Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Office On OSX, *BSD, *nix?
aliya writes: "Microsoft has announced Office and IE5.5 for Mac OS X in mid-2001. Given that OS X is based on BSD, what are the ramifications for those trying to get these apps on unix? Seems like a generic OS X-to-unix API translation would be a lot easier than Win32 API-to-unix. Not that I'm a big fan of the MS Office monopoly or the broken IE5 implementations, but it seems like this is going to have major ramifications for any application ported to Mac OS X." Of course, Microsoft promised products before which have mysteriously failed to appear, but still...interesting.
In view of your evidently limited, in particular US-centric knowledge of grammar, you have made a poor decision.
Why...why do so many people insist on mismatching plural verbs with singular nouns?
Probably because by doing so, they are speaking proper English within the dialect of their culture, and hence there is no "mismatch" at all. This is indeed ungrammatical in the US dialect, but not in the dialects of English spoken in most places in the world, including the UK, Australia, New Zealand and in Africa.
In these dialects, nouns denoting collectives, such as corporations, sports teams, committees, nations, rock bands, what have you, are paired with plural verbs, even if the nouns themselves exhibit a singular form. Thus they will say things like:
These sentences are ungrammatical in North America, where the verb would have to be singular ("has"). But they are grammatically correct almost everywhere else English is spoken.
The differences between "American" and "British" English are really not that extensive -- the pronunciation and spelling are famously different, and there are some idiosyncratic (albeit entertaining) differences in the vocabulary, such as in expressions for toilets or women's underwear. But there are very, very few genuine differences in the grammar. This one -- the number agreement of collective-denoting nouns -- is one of those very few differences, and by far the most noticeable.
I, too, have many pet peeves about language -- I recently complained on Slashdot about people writing "loose" when they mean "lose". But what I find much worse are people who make an overbearing post about something while getting the facts embarassingly wrong. The post to which I'm replying was an example of just that.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I've just ported a small (10000 lines) application from MFC to Qt, and I must say that anything that's made for m$ windoze is hard to port to any other system. MFC may be called "high" level by the m$ bunch, but it's so involuted that, if you don't have MFC in the target system, it would be almost easier to redo the whole GUI from scratch in a typical application.
Get excited.
KOffice and GNOME Office are coming.
As far as Excel being "the best spreadsheet app of its type", have you really used Gnumeric? You probably should try it. I mean the latest versions, too- maybe if you're up to it, you can research Bonobo and/or KParts while you're at it, and get *really* excited. Or not.
the government sometimes dictates free speech takes place over the majority view. i want that to continue.
the government mandates that someone bigger or stronger than you faces grave consequences for killing you and stealing what you own. it hasn't always been that way -- in the animal world, you would have a much shorter life than you have in our modern, western society.
when the government fails, it's because people like you turned their back on it and let the system run rampant.
like it or not, there is a place for government done well, and it screws up sometimes.
many companies develop kick ass standards and let others license it. they make great profits off this, and the consumer benefits as well.
by the way, as much as i hate correcting you monkeys, the RFC process is not monitored by a beauracracy. there would be no IRC, mail, ftp, http, etc. w/o the the RFC process. All of these protocols help different computer systems interoperate.
many standards processes are not monitored by a bureaucracy, and do quite well. products throughout your home, on the desk in front of you, in your car and on the road are proof.
you say it will lead to ruin, i'm a commie, etc. the truth is, you are an unthinking name-caller like the first poster. sometimes government makes mistakes, sometimes industry makes mistakes. the truth is, i'm not pleased with the size of our government, nor with many of it's decisions. but there are many functions it provides on a daily basis that keeps us safe, and from being ripped off by companies like microsoft.
imagine gasoline companies and auto manufacturers colluding to make engines fail early by adding contaminants to fuel. the only way to stop such a thing is through government regulation and monitoring. you think the free market will "protect" us from such a thing -- some gas company will come clean, some car manufacturer will do the right thing. history has shown you to be pitifully wrong.
example: car companies secretly buying all public transporation in los angeles and destroying it to sell more vehicles (GM did this, and was fined $1).
there are countless examples of the medical industry falsifying records to make medicine seem more effective or less dangerous. do you want your loved ones taking that medicine? (presuming you love or care about anyone).
if you still don't think the government has the right and duty to take from the privileged (in some cases) and give to the public, if your point of view is that it is always wrong, go study the phrase "riparian rights". if you still don't understand, your brain is defective.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Well, yes and no. It wouldn't mean the other *BSD folks were close, but I think it might mean they were closer. Then again, I know this sounds linuxcentric (Don't bother me, I just bought the obsd 2.7 CD, and the 2.6 tee shirt) but I think it would be more likely to show up on linux.
Mind you, being closer doesn't mean you'll get there at all. However, since doing things on MacOSX should be at least a little more unixish (I really just don't know the architecture there, so feel free to correct me) and that will give the team that does the port some experience on that platform. It's just more likely that they'll hire someone or buy some company with some unix skills anyway, if that experience is needed.
One of the things Microsoft does is hire people and pay them well just so they don't go to some other company and develop good competition -- A plan that has worked for many, many companies for an extremely long time. I suspect that when two groups of neanderthals were out on the plains slaughtering whatever big meaty shaggy quadrupeds they ate, they'd all be offering the beast hunters some extra giblets to come over to their hunting party.
So Microsoft will be sitting here with these people with unix experience, and it's not like Windows CE is exactly cornering the embedded systems market or anything, so they're obviously not going to be able to kill linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or anything else, really, right now. Since everyone they deal with seems to get the short end of the stick (their own faults, really) then I'm sure some people have seen the light and are looking for alternatives.
Anyway, I digress, that's a different rant. The point is, Microsoft has got to realize at this point that they can't go off on a unix-killing rampage or they'll get split more than two ways just to make sure their reach is a little shorter. So they might even think about doing a linux port if they could get a secure enough system. PCs don't really nodelock, so I'm not sure how they'd be sure that people weren't warezing office. Even if they couldn't secure it, the thought of crushing some competition and becoming heroes to a subset of the unix population would likely appeal.
Does this mean I think Microsoft is going to port Office (or even a subset) to unix? Nope. Does it mean I think there's hope? Well, yes. Just a glimmer, but what the hell, it's less pressure than hoping for world peace.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Microsoft ports to OS X, it doesn't mean that a port to other BSD operating systems (and to some degree Linux) would be easier than coming straight from OS 7-9 versions or Windows, but it isn't going to help much, because the hardest part of the port, the GUI, isn't going to transfer. OS X uses a GUI system that I don't know the exact name of (is Aqua the name of the GUI, or is Aqua the API, over which the GUI runs?). It's about as far away from X as you can get (Anti-aliasing? Of course, it's automatic. Alpha channels? That too.)
Regarding the suggestion Microsoft will be porting to the Carbon APIs, I just don't see that as likely. Microsoft actually supports Macintosh really well. They wouldn't be taking a year to port to carbon. The next version they deliver will probably be built for carbon as well. Remember, the Macintosh version of IE 5 is the only standards compliant browser around that supports Java (ruling out Opera).
I really like what I've seen of OS X. If only I didn't have to buy the hardware from Apple, I might consider going to a Mac for my next machine. I wonder when we're going to get SMP G3+'s from IBM running Linux or BeOS.
>Most ActiveX controls (in fact, all of them but >one) are not IE, and most of them do not depend >on it, unless the author specifically wishes it >to be so. (This is no 'worse' then a Linux
>package that "depends on" (your phrase) glibc,
>for example.)
in all honesty, i know nothing about programming on MS products, except for the two and a half years i spent writing ODBC/C++ clients for NT. That was years ago, and COM/DCOM/active-x were just starting up.
our web based apps, written by the IT dept., *require* IE to work. I've tried them under Netscape and they do not work. They sent out an email saying everyone must use IE if they want to access the system from home, or participate in the upcoming work-at-home projects. As you say, they must have written them purposefully to break under netscape.
Since I have not written any code for MS for nearly three years, I actually don't know or care how they did it...hate to say that, but it's the truth. I simply don't want to use or write code for microsoft...anything.
>Did you actually read what I wrote?
Yes, I did. I'm not sure why you made this comment, there are a couple MS/Linux types at work (not MS-haters, not MS-lovers) who looked at the pages and said "...they broke netscape by using active-x..." other than that, I can't say.
so, i guess MS standards are not really effective or something, i'm not really qualified to judge in this case, except for the reasons i've mentioned (exchange is closed, active-x can be written to break netscape).
thanks for not cursing me or calling me a commie.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
wait...are you really saying that :
>He was advocating that the government step in and
>*mandate* that all standards that are used be
>open.
and...
>the poster was advocating that intermachine
>protocols be open and standardized.
...are the same thing? you can't be. that would be a grotesque distortion. a variety of standards are already legislated, and compliance monitored.
I don't want to go that far, what I'd like to see is the threat of legislation force MS to participate more fully and earlier with other companies like they did with DHCP and ODBC, as opposed to what they did with SOAP, writing it internally and dumping it on the standards committee at the last minute so they could claim innovation.
but if the software companies don't enter into meaningful standards, early and inclusive, on the issues of intermachine communication and open peer-peer/client-server applications, then a legal solution would be fully acceptable to me.
as i've said elsewhere, your example of firewire is an open standard. IEEE has codified it and published the results. apple makes money licensing it -- although many people consider the fee too high. MS should (for example) license the exchange protocol in a fair and inclusive way.
you (AND OTHERS OF YOUR ILK) keep implying i am somehow trying to impose a bureauracy on the s/w industry. this is a false assertion someone made early on. it just isn't true, and reading my responses and the various other comments shows i never made that jump. that "velocinews" guy did it when he was calling me names, which lead to other people calling me a commie. just unfair and wrong, that's all.
>You can't have it both ways. Either the
>government mandates open standards or companies
>are free to have closed standards. Which is it?
actually, legally and historically, you can have it both ways. Example : some companies, based on their size, are exempted from certain city, county and federal regulations (race, gender, inspections) while others are not.
in our last few exchanges, i have tried to explain to you where you have distorted my words, and also where you have made misstatements, yet you never admit an error.
you seem to have real problems admitting your mistakes.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
The goal is not Microsoft on more platforms, it's the elimination of closed, proprietary protocols like exchange and active-x controls.
MSHAFT's strategy is to develop as many closed protocols as possible, and foist them on their corporate customers, hoping it will lock up the home market.
Imagine your company decides to let you work at home. If you use non-ms products at home, you night not be able to get your email or access the company web pages. You're screwed.
My main concern is the way they develop closed protocols and make workplaces "Microsoft Only" -- if the exchange server has Microserfs administering it, no mail client will work except outlook.
If the company does webpages with active-x, no browser works except IE.
The situation sucks. The only hope is that I keep seeing more ads on the job boards for Linux developers and admins.
I'm a firm believer that legislation should be enacted to force all inter-machine communication protocols to be open and documented.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Very few common Mac OS X apps will be easily portable to the greater UNIX world unless most of the OS X libraries (i.e. everything under cocoa) are ported as well. GnuStep, in its current state, would not be a big help, because it only deals with the older OpenStep stuff. If someone decided to write directly to the Darwin level of things, then porting wouldn't be too problematic, but it is in fact very unlikely that this would happen, because the high level framework of Mac OS X is excellent. I would consider Mac OS X apps to be portable unless...
a) you rewrite everything from scratch; but that defeats the purpose of a port.
b) Apple open-sources the rest of their OS (not just the kernel), which is highly unlikely right now.
"broken IE5 implementations" Netscape on Linux is extraordinarily buggy. It crashes and halts on a daily basis. Just about any page with Flash or Java in one form or another might crash it. Sure, you can turn off those two things - but why should you have to? Why don't they fix the browser? IE5 on the other hand is fast, featureful and pretty. At the end of the day, I want a tool that does the job, I don't care who wrote it.
>You never called me poopy-pants, but you
>repeatedly say things like "people of your ilk,"
>"people like you," "no reasonable person," "no
>thinking person," etc, implying that I am a
>member of a group of unreasonable, unthinking,
>and uninformed people. The fact that in this case
>I'm making a similar argument to a certain
>group of people does not mean I share all of
>their views. And the fact that I disagree with
>you does not make me stupid, uninformed, twisted,
>or evil.
oops, there you go again. i never made the assertion you were twisted, stupid or evil, nor did I ever say you share all the views of some group.
however, i do beleive you tend not to think when you post, that you are uninformed about several subjects, and when you post you say unreasonable things. Additionally, several other posters in the thread are like you, in that they exhibit the same behavior.
the opinions you espouse are ones that tend to be held by a vociferous herd that, in all honesty, fails to take in the facts. there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but to maintain the opinion once certain facts have been revealed to you is a mark of someone who has some maturing to do.
ignorance is not a bad thing, as long as you learn. unfortunately, you seem to have problems admitting when you are wrong, even when faced with evidence to the contrary.
Your comments on the FCC, Microsoft "standardizing hardware" and FTP being a closed standard were completely false. Yet you fail to admit you were ignorant of the facts and admit it. To cover your ignorance, and the fact that I point it out, you start claiming "ad hom, ad hom". It's not ad hom, if you and other continue to exhibit herd ignorance.
You also keep saying I advocate the government "regulating standards" or "overseeing standards". Once again, you (and the herd like you) tend to hear the word "legislation" and inject "regulation" and "oversight". This is simply not the case -- some types of legislation are merely advisory, and have nothing to do with bureaucracy or the creation of a government standards body.
Try to relax for a minute -- I never said those words! That "velocinews" guy, a couple others, and you created a number of falsehoods and ascribed it to me.
That, binarybits, is the mark of an unthinking herd. And you are a member -- you and your kind.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
After having read the article thoroughly, I have some thoughts;
... and a new mail client and PIM ..."
..."
..."
:)
;) Gimme a break, I'm a cynic :)
1. "contain
This should be interesting. I would like to see if Microsoft has taking any hints from Open Source efforts in these areas, largely from Evolution and the KDE PIM environments. They've used a lot of MS ideas, and maybe turnabout is fair play, eh?
2. "PowerPoint 2001 will incorporate a new tri-pane interface
Wow. I mean, honestly, that really isn't much "innovation", does it? A user can do that with any GLADE-type GNOME/GTK+ program. I think. Anyways, I don't understand how in the anti-trust trial, Microsoft has kept bringing up its right to "innovate" when this is the sort of evidence available. How much "innovation" has gone into any recent MS products? And I don't mean things that were implemented somewhere else first.
3. "However, Office 2001 will not feature support for synchronizing data with Microsoft's Pocket PC
This is pretty lousy programming. Assuming good file and database backends, this should be a trivial thing. Why would and upper management let the press get ahold of something like this? It'll make great publicity for the Palm platform, though
Dave
P.S.: Yeah, I know that I used '"innovate"' too much
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Comrades! lend me your ears!
Whereas, Microsoft, a Corporation of that great State of Washington has been found guilty of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act;
And furthermore, such actions have harmed to a great extent both the population of these Great States and the global community;
It is hereby ordered:
The Microsoft Corporation shall participate fully in a Intermachine Communications Standards commitee for a period not less than ten years;
Any and all protocols used for intermachine communication shall be fully disclosed, documented and approved of by the committee before implementation;
The standards committee shall be composed of not less than twelve persons or corporate leaders from the fields of software or electronics.
A steering committee shall choose the initial membership. The steering committee shall be composed of William Gates III (Microsoft Incorporated), Richard M. Stallman (The Free Software Foundation), Robert Malda (SlashDot.org), Steven Jobs (Apple, Inc), Robert Young (RedHat Linux) and Scott McNealy (Sun Microsystems).
Each member of the steering commitee may nominate two individuals or corporations to serve on the initial committee. After a service of two years, committee members may assign their seat to an alternate, with approval of a majority of the remainder of the board. If a majority cannot be made after three rounds of nomination, the replacement shall be selected by a simple majority of the board.
At the end of the ten year period the Microsoft Corporation may remove its prescense from the organization, and the organization may be disbanded according to the wishes of the remaining members.
This board shall have one mandate : preserving for the future that all internetworking machines be able to seamlessly communicate through industry standard protocols. The very foundation of the internetworking community was built by industry leaders agreeing on protocols and sharing enough information such that disparate machines and software could intercommunicate.
It is the sole intent of this law to restore that spirit of teamwork back into an industry that has fallen to the mere pursuit of greed at the expense of the communicating community.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Here is what Microsoft has to say. Notice they don't actually mention OS X at all, but I'm sure it's an implied thing... While porting Office to a Posix/Unix style OS is a lot of work, porting the GUI to X/Windows will surely be a bigger task, should they try to do it.
:)
What's actually scarier... Follow the link on the bottom of that press release to this.
Word 2001 introduces the Data Merge Manager, a feature available first for the Mac that simplifies and consolidates into a single window the entire process of using data to conduct mass communications via e-mail or letter. Tight integration with the new e-mail and personal information manager makes it easy to merge contacts from the Address Book into a bulk mailing.
Eeeek! Is it me, or does it sound like Microsoft is giving every Mac user who buys Office some mass spam software?
-- Kevin
Development to OS X, particularly in the case of an office suite or a web browser, rely on more than the core of the OS!
These app's will leverage the advanced PDF based abilities of the Quartz display layer to do things well (even M$ developers know to put the best face on their product!).
If Apple opened these elements, even in a general way, life would be good for those of us who would like to see the efforts Apple has made benefit the OSS community. I doubt that will happen.
Apple will advance things, but our benefit will still be at their hands!
I like some of the Office apps. Only for what they are, mind you, but back in medieval times when you had to know 500 key commands to use Word Perfect or Lotus, I had Works and it was great. My mom could type 100wpm+ after years of practice, but I sat down and was writing my own book reports in about five minutes.
I know this costs me on the linux geek cool scale (just when I was feeling good about explaining to the IBM employees how to install SuSE on a 770...), but I can't tell you how happy I when I first got X up and installed StarOffice. I don't know any of the Tex/Latex stuff, so it was great to be able to work with something fairly familiar.
We have WP9(Corel2000) for linux, but I still have some residual resentment against the wall of key commands they used in their early days. I haven't tried applix yet...
Anyway, I'd like to see them port MS Office to Unix. I've seen all the complaints about bloat and monopolies, etc... but Excel really is the best spreadsheet app of its type, and Word is just so easy to pick up at the basic Cut/Paste/Bold/Italic level... Maybe they could port the basic parts of each app (including Visio!), cutting the size in half, and then replace the VB macros with C scripting.
That would, I think, be a great compromise. Especially if there were some way to uninstall Outlook.
-jpowers
-jpowers
i am soo glad to hear of hopes for these applications.
I've waited for the day when i could use MSIE and MS Office in linux!!! no...wait...that's one of the fucking reasons i switched!!!
Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that a shit ton of people are heralding the arrival to linux of the apps/os they originally were trying to get away from??
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
>>in the animal world, you would have a much
>>shorter life than you have in our modern,
>>western society.
>Points for medicine, not government. A strong >individual could live as long without government >as with government, assuming he can get the >medical benefits (by force, if necessary). A
>smart one probably as long, if he can make others
>dependent on him (as a medic, for example).
>A weaker individual without saleable talents or >the social skills to market them would die, >Nature considers him/her not worthy. I think >that's your point, but you
>didn't make it, I have to guess.
Actually, your post is hideously contrived in many areas, but I'll limit myself to the inaccuracies above for the sake of brevity.
You claim that a longer lifespan in western society, as opposed to a shorter lifespan in a strictly laissez faire "animal" society is restricted strictly to medicinal benefits.
You then go on to give an example of a "smart person" living as long (or longer) regardless of government.
What you fail to recognize is that the government protects both individuals and groups, through the rule of law, to prevent them from competing in what our society considers inapproporiate ways.
Example: A group of disgruntled programmers drug and hypnotize an Air Force pilot such that he napalms Bill Gate's island mansion.
There is no "medicinal" influence here. It's just a matter of doing things within the law. In the animal kingdom, ganging together and removing a strong/unfair leader from power is a social victory. (Babboons occasionally do this when a troop leader is monopolizing power).
Your second point is that "Nature considers some unworthy". Ah, yes. You're one of those "Kill the 'tards" people, aren't you?
Perhaps if you grew up with a brain damaged brother or sister, you might have more compassion, but your inability to project your existence into that of the less fortunate counts strongly against any such expression of compassion. Truly an animalist.
I'm cheering for the first baboon with the guts to take a swing at you, and I hope the rest join in bravely.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
Why...why do so many people insist on mismatching plural verbs with singular nouns? It's right in the heart of this article:
My friends, no matter how many people work at Microsoft, there is only one company (for now). Microsoft is an "it". Not a "they". Don't follow the herd. Just because the staff on Slashdot can't seem to figure this out doesn't mean that everyone has to do it.
Since virtually all of the communication through this site is written, doesn't it make sense to make the most of the language?
I thought so...
=h=
where did i call you a name?
the problem here is your poor reading skills. if i were to call you a name, the sentence would resemble something like "oh, that binarybits, he's a poopy-pants"
the way you and your ilk continually claim that i want to see the government write the standards is ludicrous. i never said that.
what i said was, taken in context of the story posted to, is that exchange is a closed protocol, and Microsoft's latest strategy is to create proprietary protocols designed to lock up the client and server as a pair.
what you and your ilk have twisted my post into, is that i want the government to create some kind of "Ministry of Protocols". that's ridiculous. you people cut the last sentence out of my post, hold it up on it's own, and say that i intend to allow no company to create a proprietary protocol.
no thinking person can read the story, and the post, and not understand what the comment meant. you are taking it entirely out of context, and literally pissing on all the people who use RFC to insure all our computers can talk together.
i also never said standards can't exist in a free market -- most of them were created without any government influence or intervention -- remember, binarybits, you are the one making the claim i said that. i never did.
microsoft was a driving force in standards when they wanted the desktop. ODBC, DHCP. They wanted all the unices to participate...but now that other want in, it's a quick about face.
you claim microsoft is losing market share in in server space. this is a half-truth. in the server space we can measure, portions of the internet, this is the case. in many places of employment, this is false.
Example : an employer has mutiple divisions, each with their own exchange server. One division's admin decides to close pop3 and go exhange protocol only. another division keeps opens the mail server to all clients, since some want to use other mail clients, and they don't have a problem with that.
whos right, whos wrong? the feeling on slashdot, as expressed by people like you, is that i should get another job. i think that should be the last resort. i have years of relationships built with the customer. why should i have to sacrifice that? so you can feel good that "corporate rights" are being protected?
by the way, you spent a lot of time saying i'm trying to assert that "i'm smarter than you" (again, i never said that--you did). let's go take a peek at some of the assertions in your posts, shall we?
>> soviet union, china, nazi germany
>Funny, these are all governments. That's not a
>coincidence. It's also not a coincidence that >government regulation of the airwaves and cable
>has lead to restricted freedom of speech and less
>diversity than would otherwise exist. If you say
>something on the air that the FCC doesn't like,
>they can yank your liscence.
binarybits, you are wrong again. they are not all governments. China is a country. Anyway, one thing they all have in common is a government-controlled path of communication through some type of monolithic organization.
the point here is that, without an iron grip on communications, it would be very difficult for a totalitarian state to rise and maintain power. having one corporation control the client and server side would make that job easier. the restrictions i mentioned would prevent any one company from assuming or maintaing such a position.
Oh, the FCC can't "yank your license" if you say something they don't like. First of all, someone has to complain, and second, the speech must fall under a very small set of specific rules; for example, espousing the murder of an individual.
>Ironically, Microsoft is a good example of this.
>The reason that the PC beat the Mac is
>primarily that the PC was an open,
>commodity-based hardware system while Apple tried
>to keep their platform closed.
binarybits' version of history : Microsoft created the PC.
>Will the Feds force me to take down my FTP server >until I publish specs?
Newsflash for binarybits : the specs for FTP have been published for many years, via the RFC mechanism.
>Your attempt to equate standards exclusively with
>the government is absurd
Never, ever did that in my posts. that bit must have bubbled up through your brain cells somehow...
>The computer industry is full of standards that
>were created with no help from the
>government--Unix, FireWire, USB, SCSI, IDE, ADB,
>etc.
Actually, wrong again. Unix matured from some good ideas from the posix group, which had a lot of funding by the government. And your assertion is pretty grey here, as most of the electronics and software we use were originally funded by the government through contracts. For example, the IEEE is an NGO, but many of their members reap huge profits through government funding.
>The rest of your post is a string of irrelevant
>ad homs and weak "philosophical" ramblings.
i did pretty well in my philosophy classes. especially the parts where we talked about the demonization of communism in the USA, and the reasons for it. that was really interesting.
>"I'm smarter than you are"
>"If you weren't such an ignoramous you'd
>understand"
i find it fascinating that you put these in quotes, and you request i stop making the statements, but i have never made those statements in any of my posts. therefore, you are falsifying my statements -- in other words, you are lying. if you are lying, you are a liar, right? is that an "ad hom"? did i call you a name, or state a simple fact?
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
What are you talking about? Every single review of IE5.5 on the Mac I've read raved about it - especially about it's standards compliance. In some areas it is even more standard compliant than Mozilla (I believe some CSS2 issues)
It's easy to talk tough about MS, but that is just FUD.
You could always run VMWare under BOCS..
I hate to think that this _didn't_ occur to anyone when Apple ANNOUNCED this, right? You know, back when they mentioned integrating a UNIX-DERIVATIVE into their mainstream, desktop-ruling, dumb-people-can-use-this product, remember that??!!
I hate to say it, but the people here are just a teensy, little bit focused on linux sometimes. The BSD's are really something, and anyone who doesn't recognize by now the fact that there's room out there for _lots_ of OS's which each suit a different segment of the population, then you've forgotten that we used to be a people that did things any way we liked until TV came along and taught us all how to imitate each other so well...
Now, is it DEFINITELY going to happen? Of course not. Even if Linus was _sure_ that this or that module would be available in time for a certain kernel release, we'd still have to take that with a little grain of salt, now wouldn't we? But it seems likely now, and how can we know today what tomorrow brings us, eh?
Check my Go-related blog for beginners: DGD
>The previous poster was not simply advocating
>standards.
this is true, the poster was advocating that intermachine protocols be standardized.
>He was advocating that the government
>step in and *mandate* that all standards that are
>used be open.
wrong. the poster was advocating that intermachine protocols be open and standardized.
for example, what was firewire is now an IEEE standard, that can be licensed for a reasonable cost and used by anyone.
microsoft, as far as i know, is not licensing the exchange protocol to anyone, and there are free and open solutions that provide similar functionality.
in other words, microsoft is using a proprietary protocol to maintain their monopoly. when you support this type of behavior, giving corporations the ability to mandate what OS people use at home via a closed protocol, you are treading pretty heavily on civil liberties, whether you intend to or not.
and before you say it, i know the rallying cry of you and your ilk -- "Don't like it? Go get another job".
well, binarybits, as much as you and your pals want to write me off as a kook, a commie, or whatever, the fact is I have several years invested with my customers, and i enjoy serving them.
i don't see why that relationship has to be destroyed by microsoft's desire to control the software we use. the company i work for wants to keep the employees happy, but the fact is, in this division, we have a microsoft nazi who want microsoft everywhere. he runs the exchange server.
in another division, where i know a few people, the admin is totally different. he lets people use whatever mail client they want -- he keeps pop3/smtp open.
the company lets divisions handle things the way they think best. should i leave the company? should i change divisions? why should i? all i want is for the company to give people some freedom and choice.
there are a variety of laws on the books regulating when and how a employer can listen in on their own phone systems, let you refuse to allow MS to be forced to adhere to standards.
i think it's wrong to make me get another job so i can have a bit more freedom in my workplace. i also think a company that gives it's employees a bit of freedom and choice has happier employees and more production. in the long run, it's better for the company, the employee and the customer.
so, before you complain that i should get another job, you might want to consider that i'd like my workplace to be better, and i'd like to keep working here, for my customer base, with a bit more freedom.
>In other words, he wanted to *ban*
>closed standards.
wrong. the effect, to some extent, would be to *ban* closed intermachine protocols. but calling it a *banning* is a stretch. that's like calling calling FDA inspections of food products *the banning of kangaroo meat in hamburger*
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
...uses active-x, and the authors wrote it in such a way that it ONLY works with IE.
so, i question the qualities of your "Microsoft Standard".
If something uses active-x, and it only works with Microsoft products, it's not much of a "standard".
If one entity writes the "standard", and publishes it after the fact so everyone else gets to play catch up on a moving target, that's not much of a "standard" either.
so, i was aware of what you mentioned, it just doesn't really have much of a "standard" flavor to it.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
I bet there isn't much demand for it, so you can't really blame MS too much for not putting too much effort into bug fixing it.
IE5.5 on Mac is pretty good by all accounts, though, which was my original point.
1st, there's sort of a contradiction in your post - you want companies to be unregulated and free to practice vendor lock-in with unpublished API's that competing vendors don't have access to, and then claim that people in the market have 'freely chosen' to use the product, as if it were on a level playing field w/o hidden tie-ins and tight integration (a plus, granted) that other application developers don't have access to! Msft may have won the desktop DOS OS market by various legal means (knighted by IBM, or chosen as 'best OS' by expert microcomputer users) but to use THAT legal monopoly to leverage OTHER products to monopoly status by changing unpublished API's and being a general ass to potential competitors is clearly NOT legal!
Anyway, with the price of Word® hitting $280 / user we just may be forced to bite the bullet and retrain people on something else that doesn't have a hook set in their jaws for the vendor to yank on when then need more fish!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
(I don't have the karma to burn but I'm going to go ahead and voice an unpopular opinion anyway. I'm sick and tired of people on slashdot who fail to wake up and _think_ before they jump on the latest bandwagon touting the "cool" line)
You want to dictate how people do things. You had your chance in the former Soviet Union and the enter Eastern Bloc. You failed miserably. The reason communism failed miserably is that when the government decides to actively intervene in all aspects of society, it takes away the motivation of individuals to excel - why would I try to develop a kick-ass product and corner the market if the government is going to come and take that away?
In the absence of a motivation to excel, the motivation to produce and contribute to society, technology and advancement in general disappears.
This might seem like a great idea in a short-term myopic view, but history has taught us that in the long run this will only lead to ruin.
And please don't pretend there is a difference. You want protocols to use existing RFCs. So every time I want to add a new feature which the existing RFCs don't cover, I'm required to go through a lengthy process of getting what I'm doing "approved" by a bureaucratic process. The result? Stagnation. (Of course if I go ahead without waiting for the approval, you're gonna scream "embrace and extend").
Mmmm.. Donuts
You'll find that the "*nix community" isn't going to be the only bunch of people using Linux in the near future. There are plenty of businesses who'd love to dump NT if they still get to run Office.
And btw, do yourself a favor and download and use icab instead of IE.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Does anybody remember IE4 for Solaris and HPUX? (Slogan: "Microsoft brings the internet to Unix!")
:)
MS essentially ported the entire Windows API, and had IE4 running under emulation. On an Ultra 2 it would consume a full 2/3 of the system resources, and then proceed to leak memory from there.
If they don't do better than that this time, I say don't bother trying to make it work under BSD
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
In the various and sundry replies to my post, which called for a government mandate that all intercommunication standards be open and documented, I have been called a communist and have read several distortions of the original statement.
I have been told "If you don't like it there, get another job". When one admin of one division allows any client to work wih the exchange server, and another admin of another division (mine) decides to close out all non-MS clients, why should I be the one to "get another job"? Why should I have to transfer? By company policy, admins are allowed to run their servers as they see fit. Yet I am no longer allowed to use my mail client of choice? To me, this sounds much more like communism than anything I have written. "Don't like our shoes? Go barefoot." That's not freedom.
This "communist" has worked for this division for 7 years, cultivating relationships with the customer, insuring quality and satisfaction at every cycle of the process -- and my record shows it. I am often requested by name when things go awry, since I never "drop the ball". So that makes me a "communist"?
Somehow, a number of posters have insisted that my post demands the creation of some kind of Orwellian "Ministry of Protocols". Ridiculous. My post says nothing of the sort, it simply states that the protocols be open and documented -- my interpretation of "open" is that a variety of entities can attend, without undue discrimination. For example, there's no reason to let Lars Ulrich in, but Sun representatives should nt be disallowed.
One poster brought up the subject of firewire, as a standard created without government intervention. Note that the companies involved did not need coercion by the government -- they wanted to spread it's use. Firewire is now an IEEE standard, anyone can get it, and must be licensed for use.
Microsoft used standards when it suited them -- ODBC and DHCP let them get on the desktop in most corporations -- but now that they control the market, they refuse to let anyone license exchange.
Another poster states COM/Active-X are open standards. I'm glad someone brought this up. Increasingly, companies like Microsoft and Sun pervert the standards process by inviting one or two NDA participants, creating and stabilizing everything, then releasing the "standard" after they have a huge head start. I really question this kind of "standard" -- while everyone tries to implement version 1.0, you're already debugged and running it, and working on version 2.0. This moving target, with a small group of NDA participants, is hardly an "open, documented standard". Add on to that the widespread use of Active-X controls that work with no browser except Netscape, and you have something, but it's not really a "standard".
I think there are real threats to our civil liberties in the making here, folks. When a company makes a change that essentially forces the employees to use Microsoft products at home, and the best your peers and management can say is "Go Get Another Job", there is something deeply wrong with the way the software industry is working and the way Management is thinking.
Corporations once had the right to listen in on your phone calls, on company property, without any regulations or hinderence. They cannot do that anymore, by law. This is a case where corporate america had to take a loss of power for the sake of individual rights.
All I'm asking is that solutions be found to insure companies cannot be in the position to force the use of Microsoft products or services at home. I proposed a solution that makes sense to me. If you have a better solution, that doesn't involve my changing jobs or putting me in a deathcamp for being some kind of "communist", I'd like to hear it.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
So every time I want to add a new feature which the existing RFCs don't cover
Certainly people who innovate should be allowed to collect the fruits of their labor - but there's a fine line between innovation to improve something and using a dominant position to lock out competitors. The question boils down to (to me) did Msft make proprietary changes to the open Kerberos standard to improve it (I'd love to hear exactly what those changes made better for the consumer) OR were those proprietary changes made to make other vendor's open std Kerberos products incompatible in an attempt for FORCE the consumer to switch to an all Msft shop? If the private altered standard adds no value for the consumer, but locks out competitors, Msft has a serious problem. If it does add value but, opps sorry, has the side effect of locking out competitors they can probably get away with it.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
A moron who doens't/can't see the reason for turning "microsoft" into "micro$oft" shouldn't commit typos. She/he/it (how about abbreviating this into "shit"?) should be _extremely_ careful in proofreading.
soviet union, china, nazi germany
Funny, these are all governments
Ya, those of us who don't favor complete degegulation (probably includes legalizing drugs, gambling and prostitution, peddling bleached meat and autos with known defects as well) are branded with a govt political label, while the open standards which the Internet was built on and laid out in the RFC's were largely govt sponsered and came from defense dept projects!!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Office will use the higher-level API's extensively, because this is a Macintosh application, and it therefore needs to make use of Mac GUI routines, Apple Events, aqua, etc. I don't think it's possible to make an "all darwin" app for the Mac that follows the rules for the same reason you can't (easily) make a Linux GUI app without making calls to X.
The upshot is that porting Office to Mac OS X will do little if any good in efforts to port Office to other unices. The fact that it has a similar core does you no good if your code makes most of its calls to higher-level API's that are not supported on other platforms. You'd have to implement Carbon and Aqua on top of Darwin before you'd have any chance of running Office on it.
Close. OS X doesn't have three user interfaces, but three programmign interfaces (APIs). There is BSD, Carbon, and Cocoa. BSD is what it sounds like; Carbon is a port of a cleaned up version of the current Mac OS toolbox (the API Mac OS uses); and Cocoa, is simply the next version of the OpenStep API, which is object oriented, and quite sophisticated. Carbon allows pretty easy porting of current Mac OS applications to Mac OS X. The Carbon API also exists on the traditional Mac OS, so you can produce a binary for Mac OS 8 - 9 and Mac OS X with a compiler flag, and making changes to have it run on System 7 shouldn't be too hard either. It's for these reasons many Mac OS X developers coming from previous Mac development will use Carbon. You're getting Carbon confused with Classic. Classic is an appliation which runs on Mac OS X which runs a copy of Mac OS 9 in emulation for the purpose of running non-ported prorgams. Carbon isn't as a nice of an API as Cocoa is, but it does take advantage of all of the advantages Mac OS X has over it's predecessors. When MS says they'll have Office 2001 on OS X, they're most likely to use Carbon, for the above reasons. What does this mean in the context of getting MS apps on Unix in general? Not much. Carbon and Cocoa are portable APIs, and do not require Unix at all. ARDI is trying to implement Carbon on top of Linux/X and Windows toward the end of portable programs. Apple themselves has an older version of the Cocoa API available on Windows, as a part of WebObjects development. My point? Mac OS X doesn't use X, but it's own Display PDF window server. But that doesn't matter at all. It all depends on whether or not the API is implemented on the target platform. If an app was written in Cocoa for Mac OS X, there's a good chance, sometime in the future, they could very easily be ported to Linux and other Unices via GNUstep, an implementation of the OpenStep/YellowBox/Cocoa API, which is coming along slowly, but very surely. Porting an app from Mac OS X/Cocoa to Linux/GNUstep shouldn't be that hard, as it's a high-level API. The companies writting these apps simply need an ecomical incentive to do so.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
*nix, it's not just for servers anymore...
...
Got Warez?
OS X has two main APIs.
Coccoa, which is the revised OpenStep API with a few new tricks.
Carbon, which is the OS 7,8,9, etc API minus the cruft, which allows software makers to create native OS X apps with only minor modification (Photoshop was ported within two weeks). It is not an emulator.
Classic, a OS 9 Virtual Machine is used for running Classic MacOS apps.
Microsoft would port to either Carbon or Coccoa. They wouldn't even touch the BSD innards. Now a simple trip to http://www.apple.com/macosx/ could have answered this question in about 30 seconds. Next time Slashdot should use some care, not just post anything that includes "Office, ported and BSD or Linux" in the same message.
A) It would have pissed off Microsoft, which would have ended Office and IE support for the Macintosh. This was quietly axed in the days of the $150 million dollar deal. While the money was chump change to both companies (Apple have over $1 billion in reserve at the time), the main parts of the deal had to do with keeping the Mac platform viable. A loss of the major productivity suite used by 90% of all people world-wide would have lost Apple any chance at survival in the future. Part of the agreement was reportedly this port of Office to Mac OS X.
B) No kidding. I mean, they get a lot of their competitive advantage with Office and other products from being able to weld the software and the OS as well as they do. There's no way they'd use anyone else's APIs. Just look at their SQL server and the file IO APIs added with service pack 3 to support it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
They've already ported that to Mac OS X. After all, it's just a matter of replacing code that uses depecated APIs. As others have mentioned, that's all MS is doing with Office. They are doing nothing towards porting to Unix.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Surely it can't be as broken as Netscape 4 for UNIX/X.
I don't think you've got the relationship between carbon, aqua, and apps quite right. Carbon is a comprehensive set of API's designed to ease the transition for existing Mac apps. Carbon apps are fully buzzword-compliant and get all the benefits of the modern OS internals-- preemptive multitasking, modern memory management, SMP thread support, etc.
Aqua is just Apple's name for the look and feel of its GUI. It is not an API. Apps don't write to Aqua. They write to Carbon, and then Carbon causes your app to look Aqua-ish.
Carbon is also not the only available API. There are three major API's. (4 if you count Java) Carbon is one of them. The second is Classic, which is pretty much the existing Mac OS running inside protected memory. It will allow execution of existing Mac OS binaries. The third API is Coacoa, which is the brand new, NeXT derived, object oriented API designed for new apps. It is built around ObjC and is said to allow rapid development and highly abstract code.
So no one ports anything to Aqua. They port to Carbon and Coacoa. Aqua is just how they look when they've done this.
People don't seem to realize that Internet Explorer already exists for UNIX. Well, Solaris only, but it does work under X Windows.
See it here.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
The Darwin kernel that OS X uses has been ported to X86. Apple has never started that they would port OS X itself to x86. It's a possibility, but I doubt it.
MacOS X has three user interfaces
If Apple does their job right, there will be only one user interface. Users will be unable to tell which API each app is working. What there will be is 3 API's, meaning developers will see three different interfaces. But the user shouldn't have to know anything about them.
one of which is Carbon and provides legacy compatibility for all the thousands of MacOS apps out there now.
Not so. Off-the-shelf Mac software that exists now will not run in Carbon. You are thinking of Classic, which is the compatibility box. Carbon is a stripped down subset of the current Mac OS API's that provide a gentle migration path to the new OS. But it does require rewriting some code and it does require a recompile.
This is the API MS is using; their code won't take advantage of any of the two newer APIs in the OS.
If they are using Carbon for this realease (and odds are they are) then it will have access to new OS features. This was the whole point of Carbon-- to strip out those functions that prevented apps being reentrant, multi-threadable, memory-protected, etc. Apple is planning on providing API's to access most if not all new OS features through Carbon.
There is only one other API (not counting Java), and that's Coacoa. Coacoa is a Next-derived, object-oriented API designed for new apps.
Not me, I ain't. The burden of being careful about proofreading falls entirely upon those who choose to nitpick on the format people choose to express their ideas. I agree with eecummings that spelling and capitalization is irrelevant, as far as it doesn't conflict with proper semantic uderstanding.
I'm not saying that good text formatting is completely irrelevant. Read Edward Tufte's books on this and related subjects if you think it's so important. The idea I wanted to express is that it's ridiculous to criticize a particular form of spelling if you aren't so careful about your own spelling and proofreading.
First, the disclaimer... I'm not a very strong programmer (PERL w/ some ANSI C and Pascal, no Mac API experience). I did go to WWDC though.
Now, here is what I understand to be true (much of it has been said here and there already).
First, Aqua (the Interface) is totally Apple propriatary. It won't get opened and it's completely different from X. Anything coded for Aqua won't port anywhere else.
Second, There are basically 4 ways to code a program for OS-X.
--Classic (old Apple APIs running in emulation)
--Carbon (new APIs, similar to Classic APIs but supported in OS8.x, 9.x, and OS-X). Benefit: Same binary for both OSes and access to OS-X features like Protected memory.
--Cocoa (Native API set for OS-X. Full access to all OS-X core functionality, the prefered way to program new applications)
--BSD (Code written for BSD (freeBSD) can be compiled to run from the command line. BSD code has no supported interface APIs so X Applications will not compile)
Now... What will Microsoft do? Well, they have already bundled a developmental release of IE 5 in OSX DP4 and it's a Carbon App. No Unix code at all. The conversion from Classic APIs to Carbon APIs reportedly took 2 weeks to finish. Odds are that MS will make all Mac products Carbon compliant for the forseeable future because it allows the Mac group to develop in a familiar API and it allows them to release the same application to both Classic OS 8-9.x and OSX at the same time with no (or very little) modification. This means absolutely not help to the Unix community.
Even when Apple cans the existing OS line, MS will be able to keep coding in Carbon.
Even when MS eventually starts moving to Cocoa (if they ever do), it's still an Apple API from start to finish so it won't translate to any other platform. Programming for Aqua is completely different from other interfaces (I don't know of any other Display PDF interfaces... not to mention it's Apple's implimentation of a Display PDF interface).
Sorry... This isn't any good for anyone except us Mac users.
Contrary to information provided here, Microsoft developers have already announced that Office 2001 will be rewritten from scratch for OS X using the Cocoa APIs (aka Objective C), not merely Cabonizing the OS 8/9 version.
OK. Why on earth would they rewrite Office to use Cocoa when they already have code to carbonize? Cocoa is mainly for new apps and rewrites.
You've got a point. But Microsoft themselves said they were going to use Cocoa, and while I don't tend to trust Microsoft on anything major I think this one's probably true.
Heck, it probably is a ploy to make users upgrade their computers, I won't argue that one.
Anyway, for an office suite, Carbon would do just fine. This is not to mention that there are millions of pre G3 Macs in that won't run a Cocoa version (no G3, no OS X, no Cocoa), but will run a Carbon version (which can run on any Mac OS back to 8.1).
Not strictly true. It's well-known that OSX DP4 runs on quite a few pre-G3 Macs (though if it's NuBus-based you're definitely out of luck). Further, it's quite possible that Apple may back-port OSX to the earlier machines (this is already true of Darwin, and it's stupid of Apple not to take advantage of that). Once you've got a basic OS going, porting it to different motherboards with the same architecture isn't that difficult. Writing the software from the ground up with that support, however, can be a very taxing task. The "G3 only" requiirement has been generally agreed to be just a trick by Apple to get the OS out more quickly, with backporting to follow in the spare time between OSX GM and January 2001.
How many secretaries do you think are going to be given shiny new G3s and G4s to run OS X just to use MS Office?
Not many, though be sure to consider that Office is a major app in the workforce, and this sort of thing has happened before. However, there's a greater chance of them being given iMacs (or the rumored "iBoxes") as an upgrade, and these can also run OSX.
Microsoft is porting things to Mac OS X, sure - but they'll be porting to the "Carbon" interfaces - the same old Mac style API's - with only a few twists.
Even if they did port this all to "Aqua", it still a completely different windowing environment, and wouldn't mean squat for any of the other other *bsd environments.
Apparently, people don't seem to understand that MacOSX is not a UNIX from the developer sense. A modern MacOSX developer is sure to use the Cocoa API so that their apps appear to be like the other apps that MacOS X users will be used to. As such, their application still won't be portable to UNIX. I mean technically, it should be simple to port apps between BeOS and Linux, since they both use a POSIX base. However, a significant amount of code in a productivity app is user interface code that is tied to the UI system. Since MacOS X uses a different windowing system, even if the Office people use the BSD API for the port, it would still be hard to port to Linux/BSD/X.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
This does nothing for the chances of seeing Office on other *nixes because the chances are they will simply be using the Carbon API's for MacOS X, basically the same old Mac API. So unless somebody comes up with the WINE equivalent of the Mac API, we won't see Office for *nix.
--------- Beware the dragon, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
"Undocumented systems are like the New York subway without a map."
[pause]
"You just don't go there!"
This is a joke, right?
be well;
JC.
--
"Don't declare a revolution unless you are prepared to be guillotined." - Anon.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
Seems encouraging, doesn't it?
Don't get your hopes up.
The OS X MS Office ports are written such that OS X basically emulates the OS 9 operating environment for them. There is not an ounce of Unix code in these ports.
MacOS X has three user interfaces, one of which is Carbon and provides legacy compatibility for all the thousands of MacOS apps out there now. This is the API MS is using; their code won't take advantage of any of the two newer APIs in the OS.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Doesn't the portability of such a program depend alot more on the GUI toolkit used? I mean, the level of back-end API that an office program would need is pretty trivial (and mostly provided by ANSI-C anyway). It's the front-end that counts. AFAIK, OSX uses its own GUI stuff, not X11 or gtk.
------
Problems
(1) OS X APIs (Carbon, <sp>Coca</sp> etc) are not Open source / known to officaly be proted to other OSs.
(2) only the kernel and most of the CLI of OS X is OpenSource, the GUI is prety much 100% Apple only.
[theory 1]
(1) MS will probably use Carbon which is a pre OS X compatablity layer think of it as a WINE type program for going between OS X and Mac OS 7-9.
(2) Carbon is not currently portable off OS X (no implementations for linux etc) and it is not anything like Open source or even free(beer) software. and it doesn't look like it's going to be.
distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes!!!