[9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

Rumor has it...

	"Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart
	Stores Inc., among other retailers, to sell a Google PC. The
	machine would run an operating system created by Google, not
	Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap
	perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-predict1jan01,0,3503327.story

Is it the mother-of-all-gnot?

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

Holy Sheep Shit!  If I didn't have so many machines I'd
buy some.

brucee

On 1/4/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> Rumor has it...
>
>        "Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart
>        Stores Inc., among other retailers, to sell a Google PC. The
>        machine would run an operating system created by Google, not
>        Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap
>        perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars."
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-predict1jan01,0,3503327.story
>
> Is it the mother-of-all-gnot?
>
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[jmk]

The question is why would they do that?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/03/google_pc_claim/

--jim

On Tue Jan  3 12:15:52 EST 2006, bruce.ellis@gmail.com wrote:
> Holy Sheep Shit!  If I didn't have so many machines I'd
> buy some.
> 
> brucee
> 
> On 1/4/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> > Rumor has it...
> >
> >        "Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart
> >        Stores Inc., among other retailers, to sell a Google PC. The
> >        machine would run an operating system created by Google, not
> >        Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap
> >        perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars."
> >
> > http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-predict1jan01,0,3503327.story
> >
> > Is it the mother-of-all-gnot?
> >
> >

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

must be $$$ in there.

brucee

On 1/4/06, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com <jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> The question is why would they do that?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/03/google_pc_claim/
>
> --jim
>
> On Tue Jan  3 12:15:52 EST 2006, bruce.ellis@gmail.com wrote:
> > Holy Sheep Shit!  If I didn't have so many machines I'd
> > buy some.
> >
> > brucee
> >
> > On 1/4/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> > > Rumor has it...
> > >
> > >        "Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart
> > >        Stores Inc., among other retailers, to sell a Google PC. The
> > >        machine would run an operating system created by Google, not
> > >        Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap
> > >        perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars."
> > >
> > > http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-predict1jan01,0,3503327.story
> > >
> > > Is it the mother-of-all-gnot?
> > >
> > >
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Dan Cross]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 12:25:55PM -0500, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> The question is why would they do that?

Which part?  Their own PC, or their own operating system?

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[jmk]

Either.

On Tue Jan  3 12:48:42 EST 2006, cross@math.psu.edu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 12:25:55PM -0500, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> > The question is why would they do that?
> 
> Which part?  Their own PC, or their own operating system?
> 
> 	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Paul Lalonde]

Uninformed speculation:

They want a pile of users for their online applications.
At small cost they can provide an appliance that provides always-on,  
always-networked services that people want: search, photo management,  
content delivery, and I'm betting soon a home office suite.  Portable  
documents where ever google is.
And largely funded through their advertising model which gets to  
target people even more accurately based on their documents and work  
habits.

Don't think of it as a PC, but rather as a terminal to the Google  
server.

Paul

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

well thought and spoke.

On 1/4/06, Paul Lalonde <plalonde@telus.net> wrote:
> Uninformed speculation:
>
> They want a pile of users for their online applications.
> At small cost they can provide an appliance that provides always-on,
> always-networked services that people want: search, photo management,
> content delivery, and I'm betting soon a home office suite.  Portable
> documents where ever google is.
> And largely funded through their advertising model which gets to
> target people even more accurately based on their documents and work
> habits.
>
> Don't think of it as a PC, but rather as a terminal to the Google
> server.
>
> Paul
>
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> Don't think of it as a PC, but rather as a terminal to the Google  
> server.

i've seen this before;  maybe gnot.

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

google machine gnot's MS.

On 1/4/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> > Don't think of it as a PC, but rather as a terminal to the Google
> > server.
>
> i've seen this before;  maybe gnot.

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Paul Lalonde]

The scary part is how little OS you wind up needing; really just  
enough of a base to support local document caching (which will be  
sold as "files on your machine" but are really a cache), and to run  
AJAX.  I'm betting you can embed Opera or Firefox on a relatively  
small machine with these kinds of constraints, without even needing  
to re-use GNU/Linux.

Paul

On 3-Jan-06, at 11:07 AM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:

>> Don't think of it as a PC, but rather as a terminal to the Google
>> server.
>
> i've seen this before;  maybe gnot.
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

Inferno fits easily on a linksys wrt54g router, web server
and all.  Go figure.

brucee

On 1/4/06, Paul Lalonde <plalonde@telus.net> wrote:
> The scary part is how little OS you wind up needing; really just
> enough of a base to support local document caching (which will be
> sold as "files on your machine" but are really a cache), and to run
> AJAX.  I'm betting you can embed Opera or Firefox on a relatively
> small machine with these kinds of constraints, without even needing
> to re-use GNU/Linux.
>
> Paul
>
> On 3-Jan-06, at 11:07 AM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
>
> >> Don't think of it as a PC, but rather as a terminal to the Google
> >> server.
> >
> > i've seen this before;  maybe gnot.
> >
>
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Brian L. Stuart]

In message <775b8d190601031037t174cc069g851b63ce4021932a@mail.gmail.com>, Bruce
 Ellis writes:
>Inferno fits easily on a linksys wrt54g router, web server
>and all.  Go figure.

Speaking of such things.  Is there NAT support in either Plan 9
or Inferno?  I looked around and if it's there, I'm missing it.

Thanks,
BLS

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

the simple answer is yes.  froggie did it years ago.
i see nothing in any distribution that implements it.

brucee

On 1/4/06, Brian L. Stuart <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> In message <775b8d190601031037t174cc069g851b63ce4021932a@mail.gmail.com>, Bruce
>  Ellis writes:
> >Inferno fits easily on a linksys wrt54g router, web server
> >and all.  Go figure.
>
> Speaking of such things.  Is there NAT support in either Plan 9
> or Inferno?  I looked around and if it's there, I'm missing it.
>
> Thanks,
> BLS
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

sorry i should have been less terse.  froggie runs inferno
(it is a 4 processor box) but it shares the same ip stack
that good old dave wrote for plan9.

brucee

On 1/4/06, Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com> wrote:
> the simple answer is yes.  froggie did it years ago.
> i see nothing in any distribution that implements it.
>
> brucee
>
> On 1/4/06, Brian L. Stuart <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > In message <775b8d190601031037t174cc069g851b63ce4021932a@mail.gmail.com>, Bruce
> >  Ellis writes:
> > >Inferno fits easily on a linksys wrt54g router, web server
> > >and all.  Go figure.
> >
> > Speaking of such things.  Is there NAT support in either Plan 9
> > or Inferno?  I looked around and if it's there, I'm missing it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > BLS
> >
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[C H Forsyth]

>Speaking of such things.  Is there NAT support in either Plan 9
>or Inferno?  I looked around and if it's there, I'm missing it.

i had a quick look at the archives but couldn't find the right article.
still, a previous time this was discussed, i think it was stated
by <deleted> that the nat code hadn't been released because it was considered
at the time to compete with a lucent product <deleted>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

good memory.

On 1/4/06, C H Forsyth <forsyth@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> >Speaking of such things.  Is there NAT support in either Plan 9
> >or Inferno?  I looked around and if it's there, I'm missing it.
>
> i had a quick look at the archives but couldn't find the right article.
> still, a previous time this was discussed, i think it was stated
> by <deleted> that the nat code hadn't been released because it was considered
> at the time to compete with a lucent product <deleted>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Brian L. Stuart]

In message <63349e4f7ae73a58077654a3cd628027@vitanuova.com>, C H Forsyth writes
:
>>Speaking of such things.  Is there NAT support in either Plan 9
>>or Inferno?  I looked around and if it's there, I'm missing it.
>
>i had a quick look at the archives but couldn't find the right article.
>still, a previous time this was discussed, i think it was stated
>by <deleted> that the nat code hadn't been released because it was considered
>at the time to compete with a lucent product <deleted>

Oh well.  I had thought it would be fun to change my router/NAT
box over to Inferno from an old Linux install.  But I guess it'll
have to wait.

Thanks,
BLS

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

sorry, i've had a very eventful (last) year so ozinferno ain't out yet.
sorry that i'm actually testing it and fixing bugs.  garbage collection
is now another order of magnitude more efficient.  there is still one
nasty which i have tracked but not fixed.

brucee

On 1/5/06, Brian L. Stuart <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> In message <63349e4f7ae73a58077654a3cd628027@vitanuova.com>, C H Forsyth writes
> :
> >>Speaking of such things.  Is there NAT support in either Plan 9
> >>or Inferno?  I looked around and if it's there, I'm missing it.
> >
> >i had a quick look at the archives but couldn't find the right article.
> >still, a previous time this was discussed, i think it was stated
> >by <deleted> that the nat code hadn't been released because it was considered
> >at the time to compete with a lucent product <deleted>
>
> Oh well.  I had thought it would be fun to change my router/NAT
> box over to Inferno from an old Linux install.  But I guess it'll
> have to wait.
>
> Thanks,
> BLS
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Jeff Sickel]

Do you need beta testers and the like?

jas

On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:24 AM, Bruce Ellis wrote:

> sorry, i've had a very eventful (last) year so ozinferno ain't out  
> yet.
> sorry that i'm actually testing it and fixing bugs.  garbage  
> collection
> is now another order of magnitude more efficient.  there is still one
> nasty which i have tracked but not fixed.
>
> brucee

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

there are a few alpha testers - i hope to release it for beta
on 'stralia day but  if my (non inferno related) disaster rate
doesn't improve it may not happen.

thanks for the offer.

brucee

On 1/6/06, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com> wrote:
> Do you need beta testers and the like?
>
> jas
>
> On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:24 AM, Bruce Ellis wrote:
>
> > sorry, i've had a very eventful (last) year so ozinferno ain't out
> > yet.
> > sorry that i'm actually testing it and fixing bugs.  garbage
> > collection
> > is now another order of magnitude more efficient.  there is still one
> > nasty which i have tracked but not fixed.
> >
> > brucee

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

Check out Gnot.

If it is a Gnot-thingy and it is only connecting to Google, why would
they muck with AJAX when they can use a file protocol?

> The scary part is how little OS you wind up needing; really just  
> enough of a base to support local document caching (which will be  
> sold as "files on your machine" but are really a cache), and to run  
> AJAX.  I'm betting you can embed Opera or Firefox on a relatively  
> small machine with these kinds of constraints, without even needing  
> to re-use GNU/Linux.
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 3-Jan-06, at 11:07 AM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> 
>>> Don't think of it as a PC, but rather as a terminal to the Google
>>> server.
>>
>> i've seen this before;  maybe gnot.

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

Skip knows how I work.  Windows laptop running drawterm,
connected to two servers in sydney and his in the next room.
Gnot hard.

brucee

On 1/4/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> Check out Gnot.
>
> If it is a Gnot-thingy and it is only connecting to Google, why would
> they muck with AJAX when they can use a file protocol?
>
> > The scary part is how little OS you wind up needing; really just
> > enough of a base to support local document caching (which will be
> > sold as "files on your machine" but are really a cache), and to run
> > AJAX.  I'm betting you can embed Opera or Firefox on a relatively
> > small machine with these kinds of constraints, without even needing
> > to re-use GNU/Linux.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 3-Jan-06, at 11:07 AM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> >
> >>> Don't think of it as a PC, but rather as a terminal to the Google
> >>> server.
> >>
> >> i've seen this before;  maybe gnot.
>
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> Gnot hard.

and Gnot scarry either :)

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Paul Lalonde]

On 3-Jan-06, at 12:07 PM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> If it is a Gnot-thingy and it is only connecting to Google, why would
> they muck with AJAX when they can use a file protocol?

User-base and user-acceptability.
The user base comes from people already running AJAX boxes.
User acceptability comes from addressing a key shortcoming of Gnot.
I like Gnot --- I don't think Rob has gotten nearly the recognition  
from the HCI community on this interface breakthrough and interfaces- 
for-programmers in general --- but I continue to doubt that the  
public is ready to put all their files on a remote server without  
being able to get to them when the umbilicus is severed.  Servers  
make people anxious; by adding local disk Google can ease that while  
still mirroring people's data on their network/computer.  Gmail was  
just the start of that particular slippery slope.

Paul

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Bruce Ellis]

Gnot that hard, bud.

On 1/4/06, Paul Lalonde <plalonde@telus.net> wrote:
>
> On 3-Jan-06, at 12:07 PM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> > If it is a Gnot-thingy and it is only connecting to Google, why would
> > they muck with AJAX when they can use a file protocol?
>
> User-base and user-acceptability.
> The user base comes from people already running AJAX boxes.
> User acceptability comes from addressing a key shortcoming of Gnot.
> I like Gnot --- I don't think Rob has gotten nearly the recognition
> from the HCI community on this interface breakthrough and interfaces-
> for-programmers in general --- but I continue to doubt that the
> public is ready to put all their files on a remote server without
> being able to get to them when the umbilicus is severed.  Servers
> make people anxious; by adding local disk Google can ease that while
> still mirroring people's data on their network/computer.  Gmail was
> just the start of that particular slippery slope.
>
> Paul
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[jmk]

I was about to ask what AJAX was, since it's clearly none of the
three I'm familar with. However, the OED is illuminating:

†aˈjax. Obs. 

  Jocularly for a jakes; see jakes. 
  1588 Shakes. L.L.L. v. ii. 581 Your Lion that holds his Pollax
sitting on a close stoole, will be giuen to Aiax. 1596 Harington
(title) The Metamorphosis of Ajax. 1611 Cotgr., Retraict, an
Aiax, Priuie, house of Office.

and then

1	
jakes (dʒeɪks). Forms: 6 iacques, 6–7 iaxe, iakes, iaques, 7
jacks, 7–8 jaques, 7– jakes (also 6 iake, 8 jack).  Plural, 6
iaxes, 7 jakeses, jaqueses, 8 jakes's; also in same form as sing.
[Origin unascertained; it has been suggested to be from the proper
name Jaques, Jakes; or from Jakke, `Jack', quasi Jakkes, `Jack's'.
(`Gakehouse' in 1438 Tintinhull Churchw. Acc. (Som. Rec. Soc.)
p. 179, is an editorial misreading of `Bakehouse'.)] 

  1.  

  a.  A privy.  
  153. in Ellis Orig. Lett. Ser. iii. III. 84 The Iaques was
very well doon. 1538 Inv. in J. W. Clark Barnwell Introd. 24
The jakes of the dorter. 1549 Bale Journ. Leland Pref. B j, A
great nombre of them whych purchased those superstycyouse mansyons,
reserued of those Lybrarie bokes, some to serue theyr iakes,
some to scoure theyr candlestyckes. 1552 Huloet, Siege, iacques,
bogard, or draught, latrina. 1570 Levins Manip. 12/13 Iake, forica.
1596 Harington Metam. Ajax Pref. (1814) 14 Because I will write
of a Jakes. 1620 Naworth Househ. Bk. 145 To a tyller for tylling
the jacks, vjd. 1634 Documents agst. Prynne (Camden) 12 They..dragged
his carckesse throughe the cittye, and cast it into the common
jakes. 1649 R. Hodges Plain Direct. 12 Let the hous bee made
a jakes for Mr. Jaques. 1657 Manchester Crt. Leet Rec. (1887)
IV. 202 Noe close stoole, Jackes, Carrion or garbage be cast
vpon the Ackers Middinge. 1701 C. Wolley Jrnl. New York (1860)
26 The more unhealthful it may prove, by reason of Jaques, Dunghills
and other excrementitious stagnations. 1727 P. Walker Life of
Peden in Biogr. Presb. (1827) I. 144 He [Arius] went..into a
common Jack and purg'd out all his Inwards. 1788 V. Knox Winter
Even. I. ii. xv. 211 His book is a nasty book, and fit only for
the jakes. 1855 Kingsley Westw. Ho (1861) 168 The fox..that..jumped
down a jakes to escape the hounds.1913 L. Woolf Village in Jungle
iv. 54 The headman's brother is to marry a sweeper of jakes!
1922 Joyce Ulysses 68 He kicked open the crazy door of the jakes.
1969 Listener 26 June 902/3 He is at his best when not occupied
with symbols..but concerned to tell how the keeper of an `underground
jakes' mistakes a police stool-pigeon for a real poof.

  b.  transf. and fig.
  1579 Tomson Calvin's Serm. Tim. 967/1 What vermine, I pray
you, is there of Monkes, and Priestes, and all that Cleargie?..that
filthie and stinking iaxe hath filled the world so full. 1637
Gillespie Eng. Pop. Cerem. Ep. B iij, Cast forth as things accursed
into the Iakes of eternall detestation. 1660 Life & Death Mrs.
Rump 2 Hell..that stinking poysonous place called the Ile of
Jaqueses. 1701 De Foe True-born Eng. 194 We have been Europe's
Sink, the Jakes where she Voids all her Offal Out-cast Progeny.
1753 Smollett Ct. Fathom (1784) 13/1 Who eagerly explore the
jakes of Rabelais, for amusement. 1829 Bentham Petit. Justice
173 The jakes, of late so notorious by the name of the Secondary's
Office in the city of London.

  2.  Excrement; filth.  s.w. dial.
  1847–78 Halliw., Jakes..applied in Devon to any kind of filth
or litter. 1880 in East & West Cornw. Glossaries. 1886 in Elworthy
W. Somerset Word-book.

  3.  attrib. and Comb., as jakes door, jakes-like adj.; jakes-barreller,
jakes-farmer, jakes-man, a man employed to clean out privies;
so jakes-farming; jakes-house = jakes.
  1596 Nashe Saffron Walden 155 Like a *iakes barreller and a
Gorbolone. 1557–8 Louth Rec. (1891) 110 One locke to the *Jakes
dore. 1591 Percivall Sp. Dict., Privadero, a *iakes farmer. a1618
Sylvester Tobacco Battered 267 Iakes-farmers, Fidlers, Ostlers,
Oysterers. 1639 Horn & Rob. Gate Lang. Unl. lviii. §624 The common
draught-house..which the jakes-farmer..makes cleane. 1577 tr.
Bullinger's Decades (1592) 890 A doonghill God,..a god of the
*iakeshouse. 1606 Sylvester Du Bartas ii. iv. i. David 1251 Flames
from his eies, from's mouth coms *Iakes-like fumes. 1630 Davenant
Cruel Brother Wks. (1673) 475 On that branch appears a Hang-man,
Then a *Jakes-man, then, a Tinker.


On Tue Jan  3 14:56:13 EST 2006, plalonde@telus.net wrote:
> 
> On 3-Jan-06, at 12:07 PM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> > If it is a Gnot-thingy and it is only connecting to Google, why would
> > they muck with AJAX when they can use a file protocol?
> 
> User-base and user-acceptability.
> The user base comes from people already running AJAX boxes.
> User acceptability comes from addressing a key shortcoming of Gnot.
> I like Gnot --- I don't think Rob has gotten nearly the recognition  
> from the HCI community on this interface breakthrough and interfaces- 
> for-programmers in general --- but I continue to doubt that the  
> public is ready to put all their files on a remote server without  
> being able to get to them when the umbilicus is severed.  Servers  
> make people anxious; by adding local disk Google can ease that while  
> still mirroring people's data on their network/computer.  Gmail was  
> just the start of that particular slippery slope.
> 
> Paul

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Christoph Lohmann]

Good day.

Ajax is a bit more:

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

But it seems to be related to Bell Labs:

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

Sincerely,

Christoph

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Gorka guardiola]

On 1/3/06, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com <jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> I was about to ask what AJAX was, since it's clearly none of the
> three I'm familar with. However, the OED is illuminating:

There is the little Ajax, son of Oileus and the great Ajax, son of Telamon...

--
- curiosity sKilled the cat

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

>> I was about to ask what AJAX was, since it's clearly none of the
>> three I'm familar with. However, the OED is illuminating:
> 
> There is the little Ajax, son of Oileus and the great Ajax, son of Telamon...

Lets not forget Ajax® the toilet bowl cleaner.

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[andrey mirtchovski]

and the dutch football team.

> Lets not forget Ajax(r) the toilet bowl cleaner.
>
>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[Sape Mullender]

Or Ajax, the Unix system call server for Amoeba.

> and the dutch football team.
> 
>> Lets not forget Ajax(r) the toilet bowl cleaner.
>>
>>

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[lucio]

> The question is why would they do that?

Unless I'm paying too little attention, I think Google may be looking
at narrowing the functionality of the "appliance" to only a few
applications they believe are in great demand.  It would mirror the
success of the iPod (MP3 über alles) as the "do one thing well"
device.

Apple are unlikely to be getting a destructive number of support calls
from iPod users and that is one issue the Register article seems to be
in disagreement with my impressions.

>From this remote corner I may be getting a very poor image, but maybe
not.

++L

Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot?

[jmk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/04/google_denies_pc/