So, a 10kW generator in every individual house (and appropriately bigger ones for apartment complexes) would be more efficient than 1-2GW power plants, distributed properly?
For some reason, though, AC power won and DC power lost because AC could be transmitted more efficiently and allowed big power plants.
I still think that a 10kW coal burning generator would be less efficient than a 1GW coal power plant even if you add transmission losses. Also, with a lot of small power plants you have to deliver the fuel to all of them (even though it's a smaller amount) instead of delivering a lot of fuel to a few power plants. Delivering a lot of fuel to one power plant is probably cheaper than distributing the same fuel to more locations.
My 8 port KVM switch is PS/2. I suppose I could use USB, but all of my desktop PCs have PS/2 ports anyway. The DIN5 keyboard port has the same signals as PS/2 port.
I bet you could add SCSI to a modern computer pretty cheaply.
PCI SCSI cards are quite cheap, I don't know about PCIe SCSI cards though.
Apparently a serial port is useful to everyone (it's not) while an ISA port is useless to everyone (it's not).
Agreed. Actually, now that I think about it, an ISA slot would also be useful, since there are no adaptors to connect the ISA card to a newer slot.
As mentioned, the vast majority of people will use, *at most*, one PCIe slot for a flashy graphics card, an onboard Ethernet port, onboard audio out, and USB.
A PCIe x16 slot can also be used for a x1 card, but the reverse is not true. So, 2x PCIe x16 slots. 1 for the video card and another one for a RAID controller, PCIe SSD or another video card.
And most people will honestly just rely on the onboard video.
Those people probably will buy a motherboard without PCIe slots or even a mATX board with one or two PCI slots.
(also I have no idea how you can use modern sound cards, they're all absolute junk and I haven't had one that worked properly for the last five years, my "sound card" is - natch - connected over USB:P)
I now have Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic. It works almost OK, that is the output is good enough for me, but the combination microphone/line-in jack has a problem, it outputs the +5V in both modes, which makes one channel more noisy, lowers its impedance and can cause problems for other devices. I now use two 2uF coupling capacitors to block the DC and for now can live with the increased noise and mismatched impedances. It is not a big enough problem for me to make me buy a new soundcard (which will have a separate line-in jack and probably will be better, but expensive).
I have a USB soundcard that I use with my laptop (Creative X-Fi Surround 5.1) and it is OK, except that if I want to play line in to line out it has a lot of latency and consumes ~50% CPU.
Or should we still have parallel ports and serial ports on our computers?
Yes. If I'm paying $100 for the motherboard, I can pay $105 for an identical one which has at least one serial and parallel ports.
Parallel ports are great for connecting various devices to a PC - lights, relays etc. You can't do that with USB without some special chips and special drivers.
How many IDE ports and floppy ports would you consider appropriate?
2xIDE, 1xFloppy
Ok, now the motherboard costs $107, whatever.
Would you like two ISA slots, or is one enough?
Instead of ISA slots, how about two PCIe slots and 5 PCI slots, instead of 2xPCIe, 3xPCI and 2x empty space?
Small PCIe slots (1x and such) do not have advantages over regular PCI 66MHz or even 33MHz slots and most devices do not need the speed anyway (TV capture cards, sound cards, serial/parallel port cards, USB controllers etc).
The only devices that need more than 133MB/s are gigabit network cards and IDE/SATA/SCSI/SAS controllers and most motherboards come with an integrated gigabit NIC and quite a few SATA ports (AFAIK SATA can also use hubs to connect more than one drive to one port).
What regular PCI has the advantage in is compatibility. Most of old devices are still good and when I am upgrading, I, for example, do not need to buy a new sound card, because the old one is usually enough, the same with TV input cards and even NICs and hard drive controllers.
I have a 43MB IDE drive. Sadly, it no longer works. WD95044-X, made in 1990. When connected to power supply it just spins up and does nothing (no head movement) and is not detected in BIOS (maybe I need a very old PC to detect this drive?), what is interesting is that this drive does not have a master/slave jumper setting, the three settings are native/translate mode, IRQ 2/IRQ 5, and DMA Demand on/off.
My 11 year old Smart-UPS 2200 works OK and does not damage the batteries much (last time the batteries had ~40% of capacity left after ~5 years of use).
It may be, but once you are in the "whatever I have is enough" mindset, they will probably be in the same mindset when it comes to their browser.
The browser is a bit different from other apps. While you can still use MS Office 97 and make files compatible with newer versions, it would be difficult to use Firefox 1 or IE5 on today's internet. Newest versions of Opera and FF still work on older OSs (IIRC Opera still works on Win98) and will continue to do so. IE-only sites will work on IE6, 7 or 8.
One other thing worth looking at is why people are still using XP?
Because there is no point in upgrading?
If I built my PC today, I probably would install win7 and use it (after a few interface "tweaks"), but my PC is 3 years old and I did not want to use Vista. I could, of course, format the hard drive and install 7, also reinstall all my apps, but I would only do so if there was a huge benefit to it. Win7 might be better than XP, but it is not that much better for me to spend a week reinstalling all of my apps while essentially having a non fully functional PC.
So, not to be a zombie, you must constantly spend money on upgrades that you don't need?
If someone uses his/her PC at work to create/modify Office documents and browse the internet, odds are that his old PC, OS and Office is enough. Why would someone need a quad core CPU and 4GB RAM to edit 10 page Word document? You can do that on a 486 50MHz 16MB RAM and Win95 with Office 97. Now, browsing the internet is different, but browsers like Firefox and Opera are better than IE and still support XP.
Now, you can say that the employee could just use Linux and I agree, but if (s)he already has the old Windows OS and old Office, the money has been spent already and there is no point in making a problem where wasn't one.
Also, 17" monitor is perfectly OK for, you know, office work.
BTW, on Windows, I remenber having Office and Windows asking for network installation disk.
At least on Office 2003, if you install from a CD, the setup copies the install files to the hard drive, you can uncheck the checkbox and save some space though.
"Lesser memory print" - is this RAM or HDD? If RAM then doesn't Windows only load one copy of one particular.dll version for all apps to use? If HDD then I'd rather lose a gigabyte of space than have to hunt for the libraries.
When you install a Windows app that needs some.dll it installs the.dll (which is included in the setup.exe). If Windows already has the exact same.dll then an additional copy is not installed, if Windows has an an incompatible version of the.dll then the additional copy is installed and apps can choose which one they use.
On Linux it seems that only one copy of a lib can exist, so if two apps want two different incompatible versions of the same lib you can only use one app at a time. Also, apps do not include their dependencies in their install.rpm or whatever, meaning that the app is incomplete.
Buy SuSE every now and then, I think they still sell those.
Then I can buy Windows. We use Linux in the office only because it is free (as in $0). If Linux was priced around the same as Windows or only slightly cheaper then we would use Windows, and we wouldn't need Ultimate edition.
You don't have to recommend a specific implementation of the codec, just state on the system requirements that for h264 video playback you need h264 codec compatible with DirectShow (or whatever the equivalent on Linux is). My video card, for example, came with Cyberlink PowerDVD, which includes the h264 codec and, I assume, does not infringe the patent even if it was recognized in my country.
Thank you. Assuming I can get apt-get working on that PC (why can't linux apps come with easy configuration, like windows apps?), I'll be able to have a DVD with all of the optional libs on it.
Nothing stops you (or anyone else) from building an application statically, or including said.so files with it.
Well, if I already had to hunt down all dependencies, then there is no need to somehow integrate them to the main app (would I need to know the programming language that was used to make the app to be able to integrate the dependencies?).
Yes, I did try to use rpm directly. I tried to make a Canon multifunction device work on 64bit Linux. The binary version was 32bit only, so I tried to compile the source package. I later gave up and connected the device to an older PC that has an even older Mandrake (still called Mandrake) version, but was 32bit and supported the binary drivers.
Last time I had this fun was with Mandriva (don't remember the version), but the computer was connected to the internet. While I was googling every package that it told me to, I thought that if this computer did not have an internet connection it would get very boring very fast. Oh, by the way, the last on the chain was some other version of glibc which hated everything else on that computer, so I couldn't install the program. On Windows (>=XP), the different version would be placed alongside with the one that's already there and programs could specify which one they want.
See, this is what I was talking about in the first place. You hand wave over issues for your favourite OS and draw an unfair conclusion.
I don't hand wave over the issues. Yes, I would prefer if.NET was a part of the default Windows install, but it's not. At least I can download it and record it to a CD so I can use the CD if I need it in the future. Every program that needs.NET will works with the version I have on the CD.
I can't do that with Linux. I can't go to linux.com and download "Libraries that are not part of a default install.tar.gz" record it to a CD and use the CD like I would use the CD with.NET. I first need to find out what libraries the program needs, then download them. It means that I will have to do this for every program that I install. The libraries that I installed for program X will probably not work with program Y.
Also, on Linux, you can have library conflicts, while DirectX and.NET can be together in the same PC. Windows used to have.dll conflicts (Program X needs a.dll v1.2, program Y needs a.dll v1.1 and both versions are incompatible, but both have to be in the same place), but on Windows XP this was solved.
Other than.NET, DX and Java, programs include the.dll files they need in their install packages. If I have all 3 installed (which can be done right after installing Windows, I don't need a program to tell me that it needs.NET to be able to install it), I can download any Windows program and be 99.99% certain that it will work. Wireshark comes with WinPCap included, for example, I don't need to download it separately.
Either way while you're still waiting for your 300 Megs of bloat to finish downloading I would have already downloaded the what I needed, burned it to the disk and be finished.
Most programs don't have a huge list of dependencies.
Too bad that the list is not published anywhere (at least some Windows program says that it needs.NET).
And while you are trying to find out exactly which 5 libs at 2 to 5 Meg each are needed, I would have already installed both.NET and DirectX from a CD I made some time ago and use on every PC that does not have them. If I am installing software from a CD, like a game, it most likely will already have.NET and/or DirectX on the same disc, so I won't even need the separate one.
If I could get all Linux dependency libs on one CD or DVD, I could just use that disc if I needed to, no more hunting.
Also, both DirectX and.NET are updated trough Windows Update.
Also there is nothing stopping you from going to some place like http://packages.ubuntu.com/ and finding out which packages you need to download.
let's see...
search: "dash" (one thing I was looking for recently).
Depends on: libc6, debianutils (I don't know what packages are already on that PC). libc6 depends on: findutils, libc-bin, libgcc1, tzdata findutils depends on: libc6 (which one I install first?) libgcc depends on: gcc-4.4-base, libc6 and so on...
Why can't I download the full program? You know, aside from.NET and DirectX, all programs ship with all of their parts, I don't need to hunt every.dll file to install the program. Sometimes linux programs are provided as -static, which I assume includes all of their parts, I always grab this if it is available. But not everyone provides this option. Why?
How is that any different from your having to download.NET example?
.NET and similar frameworks on Windows are few enough that I could download them and write them to a CD before going to the PC without connection.
Also, a lot of programs state that they need.NET or DirectX and some programs even come with the required software already on install disc (for example, games usually come with the required version of DirectX).
For example, when I install Windows on a computer, I also install.NET, video codecs and the newest version of DirectX available.
I can't download and install every single lib on Linux, also, I won't know that lib12 needs lib13 until I install it.
And that is the difference. If Linux only had 50 optional libs, I could download them all and write them to a CD so I could use them.
Did Microsoft get to where it is today by delivering something that was technically better than the other offerings?
Yes, Microsoft delivered a Windows component that could be bundled with applications and allow them to run on DOS, therefore a lot of Windows applications were created and this made the Windows OS better. Remember Microsofts "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" - to Extend you have to make it better than the competition so that you can then make it incompatible and Extinguish the competition, because the users chose you.
It is biggest and most popular encyclopedia on the net, has no real competition and would be extremely hard to recreate.
All content on Wikipedia is available for free to distribute, so one could make a copy and transcode the video files to h264 and audio files to mp3 or AAC.
It would be even easier to recreate than youtube, since with youtube, you are not allowed to copy the videos to your new site.
Slashdot Mirror
So, a 10kW generator in every individual house (and appropriately bigger ones for apartment complexes) would be more efficient than 1-2GW power plants, distributed properly?
For some reason, though, AC power won and DC power lost because AC could be transmitted more efficiently and allowed big power plants.
I still think that a 10kW coal burning generator would be less efficient than a 1GW coal power plant even if you add transmission losses. Also, with a lot of small power plants you have to deliver the fuel to all of them (even though it's a smaller amount) instead of delivering a lot of fuel to a few power plants. Delivering a lot of fuel to one power plant is probably cheaper than distributing the same fuel to more locations.
I mean, what about PS2 keyboard and mouse ports?
My 8 port KVM switch is PS/2. I suppose I could use USB, but all of my desktop PCs have PS/2 ports anyway. The DIN5 keyboard port has the same signals as PS/2 port.
I bet you could add SCSI to a modern computer pretty cheaply.
PCI SCSI cards are quite cheap, I don't know about PCIe SCSI cards though.
Apparently a serial port is useful to everyone (it's not) while an ISA port is useless to everyone (it's not).
Agreed. Actually, now that I think about it, an ISA slot would also be useful, since there are no adaptors to connect the ISA card to a newer slot.
As mentioned, the vast majority of people will use, *at most*, one PCIe slot for a flashy graphics card, an onboard Ethernet port, onboard audio out, and USB.
A PCIe x16 slot can also be used for a x1 card, but the reverse is not true. So, 2x PCIe x16 slots. 1 for the video card and another one for a RAID controller, PCIe SSD or another video card.
And most people will honestly just rely on the onboard video.
Those people probably will buy a motherboard without PCIe slots or even a mATX board with one or two PCI slots.
(also I have no idea how you can use modern sound cards, they're all absolute junk and I haven't had one that worked properly for the last five years, my "sound card" is - natch - connected over USB :P)
I now have Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic. It works almost OK, that is the output is good enough for me, but the combination microphone/line-in jack has a problem, it outputs the +5V in both modes, which makes one channel more noisy, lowers its impedance and can cause problems for other devices. I now use two 2uF coupling capacitors to block the DC and for now can live with the increased noise and mismatched impedances. It is not a big enough problem for me to make me buy a new soundcard (which will have a separate line-in jack and probably will be better, but expensive).
I have a USB soundcard that I use with my laptop (Creative X-Fi Surround 5.1) and it is OK, except that if I want to play line in to line out it has a lot of latency and consumes ~50% CPU.
Or should we still have parallel ports and serial ports on our computers?
Yes. If I'm paying $100 for the motherboard, I can pay $105 for an identical one which has at least one serial and parallel ports.
Parallel ports are great for connecting various devices to a PC - lights, relays etc. You can't do that with USB without some special chips and special drivers.
How many IDE ports and floppy ports would you consider appropriate?
2xIDE, 1xFloppy
Ok, now the motherboard costs $107, whatever.
Would you like two ISA slots, or is one enough?
Instead of ISA slots, how about two PCIe slots and 5 PCI slots, instead of 2xPCIe, 3xPCI and 2x empty space?
Small PCIe slots (1x and such) do not have advantages over regular PCI 66MHz or even 33MHz slots and most devices do not need the speed anyway (TV capture cards, sound cards, serial/parallel port cards, USB controllers etc).
The only devices that need more than 133MB/s are gigabit network cards and IDE/SATA/SCSI/SAS controllers and most motherboards come with an integrated gigabit NIC and quite a few SATA ports (AFAIK SATA can also use hubs to connect more than one drive to one port).
What regular PCI has the advantage in is compatibility. Most of old devices are still good and when I am upgrading, I, for example, do not need to buy a new sound card, because the old one is usually enough, the same with TV input cards and even NICs and hard drive controllers.
Smaller power plants that generate more power with less fuel and waste
AFAIK, bigger power plants are more efficient than small ones.
Thanks for the info, I always thought that newer IDE controllers are compatible with all older IDE drives.
Does the controller need to be an 8bit ISA card or can it be a 16bit card, for example with integrated floppy controller and LPT/COM ports?
I have a 43MB IDE drive. Sadly, it no longer works. WD95044-X, made in 1990. When connected to power supply it just spins up and does nothing (no head movement) and is not detected in BIOS (maybe I need a very old PC to detect this drive?), what is interesting is that this drive does not have a master/slave jumper setting, the three settings are native/translate mode, IRQ 2/IRQ 5, and DMA Demand on/off.
My 11 year old Smart-UPS 2200 works OK and does not damage the batteries much (last time the batteries had ~40% of capacity left after ~5 years of use).
If the server room is in the 4th floor of a 8 floor building, then breaking in may be difficult. Also, the windows probably have security sensors.
It may be, but once you are in the "whatever I have is enough" mindset, they will probably be in the same mindset when it comes to their browser.
The browser is a bit different from other apps. While you can still use MS Office 97 and make files compatible with newer versions, it would be difficult to use Firefox 1 or IE5 on today's internet. Newest versions of Opera and FF still work on older OSs (IIRC Opera still works on Win98) and will continue to do so. IE-only sites will work on IE6, 7 or 8.
One other thing worth looking at is why people are still using XP?
Because there is no point in upgrading?
If I built my PC today, I probably would install win7 and use it (after a few interface "tweaks"), but my PC is 3 years old and I did not want to use Vista. I could, of course, format the hard drive and install 7, also reinstall all my apps, but I would only do so if there was a huge benefit to it. Win7 might be better than XP, but it is not that much better for me to spend a week reinstalling all of my apps while essentially having a non fully functional PC.
So, not to be a zombie, you must constantly spend money on upgrades that you don't need?
If someone uses his/her PC at work to create/modify Office documents and browse the internet, odds are that his old PC, OS and Office is enough. Why would someone need a quad core CPU and 4GB RAM to edit 10 page Word document? You can do that on a 486 50MHz 16MB RAM and Win95 with Office 97. Now, browsing the internet is different, but browsers like Firefox and Opera are better than IE and still support XP.
Now, you can say that the employee could just use Linux and I agree, but if (s)he already has the old Windows OS and old Office, the money has been spent already and there is no point in making a problem where wasn't one.
Also, 17" monitor is perfectly OK for, you know, office work.
BTW, on Windows, I remenber having Office and Windows asking for network installation disk.
At least on Office 2003, if you install from a CD, the setup copies the install files to the hard drive, you can uncheck the checkbox and save some space though.
"Lesser memory print" - is this RAM or HDD? If RAM then doesn't Windows only load one copy of one particular .dll version for all apps to use? If HDD then I'd rather lose a gigabyte of space than have to hunt for the libraries.
When you install a Windows app that needs some .dll it installs the .dll (which is included in the setup.exe). If Windows already has the exact same .dll then an additional copy is not installed, if Windows has an an incompatible version of the .dll then the additional copy is installed and apps can choose which one they use.
On Linux it seems that only one copy of a lib can exist, so if two apps want two different incompatible versions of the same lib you can only use one app at a time. Also, apps do not include their dependencies in their install.rpm or whatever, meaning that the app is incomplete.
Buy SuSE every now and then, I think they still sell those.
Then I can buy Windows. We use Linux in the office only because it is free (as in $0). If Linux was priced around the same as Windows or only slightly cheaper then we would use Windows, and we wouldn't need Ultimate edition.
You don't have to recommend a specific implementation of the codec, just state on the system requirements that for h264 video playback you need h264 codec compatible with DirectShow (or whatever the equivalent on Linux is). My video card, for example, came with Cyberlink PowerDVD, which includes the h264 codec and, I assume, does not infringe the patent even if it was recognized in my country.
Thank you. Assuming I can get apt-get working on that PC (why can't linux apps come with easy configuration, like windows apps?), I'll be able to have a DVD with all of the optional libs on it.
You can do this on linux as well as OSX.
.NET: http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/0/e/20e90413-712f-438c-988e-fdaa79a8ac3d/dotnetfx35.exe
DirectX: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=0cef8180-e94a-4f56-b157-5ab8109cb4f5
Java: http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp
Where is the package of the Linux libraries that I can put on the CD? Or do I need to download them one by one?
Nothing stops you (or anyone else) from building an application statically, or including said .so files with it.
Well, if I already had to hunt down all dependencies, then there is no need to somehow integrate them to the main app (would I need to know the programming language that was used to make the app to be able to integrate the dependencies?).
Yes, I did try to use rpm directly. I tried to make a Canon multifunction device work on 64bit Linux. The binary version was 32bit only, so I tried to compile the source package. I later gave up and connected the device to an older PC that has an even older Mandrake (still called Mandrake) version, but was 32bit and supported the binary drivers.
Last time I had this fun was with Mandriva (don't remember the version), but the computer was connected to the internet. While I was googling every package that it told me to, I thought that if this computer did not have an internet connection it would get very boring very fast. Oh, by the way, the last on the chain was some other version of glibc which hated everything else on that computer, so I couldn't install the program. On Windows (>=XP), the different version would be placed alongside with the one that's already there and programs could specify which one they want.
See, this is what I was talking about in the first place. You hand wave over issues for your favourite OS and draw an unfair conclusion.
I don't hand wave over the issues. Yes, I would prefer if .NET was a part of the default Windows install, but it's not. At least I can download it and record it to a CD so I can use the CD if I need it in the future. Every program that needs .NET will works with the version I have on the CD.
I can't do that with Linux. I can't go to linux.com and download "Libraries that are not part of a default install.tar.gz" record it to a CD and use the CD like I would use the CD with .NET. I first need to find out what libraries the program needs, then download them. It means that I will have to do this for every program that I install. The libraries that I installed for program X will probably not work with program Y.
Also, on Linux, you can have library conflicts, while DirectX and .NET can be together in the same PC. Windows used to have .dll conflicts (Program X needs a.dll v1.2, program Y needs a.dll v1.1 and both versions are incompatible, but both have to be in the same place), but on Windows XP this was solved.
Other than .NET, DX and Java, programs include the .dll files they need in their install packages. If I have all 3 installed (which can be done right after installing Windows, I don't need a program to tell me that it needs .NET to be able to install it), I can download any Windows program and be 99.99% certain that it will work. Wireshark comes with WinPCap included, for example, I don't need to download it separately.
Either way while you're still waiting for your 300 Megs of bloat to finish downloading I would have already downloaded the what I needed, burned it to the disk and be finished.
Most programs don't have a huge list of dependencies.
Too bad that the list is not published anywhere (at least some Windows program says that it needs .NET).
And while you are trying to find out exactly which 5 libs at 2 to 5 Meg each are needed, I would have already installed both .NET and DirectX from a CD I made some time ago and use on every PC that does not have them. If I am installing software from a CD, like a game, it most likely will already have .NET and/or DirectX on the same disc, so I won't even need the separate one.
If I could get all Linux dependency libs on one CD or DVD, I could just use that disc if I needed to, no more hunting.
Also, both DirectX and .NET are updated trough Windows Update.
Also there is nothing stopping you from going to some place like http://packages.ubuntu.com/ and finding out which packages you need to download.
let's see...
search: "dash" (one thing I was looking for recently).
Depends on: libc6, debianutils (I don't know what packages are already on that PC).
libc6 depends on: findutils, libc-bin, libgcc1, tzdata
findutils depends on: libc6 (which one I install first?)
libgcc depends on: gcc-4.4-base, libc6
and so on...
Why can't I download the full program? You know, aside from .NET and DirectX, all programs ship with all of their parts, I don't need to hunt every .dll file to install the program. Sometimes linux programs are provided as -static, which I assume includes all of their parts, I always grab this if it is available. But not everyone provides this option. Why?
How is that any different from your having to download .NET example?
.NET and similar frameworks on Windows are few enough that I could download them and write them to a CD before going to the PC without connection.
Also, a lot of programs state that they need .NET or DirectX and some programs even come with the required software already on install disc (for example, games usually come with the required version of DirectX).
For example, when I install Windows on a computer, I also install .NET, video codecs and the newest version of DirectX available.
I can't download and install every single lib on Linux, also, I won't know that lib12 needs lib13 until I install it.
And that is the difference. If Linux only had 50 optional libs, I could download them all and write them to a CD so I could use them.
Among those PCs that run Windows OSs without h264 codec, a lot have a third party codec downloaded and installed.
Did Microsoft get to where it is today by delivering something that was technically better than the other offerings?
Yes, Microsoft delivered a Windows component that could be bundled with applications and allow them to run on DOS, therefore a lot of Windows applications were created and this made the Windows OS better. Remember Microsofts "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" - to Extend you have to make it better than the competition so that you can then make it incompatible and Extinguish the competition, because the users chose you.
It is biggest and most popular encyclopedia on the net, has no real competition and would be extremely hard to recreate.
All content on Wikipedia is available for free to distribute, so one could make a copy and transcode the video files to h264 and audio files to mp3 or AAC.
It would be even easier to recreate than youtube, since with youtube, you are not allowed to copy the videos to your new site.