Well if you can bag out Linux for not having enough apps written for it, then you can certainly bag out Windows if all its apps are written shoddily.
But there must be something more to it - why do Linux programs conform and Windows not conform? Most likely because Windows has always encouraged you to log in as admin, while Linux distros, on the whole, have *never* encouraged general use as root.
Similarly, while obviously programs for Windows do not need to use the registry, the fact is it is there and programmers are encouraged to make use of it.
You can't just blame application designers, there are serious security flaws in Windows itself and they encourage app programmers to continue with the same flaws.
There is also the type of "pirate" who doesn't do anything which was illegal before DMCA. He's the pirate who:
Doesn't give movies to his friends.
Doesn't get movies off his friends.
Doesn't download movies.
Rents movies he wants to watch once, and watches them once.
Buys movies he wants to watch many times, and watches them many times.
He's the "pirate" who pays hollywood what they are entitled, and benefits by enjoying the movies he wants to watch.
He is, according to the MPAA, a "pirate", because when he did buy a movie, he bought it once. He isn't going to re-buy it to put it on his iPod, he's going to rip it, reencode it and save it on his iPod. He isn't going to re-buy it on his PSP, he'll do the same thing. If his disc gets scratched, he won't buy another one because he made a backup. He watches his movies in any operating system he wants, not just the ones which paid the hollywood license tax.
He also thought some of the songs in the movies were pretty good, so he extracted the audio, cut it, and put it on his iPod. And his favourite clips are sitting on his computer so he can watch them whenever he wants without going to find his disc.
He's the guy who indulges in what ironically used to be known as "fair use", and who would now be forbidden from it, were it not for heroes like this muslix dude.
Hrm... this concept is (obviously a joke, but still) pretty stupid.
I did like some parts though:
On the other hand a Window-NT system in the configuration that Microsoft likes to use for benchmarking will probably cost you about $100,000. This includes the price of the hardware, software, and the cost of hiring a team of Microsoft Engineers for three months to tune your system for optimal performance.
It is correct, according to the Netcraft survey. In fact MS has gone up recently - this is attributed to massive amounts of domain names added to Windows Live blogs.
Certainly, "security through minority" is part of it. But you must realise that even if everyone in the world used Linux, it would be far more secure than Windows currently is. (And most of this applies to other non-Windows platforms too).
Linux (and Unix) have a far better security model than Windows. This is mainly because limited accounts have just the right amount of power (and it's configurable, and changeable at the drop of a hat) - so it's perfectly fine to use limited accounts and sudo in to the system when necessary. Windows (XP) has such a shit limited account that nobody can really make any use of it - most programs require admin accounts to play. Thus everyone uses Admin and there is no security. From what I've heard Vista changed this around a bit but limited is still far too restrictive, and there's no "sudo".
Linux also has the sizeable advantage of not having a freaking web browser integrated into its kernel. Furthermore, the web browsers which do run in Linux are not Internet Explorer!
This is just so typical of MS - it would have been far more secure if IE was just another user-level program, like Firefox. But it's such an integral part of Windows - and this is deliberate as a way to dominate the browser market - that any vulnerability in the (highly-vulnerable) browser is a vulnerability in the OS. It is clear that there is a conflict of interest between monopoly and security which goes beyond the simple concept of "security through minority".
(For example, I saw an important Windows security update the other week saying that a vulnerability in IE's vector graphics rendering code could allow an attacker to take control of your computer. If this is possible, what does that say about the entire design of Windows and IE?)
For more examples, Linux doesn't let any program rampantly change the registry, or set itself to run on startup (and that's the main problem with Windows). (In fact for another example, Linux doesn't even have a bloated difficult-to-recover, easy-to-corrupt settings file for all programs).
This probably comes back to the fact that Linux users do not normally use root, while Windows users almost always use Admin.
So while there would certainly be a lot more virus and spyware activity in Linux if it had the dominance in the market, it would technically be very difficult to make viruses and spyware run in such a robust security environment. So you still wouldn't get this rampant "normality" of programs which install themselves and slow down your system, eventually bringing it to a standstill. That's a feature of Windows, not simply the "majority" OS.
"That's our direction. That's where we're going, but if we hit a roadblock and we can't go forward, it's up to Microsoft and Novell to figure out what to do about it," she said.
Er... that sounds responsible. MS and Novell can't even agree on whether they think Linux infringes on MS patents.
So, it looks like Wal-Mart bought the MS "undisclosed balance liability" FUD, as they give their reasons for this move as, they were scared to expand Linux for fear of getting patent-sued by MS.
It really is sad that companies feel they have to buy another company's product or they'll sue them.
My final thought as this bland and childish crap fizzled across my screen was: Which operating system was this company running such that a single installation of a cracked update caused the entire company network to come down to a catastrophic failure, which not only caused downtime but also caused data to be destroyed and stolen?
OK let me correct myself: Gamers will be forced to either upgrade OR they won't be able to play games. Satisfied? That's lose-lose for gamers who hate Vista. (Particularly for other reasons, as the Microsoft developers did a good job of highlighting in TFA).
MS is in it to make money, and if leveraging DX10 will shift more copies of Vista then I expect them to do it.
O... k... so you're totally fine with MS making DX10 Vista-only just so that they can force you to upgrade and make billions of dollars selling Vista, for their own personal gain? Are.. you a shareholder?
Now it's arguable whether they could or couldn't have made DX10 work on XP, but obviously this is working in their favour. John Carmack, only a few days ago, said that DX10 was fabricated to move gamers to Vista.
He said in the above linked article:
Nothing is going to help a new game by going to a new operating system. There were some clear wins going from Windows 95 to Windows XP for games, but there really aren't any for Vista. They're artificially doing that by tying DX10 so close it, which is really nothing about the OS... They're really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it.
Rosetta Code was largely inspired by a page on Wikipedia where the classic "Hello World" example was shown in a few hundred languages.
Rosetta Code takes the concept behind Hello World, and spreads it to other tasks.
Sure, it's a good resource for that purpose. I did a lot of work on that wiki page ("Hello World") before it got moved to WikiBooks and messed up. So yes, it is a good reference for seeing how other languages work... precisely as the name suggests, a Rosetta stone.
My criticism was mainly on the summary which suggested you could "port" your algorithms using this reference, which I don't think is the correct usage for it.
I'm open to suggestions. (And assistance, if it'll go that far.)
Well now that I've thought about it, I realise you could get away with MediaWiki... just make extensive use of the categories system instead of making manually-indexed reference pages. For instance, instead of having those 3 index pages "By language used," "By task solved" and the other one, just delete all except "By task solved". Have the page on "By task solved" as the main index. Then create categories for each programming language, and whatever that other index was. And then for each "task", add the programming languages it features as categories at the bottom.
This effectively automatically cross-references each task with all the languages used.
PM me or something if you need help setting that up (once the site comes back online).
My guess is that user-made video will be unprotected. You only benefit from having your content protected if you pay the licensing fees. The system ensures that content producers and software vendors have all the power, while the people have none.
Can I just add something, which I realised after re-reading TFA.
Windows Vista continues to support the ability to turn [S/PIDF audio output] off.
and,
Similar to S/PDIF, Windows Vista does not require component video outputs to be disabled, but rather enables the enforcement of the usage policy set by content owners or service providers, including with respect to output restrictions and image constraint.
If I'm reading this correctly, then it's worse than what Guttman said. Content providers don't only have the option to degrade analog audio and video output. They have full power to completely disable it!
Another great one: HanoiMania. 111 solutions to the "Tower of Hanoi" recursive problem, some in very creative and bizarre environments (as outlined in the summary at the top).
I'm not sure the right idea is to "know how to do something" in a particular language. If programmers are encouraged to learn algorithms specific to a particular language, how will they ever adapt once their pet language sinks? (By using an algorithm repository to re-learn rote code?)
At any rate, I think this site has already encountered a problem which is only going to escalate as it grows: code isn't cross-indexed properly at all. For example, there are many "programming tasks" with solutions in C, but there is nothing on the C page. I think this problem stems from the fact they used MediaWiki.
MediaWiki's great for something like... well, Wikipedia. But it doesn't support a cross-referenced database like this. The wiki concept is good for this site, but the server needs to be running some software designed better to the task.
I am not aware of any games at this point in time that only run on Vista and not on XP so this is no excuse.
Wow you can't get much more nearsighted than that. 1 year - you'll see Vista-only games. Gamers will be forced to upgrade. Also note that I said "Windows" - I'm talking about XP too.
Right. So as a developer, your company does not provide you with the hardware and/or software you need to complete your job. Instead you must make your own personal software and hardware up for use by your company who forces you to run Vista on it and has strictures in place to stop you dual-booting any other operating system. If the answer is "yes", then I will accede that you are *forced* to use Vista...
Guh? I never said I was forced to buy it. Forced to USE Vista. USE it. I'm not talking about being prevented from running another OS. I'm talking about companies which force employees to USE Vista while on-shift or develop for it.
That's probably the *third* best thing to do. The second best thing to do is to email Microsoft with your complaints, and the best thing to do is to not pay for any product until it fulfills what you require it to do.
I can't think of what good an email to MS will do. But you may as well do it. I agree though, that I will NOT EVER be paying for this crap.
Yeah I'm not quite sure if this is a fork... it says they want to integrate it in with Fiesty. If it is an entire distro fork, it's a bit stupid.
Maybe it just means it's an optional part of the Distro (ie. you can download a version of Fiesty with or without this). That would make sense - not everyone wants this big package.
What about those of us forced to use Windows just to play the games we want, or required by jobs or development projects? The best way to combat this thing is to try it out, and then let people know how bad it is. And where better to let people know than Slashdot? (Actually, I'd quite like to be interviewed on a talk show...)
OK let's go through this. To be clear: I'm not going to talk about whether
MS were forced to implement this stuff or not (I think it's pretty clear that
a) they were, but b) it's in their best interests to anyway, and they were
probably part of the driving force behind it).
It's just sufficient for us to determine whether this is bad or
not.
Sorry to have replied to so much of TFA... there was just a lot to comment
on. It's hard to tell whether this was written by a program manager or a
politician, with all the spin going on.
Over the holidays, a paper was distributed that raised questions
about the content protection features in Windows Vista.
These guys were on holidays?
Associating usage policies with commercial content is not new to
Windows Vista, or to the industry. In fact, much of the functionality
discussed in the paper has been part of previous versions of Windows, and
hasn't resulted in significant consumer problems - as evidenced by the
widespread consumer use of digital media in Windows XP. For
example:
Standard definition DVD playback has required selective use of
Macrovision ACP on analog television outputs since it was introduced in the
1990s. DVD playback on and in Windows has always supported this.
The ability to restrict audio outputs (e.g., S/PDIF) for certain types
of content has been available since Windows Millennium Edition (ME) and has
been available in all subsequent versions of Windows.
The Certified Output Protection Protocol (COPP) was released over 2
years ago for Windows XP, and provides applications with the ability to detect
output types and enable certain protections on video outputs such as HDCP,
CGMS-A, and Macrovision ACP.
So... what you're saying is, you've been doing this stuff all
along without us knowing, which logically makes it OK to keep doing it.
Would it be ironic if I pointed out that making copies of digital media is
not new to the content industry. In fact, at one time it was quite possible
to make copies of your own data, and hasn't resulted in significant
problems to their business models - as evidenced by the increasing sales of
physical and downloadable content over the past decade. Therefore there is no
reason to prevent it.
the content protection mechanisms do not
make Windows Vista PCs less reliable than they would be otherwise -- if
anything they will have the opposite effect, for example because they will
lead to better driver quality control.
What? Are we just stabbing at straws here for a reason why they might
have the opposite effect?
The paper implies that Microsoft decides which protections should
be active at any given time. This is not the case. The content protection
infrastructure in Windows Vista provides a range of à la carte options that
allows applications playing back protected content to properly enable the
protections required by the policies established for such content by the
content owner or service provider. In this way, the PC functions the same as
any other consumer electronics device.
In an unprecedented move, the people of the free world may now choose
the manner in which their freedoms shall be crushed!
Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness
recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards and reduce the number of
build options?
Everything was moving to be integrated on the one chip
anyway...
1. No, STFU and stop limiting my options. 2. Answer the question about
cost.
Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU
resource consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC
provides consumers with additional functionality.
It would also allow anybody to add their own watermarks. This means that any content producer, not just somebody who can afford a "license", has all the capabilities of any other producer.
Brilliant! Maybe there is hope for an open future after all.
The real trick is that the watermark-decoding should be kept completely secret. If there is any way to detect a watermark then a pirate can easily figure out whether they have removed it or not and the whole thing is worthless.
This is true, except that it may be possible to create a watermark for which the algorithm is public knowledge, but it is still secure as long as certain keys are kept private. This is somewhat similar to the approach taken to hashing and so on. All in all, it means it's more open, and a better security model (remember, "security through obscurity" - the DRM security model - is often considered a "false security").
Besides idiot who will try to make the "won't play unauthorized content player", you mention the real threat to this. The *AA companies are using piracy as an excuse for DRM. They certainly don't want to see piracy stopped as this will remove their argument for DRM. DRM means they can enforce pay-per-view, and eventually (once enough schemes are broken that they can convince the government to make players of non-encrypted content illegal) they can set up a system where "unlicensed" content producers (ie amateurs) cannot distribute entertainment, as distribution requires purchase of an expensive encryption license.
I've been thinking about this problem some more. It occurs to me that perhaps it doesn't matter if they still want to use DRM for alterior purposes. It should simply be enough for these watermarking people to *present* to the world a technology which provably stops piracy better than DRM (and I can guarantee this will stop casual piracy a hell of a lot better). Once this technology is perceived as a better anti-piracy device, it will suddenly become very difficult for **AA and friends to justify DRM.
Wow. I thought it might be fun to read some comments. But having read through most of them, my faith in the intelligence level of the human race has dropped sharply.
I've thought about this a bit, but there are too many issues. As some guy said above, people want to be able to launch games from their main operating environment.
More importantly though, there are so many configurations and settings, not to mention drivers and utilities and all the other hardware-dependent stuff you need in a modern operating system - people only want to set up that stuff once.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you can bag out Linux for not having enough apps written for it, then you can certainly bag out Windows if all its apps are written shoddily.
But there must be something more to it - why do Linux programs conform and Windows not conform? Most likely because Windows has always encouraged you to log in as admin, while Linux distros, on the whole, have *never* encouraged general use as root.
Similarly, while obviously programs for Windows do not need to use the registry, the fact is it is there and programmers are encouraged to make use of it.
You can't just blame application designers, there are serious security flaws in Windows itself and they encourage app programmers to continue with the same flaws.
Hey man, that's exactly what I meant. Well done - must have taken you awhile but it's great now. :)
There is also the type of "pirate" who doesn't do anything which was illegal before DMCA. He's the pirate who:
He's the "pirate" who pays hollywood what they are entitled, and benefits by enjoying the movies he wants to watch.
He is, according to the MPAA, a "pirate", because when he did buy a movie, he bought it once. He isn't going to re-buy it to put it on his iPod, he's going to rip it, reencode it and save it on his iPod. He isn't going to re-buy it on his PSP, he'll do the same thing. If his disc gets scratched, he won't buy another one because he made a backup. He watches his movies in any operating system he wants, not just the ones which paid the hollywood license tax.
He also thought some of the songs in the movies were pretty good, so he extracted the audio, cut it, and put it on his iPod. And his favourite clips are sitting on his computer so he can watch them whenever he wants without going to find his disc.
He's the guy who indulges in what ironically used to be known as "fair use", and who would now be forbidden from it, were it not for heroes like this muslix dude.
Hrm... this concept is (obviously a joke, but still) pretty stupid.
I did like some parts though:
It is correct, according to the Netcraft survey. In fact MS has gone up recently - this is attributed to massive amounts of domain names added to Windows Live blogs.
Certainly, "security through minority" is part of it. But you must realise that even if everyone in the world used Linux, it would be far more secure than Windows currently is. (And most of this applies to other non-Windows platforms too).
Linux (and Unix) have a far better security model than Windows. This is mainly because limited accounts have just the right amount of power (and it's configurable, and changeable at the drop of a hat) - so it's perfectly fine to use limited accounts and sudo in to the system when necessary. Windows (XP) has such a shit limited account that nobody can really make any use of it - most programs require admin accounts to play. Thus everyone uses Admin and there is no security. From what I've heard Vista changed this around a bit but limited is still far too restrictive, and there's no "sudo".
Linux also has the sizeable advantage of not having a freaking web browser integrated into its kernel. Furthermore, the web browsers which do run in Linux are not Internet Explorer!
This is just so typical of MS - it would have been far more secure if IE was just another user-level program, like Firefox. But it's such an integral part of Windows - and this is deliberate as a way to dominate the browser market - that any vulnerability in the (highly-vulnerable) browser is a vulnerability in the OS. It is clear that there is a conflict of interest between monopoly and security which goes beyond the simple concept of "security through minority".(For example, I saw an important Windows security update the other week saying that a vulnerability in IE's vector graphics rendering code could allow an attacker to take control of your computer. If this is possible, what does that say about the entire design of Windows and IE?)
For more examples, Linux doesn't let any program rampantly change the registry, or set itself to run on startup (and that's the main problem with Windows). (In fact for another example, Linux doesn't even have a bloated difficult-to-recover, easy-to-corrupt settings file for all programs). This probably comes back to the fact that Linux users do not normally use root, while Windows users almost always use Admin.
So while there would certainly be a lot more virus and spyware activity in Linux if it had the dominance in the market, it would technically be very difficult to make viruses and spyware run in such a robust security environment. So you still wouldn't get this rampant "normality" of programs which install themselves and slow down your system, eventually bringing it to a standstill. That's a feature of Windows, not simply the "majority" OS.
Lol, I was just about to say, didn't they see The Green Mile?
Er... that sounds responsible. MS and Novell can't even agree on whether they think Linux infringes on MS patents.
So, it looks like Wal-Mart bought the MS "undisclosed balance liability" FUD, as they give their reasons for this move as, they were scared to expand Linux for fear of getting patent-sued by MS.
It really is sad that companies feel they have to buy another company's product or they'll sue them.
"Fear is the path to the dark side..."
It amuses me too, as does the irony that you yourself used the inproper spelling of the word "recursiv" in your name :p
Er, maybe you just have a dull sense of humour, but there clearly WAS a joke in there.
You see!? Funny!
Man, did you see that guy? He's just ... so ... evil! Can't ... resist ... piracy!!!
Er, ok I'm bored. When I'm bored watching a film, my mind just starts making stuff up. For instance:
But I think my favourite part would have to be (once my mind got back on track to the fact that he was actually installing Windows):
My final thought as this bland and childish crap fizzled across my screen was: Which operating system was this company running such that a single installation of a cracked update caused the entire company network to come down to a catastrophic failure, which not only caused downtime but also caused data to be destroyed and stolen?
It didn't have to end this way!
This is true.
So why is it aimed at IT people? (It doesn't show kids downloading software, but obviously some sort of sysadmin in an IT company).
OK let me correct myself: Gamers will be forced to either upgrade OR they won't be able to play games. Satisfied? That's lose-lose for gamers who hate Vista. (Particularly for other reasons, as the Microsoft developers did a good job of highlighting in TFA).
O... k... so you're totally fine with MS making DX10 Vista-only just so that they can force you to upgrade and make billions of dollars selling Vista, for their own personal gain? Are.. you a shareholder?
Now it's arguable whether they could or couldn't have made DX10 work on XP, but obviously this is working in their favour. John Carmack, only a few days ago, said that DX10 was fabricated to move gamers to Vista.
He said in the above linked article:
(My emphasis).
Sure, it's a good resource for that purpose. I did a lot of work on that wiki page ("Hello World") before it got moved to WikiBooks and messed up. So yes, it is a good reference for seeing how other languages work... precisely as the name suggests, a Rosetta stone.
My criticism was mainly on the summary which suggested you could "port" your algorithms using this reference, which I don't think is the correct usage for it.
Well now that I've thought about it, I realise you could get away with MediaWiki... just make extensive use of the categories system instead of making manually-indexed reference pages. For instance, instead of having those 3 index pages "By language used," "By task solved" and the other one, just delete all except "By task solved". Have the page on "By task solved" as the main index. Then create categories for each programming language, and whatever that other index was. And then for each "task", add the programming languages it features as categories at the bottom.
This effectively automatically cross-references each task with all the languages used.
PM me or something if you need help setting that up (once the site comes back online).
My guess is that user-made video will be unprotected. You only benefit from having your content protected if you pay the licensing fees. The system ensures that content producers and software vendors have all the power, while the people have none.
Can I just add something, which I realised after re-reading TFA.
and,
If I'm reading this correctly, then it's worse than what Guttman said. Content providers don't only have the option to degrade analog audio and video output. They have full power to completely disable it!
Another great one: HanoiMania. 111 solutions to the "Tower of Hanoi" recursive problem, some in very creative and bizarre environments (as outlined in the summary at the top).
I'm not sure the right idea is to "know how to do something" in a particular language. If programmers are encouraged to learn algorithms specific to a particular language, how will they ever adapt once their pet language sinks? (By using an algorithm repository to re-learn rote code?)
At any rate, I think this site has already encountered a problem which is only going to escalate as it grows: code isn't cross-indexed properly at all. For example, there are many "programming tasks" with solutions in C, but there is nothing on the C page. I think this problem stems from the fact they used MediaWiki.
MediaWiki's great for something like... well, Wikipedia. But it doesn't support a cross-referenced database like this. The wiki concept is good for this site, but the server needs to be running some software designed better to the task.
Wow you can't get much more nearsighted than that. 1 year - you'll see Vista-only games. Gamers will be forced to upgrade. Also note that I said "Windows" - I'm talking about XP too.
Guh? I never said I was forced to buy it. Forced to USE Vista. USE it. I'm not talking about being prevented from running another OS. I'm talking about companies which force employees to USE Vista while on-shift or develop for it.
I can't think of what good an email to MS will do. But you may as well do it. I agree though, that I will NOT EVER be paying for this crap.
Yeah I'm not quite sure if this is a fork... it says they want to integrate it in with Fiesty. If it is an entire distro fork, it's a bit stupid.
Maybe it just means it's an optional part of the Distro (ie. you can download a version of Fiesty with or without this). That would make sense - not everyone wants this big package.
What about those of us forced to use Windows just to play the games we want, or required by jobs or development projects? The best way to combat this thing is to try it out, and then let people know how bad it is. And where better to let people know than Slashdot? (Actually, I'd quite like to be interviewed on a talk show...)
OK let's go through this. To be clear: I'm not going to talk about whether MS were forced to implement this stuff or not (I think it's pretty clear that a) they were, but b) it's in their best interests to anyway, and they were probably part of the driving force behind it).
It's just sufficient for us to determine whether this is bad or not.
Sorry to have replied to so much of TFA... there was just a lot to comment on. It's hard to tell whether this was written by a program manager or a politician, with all the spin going on.
These guys were on holidays?
So... what you're saying is, you've been doing this stuff all along without us knowing, which logically makes it OK to keep doing it.
Would it be ironic if I pointed out that making copies of digital media is not new to the content industry. In fact, at one time it was quite possible to make copies of your own data, and hasn't resulted in significant problems to their business models - as evidenced by the increasing sales of physical and downloadable content over the past decade. Therefore there is no reason to prevent it.
What? Are we just stabbing at straws here for a reason why they might have the opposite effect?
In an unprecedented move, the people of the free world may now choose the manner in which their freedoms shall be crushed!
1. No, STFU and stop limiting my options. 2. Answer the question about cost.
In other words, "Yes". I don't consider
Brilliant! Maybe there is hope for an open future after all.
I like your thinking, spitzy!
This is true, except that it may be possible to create a watermark for which the algorithm is public knowledge, but it is still secure as long as certain keys are kept private. This is somewhat similar to the approach taken to hashing and so on. All in all, it means it's more open, and a better security model (remember, "security through obscurity" - the DRM security model - is often considered a "false security").
I've been thinking about this problem some more. It occurs to me that perhaps it doesn't matter if they still want to use DRM for alterior purposes. It should simply be enough for these watermarking people to *present* to the world a technology which provably stops piracy better than DRM (and I can guarantee this will stop casual piracy a hell of a lot better). Once this technology is perceived as a better anti-piracy device, it will suddenly become very difficult for **AA and friends to justify DRM.
Ho ho! A hope? A chance!
Wow. I thought it might be fun to read some comments. But having read through most of them, my faith in the intelligence level of the human race has dropped sharply.
I've thought about this a bit, but there are too many issues. As some guy said above, people want to be able to launch games from their main operating environment.
More importantly though, there are so many configurations and settings, not to mention drivers and utilities and all the other hardware-dependent stuff you need in a modern operating system - people only want to set up that stuff once.