Slashdot Mirror
Apple In Trouble With Developers
geek writes "According to Marco Arment, the creator of Instapaper, Apple may be in trouble with developers. According to Arment, the new sandboxing guidelines from Apple are pushing developers away in droves. 'I've lost all confidence that the apps I buy in the App Store today will still be there next month or next year. The advantages of buying from the App Store are mostly gone now. My confidence in the App Store, as a customer, has evaporated. Next time I buy an app that’s available both in and out of the Store, I’ll probably choose to buy it directly from the vendor. And nearly everyone who’s been burned by sandboxing exclusions — not just the affected apps’ developers, but all of their customers — will make the same choice with their future purchases. To most of these customers, the App Store is no longer a reliable place to buy software.' Arment also comments on the 'our way or the highway' attitude Apple often takes in these situations and how it may be backfiring this time around."
Remember, that line didn't even work out for Vader and he had Star Destroyers and millions of clone troopers at his command. If you have the upper hand you can sometimes force people to accept a one sided deal. But if you go beyond that and keep changing the terms on it eventually everyone figures out they might as well take their chances because they are hosed anyway. You have to leave them some hope of survival.
I especially liked how the article has this:
"This even may reduce the long-term success of iCloud and the platform lock-in it could bring for Apple. Only App Store apps can use iCloud, but many Mac developers can’t or won’t use it because of the App Store’s political instability."
Anyone who would write that, in the context of it being a good thing!, is obviously a Kool-Aid drinker. When you are driving those people away it is a warning sign.
Imagine how badly Microsoft is going to bungle this same gambit. Notice how Valve is already running for the exits? Uh huh, good times ahead for everyone!
Democrat delenda est
they say the meek shall inherit
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
ASEMBLEEEEEE!!!!
and it's not even Quezovercoatl
I guess the squeezing of developers & customers has finally come around to hurt Apple, after such a promising start, too. Couldn't happen to a nicer company.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
These are the things you get with the lack of openness - in favor of the One True Platform where everything must submit to the One True Experience
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This summary contains the word "App Store" a few more times than necessary...
I figured a year or two before Steve being gone would doom the Appleistas. Happened a lot faster than I thought.
Perhaps they'll have less profits to hide in tax structures in other countries so they don't have to pay Uncle Sam.
I agree, sandboxing has been a bitch. Should be able to turn it off for apps the user trusts...
not the App Store most people are thinking of (the iphone/ipad one). TF summary is misleading.
The mobile App store's always been restrictive, and it seems to have done okay... nothing to see here.
According to Arment, the new sandboxing guidelines from Apple are pushing developers away in droves.
Though nothing in his blog post actually says or even hints at this. But it's fun to pull things out of our ass, eh?
I loathe Apple. They are probably one of the most detestable companies in the technology sector right now. I see them as a modern version of 90s Microsoft.
But this? I think this is a move in the right direction. The added security benefits sandboxing brings far outweigh any negative consequences a few developers too lazy to implement something Apple's been telling them they need to implement for the better part of a year might experience (at least according to the OS X review a few days ago from Ars Technica). And it's not like these developers have no recourse; as long as they register with Apple or whatever, the default OS setting will allow users to go download those products from the vendor's website.
There are plenty of reasons to hate Apple. Their push toward better security practices is not one of them.
Apple probably doesn't care. When one merchandiser leaves, another one will gladly take its place.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
As a developer I see what he is saying.
But as a user the changes only make it MORE likely I would look in the app store first for something. I know something from there will work along with the system security restrictions.
With more people looking in the app store, the simple truth is more developers will have to service that market somehow or lose users (or at least not grow at the same rate as the mac install base does).
Apple has already changed some ways in which sandboxing works, to accommodate some application needs. And they will do more of that going forward - but historically Apple implements overly strong security to start with, and then whittles it away as required instead of letting users get used to an overly permissive model.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Developers think "Great, I can release an App Store version... I just need to remove x and y." So they do that, and people buy the App Store version. Then the developer realizes his App Store version now can't do Z, which makes it much harder to keep making in parallel with his native version. So he stops updating the App Store version. App Store customer sees non-App Store version getting updates and gets angry.
Customers may take the same route (i.e. straight to the exit, without even grabbing their coat), at least for the more empowered users.
Case in point: I've purchased "Light Compressor" on the AppStore. Simple application to combine multiple exposure pictures to create HDR images. For some reason, the developer decided that Lion was required - why exactly he needs Lion still escape me. Upgrading to (now) Mountain Lion with my 2008 Macbook Pro would need me to reevaluate all the software I use, most probably requiring more upgrades. Sorry, I'm not going to spend tens if not hundreds of euros to be able to use a 3 euros one. Sad thing is, when I paid for it, it was perfectly running with Snow Leopard.
Plus, now that Apple is turning OSX into a kind of IOS with some desillusions of grandeur, and taking the "we know better what's good for you" route, I personally will leave the platform as soon as Snow Leopard stop working for me and migrate back to Linux. I just wish I'd have not left in the first place.
Note that I think Apple and Microsoft are completely out of touch with their customer: if people need "simple" computers, they'll go with tablets these days. But there's still a lot of people who need to _work_, and for those, oversimplifying the laptop/desktop computer is counter-productive.
Many, MANY people buy Macs because they believe that they are better/more stable/more secure than the Windows machines they've used for the past decade. Whether they are or are not is an endless Slashdot debate that is completely tangential to my point, because what's at question here is the perception, not the reality.
If people perceive the Mac to be the stable part, software that doesn't work will likely be blamed on the developer, not Apple. To them, a sandbox is a place young children play in, not a computer security model. A developer trying to explain this to someone who truly doesn't understand the security model will make himself look foolish to the customer, not enlighten the customer.
The App Store will still be used by many Mac users in the same way Origin is used by EA customers. Few (if any) EA customers desired Origin, it's just necessary for Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, and The Sims. Similarly, even if many Apple developers ditch the App Store, the fact that Final Cut Studio, Logic, and Aperture are available through it will keep a huge demographic begrudgingly using it. Adobe is probably the one company who can likely keep a working trigger finger on Apple preventing conventional software installations, but their pushing their 'Creative Cloud' model may weaken their grip on said trigger. Ableton and Serato may be in a position to help pick up the slack a bit, but they definitely don't have the same level of clout.
Finally, long time Mac incumbents may be wary of the Mac App Store, but newcomers who love their iPhone/iPod/iPad may be more inclined to start at the App Store since that's "where software comes from". It's part of the vertical solution that they feel they bought from Apple. The question will be whether developer A's FOO_APP skiddishness in being included in the App Store will be the golden opportunity for similarly-functioning FRA_APP to eat its lunch. Again, Adobe may be able to keep itself afloat with selling stuff through adobe.com/journeyed/cdw/staples, but searching the App Store through functionality puts developers on much more even levels for those that would be affected by the sandboxing and not having a legal team at their disposal to go RIAA on their posteriors.
Apple hinted to sandboxing being mandatory at WWDC11, they announced it would happen later that year, then forced everyone to a few months ago. So, where does this "new" come from exactly?
They're just realizing this now? A walled garden controlled by one single company that gives you zero control whatsoever might maybe have some undesirable results? Did they think Apple wasn't in complete control when they bought their iOS device or something?
What I've seen is that many apps are starting to have 2 versions:
a) The internet version
-- designed the way the developer wants
-- paid upgrades
-- weak or weaker tie to iOS version
b) The app store version
-- designed the way Apple wants
-- free upgrades (or rarely 100% rebuy upgrades)
-- strong tie to the iOS version via. iCloud
That's a really interesting choice. So far I've always gone for the internet version because the app store worries me. I like the idea of iCloud integration, but most of what I want I could get though dropbox and sym/hard links. I could get the update management the more traditions way (http://www.macupdate.com/desktop/) but frankly all the apps check by themselves at this point mostly.
But I don't know the App store is "in trouble". I think there is likely to be a fork in what you get where. The App store might have lots of inexpensive simple applications, free demos, desktop support for phone apps and other apps that are single purpose while the retail side focus on the $20 on up apps which are more versatile. I don't think it is good that the market is forking creating two software ecosystems with different tastes.
I love that people on here bitch endlessly about how insecure OSes are. Then Apple makes a move to require devs to code in a more secure manner, result? They freak out. Did I miss anything?
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
Problem is, I read the linked post and can't tell if he's right or wrong. He refers to developers leaving, he refers to customers being burnt, he refers to sandboxing exclusions... but he doesn't give a single example to illustrate his point!
So what exactly are you talking about, Marco Arment?
#DeleteChrome
Will iTunes run in the "sandbox"? QuickTime? Safari? Keynote? Numbers? FinalCut "Pro"?
As a newcomer to the Mac, I was not at all interested in the App Store. Maybe I'm too cynical, but goddamn it, I'm proven right too often to change my ways. The App Store does not solve any existing problems for me, as a user. If I can find some app in their, then I could have Googled for the author's web site just as easily. I actually prefer apps that self-update, rather than having to open the inflexible App Store client. I don't need a 3rd party getting between me and the developer, isn't that the whole point of a global network ? We don't need no stinkin' middlemen!
Another peeve is how their delivery method makes it difficult to back up the installation files. I don't want to redownload the dumb thing every time I set up a test box, or follow their annual OS upgrades (from scratch - fuck inline updates!) For regular users, I'm sure the experience is seamless, but as soon as you start messing in a terminal, the messy parts become painfully apparent. It's kind of like that last bit in Portal, where you break out of the test area and run around the broken-down maintenance hallways.
It's a fine model for the iPhone/iPad, but desktop/laptop computers have a long legacy that predates this sort of integration and far greater diversity in how people use them. Tell me how to use my computer and I'll tell your company to go fuck itself.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I've had the iPhone since shortly after they first introduced it to the market. In that time I purchased many apps, but few paid apps have failed to disappoint. Making things worse Apple allows developers to convert a 10$ app into a "free" app with in game purchases. Particularly disappointing was Oregon Trail. The only thing I found appealing on early Apple computers (I had a PC so I was spoiled) when I found them in my school. I payed almost 10$ for that iPhone app, and it was worth it when I bought it as it was VERY close to the original, as I remembered it. Greedily the developer converted my paid app to a "free" one and completely ruined the game adding content not in the original to prompt users to pay for in game items that shouldn't have even been there. Apple then removes an app from the store that puts a spotlight on shady apps.
Apple, IMHO, isn't very customer oriented. Well, unless the customer is other businesses and we are the product.
Right now the Mac app store makes no distinction between system/developer utilities and regular consumer applications. As a result, the list of available entitlements are too narrow. Regular users are baffled by the file system and getting it out of their faces is a great idea. Locking down apps is also good from a security perspective for most apps and users.
Apple just needs to make a special more rigorous review process for these sorts of apps and only allow those apps to request admin access or touch the file system outside the sandbox. In fact only the Developer and Utility categories need allow this sort of thing.
On a related note, Apple needs something like Windows' contracts so apps can specify the types of data they can provide or accept and let the system manage the interaction. This gives a safe clean way for apps to share data... The primary drawback of Apple's current "share nothing" model.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
He seems to be butthurt over something called "Sandboxing," but throughout his entire rant, he fails to actually explain to his readers what this Sandboxing thing is and how it affects developers. All he offers is some jargon about "incompatibility with the current set of sandboxing entitlements" whatever the heck that means.
He might as well be ranting over Apple's "leafbowl" restrictions or their policy of "chicken frying" developers. Without some background, who knows what he's talking about with his jargon?
The summary is misleading. The article is about the MAC app store for desktop applications. Was anyone else left scratching their heads about how the heck they would deploy iPhone apps to the public without the app store?
Man, what's Apple going to do when all these developers leave them to go develop applications to put in Ubuntu's repository and the mobile Windows 8 store?
Last time I checked, Apple's app store is where the money is. Developers don't work on what's convenient unless they're hobbyists. If they're in it for the money they go where the money's at. Does Manager X care that Developer Y has a philosophical disagreement with Apple? Nope.
Personally, I like the idea of sandboxing. It provides stability and security, two things that will wane as Apple's market grows. I can boot into Linux whenever I want unfettered access to anything and geek out. When I want efficiency and basic functionality, OS X please.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Am I posting AC in my sleep?
No one forces you to use the Mac app store and sandboxing is a good thing. I hate to tell him it's only going to increase across all systems. Sandboxing apps isn't going away.
My Pop is 73, asked me to help him buy a "tablet" the other day because he wants to keep his sheet music on it. He plays ukulele. I'm a dyed in the wool linux and android user, he's an old mainframe engineer from the 70's. He's not unintelligent but has had a bit of a decline in mental acuity so after much soul wrangling I steered him towards an iPad. He loves it. Simple, "intuitive" ( for him ) just his speed. He immediately downloaded "Onsong" after I helped him research it and off he went, merrily importing chords and music.
Here's the observation- if regular users / geeks abandon Apple for unwalled gardens, it won't be readily apparent because there are always going to be older people like my Pop buying Apple products for the ease of use and simplicity. Just like there's always gonna be an older AOL user out there. But there may be no serious revenue stream in it for Apple. Older people use devices differently than most of us.
See, my pop is not interested in any more apps. He's found the one thing he wants to use an iPad for and he's DONE. I showed him how to read his gmail on it on the web, he flat refuses to read a book on it, doesn't care about buying music ( he prefers to listen to ukulele examples on youtube) doesn't play games, doesn't care about facebook, twitter, instagram or anything else. He uses his laptop for his finances... he even wants to unlink his credit card from the appstore so "hackers" won't steal his card number.
So Apple managed to sell him an iPad and *one* app. I can guarantee you he will use that one app and be perfectly content till the battery stops charging.
Maybe, but the whole point of the App store is that it's supposed to be secure and safe for users. Sandboxing is a part of that security, even if lazy developers don't like it. The world has changed, people are expecting software to be written securely now, if developers can't come to grips with that, they're the ones who will be left out in the cold, not Apple.
Let the idiots leave. Users love free upgrades and buy lots more software (I do). That way you know the developer isn't going to pull a Microsoft on you where you keep paying just to make it work but it never does.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Notice how Valve is already running for the exits?
You may not have noticed, but the main reason Valve (and specifically Gabe Newell) feels that Windows 8 is the worst thing ever hoisted on humanity may have something to do with the fact that Windows 8 has a built-in facility (the Metro app store) that has ability to overtake the virtual monopoly that Valve has built with Steam for the digital delivery of PC games.
Win8 is really a shot across the bow of Valve's business model. They'd better have a plan B in place -- and no, Linux is not a viable plan B.
For those that don't remember the 80s...
This is what apple does. They create a market. They hype it to the point that they have a rabid consumer base that has no clue what's really going on. Then they change the rules and jack up the price to rake in the profit. Is there really any reason anyone would ever chose an apple device based on its technical merits?
Wow, what complete and utter FUD! Except that none of that is true, good points.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Apple has always jerked around developers with changes larger than this one; also they don't mind upsetting loyal customers either.
The TFA is a troll, the new sandboxing policy is something developers should have been able to do for at least a decade and expecting them to do it now makes sense. Part of development should involve sand boxing; merely following the documented API is not enough the scope of use of those system calls should have always been specified in a technically useful format.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I suspect people reading here dont' have a clue about sandboxing or what a BFD it is. Sandboxing is massively overdue. It's been available for years and years in OSX but there has been a zero adoption rate. I came across it in Xgrid, an apple application which relied heavily on it.
Xgrid is a job server that lets other people run jobs on your computer---safely. How the heck do you do that safely and still have left an environment that can do anything at all. You can't do this with linux permissions or firewalls. But you can with sandboxing. in sandboxing you specify in detail what resources every application has access to. What parts of the file system it can't see even if it has unix permissions. What parts of a network it can access. How much memory it can use. etc... It's a universal wrapper that can be created for every program.
Since firefox can be wrapped it's insane to use any browser without wrapping. If some roque plug in contains the ability to do something nasty you dont' care because it can't. it can't access resources it needs. You are essentially shutting down bad behaviour not bad apps.
So why is it not default?
Cause it's annoying to set up. If you take shortcuts in your application based on giving it more privledges than it needs you get punished by the sandbox.
lazy developers hate it.
time to force the issue. it's good for consumers.
It doesn't do anything for apple, other than make the OS better.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
*yawn* Yes, I made a spelling mistake. OMG let's alert the New York Times! You knew exactly what I meant.
Aesop weeps.
But wait, there's more.
Welcome to the Soprano sandbox.
You've read the earnings reports and you're still thinking Puma concolor and not Panthera yeti?
'"Arment also comments on the 'our way or the highway' attitude Apple often takes in these situations and how it may be backfiring this time around.""
hasn't apple always been like that? in fact I think that maybe what their business model is based on.
Remember when "apps" were called "programs"?
-- QED
This same thing happened the last time Steve Jobs left. The company destroyed itself from within with one bad business decision after another.
As far as I know, the decisions in question were made when Jobs was still alive and in a position to be consulted, although he might've been too ill to say "no" vigorously enough if he really though the Mac App Store restrictions were a bad idea.
Apple, the new Microsoft. Greed gets in the way, no matter what.
Well I'm not expecting you or anyone to climb into the bathtub get drunk and slash your wrists over what what I'm saying but do watch for it. None of this will happen overnight,
And some or all of it might not happen at all.
Not that Apple is going to like that either it does not jive at all with their (shitty) plans. The idea is they want to start selling APIs at some point.
Your idea is that they want to start selling APIs at some point. Whether that's Apple's idea is another matter.
in response to question about the walled garden you just get DEVELOPERS!, DEVELOPERS!, DEVELOPERS!, ...Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE, Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE, Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE,
Umm, Ballmer was talking about third-party developers in his music video. The Microsoft equivalent to the Apple page to which you're pointing is here.
You could always explain why that is so:
"Please note: This is the Apple AppStore version of XYZ called XYZ/A. This version of XYZ is restricted in functionality for improved security.
Click here to learn more about restrictions in XYZ/A. You are also licensed to use the full version of XYZ called XYZ/F. You can download XYZ/F
here. Some future enhancements of XYZ may not become available in XYZ/A at all and some XYZ enhancements may be made available for XYZ/A
at a later point in time after they were released for XYZ/F."
Then in the App whenever they want to do something they can't do in XYZ/A they get this as a popup.
Nope. Because the App Store doesn't give the developer the details they'd need to validate the identity of a customer as someone who actually is a customer. So we end up in the case where the developer is selling an app-store version, and a non app-store version, and you have to buy each one seperately.
Now, there are companies like TechSmith who apply the trust principle (if you buy an upgrade license off them, they trust that you purchased an original license from somewhere, App Store included) but no developer is going to just give you a link to a full version of their app that has no way of validating whether you purchased it in the first place.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
After reading the article, I couldn't help but get the feeling of somebody whining about changes, like you know, people getting old. The reason I mention this is two-fold, I have been using the App Store quite extensively and I think it's a great idea to a big issue with Mac software, especially overseas, Mac software availability at retail stores. With the App Store I get an upgrade central which is very neat, kind of like Curse for World of Warcraft add-ons.
Now the other reason I see this as whining is because I learned how to program with Visual Basic 3, and everything was fine and dandy until VB6. When .NET arrived, the changes were so extensive that I felt it was a new language not worth learning, so I jumped shipped to the "holy grail" of programming at the time Java and C++. Recently I had to work on a VB.NET project, with the idea of either improving upon it or migrating it to something else. So after all was said and done, I now realize how foolish I was about rejecting some of those changes. They truly did improve the language in many ways that I wasn't able to grasp before without being exposed to C++ or similar languages. So I believe Marco Arment will eventually figure it out that the only way possible is forward, even if you don't like the changes and even if they truly suck.
"program" is a more generic term - see Application Software on Wikipdia
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
There's still hope for MacOS to remain open and limit the spread of the curation disease onto the desktop.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Steve Jobs wanted nothing less than revolution in each product release, and he didn't get that for the last 3 years he was there.
And he did get it prior to 2009? (Note that Snow Leopard development started before 2009 and the decision to make it a mostly clean-up-the-innards release was made before 2009. As for the "he didn't get that for the last 3 years he was there", presumably you're not counting the no-spinning-media-available versions of the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro, as the hard drive option for the MacBook Air was, at least if the Wikipedia page is to be believed, dropped in the Late 2010 MacBook Air.)
As a newcomer to the Mac, I was not at all interested in the App Store. Maybe I'm too cynical, but goddamn it, I'm proven right too often to change my ways. The App Store does not solve any existing problems for me, as a user. If I can find some app in their, then I could have Googled for the author's web site just as easily. I actually prefer apps that self-update, rather than having to open the inflexible App Store client. .
The Mac app store gives real users many advantages:
The downsides:
What is really different in this case is that customers have a choice. They cannot choose whether to buy or not from the app store when it comes to iOS devices.
"I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
Not until you have to let them grope your junk before you can become a developer. (And I don't mean that metaphorically. If it doesn't involve somebody from Apple wearing rubber gloves, it doesn't count.)
I tolerated the crippled resize handles
Fixed in Lion, so that accidental resizing of a window when you're trying to select some text near the edge of the window is a completely cross-platform experience. (I forget whether I've done that on Windows, GNOME, or both, but when the ability to resize windows from the sides first showed up during Lion development, I started doing that on OS X as well.)
(That's not a reason not to have resize-from-the-side - resize-from-the-side lets you, for example, more easily resize along one axis without affecting the size along the other axis - it's just a small case where the advantages are accompanied by disadvantages.)
IOS... bigger, slower, buggier. 1980s-era crippled folder system.
If by "crippled folder system" you mean "silo for each app, with no subfolders in a silo", that's "early 1980s" at best; I think MS-DOS 2 (introduced in 1983) had subdirectories in FAT, as did HFS (introduced in 1985). (And workstation OSes had them since Day One, but most people didn't have UN*X workstations as their personal computers....)
I'm curious how many documents for a given app you need to have before "no subfolders in a silo" breaks down, and whether Apple just figured "anybody with that many documents should just use a Mac".
Something else... over the years I've noticed they're not very good about fixing OS bugs. They're perfectly happy to ship a version of the OS with a problem, sometimes quite serious (UDP socket bug, color profile stall bug, bogus console error bug) and then... perhaps... fix it in a later version of the OS, but leave everyone even with the previous version hanging.
Yes, they're annoyingly strict at times about what bug fixes they allow into a software update. (I'm assuming by "later version" you mean "later major version", so that a bug in 10.x gets fixed in 10.x+1 but not in any 10.x.y software update.)
And I'm reasonably confident that there will be. Apple appear to think that there are OS X machines and iOS machines, and that, whilst there are many things that both of them can do, they have different purposes - iOS machines being for users who prefer a simpler, but more limited, User Experience(TM), and OS X machines for users for whom that's not good enough.
I would like to hope so... but I've just got this nagging feeling that Apple's going to try and do this anyways. When it finally does start to hurt them, they'll ultimately lighten up on the policy, of course, but by then it will probably be too late, and the Mac platform may meet a premature end.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Under IOS, a folder can hold 20 apps. No more. It can't hold subfolders at all.
And it can't handle anything other than apps.
None of this is new, though; it's been that way since "folders" were introduced, and, before that, you couldn't even put apps into some form of organization fancier than "screens in Springboard".
IOS's folder system is one tiny, dysfunctional step above not having folders. It makes organization a problem, it's inconvenient, and it's wasteful of the limited organizing space you have on a tablet. It's a failure of vision.
And the underlying OS and file system support directories inside directories inside directories (good grief, it's UN*X with HFS+ as the underlying file system, for crying out loud), but no, you can't expose that to users, their head would explode or something. Also, grandpa.
I'm so over people posting articles and not reading them properly. Is this merely a rush for quick fame on slash dot? Slow down! Calm down! Read the article thoroughly before posting it on slashdot. Not reading a a post by SoulSkill ever again.