Slashdot Mirror

• Check for services/startup items related to AOL (check MSConfig too).
• Search for any folders/files like AOL
• Check your registry. Here is where the risk comes in; you don't want to delete the wrong things. I usually look in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE, HKEY_USERS/*/Software, and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall. If I can ID it as AOL, then it's gone.

• Check for services/startup items related to AOL (check MSConfig too).
• Search for any folders/files like AOL
• Check your registry. Here is where the risk comes in; you don't want to delete the wrong things. I usually look in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE, HKEY_USERS/*/Software, and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall. If I can ID it as AOL, then it's gone.

It appears that Microsoft agrees hiding unused menu items was a poor way of solving the UI problem. If you haven't seen Office 2007 yet, you should take a look at its UI.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/ui/overvie w.mspx

It's essentially very toolbar oriented, but organizes them based on the task they are associated with (page layout, document reviewing, etc.).

Kinda like this obscure Windows Movie Maker 2 video. I don't think it's supposed to be funny, but it's just so bad...

I think you're looking for their Document Converter.

How about the operating system prototype called Singularity?

Look through their publications if you like. Hitting search with no search string will give you a nice list.

There's no denying they do interesting blue sky research. What I think is truly sad about both Microsoft and Bell Labs is that it took the power of an exploited monopoly to fund their work. Certainly an unfortunate tradeoff.

Umm, what do you mean be "wasn't journalling until v5". It's always had a transaction log file from the initial release. Check here for NT 3.1.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=101670

The idea is it can rollback partially completed transactions and recover from bad shutdowns. Also it can do it quickly without searching the whole filesystem for inconsistencies. That's the whole point to NTFS.

I was referring to the ACTUAL research department at Microsoft, not the marketing and technology evangelist departments.

http://research.microsoft.com/

If you want a true example of a contribution, look at the Speech API or the Natural Language Processing group (to allow computers to understand things the way the humans do for interaction).

For the most part the research department of Microsoft functions independently from the corporate divisions.

The two things are used and function in entirely different ways. Cars have one practical purpose: convey the driver and passengers to a destination. A word processor's practical purpose is to record and display information. The car interface doesn't need to change because its function never changes. You need these functions while driving: ignition, gear change, break, acceleration, steering. Optionally you will need radio, AC and comfort accessories. The UI for each of the functions can be spread out over a large section of the interior of the car. The word processor UI is required to be much more powerful, making thousands of functions available and organizing them coherently. Many of the functions are interdependent and change state often. Some (e.g. add-ons) are not even known to the UI designer at the time he designs it. In many ways the word processor designer has much less to work with in terms of real estate and visibility. It also has to change to meet the user's choice of custom configurations and fit into multiple screen sizes.

People like comparing computer UIs to car UIs because a car is simple, unchanging and well known. But it's a meaningless comparison. There is no perfect word processor UI and none that will make every user happy. Microsoft was right to try to better organize the UI. The screenshots the new UI, including the ribbon feature seem to show a smarter, more coherent approach. If the critics want more editing room, they should buy bigger screens. They can probably customize the ribbon to take up less space anyway. Think about what program you would rather support over the telephone: a smartly organized one whos UI is coherent and explainable or a hodgepoge of buttons and menus that have to be memorized and ferreted out.

They aren't changing shit.

This article is rediculous FUD and increadibly bias. But yea, I know "you must be new here"....

A feature they wanted in the Ribbon from the start, but were afraid they would not have time for, got bumped in the priority queue due to customer feedback. Basically, the ribbon always could collapse, but now it can AutoHide. Whooopie! Let's bash Microsoft.

Watch the movies here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/07/20/6 72345.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/07/24/6 76371.aspx

And the Ribbon does not take up all that much space, see the comparisons and pixel height counts here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/17/5 77485.aspx

I've been a Office 2007 Beta 2 user since it's release. The new UI is fantastic. Try it out for yourselves:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/beta/testd rive.mspx

The basic concept is that through simple drag-and-drop operations on window tiles within the bar, users can create lightweight, transient grouping relationships that allow them to perform certain higher-level window layout functions on multiple windows at once. In addition, windows and groups in the GroupBar can be persisted in a "Snapshot" which attempts to remember the position and contents of each window in a way that allows the Snapshot to be recreated at a later time, even if the windows have been rearranged or closed.

Scalable fabric is a window management system that offers an alternative approach to windows minimization. First, it shrinks windows when minimized, rather than iconifying them. Shrunk windows keep updating; this allows users to monitor minimized windows for visible changes or notifications. Second, scalable fabric allows users to place shrunk windows in 2D space, very much like non-minimized windows.

The basic concept is that through simple drag-and-drop operations on window tiles within the bar, users can create lightweight, transient grouping relationships that allow them to perform certain higher-level window layout functions on multiple windows at once. In addition, windows and groups in the GroupBar can be persisted in a "Snapshot" which attempts to remember the position and contents of each window in a way that allows the Snapshot to be recreated at a later time, even if the windows have been rearranged or closed.

Scalable fabric is a window management system that offers an alternative approach to windows minimization. First, it shrinks windows when minimized, rather than iconifying them. Shrunk windows keep updating; this allows users to monitor minimized windows for visible changes or notifications. Second, scalable fabric allows users to place shrunk windows in 2D space, very much like non-minimized windows.

...thus marking the first time that using XML ever made any data representation more compact.

Office 2007 saves files in the Open Packaging Conventions format, which is basically a collection of zipped files following a specified layout. This is how they achieve the space savings. Yes, this means unzip, Winzip, and built-in Windows zip will work with them.

XPS (the PDF competitor) also uses Open Packaging Conventions. You can download Windows_Vista_Product_Guide_Beta_2.xps , rename it to .zip, and open it to see for yourself.

...thus marking the first time that using XML ever made any data representation more compact.

Office 2007 saves files in the Open Packaging Conventions format, which is basically a collection of zipped files following a specified layout. This is how they achieve the space savings. Yes, this means unzip, Winzip, and built-in Windows zip will work with them.

XPS (the PDF competitor) also uses Open Packaging Conventions. You can download Windows_Vista_Product_Guide_Beta_2.xps , rename it to .zip, and open it to see for yourself.

search engine, 1st likely hit: http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/ui/overvie w.mspx

Much as I (as a web developer) frequently curse Microsoft for the css-hack-hell that IE6's lack of support for CSS forces me into, the list of CSS fixes in the IE Blog (link in post above) is great news as it mends a lot of the common everyday problems. The fixing of the peekaboo bug alone makes my life easier.

And the news that the ":hover Pseudo-class can be applied to any element, not merely links" means that Suckerfish-style drop-down menus will work in IE7 with pure CSS and (X)HTML, without the javascript that was necessary to make them work in IE6.

Mod parent up to +5 Insightful!

As someone who has followed Microsoft and Bill Gates intensively since before the release of Windows 3.0, I can tell you that's exactly what's going on. Microsoft is having a temporary truce with OSS while they fight Google....it's a tactical move that eases tension with the OSS community, while at the same time lulling them into a false sense of security.

MSFT knows that their tactical onslaught via the SCO trial is all but over and that the poor release timing of Vista is killing them on the desktop OS front. Not to worry. There's still Get the FUD on the server front.

Microsoft will sweet talk the Mozilla developers for now, but once they've either defeated or admitted defeat for themselves on the Google front, they'll be trying to bury Firefox. Perhaps Vista Service Pack 1 or 2 will break Firefox in nasty ways. Perhaps IIS 7.0 will detect that Firefox is running and start doing things to slow down the connection or break the page rendering. Who knows?

Remember: for Microsoft to win, everyone else has to lose. Especially Mozilla.org.

To be most accurate...Microsoft did not enable certain modes of loading drivers, software, etc. under 32-bit Windows for compatibility reasons. One of these is requiring 'signed' drivers only. However, Microsoft declared that with the move to 64-bit, Windows will now require this.

Microsoft's customers will see this as Windows Vista x32 (the 32-bit version) won't do those additional tests before loading the drivers; however, Windows Vista x64 (the 64-bit version) will. The 64-bit processors, such as AMD's AMD64 series, also have an NX-bit that is not available in the 32-bit modes and 32-bit processors. (Intel's EMT64e variations of the Pentium line, and the CoreDuo lines are mere reflections of AMD's AMD64 architecture.)

Any how...for more info, search Microsoft's website on the issue, such as http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bi t/kmsigning.mspx.

What happened to "Developers, Developemrs, Developers" ?

You know what? I've got a copy of the Vista Driver Development kit, and I've written XP and NT drivers in the past.

When Vista comes out, I plan to get a Verisign Class 3 certificate for $500 and write a filter driver to allow RPC-1 drives to be used, sign it and put it on my website.

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/12/ 09/502014.aspx

My plan is to catch and hack the IOCTL_DVD_* requests, or maybe you'd need to filter over the DVD drive itself.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/Storage_r/hh/Storage_r/k307_6baca45 d-504c-46b9-9724-f82132c2bead.xml.asp

Also, I'll sign any driver people send to me for a small fee, provided they send me the source code and it's well written.

I am not 100% sure, but I believe that they will need to have cracked the key before checking WAN -- because to crack the key, they need only to 'eavesdrop' on the frequency, and not make any active connection to it.

Allowing only authorized MACs to connect is great, though not perfect because these can be spoofed. Having your wireless router using a key is a good idea, but you'll want to use WPA-PSK for encryption instead of WEP. A quick google search gave me this article which -- in spite of the source -- actually does an OK job of explaining. If you're running Windows, and your card & router support it, the article will be sufficient to get that set up.

WPA-PSK can be tricky to set up on linux, if you're running any linux workstations wirelessly; they only way I've been able to do it with my Broadcomm card is via ndiswrapper and wpa_supplicant. If you're using a wireless linux desktop, some research will be required to find out how to configure this for your distro.

This is where the whole separation between software and hardware companies is a huge benefit.

"Whoever dreamed up this rationalization is gifted."

The holes are there by design. As in security wasn't a part of the overall design. I would argue that it still isn't."

"Like all the versions that have come before, "It's more secure" for about a week after launch and .."

In a nutshell, OS-X is built upon a known animal, whereas Windows is an animal which continues to be re-invented, like a leopard

I think you've got it wrong. Windows is not like a Leopard even though it wants to be. No, Windows is more of a ... dog. ;)

There is a desciption. ok... so how can I tell if that file is supplied by microsoft or is it droppings from malware?

Even dll's are a pain in the butt to look up in the registry.. if I register it multiple times there are multiple entries (each under the GUID, not in English) and it is DIFFICULT to determine which one is "real"

Think about what the complaint is about, even if not well written: NTFS allows secondary streams, and the only programs that use them for the most part are Malicious. The complaint is that the OS allowing access to these streams is YET ANOTHER point of contention. It is not an exploitable hole (in the hacker sense), but it is exploitable by hackers (in the making Windows hard as hell to keep secure). Simple to close that up.., yet Microsoft just seems completely unconcerned.

Launchd allows you to specify rights. You get a lot more control of the order processes are started. Launchd, like xinit, allows you to start processes on demand. Launchd can control who/what is allowed to start processes, unlike the "net start" command, "oh it's set to automatic, great, I'll start it" mentality.

There is a desciption. ok... so how can I tell if that file is supplied by microsoft or is it droppings from malware?

Even dll's are a pain in the butt to look up in the registry.. if I register it multiple times there are multiple entries (each under the GUID, not in English) and it is DIFFICULT to determine which one is "real"

Think about what the complaint is about, even if not well written: NTFS allows secondary streams, and the only programs that use them for the most part are Malicious. The complaint is that the OS allowing access to these streams is YET ANOTHER point of contention. It is not an exploitable hole (in the hacker sense), but it is exploitable by hackers (in the making Windows hard as hell to keep secure). Simple to close that up.., yet Microsoft just seems completely unconcerned.

Launchd allows you to specify rights. You get a lot more control of the order processes are started. Launchd, like xinit, allows you to start processes on demand. Launchd can control who/what is allowed to start processes, unlike the "net start" command, "oh it's set to automatic, great, I'll start it" mentality.

I heartily do not endorse ISA server.. just noting that it exists.

"When you own 90% of the market, not being interoperable with others is a commercial advantage"

You make some excellent points! But I think the commercial advantage of proprietary software is already beginning to erode. Microsoft has never been content to only sell to existing customers and always wants growth. The market itself is growing as more folks buy computers - Microsoft wants to maintain or grow market share and that means attracting new customers every day. New customers are actually asking for true interoperability. Case in point: The Microsoft Unix tools/services package which is quite a nice package for mixed Unix/PC environments. Customers asked for it and Microsoft delivered.

As for the MS anti-virus service being a scam, I couldn't disagree more. There are few instances where you can buy a secure product without also having to pay for an associated service. You can't build a 100% secure bank and then not hire security gaurds and folks to watch the cameras. Yes Microsoft wants piece of the security pie. Whats inherently wrong with that? Nobody is ever going to produce a 100% secure OS product that is useable. You'll always have to pay for a security service or roll your own - even on Linux. Remember nothing comes free - you are paying for the security services built into the Mac OS, it just comes as part of the cost of the machine.

After installing update 919951 which patched a critical vulnerability in MS Ethics 1.0 service pack 1 some customers have reported problems when MS Ethics fails to detect lying and/or theiving. Microsoft has announced a new version of security update 919951 on August 22, 2006. This new version was to address this problem for customers who use MS Ethics 2.0 Service Pack 1.

Microsoft is also aware of public reports that this issue could lead to a buffer overrun condition for customers who use MS Ethics 2.0 Service Pack 1 and who have applied security update 918899. We are not aware of attacks that try to use the reported vulnerability at this point, nor are we aware of customer impact at this point. Microsoft is aggressively investigating the public reports.

-- original source: Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 unexpectedly exits after you install the 918899 update http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923762/en-us

Live it from the top down. It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics. That means it's particularly important that executives and top managers also adhere to the guidelines of an ethics code. If managers say one thing but do something else, that's nothing more than a license for the rest of the company to follow suit. "Good role modeling by top managers is a must," Swanson says. "Without it, ethics codes can be seen as mere window dressing."

You seem sure.

Here's the definition of open source per the OSI.
Here's the MS "Community License".

What is in conflict?

There is a list of Microsoft software released under their shared source licenses (of which the community license is one of three) at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censing/getsource.mspx

Have you looked at the license. I confess I had not before I read this,but then I check it out at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/communitylicense.mspx

The license itself is short and sweet, and easy to understand. Or at least so I deem, but of course IANAL.

I have no idea what software Microsoft has licensed under this license, but a casual read of it looks like the license should be certifiable by OSI. As far as I can tell, the only potentially confusing issue is the patent retaliation clause.

In most other respects, it looks like a simpler version of the GPL, including being viral. I can't imagine why MS wouldn't want it blessed by OSI. Probably they just don't want to be recognized for giving source away even when they do so. Heck, they might be worried that it would scare off investors who consider Microsoft's IP portfolio as a reason for buy MS shares. :-)

Now, it probably is a Good Thing that it isn't blessed, because the last thing we want is another viral license that also happens to be incompatible with GPL. (The patent retaliation makes it GPL-incompatible.) Life is hard enough figuring out Open Source license as it is.

Why not just order the CD

Due to some programs not functioning correctly with SP2, our department was explicitly told NOT to update to SP2. However, we've been applying all of the other patches that have come out. So, the scenario is more likely than you'd think. Microsoft even has a list of programs that don't work as intended under SP2.

...to switch to Vista. That way, this sort of thing will never happen again. You betcha.

I've got your better example right here. Take a look at the suggestion; they're obviously not taking context into consideration:

http://search.msdn.microsoft.com/search/default.as px?siteId=0&tab=0&query=WM_SETPOSITION

Let's not forget who owns his studio. Methinks he may not be speaking freely.

The question they seem to failed to examine, is whether or not a word is not significant enough in the collective consciousness of society [to be included in MS Word spell check] does that mean it is fair game for assignment of new meaning?

Even abridged dictionaries are full of words that are virtually unused in our society

And $200 per user after that...

See http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/how tobuy/pricing.mspx

And on the prevelance of MS Access - that prevelance is from home-grown database applications, not so much 3rd party vendors who can include MSDE with their products at almost no cost (with a Dev software license). If you're going to hack together your own Access database, it doesn't really matter what you use for a file server. With a little practice, any decent Access db programmer could build the same thing in MySQL (and get a free db server in the deal, if you want) or OpenOffice Base.

• Microsoft Permissive License: ~400 words
  
• Microsoft Community License: ~565 words
  
• Microsoft Reference License: ~325 words

• Microsoft Permissive License: ~400 words
  
• Microsoft Community License: ~565 words
  
• Microsoft Reference License: ~325 words

• Microsoft Permissive License: ~400 words
  
• Microsoft Community License: ~565 words
  
• Microsoft Reference License: ~325 words

Erm, about the fella that thinks he's already got R2...

R2 is a somewhat confusing new Microsoft-ism, it appears to me to be an upgrade of sorts to get new features for a variety of software "created" by MS, amongst them:

Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2

Windows Server 2003 R2

Windows Storage Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Systems Management Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2

My guess would be he's running Windows 2003 Server R2 (I think it's been available for some time now)

I'd expect the "non-final core components" is a PR term for a bug, maybe one that was patched this month & was deemed important enough to stop shipment of the software? More likely just some crappy code coming from a MS developer (who'd guess huh??)

We should say well done to whoever made this decision, SBS is a key product for MS now & the fact that they didn't want to send out second rate code out to the front line of organisations who are most likely to leave open relays/become part of a botnet/whatever should be applauded.

I'd hazard a guess that the effected software didn't make it past the MS partners, if the code was checked on the production line it should have been found within a week or so of the first copies of the media being sent out. I doubt any organisation can figure out a way to neatly package & sell an update piece of Microsoft software that quickly!!

Although installing SBS on a server, downloading & installing Apache, the Sysinternals utilities, the Google Pack, running Windows Update & finally sysprep doesn't take too long I suppose?? (-;

Erm, about the fella that thinks he's already got R2...

R2 is a somewhat confusing new Microsoft-ism, it appears to me to be an upgrade of sorts to get new features for a variety of software "created" by MS, amongst them:

Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2

Windows Server 2003 R2

Windows Storage Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Systems Management Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2

My guess would be he's running Windows 2003 Server R2 (I think it's been available for some time now)

I'd expect the "non-final core components" is a PR term for a bug, maybe one that was patched this month & was deemed important enough to stop shipment of the software? More likely just some crappy code coming from a MS developer (who'd guess huh??)

We should say well done to whoever made this decision, SBS is a key product for MS now & the fact that they didn't want to send out second rate code out to the front line of organisations who are most likely to leave open relays/become part of a botnet/whatever should be applauded.

I'd hazard a guess that the effected software didn't make it past the MS partners, if the code was checked on the production line it should have been found within a week or so of the first copies of the media being sent out. I doubt any organisation can figure out a way to neatly package & sell an update piece of Microsoft software that quickly!!

Although installing SBS on a server, downloading & installing Apache, the Sysinternals utilities, the Google Pack, running Windows Update & finally sysprep doesn't take too long I suppose?? (-;

Erm, about the fella that thinks he's already got R2...

R2 is a somewhat confusing new Microsoft-ism, it appears to me to be an upgrade of sorts to get new features for a variety of software "created" by MS, amongst them:

Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2

Windows Server 2003 R2

Windows Storage Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Systems Management Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2

My guess would be he's running Windows 2003 Server R2 (I think it's been available for some time now)

I'd expect the "non-final core components" is a PR term for a bug, maybe one that was patched this month & was deemed important enough to stop shipment of the software? More likely just some crappy code coming from a MS developer (who'd guess huh??)

We should say well done to whoever made this decision, SBS is a key product for MS now & the fact that they didn't want to send out second rate code out to the front line of organisations who are most likely to leave open relays/become part of a botnet/whatever should be applauded.

I'd hazard a guess that the effected software didn't make it past the MS partners, if the code was checked on the production line it should have been found within a week or so of the first copies of the media being sent out. I doubt any organisation can figure out a way to neatly package & sell an update piece of Microsoft software that quickly!!

Although installing SBS on a server, downloading & installing Apache, the Sysinternals utilities, the Google Pack, running Windows Update & finally sysprep doesn't take too long I suppose?? (-;

Erm, about the fella that thinks he's already got R2...

R2 is a somewhat confusing new Microsoft-ism, it appears to me to be an upgrade of sorts to get new features for a variety of software "created" by MS, amongst them:

Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2

Windows Server 2003 R2

Windows Storage Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Systems Management Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2

My guess would be he's running Windows 2003 Server R2 (I think it's been available for some time now)

I'd expect the "non-final core components" is a PR term for a bug, maybe one that was patched this month & was deemed important enough to stop shipment of the software? More likely just some crappy code coming from a MS developer (who'd guess huh??)

We should say well done to whoever made this decision, SBS is a key product for MS now & the fact that they didn't want to send out second rate code out to the front line of organisations who are most likely to leave open relays/become part of a botnet/whatever should be applauded.

I'd hazard a guess that the effected software didn't make it past the MS partners, if the code was checked on the production line it should have been found within a week or so of the first copies of the media being sent out. I doubt any organisation can figure out a way to neatly package & sell an update piece of Microsoft software that quickly!!

Although installing SBS on a server, downloading & installing Apache, the Sysinternals utilities, the Google Pack, running Windows Update & finally sysprep doesn't take too long I suppose?? (-;

Erm, about the fella that thinks he's already got R2...

R2 is a somewhat confusing new Microsoft-ism, it appears to me to be an upgrade of sorts to get new features for a variety of software "created" by MS, amongst them:

Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2

Windows Server 2003 R2

Windows Storage Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Systems Management Server 2003 R2

Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2

My guess would be he's running Windows 2003 Server R2 (I think it's been available for some time now)

I'd expect the "non-final core components" is a PR term for a bug, maybe one that was patched this month & was deemed important enough to stop shipment of the software? More likely just some crappy code coming from a MS developer (who'd guess huh??)

We should say well done to whoever made this decision, SBS is a key product for MS now & the fact that they didn't want to send out second rate code out to the front line of organisations who are most likely to leave open relays/become part of a botnet/whatever should be applauded.

I'd hazard a guess that the effected software didn't make it past the MS partners, if the code was checked on the production line it should have been found within a week or so of the first copies of the media being sent out. I doubt any organisation can figure out a way to neatly package & sell an update piece of Microsoft software that quickly!!

Although installing SBS on a server, downloading & installing Apache, the Sysinternals utilities, the Google Pack, running Windows Update & finally sysprep doesn't take too long I suppose?? (-;

It's nice for RMS to quantify his position by saying "By Free I mean Freedom" but the end result is the same. Perhaps someone can post a time when Richard said, "Yeah, the price on this software is just right" and there is actually a dollar amount specified. The truth is, there's a need for paid software. Paid for software produces some good stuff. It's not the endall but it has a right to exist. It feeds a fundemental human need, to be compensated. Glory alone is not a system of compensation and never will be.

It's nice for RMS to quantify his position by saying "By Free I mean Freedom" but the end result is the same. Perhaps someone can post a time when Richard said, "Yeah, the price on this software is just right" and there is actually a dollar amount specified. The truth is, there's a need for paid software. Paid for software produces some good stuff. It's not the endall but it has a right to exist. It feeds a fundemental human need, to be compensated. Glory alone is not a system of compensation and never will be.