By that logic, they'd also be aware of what that contract to join ADC is doing to them.
Have you ever read it? It's ridiculous!
I think Apple's legal department is just making an effort to act objectionably and irrationally. Not the first time -- remember them suing M$ over "look and feel"?
Actually, there are two reasons I didn't donate anything to Mandrake:
I have no money to give them.
They are a commercial company, not a non-profit organization.
Especially note #2. This is why Debian still exists, functions, and has all the resources it has (particularly servers and bandwidth, which must have cost a damned fortune). It takes money to run an organization like Debian, and yet, amazingly enough, despite how cold-hearted you claim Linux users to be, they are still kicking, and still pumping out new packages and package upgrades at a breakneck pace.
I use the GIMP because I can get it (I can't even begin to afford Photoshop), it's easier to use, it works, and it's open source.
Open source is important for these reasons:
I can actually afford it. Since I have no money to spend on commercial software (and, in fact, I don't really have any money at all), I would end up pirating any commercial software I needed badly enough. So the company doesn't make any money from me anyway. And if I couldn't pirate it, then I wouldn't use it at all. (For that reason, the software companies' theory on "lost revenues" from piracy are largely horse shit. But I digress.)
I generally regard all closed source software as a potential Trojan horse program, and will not run it because of the undue security risk. There are exceptions, such as Blender, of course.
Bugs generally get fixed in a timely manner. See also the recent Slashdot article regarding the zlib vulnerability; you can bet this bug will be in some closed-source code for years because the company doesn't give enough of a shit to fix it.
It can be recompiled to target virtually any combination of operating system and architecture. Compare that to Photoshop, which only runs on Microsoft Windows on Intel platforms, and the Macintosh. The closest thing to a UNIX system that Photoshop will run on is Mac OS X, which is hardly a decent excuse for an operating system, let alone a UNIX system. And it's not open source, either. (To the retarded reactionaries: Darwin != Mac OS X.)
If Adobe folds, Photoshop goes with them. Therefore, there is no assurance of the continuity of Photoshop.
Adobe doesn't deserve my money. Or anyone else's, for that matter. They've been getting way too trigger-happy with the lawyers lately. (The ElcomSoft eBook Reader case comes to mind. Yes, I know they backed down. Doesn't mean they're not going to sue others over something equally ridiculous.)
Making it polished and professional is not relevant. Besides, is GNOME not polished enough for you?
From reading the New York Times article, it doesn't sound like Mann had any "implants" "forcibly removed". It sounds like they tore electrodes off his body. In other words, they pulled tape off his skin, and it caused bleeding. Unpleasant, sure, but it's not like they strapped him down and used a drill to extract chips from his brain. More like they pulled off a Band-Aid too fast.
In any civilized country, such as the United States, a security guard taking any action at all which causes bleeding is just asking for a lawsuit, prison, or worse.
If this happened in the U.S. this rent-a-cop asshole would probably have some assault charges to contend with by now.
Whether or not you like it, that's where it seems to be heading. My Dish Network set-top is able to contact Dish Network via the phone and request a pay-per-view movie on demand, as an added convenience over having to call them yourself. I was thinking to build on this ability.
Yes. I spent a few microseconds considering the possibility, as remote as it was.
I don't think big companies crushing the little guys, curtailing free speech, and raping the copyright system (among other legal facilities they're abusing) is a correct and justified application of any law.
Doubly so when that lying, two-faced scum ball, Jack Valenti (may he burn in Hell), is behind it.
But dynamic linking at run-time isn't concrete or permanent form. It is transient; it disappears when the library is unlinked or the process terminates.
Network connections aren't concrete or permanent either; they disappear when the connection is closed.
As other posts on this article have mentioned, no matter how sophisticated a smart card's encryption scheme might be, it will be cracked.
If the encryption scheme is sufficiently sophisticated, the only real, feasible way to break it will be for a legitimate user to deliberately put their key(s) on the Web or something, so that others can reprogram their smart cards with that key and watch whatever the legitimate user has access to.
To curtail this piracy, I propose that there be some motivation for the legitimate user to not reveal their key. For instance, one could use the model that many multiplayer computer games have been adopting lately -- Internet CD key validation. In this scheme, each CD key is unique, and if you try to log on with a CD key that someone else is already using, you can't log on.
Perhaps the set-top should establish some kind of two-way connection to the TV company, sends its customer key, and requests the decryption key for a given channel's audio/video stream (the "channel key"). The TV company's server will only provide the caller with the requested channel key if nobody else is using that customer key.
To prevent the customer from disseminating the channel key, the channel key gets changed every few seconds, and the new key is transmitted from the TV company's server just before the channel changes keys. This way, if the customer does disseminate the channel key, it's only useful for a few seconds.
Unfortunately, nothing prevents the customer from disseminating the updated channel keys every time a new such key is issued. However, the latency incurred in disseminating the channel keys would mean a temporary loss of the audio/video stream until the new channel key is received. This inconvenience would probably annoy pirates enough to give in and buy the damned thing. Also, this would require some (most likely expensive) equipment to reprogram the smart card while it's in the set-top (certainly not an easy feat!), or provide the signal to the set-top, which is presumably more expensive than buying the service.
In the case you refer to, FormGen claims that Micro Star is creating derivative works, not that Micro Star is enabling the players to create derivative works. This seems to be based on the fact that the maps have the same theme and a sufficiently similar plot (post-apocalyptic Los Angeles with Duke Nukem running around shooting pig cops and blowing sh*t up).
We are not talking about TcX, we are dealing with plain vanilla GPL which has no such clauses.
MySQL is licensed under said plain vanilla GPL. That's TcX's interpretation of the GPL.
Furthermore, it would have to be a very special type of connection for anyone with any knowledge of computing and software to seriously consider a opening a communication channel an act of linking.
Since when did judges have "any knowledge of computing and software"?
so why is it a problem writing an application in a standardised language like C# ?
Very simple: patents and intellectual property. If M$ has patents/IP on C# or the.NET Development Framework, they could see this as a golden opportunity to wait until GNOME has been completely and inseparably integrated with Mono, and then crush GNOME in court, thus eliminating some competition.
If you don't think this will happen, recall the fiasco with Unisys, the LZW compression algorithm, and GIF. The effect on Mono, and any product that incorporates Mono (such as GNOME), could be devastating. Unlike Unisys (from whom we haven't heard anything for years now), Microsoft is likely to pursue whatever case they have against their Free competitors as zealously as they can.
Microsoft is fighting for its collective life now. Free Software is effectively rendering Microsoft's world-domination strategy completely useless to them. You can bet they'll do whatever it takes to stop this from succeeding. You can also bet they won't miss the opportunity Mono presents to do that.
Besides, C# sucks. It lets you do pointer arithmetic. (I don't remember where this was described, sorry.)
(Disclaimer: IANSIKWITASTTWAGOS. [I Am Not Sure I Know What I Am Talking About, So Take This With A Grain Of Salt])
The scope of US copyright law is distribution; you're free to use a copyrighted work in any way you please, as long as you don't distribute it or a derivative work without permission. Since dynamic linking only occurs in the act of running the program, the resulting dynamically-linked program is never distributed, since it exists only in core when it is being executed.
Oppose static linking, wherein the library is combined with the program at build time, and this derivative work gets distributed instead of just the program that uses the library.
Unless I'm mistaken, copyright law in the US says you can't distribute said derivative work without permission, and you can do whatever you please to a copyrighted work so long as you don't redistribute it.
Personally, I think integration of Mono into GNOME is going to have to hold up under a lot of scrutiny, not to mention a GNU patent search and various other stuff.
The Mono folks might be keen on the idea of integrating.NET into GNOME, but the rest of the GNOME community will have to be convinced that incorporating anything from Microsoft into their cherished GNOME is a good idea, and it will be harder than hell to convince them of that.
In the documentation for MySQL, TcX considers dynamic linking to be an act of creating a derivative work, and connection over a network to be a remote form of dynamic linking. Theoretically, RMS could adopt this interpretation.
I was trying to say that ASM should have come with OS X.
As to choosing individual windows: perhaps in your fervor you somehow missed the "Window" menu on all cocoa apps.
And why is it suddenly the application's responsibility to do the window manager's job?
Uh, Omniweb? ICab? Mozilla?
I installed Mozilla soon after starting to use OS X. Again, I was trying to say that something better should have come with it.
In most of my tests, Classic is faster than 9 alone. At least as of the latest MacOS X 10.1.3 versions.
I was running 10.0.3. See below for why.
I have used MacOS X since it came out in Public Beta almost two years go now, and do heavy, nasty development on it, and in the course of that period I've had it lock up on me three times.
I had it lock up on me three times within the course of a day!
Plus, it's really fun to explain to your Mom over the phone that she's now in "text mode".
How about "Mom, press Ctrl-Alt-F7"?
B[a]sh is downloadable nearly anywhere. 'Nuff said.
Yet again the "it should have damned well come with it" thing.
Of course you can. You use the "open" command. Oh yeah, that's right, you're a MacOS X newbie. open/Applications/SomethingOrAnother.app
And why exactly do I have to do this?
I've had no problems with Apple's ssh. But if you want to update to a better ssh2, there are trivial instructions at the highly-regarded Stepwise.com website. Piece of cake.
By my (Debian-using) standards, it should be automatic, not merely trivial. Trivial doesn't cut it. I suppose you'd have to use Debian to fully understand.
Get with the program, this isn't a fault of the JVM. It's a fault of JEdit wanting control over the operation of the Quit command in their own just-so fashion, and Apple's present event handling procedure not playing ball with JEdit's way of doing things. Still, it needs to get fixed I guess.
Um, it's "not playing ball" with the Java specification. When a Window is closed, all WindowListeners are supposed to be notified. If OS X's AWT implementation conformed to spec, this is what would happen, and jEdit would exit cleanly.
And unless I'm mistaken, Apple is technically under contractual obligation to Sun to fix this bug, since it causes Apple's AWT implementation to not behave to spec.
I'm an emacs man myself.
That explains it...
Uh...I got news for you. MacOS X is owned by Apple. Not Microsoft.
I see. Would you like to argue with my tcpdump output? Or perhaps the fact that OS X comes with several Microsoft products?
Huh? The download was far too large (>>200MB) to distribute from Apple's website, so Apple charged *$20* for shipping and handling of the CD and manuals. That's it. The Apple Store gave away the update for free, I just walked in and got one.
Unless I'm mistaken, the price was quite a bit higher than $20 for the upgrade.
And even if you're right, and I am mistaken (which is entirely probable, because I was very frustrated with Apple and their horrendously deficient products by that time), don't you think $20 is a bit high for a shipping and handling fee?
What happens when this Linux lover takes the plunge into a Mac for the second time in his life?
Well, I got an iBook with OS X on it. A few seconds after starting to use it, I hated it beyond belief. It's slow, crashes WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much (ever tried Classic?), has a piss-poor window manager, and a thoroughly half-assed, thoroughly bastardized UNIX backend. In all, it reminds me of Microsoft Windows NT. (And yes, I upgraded its memory to 320 MB. It was still slow beyond words.)
So I trashed it and installed Linux on it, and installed MacOS 9 in Mac-on-Linux for the occasion when I needed it.
My complaints (or, rather, those that I can think of at the moment) about OS X are:
It uses the circular alt-tab thing like someone else mentioned.
It doesn't have a nice, clean, compact menu for switching windows, like the one in the top-right corner in MacOS 9 or the GNOME panel. The dock is thoroughly unsatisfactory for this need, because it's nothing but clutter, clutter, clutter. Optimally, the window switcher would be like the one in GNOME, which switches between windows, and not applications. (Yes, this is intended to imply that the switcher in MacOS 9 is somewhat deficient. GNOME forever.)
All of the applications are slow. Even the terminal is slow!!! The GNOME terminal is much better.
The standard-issue Web browser is Internet Explorer. I don't think I need to spell out why this is a problem.
Classic is slow, slow, slow, and crashes a lot. Kids, don't use this at home.
If something bad were to happen, and the UI froze up (which it did quite often, because everything is so slow), it's a little hard to start killing processes, because there is no Ctrl-Alt-F1 or similar to get to a console. (Linux rules.)
Tcsh. 'Nuff said. (Yes, I'm bashing *BSD, which, in my opinion, is no better. Probably half of OS X's problems stem from it being derived from *BSD.)
You can't open the terminal and run a GUI binary by typing in something like/Applications/SomethingOrAnother.app. You can do this without a hitch on both X and Windows.
When I tried to switch back to MacOS 9 on bootup, it did something strange to my disk and I had to reinstall everything from the CDs that came with the machine.
Installing a patch from Apple's Web site left me with a broken OpenSSH that can't talk SSH2. Trying to connect to an SSH2 server with it will cause it to crash.
Their Java virtual machine is broken -- for some reason, jEdit does not exit cleanly if Cmd-Q is used (and yes, the jEdit developers looked into this problem, and were unable to come up with a solution other than not using Cmd-Q).
Software Update goes through windowsupdate.microsoft.com. And it didn't work.
No apt-get. See above.
Apple has the gall to charge me money for an upgrade to OS X 10.1 to fix all of these and other problems that shouldn't have been there to begin with. Reminds me way too much of Windows, where M$ charges for bugfixes. I won't pay M$ for bugfixes, and I sure as hell won't pay Apple for bugfixes.
Did I mention it's slow and crashes a lot?
In short, trying to use OS X was like trying to use Windows NT for me. I'll keep Linux, thanks.
By the way, the first time I took the plunge into the Mac was back in the days of System 7.1. I actually liked it. I like MacOS 9, too, though I wouldn't run it on bare metal because of the lack of memory protection (which isn't a problem -- I run it in MOL instead).
I happen to have a Sony Minidisc MZ-R50 which runs ~7 hours on it's Li-Ion battery, and ~12 hours on 2 AA batteries.
Have you ever considered that its Li-ion battery is crappy?
They would last longer as batteries rarely ever go dead in most devices, rather, the device stops drawing power when the voltage drops below the acceptable limit.
Sounds like quite a problem. Have you heard of any energy storage devices which can be recharged only with electrical energy, whose voltage is constant, or do their voltages always drop off gradually as they lose their charge? (Note that devices that burn fuel, such as internal-combustion engines or fuel cells, will produce the same voltage until their fuel supply is depleted, which is why I exclude them here. Or can fuel cells be recharged with only electrical energy?)
Are there any voltage converters and variable resistors that are small enough to be fit into consumer electronics? I'm thinking of bumping up the voltage to something fairly high (perhaps 6 volts in a device which uses two 1.5V batteries), and then automatically adjusting it to the correct voltage for the device via a variable resistor. Or is there a better way to keep the voltage from dropping off?
I should point out that my Palm IIIxe's display contrast doesn't seem to get any duller, nor its backlight any dimmer, as the batteries wear down to as little as 2V (it takes 2 AAA batteries). It just runs and then finally quits when there's not enough power left. My cell phone also behaved this way when its Li-ion battery was close to being depleted. Are these devices bumping up the voltage as needed, as I suggest, or are they doing something else?
The banner ads on top are cool with me. They're reasonably unobtrusive, and usually advertise products that/. readers would be interested in anyway.
The huge ads in the middle of articles, however, are horrendous. I hope someone at the controls recognizes this before too many people get pissed off and start reading K5 or NewsForge or such instead. I don't like ZDNet for it and I won't like/. for it, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever read it? It's ridiculous!
I think Apple's legal department is just making an effort to act objectionably and irrationally. Not the first time -- remember them suing M$ over "look and feel"?
Especially note #2. This is why Debian still exists, functions, and has all the resources it has (particularly servers and bandwidth, which must have cost a damned fortune). It takes money to run an organization like Debian, and yet, amazingly enough, despite how cold-hearted you claim Linux users to be, they are still kicking, and still pumping out new packages and package upgrades at a breakneck pace.
That's how you get those 2D 'heads-up displays' overlaid over your view in many 3D games that use OpenGL.
Also, I think I've heard of at least one full GUI toolkit (not counting what Blender uses) for OpenGL.
Open source is important for these reasons:
Making it polished and professional is not relevant. Besides, is GNOME not polished enough for you?
If this happened in the U.S. this rent-a-cop asshole would probably have some assault charges to contend with by now.
I can't really get into that, since I haven't been following MPAA v 2600 very closely. It kinda makes me ill to think about it...
Whether or not you like it, that's where it seems to be heading. My Dish Network set-top is able to contact Dish Network via the phone and request a pay-per-view movie on demand, as an added convenience over having to call them yourself. I was thinking to build on this ability.
I don't think big companies crushing the little guys, curtailing free speech, and raping the copyright system (among other legal facilities they're abusing) is a correct and justified application of any law.
Doubly so when that lying, two-faced scum ball, Jack Valenti (may he burn in Hell), is behind it.
And that was MPAA v 2600. Sorry.
Network connections aren't concrete or permanent either; they disappear when the connection is closed.
Correct. The clue I have is that smartcard security doesn't work.
If the encryption scheme is sufficiently sophisticated, the only real, feasible way to break it will be for a legitimate user to deliberately put their key(s) on the Web or something, so that others can reprogram their smart cards with that key and watch whatever the legitimate user has access to.
To curtail this piracy, I propose that there be some motivation for the legitimate user to not reveal their key. For instance, one could use the model that many multiplayer computer games have been adopting lately -- Internet CD key validation. In this scheme, each CD key is unique, and if you try to log on with a CD key that someone else is already using, you can't log on.
Perhaps the set-top should establish some kind of two-way connection to the TV company, sends its customer key, and requests the decryption key for a given channel's audio/video stream (the "channel key"). The TV company's server will only provide the caller with the requested channel key if nobody else is using that customer key.
To prevent the customer from disseminating the channel key, the channel key gets changed every few seconds, and the new key is transmitted from the TV company's server just before the channel changes keys. This way, if the customer does disseminate the channel key, it's only useful for a few seconds.
Unfortunately, nothing prevents the customer from disseminating the updated channel keys every time a new such key is issued. However, the latency incurred in disseminating the channel keys would mean a temporary loss of the audio/video stream until the new channel key is received. This inconvenience would probably annoy pirates enough to give in and buy the damned thing. Also, this would require some (most likely expensive) equipment to reprogram the smart card while it's in the set-top (certainly not an easy feat!), or provide the signal to the set-top, which is presumably more expensive than buying the service.
One problem: the men are also required to kill you and sell your organs if it turns out to be profitable.
In short, the case you refer to is irrelevant.
If you don't think this will happen, recall the fiasco with Unisys, the LZW compression algorithm, and GIF. The effect on Mono, and any product that incorporates Mono (such as GNOME), could be devastating. Unlike Unisys (from whom we haven't heard anything for years now), Microsoft is likely to pursue whatever case they have against their Free competitors as zealously as they can.
Microsoft is fighting for its collective life now. Free Software is effectively rendering Microsoft's world-domination strategy completely useless to them. You can bet they'll do whatever it takes to stop this from succeeding. You can also bet they won't miss the opportunity Mono presents to do that.
Besides, C# sucks. It lets you do pointer arithmetic. (I don't remember where this was described, sorry.)
The scope of US copyright law is distribution; you're free to use a copyrighted work in any way you please, as long as you don't distribute it or a derivative work without permission. Since dynamic linking only occurs in the act of running the program, the resulting dynamically-linked program is never distributed, since it exists only in core when it is being executed.
Oppose static linking, wherein the library is combined with the program at build time, and this derivative work gets distributed instead of just the program that uses the library.
Unless I'm mistaken, copyright law in the US says you can't distribute said derivative work without permission, and you can do whatever you please to a copyrighted work so long as you don't redistribute it.
As far as TcX is concerned, the act of connecting to a server (as in the servers in the Hurd) is a sort of linking.
The Mono folks might be keen on the idea of integrating .NET into GNOME, but the rest of the GNOME community will have to be convinced that incorporating anything from Microsoft into their cherished GNOME is a good idea, and it will be harder than hell to convince them of that.
In short, don't worry about GNOME.
In the documentation for MySQL, TcX considers dynamic linking to be an act of creating a derivative work, and connection over a network to be a remote form of dynamic linking. Theoretically, RMS could adopt this interpretation.
And unless I'm mistaken, Apple is technically under contractual obligation to Sun to fix this bug, since it causes Apple's AWT implementation to not behave to spec.
That explains it... I see. Would you like to argue with my tcpdump output? Or perhaps the fact that OS X comes with several Microsoft products? Unless I'm mistaken, the price was quite a bit higher than $20 for the upgrade.And even if you're right, and I am mistaken (which is entirely probable, because I was very frustrated with Apple and their horrendously deficient products by that time), don't you think $20 is a bit high for a shipping and handling fee?
Well, I got an iBook with OS X on it. A few seconds after starting to use it, I hated it beyond belief. It's slow, crashes WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much (ever tried Classic?), has a piss-poor window manager, and a thoroughly half-assed, thoroughly bastardized UNIX backend. In all, it reminds me of Microsoft Windows NT. (And yes, I upgraded its memory to 320 MB. It was still slow beyond words.)
So I trashed it and installed Linux on it, and installed MacOS 9 in Mac-on-Linux for the occasion when I needed it.
My complaints (or, rather, those that I can think of at the moment) about OS X are:
- It uses the circular alt-tab thing like someone else mentioned.
- It doesn't have a nice, clean, compact menu for switching windows, like the one in the top-right corner in MacOS 9 or the GNOME panel. The dock is thoroughly unsatisfactory for this need, because it's nothing but clutter, clutter, clutter. Optimally, the window switcher would be like the one in GNOME, which switches between windows, and not applications. (Yes, this is intended to imply that the switcher in MacOS 9 is somewhat deficient. GNOME forever.)
- All of the applications are slow. Even the terminal is slow!!! The GNOME terminal is much better.
- The standard-issue Web browser is Internet Explorer. I don't think I need to spell out why this is a problem.
- Classic is slow, slow, slow, and crashes a lot. Kids, don't use this at home.
- If something bad were to happen, and the UI froze up (which it did quite often, because everything is so slow), it's a little hard to start killing processes, because there is no Ctrl-Alt-F1 or similar to get to a console. (Linux rules.)
- Tcsh. 'Nuff said. (Yes, I'm bashing *BSD, which, in my opinion, is no better. Probably half of OS X's problems stem from it being derived from *BSD.)
- You can't open the terminal and run a GUI binary by typing in something like
/Applications/SomethingOrAnother.app. You can do this without a hitch on both X and Windows.
- When I tried to switch back to MacOS 9 on bootup, it did something strange to my disk and I had to reinstall everything from the CDs that came with the machine.
- Installing a patch from Apple's Web site left me with a broken OpenSSH that can't talk SSH2. Trying to connect to an SSH2 server with it will cause it to crash.
- Their Java virtual machine is broken -- for some reason, jEdit does not exit cleanly if Cmd-Q is used (and yes, the jEdit developers looked into this problem, and were unable to come up with a solution other than not using Cmd-Q).
- Software Update goes through windowsupdate.microsoft.com. And it didn't work.
- No apt-get. See above.
- Apple has the gall to charge me money for an upgrade to OS X 10.1 to fix all of these and other problems that shouldn't have been there to begin with. Reminds me way too much of Windows, where M$ charges for bugfixes. I won't pay M$ for bugfixes, and I sure as hell won't pay Apple for bugfixes.
- Did I mention it's slow and crashes a lot?
In short, trying to use OS X was like trying to use Windows NT for me. I'll keep Linux, thanks.By the way, the first time I took the plunge into the Mac was back in the days of System 7.1. I actually liked it. I like MacOS 9, too, though I wouldn't run it on bare metal because of the lack of memory protection (which isn't a problem -- I run it in MOL instead).
Sounds like quite a problem. Have you heard of any energy storage devices which can be recharged only with electrical energy, whose voltage is constant, or do their voltages always drop off gradually as they lose their charge? (Note that devices that burn fuel, such as internal-combustion engines or fuel cells, will produce the same voltage until their fuel supply is depleted, which is why I exclude them here. Or can fuel cells be recharged with only electrical energy?)
Are there any voltage converters and variable resistors that are small enough to be fit into consumer electronics? I'm thinking of bumping up the voltage to something fairly high (perhaps 6 volts in a device which uses two 1.5V batteries), and then automatically adjusting it to the correct voltage for the device via a variable resistor. Or is there a better way to keep the voltage from dropping off?
I should point out that my Palm IIIxe's display contrast doesn't seem to get any duller, nor its backlight any dimmer, as the batteries wear down to as little as 2V (it takes 2 AAA batteries). It just runs and then finally quits when there's not enough power left. My cell phone also behaved this way when its Li-ion battery was close to being depleted. Are these devices bumping up the voltage as needed, as I suggest, or are they doing something else?
Rampant curiosity mode off.
The huge ads in the middle of articles, however, are horrendous. I hope someone at the controls recognizes this before too many people get pissed off and start reading K5 or NewsForge or such instead. I don't like ZDNet for it and I won't like /. for it, either.