Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD Now Supports Dual Power PC Processors
djcdplaya writes: "DaemonNews is reporting that the good guys over at NetBSD have gotten dual PowerPC processors working on dual-G4 Apples. The NetBSD mailing can be found here."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I just heard the sad news on talk radio, trouble OS netBSD was found dead in it's downdown office. There were no further details. Truly a sad loss for all OS dabbler-dilletante troll hobbyists the world over. I miss it already :-(
BSD is dead.
I had read that BSD had lost funding and was dying. Is this true? I didn't think we'd hear any more news from them.
Is BSD OK?
Time for a reminder that BSD is dead:
BSD is dead.
Coming up next, traffic and weather together.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Apple Zealot Alarm. All Points Bulletin.
You stupid zealot man-bitch. The only reason I might halfway believe your lying bullshit zealot plug for OS -SHIT X is that Motorola PPCs are so fucking slow they need a custom JVM. I would buy OS X to support Unix on the desktop, but dipshit Apple is still fucking off with gay lame shit mongoloid-tard PPCs. And fuck Altivec, you fucking zealots - check out the SPEC CPU2000 int and fp for the MOT-G4 - oh, wait, pussy Apple wont even publish them! HAHAHA. I have a G4. It was given to me for free. I gave it back to the owner because it sucked. Apple's stupid shit user base is still 80% on native classic. OS 9,8,7 whatever you want to call it is such fucking shit it bends the fabric of space and time. Apple's Xserve is a piece of shit, half the speed of a P4, twice the price, no ECC or SCSI. Dell 1650 and 2650 blow the doors of that shit. Even a P3-1400/512 beats a G4-1000. Look it up slut. Its in the SPEC marks, its on Digital Video Editing's site. Like Adobe says, Evidence that APPLE sucks balls is "everywhere you look." And here it is, the Apple's losing HORRIBLY to the PC in benchmarks where AltiVec is supposed to save the day
And here we go again, a fucking Dual MAC G4-1000 getting its fucking ass kicked hard by a single Dell P4 2.5GHz. Where your Altivec now, fuckheads?
An easy way to see if people say the truth or not when they speak about the respective speeds of their CPUs. I like to see what people say, and compare that to SPECCPU2000 results. The differences are sometimes very surprising. Well, are they so surprising? Let's have a look at the 3 major "vendors" of CPUs systems, Intel, AMD and... Apple (because Motorola doesn't seem to gloat about the performance on the PowerPC G4, only Apple does).
AMD has recently released their new Athlon XP 2200+. Is it really faster than a 2200 MHz CPU? On integer stuff, the AthlonXP is good for 738 points. The funny thing is, a Pentium4 at a mere 2GHz scores the same 738 points. Oh, yes, I know, that's because AMD has a superior floating-point performance. Sure. CFP2000, AthlonXP goes as high as 624 points. And the poor little Pentium4 at 2GHz with its slow FPU only gets 744 points. Please read that again. So, how much floating-point power is there in an Athlon XP 2200+ running at 1800 MHz? Well, about as much as in a Pentium4 running at 1600MHz. Man I wouldn't want to have just read that if I was an AMD zealot, that's gotta hurt.
Don't worry, my AMD friend, your CPU performs more than adequately. Wait until I talk about the "super-computer" G4 that is used by Apple.
G4 1000MHz: 306 points in integer. Just like a PIII at 667MHz. But, as you all know, The G4 is extremely good in floating point, capable of doing billion operations per second. G4 1000 MHz: 187 point in floating point. That's the level of a PIII at 500MHz. Oh my God, if I overclock three-year-old my dual-PIII from 450 to 504 MHz (where it is perfectly stable), I get as much FPU power as a top-of-the-line Mac. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I just feel sad for all the people who fall in for Apple's propaganda. If a Mac can do all that a "Wintel" PC can do (yeah, right), well, it'll be doing it much much much much slower.
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
I picked the baseline results over the peak results. Because I only had baseline results for the G4, and because I think that they are more realistic to show real-world speed: if you're a developer, just use the same compiler flags as Intel, Dell or AMD used, they are published in the benchmark report.
The fact that the G4 benchmarks come from a magazine and are not official results. I would normally have put a disclaimer about that. Well, if you're not happy about the results, please go and put some pressure on Apple to publish official results. I monitor the SPEC results on a regular basis, and I'll be more than happy to take any official results into account.
Some zealots will say that the G4 can do better than that because gcc doesn't use Altivec. Well, now, it's not my fault if you don't have a decent compiler, is it? Do you think that someone with a mind would go spend some time hand-optimizing his/her code in assembly for a CPU that only has a few percent of market share? Imagine a team of 30 engineers trying to release an application simultaneously for Windows and MacOS. 28 engineers write the portable core of the application (and they all develop on Windows with Visual C++ and Purify), 1 engineer is responsible for the Windows adaptation layer and Windows optimization (like, tweak the compile flags for the intel compiler), 1 engineer is responsible for the MacOS adaptation layer, MacOS-specific issues and MacOS optimization (like, deal with a compiler that doesn't support the Visual C++ extensions, deal with a CPU that orders bytes differently, deal with an OS that'll do some things differently, like not have drive letters, use slashes instead of backslashes as a file separator, not support MDI, put the menubar at that top of the screen, and when there's a little bit of time left, re-write in assembly a routine that the original programmer will modify so much before the release date that it'll have to be re-written in assembly 5 times in the coming year). I wouldn't want to be the MacOS guy.
Oh yeah, I've also read that running SPEC benchmarks for PowerPC was unfair because the benchmarks are x86-specific. Well, I guess that the same benchmarks are also unfair for HP-PA CPUs, Itaniums, Sparcs, MIPS, Alphas, POWER... which all manage to beat the G4. The only reason why they're "unfair" for PowerPC is that those benchmarks are written in C, C++ and Fortran, and that the measure as much the compiler as the CPU. Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad SPEC results. Guess what? Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad results on everything but the 3 routines that Apple will optimize by hand to make Altivec shine...
So, I guess that the only CPUs worth considering are Intel's. The Pentium4 rocks (I'm dreaming of buying a dual-Xeon 2200 MHz, but I'm not sure I want to afford the $2000 that such a beast costs). Itanium looks very promising, especially with an incredible FPU power (if you want numbers, well, how about 645 points on last year's hardware?).
Netcraft confirms:
49 of the 50 longest uptime web servers are running *BSD.
I see like 12 or so totally offtopic comments saying BSD is dead. Here is what I have to say about it.
:)
In the last month, as a hobbyist i've set up 3 BSD systems.
I like BSD, the install isn't bloated, the system boots up REALLY fast, and it really is a better place to start than Linux if you want to learn UNIX standards.
This message is coming to you through a transparent squid proxy
Now for some on topic stuff.
SMP on PPC? Cool beans!
--toq
Not a single one. What do sites like CNN and Google use? Not BSDead, that's for sure.
I think it would be the best way to mourn.
Pardon my skeptism, but I think that as of right now a port of NetBSD in a dual ppc system is unnecessary.
Why would anyone in their right mind want a dual ppc NetBSD system when Apple already markets/supports and extends the leading OS for the platform: OSX?
Yahoo & Hotmail use FreeBSD. Yes, Hotmail still uses FreeBSD. I have seen porn sites on the list in the past, which is a good test for the robustness of a site.
BTW, NO company, large or small is representing Linux on the list.
The only OS on the "not tracked" list that has ANY usage as a web server is NT 4. Unless you think NT would otherwise make the list, that list IS irrelevant.
As for the 497 day rollover, a Linux box with a 1.5 year uptime? Don't make me laugh. If the last paragraph implies that Solaris should be represented more, then you have a point.
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
saying things as objective and eloquent as that, we should be just fine in a few years, and MS may finally start playing nice when they realize people don't want to be represented by just one company or flavor (and no, different versions of the same win32 OS just won't cut it :)
Nice to hear(?) you say it BitGeek
It smells like something's dead.
on my old 8500/120 (single CPU) last week. Exposing the boot loader was tricky, but after that it went ok. An "huzzah" seems in order for this news.
I think it should be small since BSD was pretty frail anyway.
Get a life again.
I honestly can't believe you wrote all that shit that I don't care about.
I thought the point of this was so that the NetBSD portion of OS X's Darwin would finally be capable of utilizing dual CPUs. Am I missing something?
If previously NetBSD in OS X, et al was only cinlge CPU aware then OS X Server has been sub-optimal from it's inception as a server and now should see very nice performance improvements to such things as the TCP/IP stack and many other networking technologies.
I'm definitely curious to see what impact this will have for OS X Server. I assume that it was Apple's engineers that privided the 'last mile' details to get this working... nicde work people.
Maybe we'll be seeing TiVos with Dual G4 PPCs running NetBSD in the future or something too..
BTW, does anyone know if PPC Linux distros are MP aware?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
July 23, 2002
I just love all the people of this world who have opinions on things but never actually are willing to stick anything behind them.
Let me clarify some of the following: Interview and the wonders of Slashdot and the ability to look beyond the tips of their noses when reading anything on slashdot - most of the comments there are made before anyone has actually READ anything.
Anyway - for the few level headed enough to 1. actually have contributed ever to linux or any part of it and not just spouted out words but not had the guts to back them with code and effort, or 2. actually see more than their little world and are willing to actually understand "the enemy" so to speak, they might actually see where I'm coming from.
The desktop market share windows has isn't going away. It's entrenched. Everyone I speak to who devout isn't a linux head says "yeah - heard of linux - I know it's meant to be stable, but I can't use my apps on it". It's not a matter of if they will be happy with openoffice, or be happy with whatever equivalent there is - they want THAT PARTICULAR APP.
Also not to mention the ease of use windows has. You plug in a new usb device, or a new card or anything. It detects it - find the driver or asks you for the disk you got in the box, and bingo. On linux? HA! Good luck. Half the time I need to do endless reserach first to see if its supported - and even if it is, half the time I have to do some obscure hunting for code I need to compile and specially configure that more often than not only paertially supports it - and even then with moe bugs than you can poke a stick at. The average person doesn't want to do this - and rightly, shouldn't. I won't stop using linux. I still use it as my desktop. I know many others do. But linux isn't goin to beat microsoft. It isnt' going to take the majority share of the desktop markent. I never said it was dead. I said Linux has lost. It's not going to win. Just because you lose does not mean you re dead, but don't expect the masses of cheering fans. It's going to remain the minority holder on the desktop. In that respect I see it as a loss.
Also I haven't stopped working on stuff. I haven't stopped on E. I'm not bitter or have sour grapes. Just because someone asks me for facts and i give them without flowery words or soothing tones does not mean I'm bitter and am trying to extract my pound of flesh. I never really dodge the trusth or facts, and if people don't seem to be able to read something at face value - well that's their problem. Did I not say KDE and GNOME were doing a good job? Did I ever start Enlightenment with the aim to become an easy to use desktop for the masses? I never did. I never claimed such. Anyone who says so is putting words in my mouth. E was always a toy project. It is my toy. I get to push boundaires and explore ideas using it. It only ever made it open source for anyone elses desktop other than mine because people pestered me after seeing screenshots.
Also people just didn't get my point. I'm saying the future Isn't a desktop at all - the encumbent (windows) on the desktop will stay, but the future isn't a desktop computer at all - it isn't a nasty mess of a desktop with taskbar and a screen and a mouse and keyboard. I'm not the first to say this by any means - and I won't be the last. Devices (such as pda's and the likes) now have the grunt that desktops had years ago. They are what I see as the future. Devices you use for a limited set of things that fit in your pocket, have no wires and always work. Have a look at the i-mode and ketai phenomenon in Japan. Most people just want to do things - they don't care how - be it via windows or linux. Whichever way works. The techies like us care how - but what I'm saying is we are the minority. The mass market where linux can be on everyone's desk is not via the PC desktop - you want linux everywhere? Put it on their phones, in their cars, on their trains, on their watches. That's how you will get that.
I will continue to use Linux on my desktops because I like it. I will continue to develop for X because I like it. I will continue to use Linux on my laptop because I like it. I will do it because "I can" and because "I want to". But I will not go thinking that linux will take over the worlds desktop computers. There was a day years ago it might have had a fighting chance - if applications had started to be developed that people wanted, but that time has passed and all the apps are for the reigning OS and will stay that way mostly. The desktop isn't going to be a big thing for linux, but it has a fair go in other arenas.
So those of you who thought I'd given up - no way. I've just switched game plan. I never was a Linux visionary - never wanted to be, never asked to be - people just seem to have said I am. I am going to leave being a visionary and political activist to others. I say things how I see them. Take everything I say with a grain of salt - invariably it's me trying to make a point. I'm a realist and I'm into the practical of things. If I'm going to fight I want to make sure I have a damn good chance at winning.
Apple doesn't ship BSD OSs, just some utils! It's MACH kernel, not BSD kernel! MACH kernel has nothing to do with *BSD.
Hell, I was karma capped for a while, I can live with the negative mods...
Take it tux
This is a joke, I've set up both Linux and FreeBSD, Linux has more apps, FreeBSD is cleaner. I've used Solaris, SCO, Tru64, AIX, HPUX, SunOS, even DG/UX on a Motorla 88K. Pick whatever works best for you and be happy with it.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
[editor's note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.
To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.
To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.
To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.
Future
I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.
However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.
You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.
= Mike
--
Darwin is the underlying OS (sans GUI and iApps) of OS X. OS X and OS X Server are both SMP-aware/capable-Mach-mk-under-BSD based OSs (really the same OS, the server version has more chrome). NetBSD is not supplying the SMP for OS X and Darwin, it's there already. There are no major performance problems with the server portion of OS X (although there are some lingering GUI performance issues and, of course, some Mac architectural issues).
Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!
don't you know how much it hurts?