On 01/05/15 08:31, Simon Brown wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,

No it was not.

its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.

Linux isn't a copy of anything.


It is a reverse engineered Unix, deliberately rewritten to avoid
copyright issues.

Unix was the real invention, not Linux.

And that wasn't done in a shed either.

But even Unix was no more than a logical progression from one operating
system to a better one.

All the key breakthroughs of the 20th century came about from a new
understanding of quantum physics - atomic power and weapons, the
transistor, the laser. These were true breakthroughs. Everything else is
simply taking advantage of the things they offered - in the case of the
transistor enormous computing power in a small package - to do things
that people had been doing by hand for years.


Open source is more of a breakthrough

And that is what Linux is.


No. that's a small part of what it is, Its WHY it is tho.

and some of the software produced because of it could be a
breakthrough, Linux isn't.

Wrong.

Wright.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 01/05/15 09:25, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/05/15 08:31, Simon Brown wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,

No it was not.

its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.

Linux isn't a copy of anything.


It is a reverse engineered Unix, deliberately rewritten to avoid
copyright issues.

Unix was the real invention, not Linux.

W-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-ellll.

Unix was itself derived from a previous O/S, Multics.

I am well aware of that. Unix was an evolution, not a revolution.

Perhaps the first operating system, and the first high level programming
languages were revolution, but even there, machine code-
assembler-macro assembler - computer language is a fairly smooth
evolutionary path as is libraries - resident libraries - operating
system...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#History

And that wasn't done in a shed either.

But that's true enough.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 22:44, Simon Brown wrote:


We aren't discussing solving the world's problems, we
are discussing whether invention still happens today.

Visicalc is a better example for solving some of the world's
problems and is another relatively recent invention.


No we were discussing whether you could do a SERIOUS breakthrough in a
shed.

That was just one of the things being discussed
and Woz did that in a shed/garage.

So far you have come up with trivia - profitable, but still trivia.

VisiCalc and Linux are nothing even remotely like trivia.

And neither were profitable.



Apples achievement was to attract enough finance to enable mass
production of the toy.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/15 08:31, Simon Brown wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after that
the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,

No it was not.

its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.

Linux isn't a copy of anything.


It is a reverse engineered Unix, deliberately rewritten to avoid copyright
issues.

So it isn't a copy.

Unix was the real invention, not Linux.

I never said it was the real invention, just that open
source was a significant advance on what was there before.

And that wasn't done in a shed either.

Never said it was.

But even Unix was no more than a logical progression from one operating
system to a better one.

Still a significant improvement on what preceded it.

All the key breakthroughs

We weren't discussing key breakthroughs.

of the 20th century came about from a new understanding of quantum
physics - atomic power and weapons, the transistor, the laser.

That is just plain wrong with DNA alone.

These were true breakthroughs.

We weren't discussing true breakthroughs
most obviously with viable flying machines.

Everything else is simply taking advantage of the things they offered - in
the case of the transistor enormous computing power in a small package -
to do things that people had been doing by hand for years.

Just as true of the wheel, aircraft, cars, the internal
combustion engine, steam engines, etc etc etc.

Open source is more of a breakthrough

And that is what Linux is.


No. that's a small part of what it is,

It is what sets it apart from the other OSs available.

Its WHY it is tho.

and some of the software produced because of it could be a breakthrough,
Linux isn't.

Wrong.

Wright.

It is on open source alone.

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 30/04/2015 08:44, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
...
The difference is that too many of today's idiots believe in magic or
that a bit of development ought to allow us to have solar panels that
could go on the roof of the car or a plane's wings so that the
car/plane needs no other energy source.

Well one already exists.

Not one that can carry several hundred passengers.

What you don't realise is that if some technology could be found to
reduce drag sufficiently, then it wuld be easily possible.

That isn't going to happen now, we have been
doing planes and cars for too long now....

There are ways to reduce drag, such as a micro perforated skin with
suction to remove boundary layer turbulence and create laminar flow.

This was being tested at Cambridge in 1962! The relevant professor
bemoaned the fact that the cheapest commodity in the aviation industry was
concrete.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 22:44, Simon Brown wrote:


We aren't discussing solving the world's problems, we
are discussing whether invention still happens today.

Visicalc is a better example for solving some of the world's
problems and is another relatively recent invention.


No we were discussing whether you could do a SERIOUS breakthrough in a
shed.

That was just one of the things being discussed
and Woz did that in a shed/garage.

So far you have come up with trivia - profitable, but still trivia.

VisiCalc and Linux are nothing even remotely like trivia.

And neither were profitable.



Apples achievement was to attract enough finance to enable mass production
of the toy.

They didnt attract finance to do that.

And it wasnt a toy either.

On 01/05/2015 10:11, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
....
There are ways to reduce drag, such as a micro perforated skin with
suction to remove boundary layer turbulence and create laminar flow.

This was being tested at Cambridge in 1962! The relevant professor
bemoaned the fact that the cheapest commodity in the aviation industry was
concrete.


I don't know when it was, but I do know that, in one set of trials, an
Airspeed Oxford was fitted with an auxiliary engine to run the pump. The
idea was revived again in the 1990s, but for supersonic aircraft.

--
Colin Bignell

On 01/05/2015 08:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/05/15 00:42, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 30/04/2015 08:44, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
...
The difference is that too many of today's idiots believe in magic or
that a bit of development ought to allow us to have solar panels that
could go on the roof of the car or a plane's wings so that the
car/plane needs no other energy source.

Well one already exists.

Not one that can carry several hundred passengers.

What you don't realise is that if some technology could be found to
reduce drag sufficiently, then it wuld be easily possible.

That isn't going to happen now, we have been
doing planes and cars for too long now....

There are ways to reduce drag, such as a micro perforated skin with
suction to remove boundary layer turbulence and create laminar flow.
However, all aircraft are a collection of compromises and that
particular technology isn't really practical, even on conventionally
powered aircraft.


without drag, there would be no lift. The same viscosity that is
responsible for drag is what allows lift to be generated

The aptly named lift dependent drag, which, for a given amount of lift,
can still be reduced by techniques, such as achieving laminar flow over
the lifting surfaces. However, any that does not produce lift is
parasitic drag and the aircraft would be better off without it.


--
Colin Bignell

On 29/04/2015 18:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
....
I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't
about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and
diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and so
on...

The earliest experiments used gunpowder.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 01/05/2015 10:11, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
...
There are ways to reduce drag, such as a micro perforated skin with
suction to remove boundary layer turbulence and create laminar flow.

This was being tested at Cambridge in 1962! The relevant professor
bemoaned the fact that the cheapest commodity in the aviation industry
was concrete.


I don't know when it was, but I do know that, in one set of trials, an
Airspeed Oxford was fitted with an auxiliary engine to run the pump. The
idea was revived again in the 1990s, but for supersonic aircraft.

The Cambridge work used an Auster as the airframe.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 01/05/2015 08:20, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


8

Linux was nothing more than Unix without commercial strings attached.

It is in fact much more than that.

Its actually very much less, Linux is just a copy of the Unix kernel,
all the specifications of Unix were public at the time so it was
relatively easy to build a copy..

On 01/05/2015 08:28, Simon Brown wrote:


8

Apple was lucky, they had an application that people wanted enough to
pay for. Others at the time lacked that one bit of software.

It wasnt one bit of software that saw Apple succeed.

Name another one that was worth buying at that time.

On 01/05/2015 10:09, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/15 08:31, Simon Brown wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after
that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,

No it was not.

its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.

Linux isn't a copy of anything.



It is a reverse engineered Unix, deliberately rewritten to avoid
copyright issues.

So it isn't a copy.


It looks like the Unix kernel, it quacks like the Unix kernel, its a copy.
You do know linux is only the kernel?

Unix was the real invention, not Linux.

I never said it was the real invention, just that open
source was a significant advance on what was there before.

And that wasn't done in a shed either.

Never said it was.

But even Unix was no more than a logical progression from one
operating system to a better one.

Still a significant improvement on what preceded it.

All the key breakthroughs

We weren't discussing key breakthroughs.

of the 20th century came about from a new understanding of quantum
physics - atomic power and weapons, the transistor, the laser.

That is just plain wrong with DNA alone.

These were true breakthroughs.

We weren't discussing true breakthroughs
most obviously with viable flying machines.

Everything else is simply taking advantage of the things they offered
- in the case of the transistor enormous computing power in a small
package - to do things that people had been doing by hand for years.

Just as true of the wheel, aircraft, cars, the internal
combustion engine, steam engines, etc etc etc.

Open source is more of a breakthrough

And that is what Linux is.


No. that's a small part of what it is,

It is what sets it apart from the other OSs available.

The open source software written to use Linux is quite capable of
running on other OSes, you don't even need Linux to run the majority of
it (although many of the utilities don't make much sense on some OSes).


Its WHY it is tho.

and some of the software produced because of it could be a
breakthrough, Linux isn't.

Wrong.

Wright.

It is on open source alone.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 01/05/2015 08:20, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


8

Linux was nothing more than Unix without commercial strings attached.

It is in fact much more than that.

Its actually very much less,

No, on the open source alone.

Linux is just a copy of the Unix kernel,

No it is not.

all the specifications of Unix were public at the time so it was
relatively easy to build a copy..

Its gone on from that to much more than that.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 01/05/2015 08:28, Simon Brown wrote:


8

Apple was lucky, they had an application that people wanted enough to
pay for. Others at the time lacked that one bit of software.

It wasnt one bit of software that saw Apple succeed.

Name another one that was worth buying at that time.

Plenty just used what it came with and never used VisiCalc at all.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 01/05/2015 10:09, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/15 08:31, Simon Brown wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after
that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,

No it was not.

its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.

Linux isn't a copy of anything.



It is a reverse engineered Unix, deliberately rewritten to avoid
copyright issues.

So it isn't a copy.

It looks like the Unix kernel, it quacks like the Unix kernel, its a copy.

Not given what has changed since then.

You do know linux is only the kernel?

Its much more complicated than that, particularly
with what is used on smartphones.

Unix was the real invention, not Linux.

I never said it was the real invention, just that open
source was a significant advance on what was there before.

And that wasn't done in a shed either.

Never said it was.

But even Unix was no more than a logical progression from one
operating system to a better one.

Still a significant improvement on what preceded it.

All the key breakthroughs

We weren't discussing key breakthroughs.

of the 20th century came about from a new understanding of quantum
physics - atomic power and weapons, the transistor, the laser.

That is just plain wrong with DNA alone.

These were true breakthroughs.

We weren't discussing true breakthroughs
most obviously with viable flying machines.

Everything else is simply taking advantage of the things they offered
- in the case of the transistor enormous computing power in a small
package - to do things that people had been doing by hand for years.

Just as true of the wheel, aircraft, cars, the internal
combustion engine, steam engines, etc etc etc.

Open source is more of a breakthrough

And that is what Linux is.


No. that's a small part of what it is,

It is what sets it apart from the other OSs available.

The open source software written to use Linux is quite capable of running
on other OSes,

I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about the open source Linux.

you don't even need Linux to run the majority of it (although many of the
utilities don't make much sense on some OSes).

Its WHY it is tho.

and some of the software produced because of it could be a
breakthrough, Linux isn't.

Wrong.

Wright.

It is on open source alone.

On 01/05/2015 20:26, Simon Brown wrote:

It looks like the Unix kernel, it quacks like the Unix kernel, its a
copy.

Not given what has changed since then.

What's changed in the kernel used on PCs that makes them not a copy of Unix?


You do know linux is only the kernel?

Its much more complicated than that, particularly
with what is used on smartphones.

You will find they use kernels based on Linux, i.e. not linux but some
derivative that has different memory management, etc.


8

The open source software written to use Linux is quite capable of
running on other OSes,

I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about the open source Linux.

So you are only talking about a kernel, what use is that, it doesn't do
anything useful, its the other stuff like ed, vi, gnome, etc. that does
useful stuff and that isn't Linux and doesn't need Linux.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

Duh. VIABLE flying machines are a serious breakthrough
and that didnt just involve a decent power to weight ratio.

Hardly.

It is when you consider using them to move people around the world.

Just needed development.

Still a serious advance over ships.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:53:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Yes, because of the power to weight ratio - something that fluffy bunny
halfwits cannot comprehend. From time to time, also, one hears of
people imagining we might put steam engines in cars. It doesn't occur
to them to wonder why steam engines are so large.

they aren't. I saw a mamod steam engine smaller than a shoe box...:-)

Even smaller,
http://www.zen98812.zen.co.uk/steam.html


G.Harman

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 21:19, Simon Brown wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

The Wright brothers were over a century ago.

Yes, but Wozniak produced a significant breakthrough rather later
than that.

What breakthrough was that, then?

He worked out how to make a personal computer
affordable by almost anyone who wanted to have one.

So did IBM, clive sinclair - or chris curry - and a dozen other people
who worked out what a low cost 8 bit processor made by a VERY big
company could do. When hooked up to a mass produyced TV made by another
VERY big company.

Sure, I never said that what he did was unique, just that
it was a useful advance on what we had before he did that.

Whoever did the telephone produced a significant breakthrough too.

Not recently - none of it. Those days are GONE.

No they are not, we keep seeing significant
advances like with VisiCalc and other useful apps.

We have just seen useful advances with mobile phone OSs too.

I'd go with useful advance. Not significant breakthrough.

VisiCalc was a significant breakthrough with how things were done before it.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 1 May 2015 08:13:58 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:55:37 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:


The only Wozniak that I'm aware of is Stephen Wozniak of Apple fame.
According to his Wiki entry, the only thing he's done with aircraft is
to crash one.

I didn't say his had anything to do with aircraft.

So you talk in riddles.

Everyone else understood what I meant there.

As I said, you are a smart-arse, and you have no
concept of what is meant by a serious breakthrough.

I didn't say his was a serious breakthrough, just
that he did what he did in his shed/garage.

You kept saying what he did was a significant breakthrough.

No I didnt, I said that he did what he did in his shed/garage.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 01/05/2015 20:26, Simon Brown wrote:

It looks like the Unix kernel, it quacks like the Unix kernel, its a
copy.

Not given what has changed since then.

What's changed in the kernel used on PCs that makes them not a copy of
Unix?

I wasnt talking about just the kernel.

You do know linux is only the kernel?

Its much more complicated than that, particularly
with what is used on smartphones.

You will find they use kernels based on Linux, i.e. not linux but some
derivative that has different memory management, etc.

Still comes from Linux.


8

The open source software written to use Linux is quite capable of
running on other OSes,

I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about the open source Linux.

So you are only talking about a kernel,

No, the totality of Linux and the derivatives.

what use is that, it doesn't do
anything useful, its the other stuff like ed, vi, gnome, etc. that does
useful stuff and that isn't Linux and doesn't need Linux.

It is in fact much more complicated than that,
particularly with what is used on smartphones.

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2015 08:44, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
...
The difference is that too many of today's idiots believe in magic or
that a bit of development ought to allow us to have solar panels that
could go on the roof of the car or a plane's wings so that the
car/plane needs no other energy source.

Well one already exists.

Not one that can carry several hundred passengers.

What you don't realise is that if some technology could be found to
reduce drag sufficiently, then it wuld be easily possible.

That isn't going to happen now, we have been
doing planes and cars for too long now....

There are ways to reduce drag, such as a micro perforated skin with
suction to remove boundary layer turbulence and create laminar flow.
However, all aircraft are a collection of compromises and that particular
technology isn't really practical, even on conventionally powered
aircraft.

A couple of gliders have that technology.
Dunno how well it works.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/15 00:42, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 30/04/2015 08:44, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
...
The difference is that too many of today's idiots believe in magic or
that a bit of development ought to allow us to have solar panels that
could go on the roof of the car or a plane's wings so that the
car/plane needs no other energy source.

Well one already exists.

Not one that can carry several hundred passengers.

What you don't realise is that if some technology could be found to
reduce drag sufficiently, then it wuld be easily possible.

That isn't going to happen now, we have been
doing planes and cars for too long now....

There are ways to reduce drag, such as a micro perforated skin with
suction to remove boundary layer turbulence and create laminar flow.
However, all aircraft are a collection of compromises and that
particular technology isn't really practical, even on conventionally
powered aircraft.


without drag, there would be no lift. The same viscosity that is
responsible for drag is what allows lift to be generated

Drivel.
Without drag, no power would be needed in an aircraft once it reached the
altitude required.
The main part of the science of fuel economy revolves around reducing drag.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:29:06 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mmm. You can do combustion without using air.

The classic is heating coal and metal oxide. What you get is pure CO2
and
metal.

Not using coal you don't.
Which is why coke is used.

Before coke became widely used, iron was smelted with anthracite. I'm
sure you'll admit that anthracite is a coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite_iron

Abandoned years ago.
The product was inferior due to sulphur content.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

You kept saying what he did was a significant breakthrough.

No I didnt, I said that he did what he did in his shed/garage.

Let me refresh your memory:

In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..

The Wright brothers were over a century ago.

Yes, but Wozniak produced a significant breakthrough rather later than
that.

And he did in the sense that he was involved in producing what anyone who
wanted
one could buy. Yes, that was not unique, but I never said anything about
unique.

Same with Ford. Yes, there was nothing particularly unique about
the model T but it did have one hell of an effect on what was
buyable at the time and that was another significant breakthrough.

Harry was stupidly claiming that that didnt happen anymore.

He was just plain wrong. It still happens with software, most obviously
with VisiCalc and Linux, both were quite different to what was before
in the sense of what lots had access to because of what was done.

On 02/05/2015 00:22, Simon Brown wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 01/05/2015 20:26, Simon Brown wrote:

It looks like the Unix kernel, it quacks like the Unix kernel, its a
copy.

Not given what has changed since then.

What's changed in the kernel used on PCs that makes them not a copy of
Unix?

I wasnt talking about just the kernel.

So stop referring to linux, that is only the kernel!
Give some credit to the people that actually make the software work
rather than Linus.


You do know linux is only the kernel?

Its much more complicated than that, particularly
with what is used on smartphones.

You will find they use kernels based on Linux, i.e. not linux but some
derivative that has different memory management, etc.

Still comes from Linux.

That's like saying the program we replace init and all the other stuff
needed to boot unix with is unix, it wasn't it did a specific job of
getting the application up and running much faster than using the
traditional methods. It was done by ripping the source out of the
various programs executed and combining it into one, it took more than
50% off the boot time.

The open source software written to use Linux is quite capable of
running on other OSes,

I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about the open source Linux.

So you are only talking about a kernel,

No, the totality of Linux and the derivatives.

But all the derivatives of Linux are kernels and nothing more.


what use is that, it doesn't do
anything useful, its the other stuff like ed, vi, gnome, etc. that
does useful stuff and that isn't Linux and doesn't need Linux.

It is in fact much more complicated than that,
particularly with what is used on smartphones.

They use a kernel based on Linux and a load of other stuff not based on
Linux how is that any different?

I will repeat for the final time..
linux is not an OS it is a kernel written, at first, by Linus. The bits
that make it an OS are open source software developed by others and they
do not need Linux to run, just a unix like kernel and windows is close
enough for the majority of software to work.

https://www.freebsd.org/ is a unix OS that, in the main, uses the same
open source software and a different kernel, it is not linux and its
what Apple use, not linux.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 02/05/2015 00:22, Simon Brown wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 01/05/2015 20:26, Simon Brown wrote:

It looks like the Unix kernel, it quacks like the Unix kernel, its a
copy.

Not given what has changed since then.

What's changed in the kernel used on PCs that makes them not a copy of
Unix?

I wasnt talking about just the kernel.

So stop referring to linux, that is only the kernel!

No thanks, its a useful shorthand.

Give some credit to the people that actually make the software work rather
than Linus.

I never said anything about Linus.

You do know linux is only the kernel?

Its much more complicated than that, particularly
with what is used on smartphones.

You will find they use kernels based on Linux, i.e. not linux but some
derivative that has different memory management, etc.

Still comes from Linux.

That's like saying the program we replace init and all the other stuff
needed to boot unix with is unix,

Nothing like in fact.

it wasn't it did a specific job of getting the application up and running
much faster than using the traditional methods. It was done by ripping the
source out of the various programs executed and combining it into one, it
took more than 50% off the boot time.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

The open source software written to use Linux is quite capable of
running on other OSes,

I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about the open source Linux.

So you are only talking about a kernel,

No, the totality of Linux and the derivatives.

But all the derivatives of Linux are kernels and nothing more.

Wrong with what is used on smartphones and tablets.

what use is that, it doesn't do
anything useful, its the other stuff like ed, vi, gnome, etc. that
does useful stuff and that isn't Linux and doesn't need Linux.

It is in fact much more complicated than that,
particularly with what is used on smartphones.

They use a kernel based on Linux and a load of other stuff not based on
Linux how is that any different?

Still a useful advance on what was there before.

That is ALL I ever said about it.

I will repeat for the final time..

You can repeat this irrelevant line till you are
blue in the face if you like, changes nothing.

linux is not an OS it is a kernel written, at first, by Linus.

I never said anything about that.

The bits that make it an OS are open source software developed by others

I never said anything about who did it.

and they do not need Linux to run,

Never said anything about that either.

just a unix like kernel and windows is close enough for the majority of
software to work.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether
Linux is a worthwhile advance on what was
there before because it was open source.

https://www.freebsd.org/ is a unix OS that, in the main, uses the same
open source software and a different kernel, it is not linux and its what
Apple use, not linux.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether Linux
is a useful advance on what was there before it.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
et...

You kept saying what he did was a significant breakthrough.

No I didnt, I said that he did what he did in his shed/garage.

Let me refresh your memory:

In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
m...

The Wright brothers were over a century ago.

Yes, but Wozniak produced a significant breakthrough rather later than
that.

And he did in the sense that he was involved in producing what anyone who
wanted
one could buy. Yes, that was not unique, but I never said anything about
unique.

more claiming you didn't say X when no one
ever said you did (uniqueness, in this case).

You clearly couldnt find any example of me doing that.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2015 08:28:17 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:29:06 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mmm. You can do combustion without using air.

The classic is heating coal and metal oxide. What you get is pure CO2
and
metal.

Not using coal you don't.
Which is why coke is used.

Before coke became widely used, iron was smelted with anthracite. I'm
sure you'll admit that anthracite is a coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite_iron

Abandoned years ago.

Of course it was. But that's not the point. It's perfectly practical
to get metal and CO2 from metal oxide heated with coal, when you said
it wasn't. You could even use ordinary raw coal if you use a hot blast
furnace, see below.

The product was inferior due to sulphur content.

The problem of sulphur contamination was overcome by the hot blast
process, when even raw coal could be used, so you're wrong again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_blast

Quotes from that article: "Other advantages in using hot blast were
that raw coal could be used instead of coke" and "Hot blast allowed
the use of anthracite in iron smelting".

Also "Anthracite was displaced by coke in the U.S. after the Civil
War. Coke was more porous and able to support the heavier loads in the
vastly larger furnaces of the late 19th century". No mention of an
inferior product due to sulphur content.

So, wrong all round, ****-fer-brains.

So why isn't it done nowadays?
Because it was a failure.
Producing an inferior product.

Lots of technolgies were abandoned as impractical.

In article . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,
its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.
You mean like MSDOS and most of the other stuff from Micro****
Open source is more of a breakthrough and some of the software produced
because of it could be a breakthrough, Linux isn't.



--
bert

On 03/05/15 21:38, bert wrote:
In article . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,
its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.
You mean like MSDOS and most of the other stuff from Micro****

yes. Its just a copy from something rather better than what gates
copied. And developed by people who wanted it to work, not sell.


Open source is more of a breakthrough and some of the software
produced because of it could be a breakthrough, Linux isn't.





--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 03/05/15 23:01, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-03, bert wrote:
In article . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,
its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.
You mean like MSDOS and most of the other stuff from Micro****

MS-DOS wasn't written by Microsoft.

It was ultimately.

I forget what Gates bought, but it was only a starting point. PCDOS was
the result and IBM had a fair hand in that IIRC. NSDOS was a later
evolution, and was vastly more code than the original system

But Microsoft has always been beyond teh early days a marketing company,
not a technical company.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 23:01, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-03, bert wrote:
In article . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after that
the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,
its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.
You mean like MSDOS and most of the other stuff from Micro****

MS-DOS wasn't written by Microsoft.

It was ultimately.

I forget what Gates bought, but it was only a starting point. PCDOS was
the result and IBM had a fair hand in that IIRC.

No they didnt, they bought it from Gates.

NSDOS was a later evolution, and was vastly more code than the original
system

But Microsoft has always been beyond teh early days a marketing company,
not a technical company.

But even IBM got them to do the first OS/2.

Hardly surprising given the abortion they produced with Topview.

On 04/05/15 00:09, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 23:01, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-03, bert wrote:
In article . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after
that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,
its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.
You mean like MSDOS and most of the other stuff from Micro****

MS-DOS wasn't written by Microsoft.

It was ultimately.

I forget what Gates bought, but it was only a starting point. PCDOS
was the result and IBM had a fair hand in that IIRC.

No they didnt, they bought it from Gates.

yes and no. IBM had a great deal of input into the design. Far too much
according to one MS employee

anyway the whole thing got a massive rewrite around dos 2 time So at
least 30% of that was total MS.



NSDOS was a later evolution, and was vastly more code than the
original system

But Microsoft has always been beyond teh early days a marketing
company, not a technical company.

But even IBM got them to do the first OS/2.

Hardly surprising given the abortion they produced with Topview.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

If you ignore the "green" aspect, then its a technology that may at some
point be useful. In a world with abundant nuclear power, there will
still be a demand for the energy density carbon fuels can deliver. So
additional techniques to synthesise them from existing environmental
carbon may become mainstream.

No need to ignore a technology, just because the spin someone sticks on it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 04/05/15 20:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

If you ignore the "green" aspect, then its a technology that may at some
point be useful. In a world with abundant nuclear power, there will
still be a demand for the energy density carbon fuels can deliver. So
additional techniques to synthesise them from existing environmental
carbon may become mainstream.

No need to ignore a technology, just because the spin someone sticks on it.


Sigh. I really get fed up with people who think they are a step ahead
when they are three steps behidn..

Of COURSE if we MUST have hydrocarbon fuel, and its probably the only
realistic way to fly across the atlantic for a long time yet, and the
cost of extracting it out of the ground exceeds the cost of making it
with nuclear power (that being the cheapest non fossil source of power)
then we might synthesise it and sell it at - say £5 a litre or something.

Considering that avjet is about 50p a litre or less, and that fuel is
almost the dominant cost of flying, thats a ten time increase in fares.

£3000 quid to fly to new york is not going to make it something anyone
does on a whim. Not when a nuclear ocean liner can do it in 2 days for
£500 or something.

As I said, technically possible but commercially catastrophic.

What people don't understand is that in the real world cost rules the
solution matrix. Otherwise we would all drive jaguars. Or porsches or
Ferraris or Humvees or whatever. As it is we all drive ford ****uses.
Because they are all we can afford.

And the green party doesn't even understand the term 'cost benefit analysis'


And if the Labia party does, its doesn't let it hold them back.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 04/05/15 09:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
But all that still doesn't get away from the fact that you_can_ get
metal and CO2 from metal oxide heated with coal, when you said
it wasn't possible. Whether it's commercially viable or done on a
large scale today is irrelevant to that question. It is technically
possible and was done in the past.

My university is actually researching exactly that.

Its a very interesting technique. Because what actually happens is that
when the coal is burnt with just the oxide, what you get out is white
hot metal and pure carbon dioxide, Which is a lot easier to take out of
the flue than a mixture of it with nitrogen and oxygen which is what
burning coal in air gives.

Then the white hot metal is sprayed with air in a separate chamber,
turning it back to oxide, and removing oxygen from the air in the
process, but adding no CO2, and the white hot oxide is fed back to the
coal combustor again.

For technical reason, this is actually more efficient than burning coal
in air.

As the engineer who was involved said 'we told them it was about carbon
capture to get the grant, but really its about more efficient coal power
stations'...:-)


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 05/05/15 08:47, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 01:12:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/05/15 09:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
But all that still doesn't get away from the fact that you_can_ get
metal and CO2 from metal oxide heated with coal, when you said
it wasn't possible. Whether it's commercially viable or done on a
large scale today is irrelevant to that question. It is technically
possible and was done in the past.

My university is actually researching exactly that.

Its a very interesting technique. Because what actually happens is that
when the coal is burnt with just the oxide, what you get out is white
hot metal and pure carbon dioxide, Which is a lot easier to take out of
the flue than a mixture of it with nitrogen and oxygen which is what
burning coal in air gives.

Then the white hot metal is sprayed with air in a separate chamber,
turning it back to oxide, and removing oxygen from the air in the
process, but adding no CO2, and the white hot oxide is fed back to the
coal combustor again.

For technical reason, this is actually more efficient than burning coal
in air.

As the engineer who was involved said 'we told them it was about carbon
capture to get the grant, but really its about more efficient coal power
stations'...:-)

That's very interesting. Are there any papers published that might be
available on the 'net and not behind a paywall? (I'm interested
because some 25 years ago, before I retired, I ran a project on the
simultaneous carbothermal reduction and nitriding of an
aluminosilicate mineral to make a SiAlON, using a fluid bed running at
1500°C).

Yes there are but I've lost the links.

Try a google on something sensible like 'metal oxide combustion'


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article , Huge
writes
On 2015-05-03, bert wrote:
In article . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 01/05/2015 00:23, Simon Brown wrote:

I'd say the real breakthroughs there the transistor, and after that the
integrated circuit.

Sure, but other stuff like VisiCalc was too. So was Linux.

Linux was and still is just a copy of something that already existed,
its hardly a breakthrough to copy something.
You mean like MSDOS and most of the other stuff from Micro****

MS-DOS wasn't written by Microsoft.


Exactly my point
--
bert