IRC/IM - FTP.

    That's doable. That's MORE than enough. What a great excuse to
    strip most of the crap from the Internet: Too slow. Sorry. No
    interactive stuff. Peddle that crap elsewhere. Have a good day.

    Now I'm getting inspired. Think of the number of users you could
    have on a single channel with the low bandwidth requirements that
    this 'retro-Internet' would require.

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  5. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:38:08 -0700, Sidney Lambe wrote:

    > Now I'm getting inspired. Think of the number of users you could
    > have on a single channel with the low bandwidth requirements that
    > this 'retro-Internet' would require.
    >
    > Sid


    Hey "Sid". How come you sign your name as "Tome" in other newsgroups that
    you post in? Is that a clue to the fact that you used to go by "Tom", as
    in "Tom Newton"? As in "Alan Connor"?

    Bugger off, whacko.


    --
    "Tom N" ("Tom Newton") - the latest nymshift of "Alan Connor".
    Read more about the netkook Alan Connor here:
    http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml
    Email him: calhobbit@gmail.com or simpleman.s43@gmail.com

  6. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Responding to Sidney Lambe:

    > tTh wrote:
    >> Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>It occurs to me that it might be possible to create this ideal
    >>>>>Internet by leasing channels on satellites.
    >>>>>I hope that makes sense.
    >>>>
    >>>> No. Think about the ping
    >>>
    >>> Seriously, isn't that possible?

    >>
    >> Yes, it's possible, but surely not for interactive use. Doing some
    >> calculus: Alice send a ping to Bob via Sego (Sego is the
    >> geostationnary satellite). Alice pingreq -> Sego ~ 100ms
    >> Sego -> Bob ~ 100ms
    >> Bob reply -> Sego ~ 100ms
    >> Sego -> Alice ~ 100ms
    >> misc ground infrastructures ~ 20ms
    >>
    >> Whe are already at 420ms for a ping, right ? And without any channel
    >> arbitration delay in account. Just for a ping. Going up in the
    >> stack, you have protocols, eg: ack for TCP, handshack for FTP, and
    >> so on...

    >
    > I see! You weren't joking at all. Half a second for a ping!
    >
    >
    >>> I know that some of the big ISPs offer Internet connections via
    >>> satellite.

    >>
    >> Whe have that in Europe, most of the case, this is only the
    >> Internet->customer who is on air. Other way is going via phone
    >> lines. It's only usable for bulk transfert, with help of proxies at
    >> the final endpoint. Nor really usable for interactive use like ssh
    >> or IRC.
    >>
    >>> And radio stations lease channels on them, like Sirius. Might mean
    >>> forming a corporation, but that's just paperwork.

    >>
    >> Radio channels are mostly "one way" to[o]

    >
    > This is really valuable information. Thanks, tTh.
    >
    > Take interactive away and what do you have left?
    >
    > NNTP - SMTP/POP - Basic HTTP - IRC/IM - FTP.
    >
    > That's doable. That's MORE than enough. What a great excuse to strip
    > most of the crap from the Internet: Too slow. Sorry. No interactive
    > stuff. Peddle that crap elsewhere. Have a good day.
    >
    > Now I'm getting inspired. Think of the number of users you could have on
    > a single channel with the low bandwidth requirements that this
    > 'retro-Internet' would require.
    >
    > Sid



    Ooh! RetroNet! Where junk traffic is suddenly an issue and just won't be
    tolerated? DECENT text-only browsers where images are only included as
    sensibly labeled (option) links where they are actually required as
    content?

    The development of proper traffic management technology where an ISP is
    made on broken on their efficiency? An internet cost effective enough to
    be runnable on the subscriptions of it's userbase, that by its very
    nature is a hostile environment for advertising agency driven bloat?

    Where do I sign up? 8)

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  7. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Sidney Lambe:
    >
    >> tTh wrote:
    >>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>>It occurs to me that it might be possible to create this ideal
    >>>>>>Internet by leasing channels on satellites.
    >>>>>>I hope that makes sense.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No. Think about the ping
    >>>>
    >>>> Seriously, isn't that possible?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it's possible, but surely not for interactive use. Doing some
    >>> calculus: Alice send a ping to Bob via Sego (Sego is the
    >>> geostationnary satellite). Alice pingreq -> Sego ~ 100ms
    >>> Sego -> Bob ~ 100ms
    >>> Bob reply -> Sego ~ 100ms
    >>> Sego -> Alice ~ 100ms
    >>> misc ground infrastructures ~ 20ms
    >>>
    >>> Whe are already at 420ms for a ping, right ? And without any channel
    >>> arbitration delay in account. Just for a ping. Going up in the
    >>> stack, you have protocols, eg: ack for TCP, handshack for FTP, and
    >>> so on...

    >>
    >> I see! You weren't joking at all. Half a second for a ping!
    >>
    >>
    >>>> I know that some of the big ISPs offer Internet connections via
    >>>> satellite.
    >>>
    >>> Whe have that in Europe, most of the case, this is only the
    >>> Internet->customer who is on air. Other way is going via phone
    >>> lines. It's only usable for bulk transfert, with help of proxies at
    >>> the final endpoint. Nor really usable for interactive use like ssh
    >>> or IRC.
    >>>
    >>>> And radio stations lease channels on them, like Sirius. Might mean
    >>>> forming a corporation, but that's just paperwork.
    >>>
    >>> Radio channels are mostly "one way" to[o]

    >>
    >> This is really valuable information. Thanks, tTh.
    >>
    >> Take interactive away and what do you have left?
    >>
    >> NNTP - SMTP/POP - Basic HTTP - IRC/IM - FTP.
    >>
    >> That's doable. That's MORE than enough. What a great excuse to strip
    >> most of the crap from the Internet: Too slow. Sorry. No interactive
    >> stuff. Peddle that crap elsewhere. Have a good day.
    >>
    >> Now I'm getting inspired. Think of the number of users you could have on
    >> a single channel with the low bandwidth requirements that this
    >> 'retro-Internet' would require.
    >>
    >> Sid

    >
    >
    > Ooh! RetroNet! Where junk traffic is suddenly an issue and just won't be
    > tolerated? DECENT text-only browsers where images are only included as
    > sensibly labeled (option) links where they are actually required as
    > content?


    I was thinking more like web pages as they were before my time on the
    Internet. Like magazine pages. Virtual magazines. Good layouts and images
    and various fonts. The kind of web pages that you could print out and
    all the information on the site would be on that printed page.

    Wouldn't 256 colors do the job well? I am really not an expert here, as
    I am sure you can tell.

    (I wonder if this could be done over the phonelines, as in dialup?)

    >
    > The development of proper traffic management technology where an ISP is
    > made on broken on their efficiency? An internet cost effective enough to
    > be runnable on the subscriptions of it's userbase, that by its very
    > nature is a hostile environment for advertising agency driven bloat?
    >
    > Where do I sign up? 8)


    Probably on your own computer. You are obviously more qualified to run
    this thing than I am.

    >
    > --
    > *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/


    I checked out that site and the link to http://www.poee.co.uk/site/.

    I don't get it. And I'm not sure I want to.

    > *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/


    Oh my. That stinks. But it doesn't surprise me a bit.

    I don't believe we have any privacy at all on the Internet.

    When I want to send a private message, I use snail mail sent
    anonymously from a public mailbox. Don't trust the phones either.

    > *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/


    "* Complete (full development/desktop/multimedia environment)"

    Piss on that. I like my Slackware running from an xterm.

    I've got firefox when I need it and use links the rest of the time.

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  8. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Responding to Sidney Lambe:

    [...]
    >>>
    >>> Take interactive away and what do you have left?
    >>>
    >>> NNTP - SMTP/POP - Basic HTTP - IRC/IM - FTP.
    >>>
    >>> That's doable. That's MORE than enough. What a great excuse to strip
    >>> most of the crap from the Internet: Too slow. Sorry. No interactive
    >>> stuff. Peddle that crap elsewhere. Have a good day.
    >>>
    >>> Now I'm getting inspired. Think of the number of users you could have
    >>> on a single channel with the low bandwidth requirements that this
    >>> 'retro-Internet' would require.
    >>>
    >>> Sid

    >>
    >>
    >> Ooh! RetroNet! Where junk traffic is suddenly an issue and just won't
    >> be tolerated? DECENT text-only browsers where images are only included
    >> as sensibly labeled (option) links where they are actually required as
    >> content?

    >
    > I was thinking more like web pages as they were before my time on the
    > Internet. Like magazine pages. Virtual magazines. Good layouts and
    > images and various fonts. The kind of web pages that you could print out
    > and all the information on the site would be on that printed page.
    >
    > Wouldn't 256 colors do the job well? I am really not an expert here, as
    > I am sure you can tell.
    >
    > (I wonder if this could be done over the phonelines, as in dialup?)


    Depends what the target standardised traffic levels were. It could be
    done at dialup levels, and with today's technology, permanent 56k with no
    slowdown (technology enhanced with the latest compression algorythms of
    course) should be no problem at all.

    Once that standard was defined, webpage design etc. could be optimised
    accordingly. Those who wanted to download resource could simply add to
    their overnight auto-task lists.

    As a knock-on result, personal computers could at last be reduced to the
    size of ciggie packets, and could be incorporated into mobile phones.

    Oh, wait...

    >
    >> The development of proper traffic management technology where an ISP is
    >> made on broken on their efficiency? An internet cost effective enough
    >> to be runnable on the subscriptions of it's userbase, that by its very
    >> nature is a hostile environment for advertising agency driven bloat?
    >>
    >> Where do I sign up? 8)

    >
    > Probably on your own computer. You are obviously more qualified to run
    > this thing than I am.


    Heh! I'd need something a bit better than this one to run a RetroNet
    server. I'll offer you a discount for your consultancy should I ever go
    into that business though.





    [PART TWO]


    >
    >> --
    >> *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/

    >
    > I checked out that site and the link to http://www.poee.co.uk/site/.
    >
    > I don't get it. And I'm not sure I want to.


    If you don't get it, you don't get it. Its like the joke that loses it's
    vital flavour in the explaining.

    One day, maybe one day.


    >> *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

    >
    > Oh my. That stinks. But it doesn't surprise me a bit.
    >
    > I don't believe we have any privacy at all on the Internet.
    >
    > When I want to send a private message, I use snail mail sent anonymously
    > from a public mailbox. Don't trust the phones either.


    If you're in the US, search for NebuAd.



    >> *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

    >
    > "* Complete (full development/desktop/multimedia environment)"
    >
    > Piss on that. I like my Slackware running from an xterm.
    >
    > I've got firefox when I need it and use links the rest of the time.
    >



    Horses for courses. I like Slack, always have, but Zenwalk's Slack-based
    "one-shot" "out of the box" setup makes things seductively easy,
    especially for wifey, and therefore me administering her box.



    Are we back on topic for this NG now BTW?

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  9. [OT] The Retronet was: Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Sidney Lambe:
    >
    > [...]
    >>>>
    >>>> Take interactive away and what do you have left?
    >>>>
    >>>> NNTP - SMTP/POP - Basic HTTP - IRC/IM - FTP.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's doable. That's MORE than enough. What a great excuse to strip
    >>>> most of the crap from the Internet: Too slow. Sorry. No interactive
    >>>> stuff. Peddle that crap elsewhere. Have a good day.
    >>>>
    >>>> Now I'm getting inspired. Think of the number of users you could have
    >>>> on a single channel with the low bandwidth requirements that this
    >>>> 'retro-Internet' would require.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sid
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Ooh! RetroNet! Where junk traffic is suddenly an issue and just won't
    >>> be tolerated? DECENT text-only browsers where images are only included
    >>> as sensibly labeled (option) links where they are actually required as
    >>> content?

    >>
    >> I was thinking more like web pages as they were before my time on the
    >> Internet. Like magazine pages. Virtual magazines. Good layouts and
    >> images and various fonts. The kind of web pages that you could print out
    >> and all the information on the site would be on that printed page.
    >>
    >> Wouldn't 256 colors do the job well? I am really not an expert here, as
    >> I am sure you can tell.
    >>
    >> (I wonder if this could be done over the phonelines, as in dialup?)

    >
    > Depends what the target standardised traffic levels were. It could be
    > done at dialup levels, and with today's technology, permanent 56k with no
    > slowdown (technology enhanced with the latest compression algorythms of
    > course) should be no problem at all.


    Very cool.

    >
    > Once that standard was defined, webpage design etc. could be optimised
    > accordingly. Those who wanted to download resource could simply add to
    > their overnight auto-task lists.


    Like UUCP?

    >
    > As a knock-on result, personal computers could at last be reduced to the
    > size of ciggie packets, and could be incorporated into mobile phones.
    >
    > Oh, wait...


    That's fifty lashes with a wet noodle for you :-)

    But the Retronet could definitely be accessed with a very tiny OS. One
    that would fit on a dozen floppies.

    I was thinking about a completely decentralized model, actually. Don't
    need any pop servers when you can just send mail directly to someone,
    do you? And web servers can be tiny indeed. So can the others, like
    NNTP and IRC. DNS and net directory could be combined, updated daily
    on your own computer. (Local storage space wouldn't be an issue.)

    If I wanted to see your web page on floral arrangements, I'd find
    the address to your computer on my DNS/web directory server and
    go download it.

    With the *option* of downloading any images, as you wisely
    proposed above.

    >
    >>
    >>> The development of proper traffic management technology where an ISP is
    >>> made on broken on their efficiency? An internet cost effective enough
    >>> to be runnable on the subscriptions of it's userbase, that by its very
    >>> nature is a hostile environment for advertising agency driven bloat?
    >>>
    >>> Where do I sign up? 8)

    >>
    >> Probably on your own computer. You are obviously more qualified to run
    >> this thing than I am.

    >
    > Heh! I'd need something a bit better than this one to run a RetroNet
    > server. I'll offer you a discount for your consultancy should I ever go
    > into that business though.


    Again, I don't see any centralized servers being involved for
    anything other than routing, and maybe you could get around
    that ???? (This would make the Retronet nearly invulnerable to
    corporate interference...) I was thinking of planning and design.

    >
    > [PART TWO]
    >
    >

    [delete]
    >>> *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

    >>
    >> "* Complete (full development/desktop/multimedia environment)"
    >>
    >> Piss on that. I like my Slackware running from an xterm.
    >>
    >> I've got firefox when I need it and use links the rest of the time.
    >>

    >
    > Horses for courses. I like Slack, always have, but Zenwalk's Slack-based
    > "one-shot" "out of the box" setup makes things seductively easy,
    > especially for wifey, and therefore me administering her box.


    That's okay. I was referring to the multi-media stuff.

    >
    > Are we back on topic for this NG now BTW?


    Not really.

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  10. [OT] Retronet was: Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Sidney Lambe:


    [delete]

    Here's what I'm thinking, after reviewing your
    article here.

    Use the cellphone network. More and more they are
    allowing data transfers, right? Free long distance
    around the world, right?

    Create a little Linux distro with 4 simple servers on it.

    Mailserver for personal communications. One on one only.
    ---------
    Size limit. Text only. U.S. ascii.

    Webserver for file transfer.
    --------

    Newsserver for forums and bulletin boards, with private
    ---------
    groups possible for closed discussions.

    For web and nntp, popular sites would be mirrored on as
    many computers as necessary, basically creating a usenet
    and and a webnet that was much like it. There wouldn't be
    an actual www on the Retronet. Not like the one that exists
    on the Internet, anyway.

    Net Directory
    ------------

    A listing of computers on the Retronet and their *phone numbers*
    and what they had there.

    Here's how it could work: Once every 10 days you can send out a
    'broadcast' update for your local news/web servers. Whenever you
    connect to another computer, or someone connects to yours, this
    update is transferred and passed on by whoever connected to you
    when they visit another site or someone visits theirs. This way
    the update would be propagated across the Retronet.

    If you wanted to access a particular web server, for example,
    you'd have your computer dial them up and connect. If the number
    was busy, the next one on the list of mirrors, if any, would be
    tried.

    I think that some variant of DHCP should be used, not PTP, which
    is too clumsy.

    I hope that's clear. I hope its at least reasonably credible :\

    Sid


    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  11. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Responding to Sidney Lambe:

    > Mike wrote:
    >> Responding to Sidney Lambe:
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Take interactive away and what do you have left?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> NNTP - SMTP/POP - Basic HTTP - IRC/IM - FTP.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's doable. That's MORE than enough. What a great excuse to strip
    >>>>> most of the crap from the Internet: Too slow. Sorry. No interactive
    >>>>> stuff. Peddle that crap elsewhere. Have a good day.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Now I'm getting inspired. Think of the number of users you could
    >>>>> have on a single channel with the low bandwidth requirements that
    >>>>> this 'retro-Internet' would require.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sid
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Ooh! RetroNet! Where junk traffic is suddenly an issue and just won't
    >>>> be tolerated? DECENT text-only browsers where images are only
    >>>> included as sensibly labeled (option) links where they are actually
    >>>> required as content?
    >>>
    >>> I was thinking more like web pages as they were before my time on the
    >>> Internet. Like magazine pages. Virtual magazines. Good layouts and
    >>> images and various fonts. The kind of web pages that you could print
    >>> out and all the information on the site would be on that printed page.
    >>>
    >>> Wouldn't 256 colors do the job well? I am really not an expert here,
    >>> as I am sure you can tell.
    >>>
    >>> (I wonder if this could be done over the phonelines, as in dialup?)

    >>
    >> Depends what the target standardised traffic levels were. It could be
    >> done at dialup levels, and with today's technology, permanent 56k with
    >> no slowdown (technology enhanced with the latest compression algorythms
    >> of course) should be no problem at all.

    >
    > Very cool.
    >
    >
    >> Once that standard was defined, webpage design etc. could be optimised
    >> accordingly. Those who wanted to download resource could simply add to
    >> their overnight auto-task lists.

    >
    > Like UUCP?
    >


    Hmmm. I was going to suggest security risk factors, but there's nothing
    there couldn't be reworked accordingly. If the "work" was done (pre-
    done?) at the deliver end, only the vital data need ever traverse the
    RetroNet, again, improving the efficiency of traffic management.

    Good idea!


    >> As a knock-on result, personal computers could at last be reduced to
    >> the size of ciggie packets, and could be incorporated into mobile
    >> phones.
    >>
    >> Oh, wait...

    >
    > That's fifty lashes with a wet noodle for you :-)


    Think I'm bothered? http://www.venganza.org/



    > But the Retronet could definitely be accessed with a very tiny OS. One
    > that would fit on a dozen floppies.


    A dozen? http://www.toms.net/rb/



    > I was thinking about a completely decentralized model, actually. Don't
    > need any pop servers when you can just send mail directly to someone, do
    > you? And web servers can be tiny indeed. So can the others, like NNTP
    > and IRC. DNS and net directory could be combined, updated daily on your
    > own computer. (Local storage space wouldn't be an issue.)
    >
    > If I wanted to see your web page on floral arrangements, I'd find the
    > address to your computer on my DNS/web directory server and go download
    > it.
    >
    > With the *option* of downloading any images, as you wisely proposed
    > above.


    I'm liking this more and more with each upgrade. 8)



    >
    >>
    >>>> The development of proper traffic management technology where an ISP
    >>>> is made on broken on their efficiency? An internet cost effective
    >>>> enough to be runnable on the subscriptions of it's userbase, that by
    >>>> its very nature is a hostile environment for advertising agency
    >>>> driven bloat?
    >>>>
    >>>> Where do I sign up? 8)
    >>>
    >>> Probably on your own computer. You are obviously more qualified to run
    >>> this thing than I am.

    >>
    >> Heh! I'd need something a bit better than this one to run a RetroNet
    >> server. I'll offer you a discount for your consultancy should I ever go
    >> into that business though.

    >
    > Again, I don't see any centralized servers being involved for anything
    > other than routing, and maybe you could get around that ???? (This would
    > make the Retronet nearly invulnerable to corporate interference...) I
    > was thinking of planning and design.
    >


    This is coming together for me. The amount of uneccessary bloat and junk
    thats been stripped from the design model in such a short dialogue is
    impressive. All of the above is quite do-able, and does not need a
    desktop cabinet computer to run it. In fact, I'm thinking that mobile
    phones could be capacity extended to become mini-nodes on this kind of
    network. With Linux embedded EPROM chips (or whatever they use) one could
    maintain full user-end control of one's hardware too.

    This just keeps getting better!


    >> [PART TWO]
    >>
    >>

    > [delete]
    >>>> *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/
    >>>
    >>> "* Complete (full development/desktop/multimedia environment)"
    >>>
    >>> Piss on that. I like my Slackware running from an xterm.
    >>>
    >>> I've got firefox when I need it and use links the rest of the time.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Horses for courses. I like Slack, always have, but Zenwalk's
    >> Slack-based "one-shot" "out of the box" setup makes things seductively
    >> easy, especially for wifey, and therefore me administering her box.

    >
    > That's okay. I was referring to the multi-media stuff.
    >
    >
    >> Are we back on topic for this NG now BTW?

    >
    > Not really.


    Well, we DID mention Slackware?

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  12. Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:46:51 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    > On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:19:22 -0700, Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >
    >> I'd like to welcome you to my killfile, with the rest of the ignorant
    >> and obnoxious losers with computers who spend their lives running their
    >> punk mouths on the Internet.

    >
    > Ahh HAH!
    >
    > You *are* Alan Connor! The dip**** who made his presence known here not
    > long ago as "Tom Newton". Yup. You can't resist using your trademark
    > phrases, can you?
    >
    > Bugger off, you psychotic ****ing loser. You're outed (again).


    Dan, you have work to do:

    http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Index_of_kooks

    Lot of red links there for you to fill in.

  13. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Sidney Lambe:
    >
    >> Mike wrote:
    >>> Responding to Sidney Lambe:
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Take interactive away and what do you have left?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> NNTP - SMTP/POP - Basic HTTP - IRC/IM - FTP.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's doable. That's MORE than enough. What a great excuse to strip
    >>>>>> most of the crap from the Internet: Too slow. Sorry. No interactive
    >>>>>> stuff. Peddle that crap elsewhere. Have a good day.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Now I'm getting inspired. Think of the number of users you could
    >>>>>> have on a single channel with the low bandwidth requirements that
    >>>>>> this 'retro-Internet' would require.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sid
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ooh! RetroNet! Where junk traffic is suddenly an issue and just won't
    >>>>> be tolerated? DECENT text-only browsers where images are only
    >>>>> included as sensibly labeled (option) links where they are actually
    >>>>> required as content?
    >>>>
    >>>> I was thinking more like web pages as they were before my time on the
    >>>> Internet. Like magazine pages. Virtual magazines. Good layouts and
    >>>> images and various fonts. The kind of web pages that you could print
    >>>> out and all the information on the site would be on that printed page.
    >>>>
    >>>> Wouldn't 256 colors do the job well? I am really not an expert here,
    >>>> as I am sure you can tell.
    >>>>
    >>>> (I wonder if this could be done over the phonelines, as in dialup?)
    >>>
    >>> Depends what the target standardised traffic levels were. It could be
    >>> done at dialup levels, and with today's technology, permanent 56k with
    >>> no slowdown (technology enhanced with the latest compression algorythms
    >>> of course) should be no problem at all.

    >>
    >> Very cool.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Once that standard was defined, webpage design etc. could be optimised
    >>> accordingly. Those who wanted to download resource could simply add to
    >>> their overnight auto-task lists.

    >>
    >> Like UUCP?
    >>

    >
    > Hmmm. I was going to suggest security risk factors, but there's nothing
    > there couldn't be reworked accordingly. If the "work" was done (pre-
    > done?) at the deliver end, only the vital data need ever traverse the
    > RetroNet, again, improving the efficiency of traffic management.
    >
    > Good idea!


    Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\

    >>> As a knock-on result, personal computers could at last be reduced to
    >>> the size of ciggie packets, and could be incorporated into mobile
    >>> phones.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, wait...

    >>
    >> That's fifty lashes with a wet noodle for you :-)

    >
    > Think I'm bothered? http://www.venganza.org/


    You do have a penchant for sites that have apparently been put together
    by people that one wouldn't think were mentally capable of such a task.
    :-)

    >
    >
    >
    >> But the Retronet could definitely be accessed with a very tiny OS. One
    >> that would fit on a dozen floppies.

    >
    > A dozen? http://www.toms.net/rb/


    No graphical capability. Gonna need a minimal X install for this.

    I've seen some stuff about minimal X-based systems that look usable.

    >> I was thinking about a completely decentralized model, actually. Don't
    >> need any pop servers when you can just send mail directly to someone, do
    >> you? And web servers can be tiny indeed. So can the others, like NNTP
    >> and IRC. DNS and net directory could be combined, updated daily on your
    >> own computer. (Local storage space wouldn't be an issue.)
    >>
    >> If I wanted to see your web page on floral arrangements, I'd find the
    >> address to your computer on my DNS/web directory server and go download
    >> it.
    >>
    >> With the *option* of downloading any images, as you wisely proposed
    >> above.

    >
    > I'm liking this more and more with each upgrade. 8)


    Stand by for 0.0000000008 :/

    >
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>> The development of proper traffic management technology where an ISP
    >>>>> is made on broken on their efficiency? An internet cost effective
    >>>>> enough to be runnable on the subscriptions of it's userbase, that by
    >>>>> its very nature is a hostile environment for advertising agency
    >>>>> driven bloat?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Where do I sign up? 8)
    >>>>
    >>>> Probably on your own computer. You are obviously more qualified to run
    >>>> this thing than I am.
    >>>
    >>> Heh! I'd need something a bit better than this one to run a RetroNet
    >>> server. I'll offer you a discount for your consultancy should I ever go
    >>> into that business though.

    >>
    >> Again, I don't see any centralized servers being involved for anything
    >> other than routing, and maybe you could get around that ???? (This would
    >> make the Retronet nearly invulnerable to corporate interference...) I
    >> was thinking of planning and design.
    >>

    >
    > This is coming together for me. The amount of uneccessary bloat and junk
    > thats been stripped from the design model in such a short dialogue is
    > impressive. All of the above is quite do-able, and does not need a
    > desktop cabinet computer to run it.


    > In fact, I'm thinking that mobile phones could be capacity
    > extended to become mini-nodes on this kind of network. With
    > Linux embedded EPROM chips (or whatever they use) one could
    > maintain full user-end control of one's hardware too.


    See? You know a lot more about this stuff than I do.

    >
    > This just keeps getting better!
    >


    After thinking about it, I've realized that Fully decentralized
    won't work.

    What I'm seeing 4 kinds of servers, Mail/News/HTTP/Directory.
    (And their respective client apps, of course). Everyone would run
    one of them. That's what being on the Retronet costs...

    The directory servers would cover mail/web/news and be
    mirrored all over the place. Perhaps there would be
    a seperate directory server for mail/web/news.

    Each web server would cover one branch/sub-branch of the knowledge
    hierarchy/directory tree of the web directory. Lots of
    mirrors there, too, as needed.

    If the person was into plants, then they
    might cover the cultivation of roses:
    /plants/macroscopic/domestic/ornamental/flowering/perennial/roses/cultivation.
    If it was a popular site-subject it would be mirrored.
    The computer doing the mirroring might be owned by someone who
    didn't give a fig about roses or plants, but was just being
    a good net citizen and fulfilling his/her obligation to the Retronet.

    The mail servers could Just be mail servers, with several mirrors
    apiece.

    The newservers could each coverjust a hierarchy of groups with
    as many mirrors as necessary.

    The directory server client would have all sorts of query
    options.

    Jeesh I hope that's clear. It is to me.


    >
    >>> [PART TWO]
    >>>

    >>
    >> [delete]
    >>
    >>>>> *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/
    >>>>
    >>>> "* Complete (full development/desktop/multimedia
    >>>> environment)"
    >>>>
    >>>> Piss on that. I like my Slackware running from an xterm.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've got firefox when I need it and use links the rest of
    >>>> the time.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Horses for courses. I like Slack, always have, but Zenwalk's
    >>> Slack-based "one-shot" "out of the box" setup makes things
    >>> seductively easy, especially for wifey, and therefore me
    >>> administering her box.

    >>
    >> That's okay. I was referring to the multi-media stuff.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Are we back on topic for this NG now BTW?

    >>
    >> Not really.

    >
    > Well, we DID mention Slackware?


    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware
    Slackware


    That should help, then :\

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  14. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:40:55 -0700, Sidney Lambe sprout:

    >>>> Once that standard was defined, webpage design etc. could be
    >>>> optimised accordingly. Those who wanted to download resource could
    >>>> simply add to their overnight auto-task lists.
    >>>
    >>> Like UUCP?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Hmmm. I was going to suggest security risk factors, but there's nothing
    >> there couldn't be reworked accordingly. If the "work" was done (pre-
    >> done?) at the deliver end, only the vital data need ever traverse the
    >> RetroNet, again, improving the efficiency of traffic management.
    >>
    >> Good idea!

    >
    > Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\


    a bit like an RCA (cinch) jack in the cassette recorder with
    treble maxed to make your backup ;-) Ah, memories... Gone...

    >>>> As a knock-on result, personal computers could at last be reduced to
    >>>> the size of ciggie packets, and could be incorporated into mobile
    >>>> phones.


    Too bad, it was coming but there I'll have to be a quitter...
    as I stopped smoking and do not use (not even ever tried to)
    a mobile phone so I'd better keep away from shapes/sizes that'd be
    too close to the evil stuff!

    >>>> Oh, wait...
    >>>
    >>> That's fifty lashes with a wet noodle for you :-)

    >>
    >> Think I'm bothered? http://www.venganza.org/

    >
    > You do have a penchant for sites that have apparently been put together
    > by people that one wouldn't think were mentally capable of such a task.
    > :-)


    er... were you thinking about using O.D.E. as the underlying O.S. ?-D)

  15. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Responding to Sidney Lambe:

    [...]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Once that standard was defined, webpage design etc. could be
    >>>> optimised accordingly. Those who wanted to download resource could
    >>>> simply add to their overnight auto-task lists.
    >>>
    >>> Like UUCP?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Hmmm. I was going to suggest security risk factors, but there's nothing
    >> there couldn't be reworked accordingly. If the "work" was done (pre-
    >> done?) at the deliver end, only the vital data need ever traverse the
    >> RetroNet, again, improving the efficiency of traffic management.
    >>
    >> Good idea!

    >
    > Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\


    A combination of a decent search engine and time could fix that.



    >>>> As a knock-on result, personal computers could at last be reduced to
    >>>> the size of ciggie packets, and could be incorporated into mobile
    >>>> phones.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh, wait...
    >>>
    >>> That's fifty lashes with a wet noodle for you :-)

    >>
    >> Think I'm bothered? http://www.venganza.org/

    >
    > You do have a penchant for sites that have apparently been put together
    > by people that one wouldn't think were mentally capable of such a task.
    > :-)


    Thats because, as you've already observed, you don't "get it".

    Kinda like Monty Python. either one is a fan, or its as annoying as ****!

    The secret, as with most things in life, in in the punchline.


    >>
    >>
    >>> But the Retronet could definitely be accessed with a very tiny OS. One
    >>> that would fit on a dozen floppies.

    >>
    >> A dozen? http://www.toms.net/rb/

    >
    > No graphical capability. Gonna need a minimal X install for this.


    Not suggesting it as a base, just that a lot can be done with one floppy
    disk. As floppys are now (about time!) redundant old crapware, maybe we
    should be thinking about USB/? portable memory chips etc.?

    > I've seen some stuff about minimal X-based systems that look usable.


    Either that, or some work on how a console/TTY can render usable screen
    detail, including images when required. X11 could be dumped completely.

    Doesn't the Links browser do frame buffer graphics? Thats a start.



    [...]
    >>
    >>

    > After thinking about it, I've realized that Fully decentralized won't
    > work.
    >
    > What I'm seeing 4 kinds of servers, Mail/News/HTTP/Directory. (And their
    > respective client apps, of course). Everyone would run one of them.
    > That's what being on the Retronet costs...


    A combination of fully decentralised clients who chose which servers they
    dial into, with some server covering some functions, and others other
    functions, would nicely break up the possibility of anybody occupying a
    fortress position like the current major ISPs do. This model would force
    competition at many levels, and by the nature of people, the AOL types
    would gravitate toward mainstream "promises of jam today!" outfits,
    leaving the wires/airwaves free enough for the rest of us to adopt other
    independant more interest specific servers.

    We could even set our own up on a local basis, and even run them as local
    commercial resource with wider access to a range of other servers. All
    that wuold be requierd is a standardised method of moving the traffic,
    and with a client-end restriction of 56k (or maybe something a tad
    faster, say 100k?) the client software would be optimised to use this
    limited resource in the best possible manner, meaning that the local/
    extra-local servers would have a known parameter to work with/provide for
    for each client they accept/process.

    The key is to keep things small and light, which will define working
    practices, and therefore also push the "best working practice" factor of
    sotware where today folks just wait for faster hardware and the prices to
    drop on the lext level of broadband they THINK they need.




    > The directory servers would cover mail/web/news and be mirrored all over
    > the place. Perhaps there would be a seperate directory server for
    > mail/web/news.
    >
    > Each web server would cover one branch/sub-branch of the knowledge
    > hierarchy/directory tree of the web directory. Lots of mirrors there,
    > too, as needed.
    >
    > If the person was into plants, then they might cover the cultivation of
    > roses:
    > /plants/macroscopic/domestic/ornamental/flowering/perennial/roses/

    cultivation.
    > If it was a popular site-subject it would be mirrored. The computer
    > doing the mirroring might be owned by someone who didn't give a fig
    > about roses or plants, but was just being a good net citizen and
    > fulfilling his/her obligation to the Retronet.
    >
    > The mail servers could Just be mail servers, with several mirrors
    > apiece.
    >
    > The newservers could each coverjust a hierarchy of groups with as many
    > mirrors as necessary.
    >
    > The directory server client would have all sorts of query options.
    >
    > Jeesh I hope that's clear. It is to me.


    Its food for thought. Pass the salt.



    I bet a bunch of slackers could put something like this together.

    (Must keep this NG topical!


    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  16. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Loki Harfagr wrote:
    > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:40:55 -0700, Sidney Lambe sprout:
    >
    >>>>> Once that standard was defined, webpage design etc. could be
    >>>>> optimised accordingly. Those who wanted to download resource could
    >>>>> simply add to their overnight auto-task lists.
    >>>>
    >>>> Like UUCP?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Hmmm. I was going to suggest security risk factors, but there's nothing
    >>> there couldn't be reworked accordingly. If the "work" was done (pre-
    >>> done?) at the deliver end, only the vital data need ever traverse the
    >>> RetroNet, again, improving the efficiency of traffic management.
    >>>
    >>> Good idea!

    >>
    >> Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\

    >
    > a bit like an RCA (cinch) jack in the cassette recorder with
    > treble maxed to make your backup ;-) Ah, memories... Gone...
    >
    >>>>> As a knock-on result, personal computers could at last be reduced to
    >>>>> the size of ciggie packets, and could be incorporated into mobile
    >>>>> phones.

    >
    > Too bad, it was coming but there I'll have to be a quitter...
    > as I stopped smoking and do not use (not even ever tried to)
    > a mobile phone so I'd better keep away from shapes/sizes that'd be
    > too close to the evil stuff!
    >
    >>>>> Oh, wait...
    >>>>
    >>>> That's fifty lashes with a wet noodle for you :-)
    >>>
    >>> Think I'm bothered? http://www.venganza.org/

    >>
    >> You do have a penchant for sites that have apparently been put together
    >> by people that one wouldn't think were mentally capable of such a task.
    >> :-)

    >
    > er... were you thinking about using O.D.E. as the underlying O.S. ?-D)


    Thanks for stopping by.

    Unfortunately, I seem to lack the cultural background to appreciate what I
    assume is your sense of humor. My loss.

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  17. Re: [OT] The Retronet was: Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Sidney Lambe wrote:
    > But the Retronet could definitely be accessed with a very tiny OS. One
    > that would fit on a dozen floppies.
    >
    > I was thinking about a completely decentralized model, actually. Don't
    > need any pop servers when you can just send mail directly to someone,
    > do you? And web servers can be tiny indeed. So can the others, like
    > NNTP and IRC. DNS and net directory could be combined, updated daily
    > on your own computer. (Local storage space wouldn't be an issue.)


    How do you receive email if you're either not connected or your
    computer is turned off?
    Also think of all the spammers connecting to your computer & spewing spam.

    Do you have any idea of how large the DNS/net directory is?
    Downloading the full /etc/hosts file was the predecessor to DNS. DNS
    was needed because the hosts file became too large. And, storage space
    is not the issue, transmission time is.

    >
    > If I wanted to see your web page on floral arrangements, I'd find
    > the address to your computer on my DNS/web directory server and
    > go download it.
    >
    > With the *option* of downloading any images, as you wisely
    > proposed above.
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> The development of proper traffic management technology where an ISP is
    >>>> made on broken on their efficiency? An internet cost effective enough
    >>>> to be runnable on the subscriptions of it's userbase, that by its very
    >>>> nature is a hostile environment for advertising agency driven bloat?


    Probably not. Start looking at the costs to lease an OC3, or even a
    slow T1 for that matter.

    >>>>
    >>>> Where do I sign up? 8)
    >>>
    >>> Probably on your own computer. You are obviously more qualified to run
    >>> this thing than I am.

    >>
    >> Heh! I'd need something a bit better than this one to run a RetroNet
    >> server. I'll offer you a discount for your consultancy should I ever go
    >> into that business though.

    >
    > Again, I don't see any centralized servers being involved for
    > anything other than routing, and maybe you could get around
    > that ???? (This would make the Retronet nearly invulnerable to
    > corporate interference...) I was thinking of planning and design.
    >

    Routing is not centralized now, it's a distributed system, similiar to
    DNS.
    Now start thinking about the security aspects of your "design".
    The current Internet has lots of security holes due to its original
    usage. Yours would be far worse.

  18. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:45:56 +0000, Mike wrote:

    >> Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\

    >
    > A combination of a decent search engine and time could fix that.


    Just start with here and move on through the links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uucp

    I would respectfully suggest that the continuing discussion is so far OT
    that it be taken to mail or to an appropriate group. (Does anyone know
    if alt.os.linux.nostalgia exists?)

  19. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Sidney Lambe:

    [delete]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP

    Looks promising. I'll study up on it.

    >>> Think I'm bothered? http://www.venganza.org/

    >>
    >> You do have a penchant for sites that have apparently been put together
    >> by people that one wouldn't think were mentally capable of such a task.
    >> :-)

    >
    > Thats because, as you've already observed, you don't "get it".
    >
    > Kinda like Monty Python. either one is a fan, or its as annoying as ****!
    >
    > The secret, as with most things in life, in in the punchline.


    I fart in your general direction.

    >>>
    >>>> But the Retronet could definitely be accessed with a very tiny OS. One
    >>>> that would fit on a dozen floppies.
    >>>
    >>> A dozen? http://www.toms.net/rb/

    >>
    >> No graphical capability. Gonna need a minimal X install for this.

    >
    > Not suggesting it as a base, just that a lot can be done with one floppy
    > disk. As floppys are now (about time!) redundant old crapware, maybe we
    > should be thinking about USB/? portable memory chips etc.?
    >
    >> I've seen some stuff about minimal X-based systems that look usable.

    >
    > Either that, or some work on how a console/TTY can render usable screen
    > detail, including images when required. X11 could be dumped completely.
    >
    > Doesn't the Links browser do frame buffer graphics? Thats a start.


    You are a genius!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framebuffer

    You've just reduced the size of the Retronet distro by 1/2!!

    > [...]
    >>>
    >>>

    >> After thinking about it, I've realized that Fully decentralized won't
    >> work.
    >>
    >> What I'm seeing 4 kinds of servers, Mail/News/HTTP/Directory. (And their
    >> respective client apps, of course). Everyone would run one of them.
    >> That's what being on the Retronet costs...

    >
    > A combination of fully decentralised clients who chose which servers they
    > dial into, with some server covering some functions, and others other
    > functions, would nicely break up the possibility of anybody occupying a
    > fortress position like the current major ISPs do.


    Yes indeed.

    > This model would force
    > competition at many levels, and by the nature of people, the AOL types
    > would gravitate toward mainstream "promises of jam today!" outfits,
    > leaving the wires/airwaves free enough for the rest of us to adopt other
    > independant more interest specific servers.


    Couch potatoes need not apply.

    >
    > We could even set our own up on a local basis, and even run them as local
    > commercial resource with wider access to a range of other servers. All
    > that wuold be requierd is a standardised method of moving the traffic,
    > and with a client-end restriction of 56k (or maybe something a tad
    > faster, say 100k?)


    Seems like 100K would be more than adequate.

    > the client software would be optimised to use this
    > limited resource in the best possible manner, meaning that the local/
    > extra-local servers would have a known parameter to work with/provide for
    > for each client they accept/process.


    Sounds good.

    >
    > The key is to keep things small and light, which will define working
    > practices, and therefore also push the "best working practice" factor of
    > sotware where today folks just wait for faster hardware and the prices to
    > drop on the lext level of broadband they THINK they need.


    Great minds do indeed run in the same channel.

    >> The directory servers would cover mail/web/news and be mirrored all over
    >> the place. Perhaps there would be a seperate directory server for
    >> mail/web/news.
    >>
    >> Each web server would cover one branch/sub-branch of the knowledge
    >> hierarchy/directory tree of the web directory. Lots of mirrors there,
    >> too, as needed.
    >>
    >> If the person was into plants, then they might cover the cultivation of
    >> roses:
    >> /plants/macroscopic/domestic/ornamental/flowering/perennial/roses/

    > cultivation.
    >> If it was a popular site-subject it would be mirrored. The computer
    >> doing the mirroring might be owned by someone who didn't give a fig
    >> about roses or plants, but was just being a good net citizen and
    >> fulfilling his/her obligation to the Retronet.
    >>
    >> The mail servers could Just be mail servers, with several mirrors
    >> apiece.
    >>
    >> The newservers could each coverjust a hierarchy of groups with as many
    >> mirrors as necessary.
    >>
    >> The directory server client would have all sorts of query options.
    >>
    >> Jeesh I hope that's clear. It is to me.

    >
    > Its food for thought. Pass the salt.


    I want to find a newsgroup on . I bring up my
    webdirectory client (text or ncurses) and choose
    newsgroups and type on my search string. It sends the query to
    the first newsgroup directory server mirror on its list. If that
    number is busy it either leaves a message for a callback or moves
    on to the next server-number on the list.

    The reply would be a list of newsgroups and the server-numbers
    for the servers mirroring that segment of the Retrousenet
    hierarchy(ies) and descriptions of each group and their charter
    and information on their traffic levels, etc.

    This information would be sent to your newsclient, or easily available
    to it.

    > I bet a bunch of slackers could put something like this together.
    >
    > (Must keep this NG topical!


    From what I've read on this newsgroup, there's no doubt about that.
    Got some real gurus here. I've never even had to post a question
    here. Just searching the archives at googlegroups has answered
    all of them.

    I think we could do it. Start with what you suggested earlier:

    http://www.toms.net/rb/

    Probably have to use the equivalent of two or three floppies.
    One of those mini-CDs... Or, as you suggested, any storage
    media at all that can be booted from.

    Maybe take the sophisticated install parts from zenwalk...

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  20. Re: [OT] The Retronet was: Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Jerry Peters wrote:
    > Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >> But the Retronet could definitely be accessed with a very tiny OS. One
    >> that would fit on a dozen floppies.
    >>
    >> I was thinking about a completely decentralized model, actually. Don't
    >> need any pop servers when you can just send mail directly to someone,
    >> do you? And web servers can be tiny indeed. So can the others, like
    >> NNTP and IRC. DNS and net directory could be combined, updated daily
    >> on your own computer. (Local storage space wouldn't be an issue.)

    >
    > How do you receive email if you're either not connected or your
    > computer is turned off?
    > Also think of all the spammers connecting to your computer & spewing spam.
    >
    > Do you have any idea of how large the DNS/net directory is?
    > Downloading the full /etc/hosts file was the predecessor to DNS. DNS
    > was needed because the hosts file became too large. And, storage space
    > is not the issue, transmission time is.


    We've made some changes in the design concept since this was posted.
    You are quite right about size of the directory being prohibitive.
    As for spammers, they will not be able to operate at all on the Retronet.
    There will be privacy by not anonymity. Mail will be stored on a POP
    server awaiting retrieval.

    >> If I wanted to see your web page on floral arrangements, I'd find
    >> the address to your computer on my DNS/web directory server and
    >> go download it.
    >>
    >> With the *option* of downloading any images, as you wisely
    >> proposed above.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> The development of proper traffic management technology where an ISP is
    >>>>> made on broken on their efficiency? An internet cost effective enough
    >>>>> to be runnable on the subscriptions of it's userbase, that by its very
    >>>>> nature is a hostile environment for advertising agency driven bloat?

    >
    > Probably not. Start looking at the costs to lease an OC3, or even a
    > slow T1 for that matter.


    You are way behind. We are now talking about using the cellular telephone
    network.

    >>>>>
    >>>>> Where do I sign up? 8)
    >>>>
    >>>> Probably on your own computer. You are obviously more qualified to run
    >>>> this thing than I am.
    >>>
    >>> Heh! I'd need something a bit better than this one to run a RetroNet
    >>> server. I'll offer you a discount for your consultancy should I ever go
    >>> into that business though.

    >>
    >> Again, I don't see any centralized servers being involved for
    >> anything other than routing, and maybe you could get around
    >> that ???? (This would make the Retronet nearly invulnerable to
    >> corporate interference...) I was thinking of planning and design.
    >>

    > Routing is not centralized now, it's a distributed system, similiar to
    > DNS.
    > Now start thinking about the security aspects of your "design".
    > The current Internet has lots of security holes due to its original
    > usage. Yours would be far worse.


    There needs to be some serious thought about security, but it
    won't be anywhere near as difficult as it is on the Internet. We
    are talking about using the cellphone network now, remember. It
    won't be anything like the Internet/TCP-IP network.


    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast