Scripting is interfacing, tying things together on a higher level. Programming is functionality, algorithms and such
What? No, you're wrong. Scripting is programming with loose typing, non-declared variables, interpreting instead of compiling, and plenty of syntactic sugar to make common tasks easy to type. It has nothing to do with, well, whatever you're talking about.
Lots of good programmers stick to glue code. Heck, if you've got a good API, you can write highly sophisticated/programs/ without implenting a single algorithm. Take the Cocoa/Objective-C combination. Are you telling me that people write in ObjC to tie together some classes, call some command-line commands and show the results in friendly UI are scripting?
The smartest programmers write as little code themselves as possible because they know it's better to leave that to the specialists. That's laziness -- spend your time researching the APIs you can use, not coding, and you'll get a better impementation because the API owner is far more knowledgeable about the specific problem than you are. Also, that shifts responsibility for updates to someone else and gives youthe benefits of free fixes and updates without doing any coding yourself.
Of course, the laziest programmers are also the most efficient and productive because they're using leverage, instead of doing all the heavy lifting themselves. They're also using languages like perl, that has CPAN, the huge library of easy-to integrate modules. There's a good reason why "laziness" is a part of the perl motto, "laziness, impatience, hubris"
Certainly perl is a programming language not a "scripting" language. Maybe at some pointin the far distant past, it was just a scripting language since then it's become a full language (for the LOG -- use strict!!!!!)
Then of course there's languages like XSLT, that are considered "doable" for beginners. In fact, a lot of experience shows that beginners have an easier time picking up XSLT than most programmers. Because, as a functional language it takes a totally differnt programming style, one that newbies can pick up pretty easily (XSLT really is pretty simple language) but people flush with the paradigms of procedural programming can go down the garden path and wind up with broken, broken code really easily.
So are people who only program in XSLT programmers? I know a few who feel like they aren't, even though they're perfectly handy with functional programming, because they've never done procedural. IMHO that's BS, they're just as much of a programmer as someone who only does C++. IMHO more since C++ is such junk;-)
Configuration should be minimized... The user should have to make as/few/ decisions as possible. It's the developer's responsibility to figure out which options should be on, and which should be off -- they're the experts. To give users so much configuration choices is a sign of weakness on the developer's part, that they don't or can't make the tough decisions that must be made.
If there's a need for configuration, there's probably also a better way to design the system, so that it's not necessary to have prefs. Your job as a developer is to figure that out. Imagine forcing every single user to individually figure what the best configuration is!
Of course that's for normal people. For GNU/Linux users, everything should be configurable. They like to tweak. Also it's good to have an expert configuration tool, even if the normal UI is simple, like the user.js prefs in Mozilla or the Terminal in Mac OS X;-)
This is really, really important in order to prevent barriers from preventing widespread adoption of VoIP. The major telcos are highly threatened by VoIP because it effectively eliminates their revenue from long-distance calling. The idea of this initiative is to make sure that VoIP calls are treated like any other data on the internet. The telcos would love to be able to prevent you from using VoIP and somehow be able to charge money for it.
I think that slashdotters know that eventually, the technology will win the war. So, it is better to get the right technology into the right hands now.
It was a sad, sad day when Roddenbery died. The philosopher captain, the morality dilemmas, humans as good people free from conflict -- these were all the themes he wanted for TOS. They wanted a cowboy show but he still managed to get a black woman on the bridge, a russian, the incredible spock character, all kinds of examination of what it means to be human. He finally got what he wanted with TNG. The philosopher captain, the android struggling to be human, the moral dilemmas, the quest for understanding. These are all themes that came out from roddenbery.
People who think that these themes only developed after he died, should really go and watch Encounter at Farpoint again. After that, the series struggled for a while. It finally hit its stride in season 3, and 3 and 4 were the best. After his death, the loss of his vision was slow because is was imprinted on the cast crew writers etc. By the time it ended, I wasn't watching any more because the spirit was gone. Voyager made an attempt to revive it, well, they had a female captain, that's something but they never recaptured the spirit.
It was Roddenbery that made TOS, especially TNG, unlike/any/ other TV,/ever/ because no one else has been principled, visionary and good at producing TV at the same time.
Use AxKit! You're selling yourself short if you start to develop a site without it. It's just the ideal way to get the whole separation of content and presentation thing that XML is supposed to be all about. It makes it dirt easy to store your content in XML, use XSLT for transformations and XSP for dynamic back-end processing. Check it out!
Check out Relax NG (RNG)
on
DTD vs. XML Schema
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I recently decided to go with RNG for my schemas after reading up on W3C XML Schema (WXS) and Relax NG (RNG) . RNG is just so much easier to read and understand. The real clincher for me was the inability in WXS 1.0 to describe non-deterministic structures. I mean, give me a break. I can't allow people to put the elements in a different order? That's just lame.
What's more there's a fantastic tool dtdinst that converts DTDs into Relax NG. There's also tools to convert back and forth between WXS and RNG. So if I ever need to provide someone with a WXS schema I can just run it off automatically.
Now I'm working on a system using AxKit to parse out the RNG schema, generate HTML forms for completion, roundtrip the data back to the server, assemble an instance document using DOM and display it using XSLT and CSS. But that's another story. People who don't "get" XML should really check out AxKit.
I would add an additional BSD-like clause that the name of the contributors cannot be used to promote the work:
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
I don't know why the CC people didn't include something like this.
it uses the (closed) cocoa API but I suppose that the GnuStep folks can start to mine the osx.freshmeat.net code for stuff to port if they want some apps, if it works on GnuStep then it's a fully open-source program all they way down.
However, most users (depends on the audience of course) aren't interested in security being interactive. They want it to be transparent just like all the other nuts and bolts. The only principle that really captures that idea is "path of least resistance".
No, you're wrong. The interaction is already taking place, the paper is about how to add security to those ALREADY EXISTING interactions!
I think that the problem that goes unstated is that/usually/ adding security makes things more difficult for the user. Security people like to add whiz-bang features that say HEY you're secure! Wow! Isn't that great! Click here, do this, type in that, blah blah blah.
Because, sure, you want to know you're secure, right? Yeah, of course you need to know when you are, and when you are not.
So making it totally transparent is not some kind of simple answer. You always need the This Is Secure light or button or whatever like you point out.
to get the degree so you can get a good job so you can get the pretty and vapid girl so...
My friend went to school to school to get her degree to get the job to get the hunky, vapid man. Just pointing out that you're a sexist pig, no flames please;-)
I can't resist answering a question like this... so many good reasons to read SciFi
My favorite: HHGTTG series. Douglas Adams, RIP. I was very, very sad the day he died. His writing was funny, witty, british, and he really "got" the whole absurdity of modern technology and science (the technology that represents humanity's ultimate triumph over itself:-)
Also good: Dune. So internally consistent. So cleverly conceived. So rife with politics. Such a huge vision. I guess it's the size scope and breadth of vision that really wins this one.
The best: The Foundation series. Again with the internal consistency. This series really is the epitome of a massive internally consistent universe, a universe that isn't our own but could be. We can look at the characters and see how and why they do what they do, and then he shows us how it fits into the big picture. I learned so much from those books too. And of course, you can't forget Lije Bailey and R. Daneel Olivaw - the most human robot ever! I still feel a pang of emotion when reminded of that novel.
So, yes, great writing but also breadth and internal consistency of vision.
"I don't think the oven stuff at the end would have made it into the article if this work was being done by a man."
I don't get it. Are you saying that men can't cook? That women can't be smart physicists and cook? That women can't be attractive and smart physicists?
What's sexist about featuring an attractive, cooking-metaphor-using woman who manages despite those barriers to also be a smart physicist?
So here we see the classic case of copy-protection idiocy. Sony believes their new discs (don't call it a CD, remember?) are going to stop piracy. But the whole scheme is built on sand. Sure, I got to get this wonderful key from them, but what does that key go into? Software. Can I hack the software so that it thinks it has the key when it doesn't? Yubetcha (OK, not me, but some smarts folks will do it...) Does it matter that the DMCA makes that illegal? Not really... the hackers will just go back underground like they did in the great copy-protection wars of circa 1985-95 (for games). Will palladium solve everything ? Er, not likely.
"The conventional music data on the CD used by audio devices is protected by SME's current anticopying technology that prevents the data from being replayed on a PC. Therefore, the new discs will not carry the CD logo, said Kiyono Yasunaga, an SME spokeswoman."....therefore the new discs will not be CDs.
Hmm... If the entire palladium paradigm is based on digital certificates authorizing this program and denying that other program...
Here is an example of how that paradigm breaks. Because under palladium, I don't get a choice, my computer decides what I can run and what I can't run for me. But if BigBrotherSoft in control of the palladium system screws up, and issues a certificate for buggy code, then suddenly I can no longer stop my own computer from running malicious code. Because apparently under palladium, my computer trusts BigBrotherSoft and doesn't trust me.
And then what does BigBrotherSoft do? If they say to my computer not to trust BigBrotherSoft, then who can it trust?
... having a conversation with a pretty sharp friend of mine at school about all this crap about four years ago. It seemed to me as though all of these efforts to create copy-protection (the old name for DRM) were totally useless because you/can't/ protect the data. There's always a way around it. This is not encryption people. This is like saying "I want to give you something and not give you something at the same time." How the hell do you do that? You don't, that's how.
Consider watermarking. If I know there's a watermark in the data, I can fiddle it until I understand the watermark and remove it. Like other people have said, any decryption key has to be in memory/somewhere/... so the best thing any programmers can do is just try to hide it through obfuscation. Since there is no REAL way to actually protect the data, instead we're going to be deluged with hare-brained schemes that just make it harder and harder for us to do what we want with our data.
So, DRM == copy protection. Anyone else remember where copy-protection went with games and everything for the first 15 years of commercial software? More and more annoying, until finally the companies gave up. Same thing will happen with DRM unless the antagonists can learn from history.
As far as legislation, and "secure" platforms go... sure that might work, hypothetically. But I hope and pray that the public won't take it.
"There are 250 Million blank CDRs and tapes bought and used this year for copying music in comparison to 213 Million prerecorded audio media. This means the owners are only being paid for 46 per cent of the musical content. For a comparison: In 1998 almost 90% of all audio media was paid for."
Well, that's great, but this statement is relevant only in a world where you expect owners to be paid for EVERY COPY EVER MADE. There's absolutely no proof that those CD-Rs are replacing CD purchases. You know, jolly gee whiz, maybe people are using them to replace music that _wouldn't_ever_have_had_ (bought/afforded) before.
Just because there is MORE music out "in total" there doesn't necessarily mean that people are BUYING LESS music.
This whole thing reminds me of all the shenanigans about people pirating games, game companies installing all kinds of "anti-piracy" measures which just lead to cracks... finally they gave up (thank god) but guess what, the game companies are still here!
Well, there's a couple of ways to look at it. If you look at raw benchmarks on the kernel, IIRC linux is faster. By a lot in some places, not at all in other places, but overall.
RAM has a big effect. Personally, I'm running 10.2 on a TiBook and the only time I notice it getting slow is when it starts hitting the swap file. That only happens when I run classic (almost never) or photoshop (well, rarely, because GraphicConverter is almost as good). I've only got 256 ram so I think I'm pretty behind in that regard.
Then there's the whole speedup in 10.2... the biggest speedup was for people who've got the latest video chipsets with 32 or more begs of VRAM. I don't have that personally but the people who says "WOW 10.2 is so fast!" all seem to have the latest machines.
File system performance improved dramatically with 10.2 I noticed. It used to take forever to rm -rf a few thousand files; now it's pretty quick, I haven't had to wait since I upgraded. That's nice.
Someone else brought up the whole issue of availability. The OS is responsive even when the spinning colour ball is going. That's just the local app being unresponsive. A lot of people don't realize you can just click to some other app and keep working until whatever is finished.
Internet Explorer is slow. But chimera is not slow. It's very fast. I'm not going back.
Slashdot Mirror
Scripting is interfacing, tying things together on a higher level. Programming is functionality, algorithms and such
/programs/ without implenting a single algorithm. Take the Cocoa/Objective-C combination. Are you telling me that people write in ObjC to tie together some classes, call some command-line commands and show the results in friendly UI are scripting?
What? No, you're wrong. Scripting is programming with loose typing, non-declared variables, interpreting instead of compiling, and plenty of syntactic sugar to make common tasks easy to type. It has nothing to do with, well, whatever you're talking about.
Lots of good programmers stick to glue code. Heck, if you've got a good API, you can write highly sophisticated
The smartest programmers write as little code themselves as possible because they know it's better to leave that to the specialists. That's laziness -- spend your time researching the APIs you can use, not coding, and you'll get a better impementation because the API owner is far more knowledgeable about the specific problem than you are. Also, that shifts responsibility for updates to someone else and gives youthe benefits of free fixes and updates without doing any coding yourself.
Of course, the laziest programmers are also the most efficient and productive because they're using leverage, instead of doing all the heavy lifting themselves. They're also using languages like perl, that has CPAN, the huge library of easy-to integrate modules. There's a good reason why "laziness" is a part of the perl motto, "laziness, impatience, hubris"
simon
Certainly perl is a programming language not a "scripting" language. Maybe at some pointin the far distant past, it was just a scripting language since then it's become a full language (for the LOG -- use strict!!!!!)
;-)
;-)
Then of course there's languages like XSLT, that are considered "doable" for beginners. In fact, a lot of experience shows that beginners have an easier time picking up XSLT than most programmers. Because, as a functional language it takes a totally differnt programming style, one that newbies can pick up pretty easily (XSLT really is pretty simple language) but people flush with the paradigms of procedural programming can go down the garden path and wind up with broken, broken code really easily.
So are people who only program in XSLT programmers? I know a few who feel like they aren't, even though they're perfectly handy with functional programming, because they've never done procedural. IMHO that's BS, they're just as much of a programmer as someone who only does C++. IMHO more since C++ is such junk
simon
PS Use Objective-C
especially not me. ;-)
Configuration should be minimized ... The user should have to make as /few/ decisions as possible. It's the developer's responsibility to figure out which options should be on, and which should be off -- they're the experts. To give users so much configuration choices is a sign of weakness on the developer's part, that they don't or can't make the tough decisions that must be made.
;-)
If there's a need for configuration, there's probably also a better way to design the system, so that it's not necessary to have prefs. Your job as a developer is to figure that out. Imagine forcing every single user to individually figure what the best configuration is!
Of course that's for normal people. For GNU/Linux users, everything should be configurable. They like to tweak. Also it's good to have an expert configuration tool, even if the normal UI is simple, like the user.js prefs in Mozilla or the Terminal in Mac OS X
simon
This is really, really important in order to prevent barriers from preventing widespread adoption of VoIP. The major telcos are highly threatened by VoIP because it effectively eliminates their revenue from long-distance calling. The idea of this initiative is to make sure that VoIP calls are treated like any other data on the internet. The telcos would love to be able to prevent you from using VoIP and somehow be able to charge money for it.
I think that slashdotters know that eventually, the technology will win the war. So, it is better to get the right technology into the right hands now.
simon
It was a sad, sad day when Roddenbery died. The philosopher captain, the morality dilemmas, humans as good people free from conflict -- these were all the themes he wanted for TOS. They wanted a cowboy show but he still managed to get a black woman on the bridge, a russian, the incredible spock character, all kinds of examination of what it means to be human. He finally got what he wanted with TNG. The philosopher captain, the android struggling to be human, the moral dilemmas, the quest for understanding. These are all themes that came out from roddenbery.
/any/ other TV, /ever/ because no one else has been principled, visionary and good at producing TV at the same time.
People who think that these themes only developed after he died, should really go and watch Encounter at Farpoint again. After that, the series struggled for a while. It finally hit its stride in season 3, and 3 and 4 were the best. After his death, the loss of his vision was slow because is was imprinted on the cast crew writers etc. By the time it ended, I wasn't watching any more because the spirit was gone. Voyager made an attempt to revive it, well, they had a female captain, that's something but they never recaptured the spirit.
It was Roddenbery that made TOS, especially TNG, unlike
Use AxKit! You're selling yourself short if you start to develop a site without it. It's just the ideal way to get the whole separation of content and presentation thing that XML is supposed to be all about. It makes it dirt easy to store your content in XML, use XSLT for transformations and XSP for dynamic back-end processing. Check it out!
Also read this
simon
I recently decided to go with RNG for my schemas after reading up on W3C XML Schema (WXS) and Relax NG (RNG) . RNG is just so much easier to read and understand. The real clincher for me was the inability in WXS 1.0 to describe non-deterministic structures. I mean, give me a break. I can't allow people to put the elements in a different order? That's just lame.
What's more there's a fantastic tool dtdinst that converts DTDs into Relax NG. There's also tools to convert back and forth between WXS and RNG. So if I ever need to provide someone with a WXS schema I can just run it off automatically.
Now I'm working on a system using AxKit to parse out the RNG schema, generate HTML forms for completion, roundtrip the data back to the server, assemble an instance document using DOM and display it using XSLT and CSS. But that's another story. People who don't "get" XML should really check out AxKit.
simon
I would add an additional BSD-like clause that the name of the contributors cannot be used to promote the work:
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
I don't know why the CC people didn't include something like this.
VersionTracker doesn't have a setting for open source so that's why I put my open source project (FractalTreesX) on fresh meat as well.
1 48 43&db=macr ees/?topic_ id=98%2C100%2C80%2C71%2C901. com/fractaltrees/index.php
http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=
http://freshmeat.net/projects/fractalt
http://simonwoodside
it uses the (closed) cocoa API but I suppose that the GnuStep folks can start to mine the osx.freshmeat.net code for stuff to port if they want some apps, if it works on GnuStep then it's a fully open-source program all they way down.
However, most users (depends on the audience of course) aren't interested in security being interactive. They want it to be transparent just like all the other nuts and bolts. The only principle that really captures that idea is "path of least resistance".
/usually/ adding security makes things more difficult for the user. Security people like to add whiz-bang features that say HEY you're secure! Wow! Isn't that great! Click here, do this, type in that, blah blah blah.
No, you're wrong. The interaction is already taking place, the paper is about how to add security to those ALREADY EXISTING interactions!
I think that the problem that goes unstated is that
Because, sure, you want to know you're secure, right? Yeah, of course you need to know when you are, and when you are not.
So making it totally transparent is not some kind of simple answer. You always need the This Is Secure light or button or whatever like you point out.
simon
to get the degree so you can get a good job so you can get the pretty and vapid girl so...
;-)
My friend went to school to school to get her degree to get the job to get the hunky, vapid man. Just pointing out that you're a sexist pig, no flames please
Simon
I can't resist answering a question like this ... so many good reasons to read SciFi
:-)
My favorite: HHGTTG series. Douglas Adams, RIP. I was very, very sad the day he died. His writing was funny, witty, british, and he really "got" the whole absurdity of modern technology and science (the technology that represents humanity's ultimate triumph over itself
Also good: Dune. So internally consistent. So cleverly conceived. So rife with politics. Such a huge vision. I guess it's the size scope and breadth of vision that really wins this one.
The best: The Foundation series. Again with the internal consistency. This series really is the epitome of a massive internally consistent universe, a universe that isn't our own but could be. We can look at the characters and see how and why they do what they do, and then he shows us how it fits into the big picture. I learned so much from those books too. And of course, you can't forget Lije Bailey and R. Daneel Olivaw - the most human robot ever! I still feel a pang of emotion when reminded of that novel.
So, yes, great writing but also breadth and internal consistency of vision.
simon
"I don't think the oven stuff at the end would have made it into the article if this work was being done by a man."
I don't get it. Are you saying that men can't cook? That women can't be smart physicists and cook? That women can't be attractive and smart physicists?
What's sexist about featuring an attractive, cooking-metaphor-using woman who manages despite those barriers to also be a smart physicist?
simon
I wrote up the connection between Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara and University of Waterloo here.
So here we see the classic case of copy-protection idiocy. Sony believes their new discs (don't call it a CD, remember?) are going to stop piracy. But the whole scheme is built on sand. Sure, I got to get this wonderful key from them, but what does that key go into? Software. Can I hack the software so that it thinks it has the key when it doesn't? Yubetcha (OK, not me, but some smarts folks will do it ...) Does it matter that the DMCA makes that illegal? Not really ... the hackers will just go back underground like they did in the great copy-protection wars of circa 1985-95 (for games). Will palladium solve everything ? Er, not likely.
So what's the point?
simon
"The conventional music data on the CD used by audio devices is protected by SME's current anticopying technology that prevents the data from being replayed on a PC. Therefore, the new discs will not carry the CD logo, said Kiyono Yasunaga, an SME spokeswoman." ....therefore the new discs will not be CDs.
simon
Hmm... If the entire palladium paradigm is based on digital certificates authorizing this program and denying that other program...
Here is an example of how that paradigm breaks. Because under palladium, I don't get a choice, my computer decides what I can run and what I can't run for me. But if BigBrotherSoft in control of the palladium system screws up, and issues a certificate for buggy code, then suddenly I can no longer stop my own computer from running malicious code. Because apparently under palladium, my computer trusts BigBrotherSoft and doesn't trust me.
And then what does BigBrotherSoft do? If they say to my computer not to trust BigBrotherSoft, then who can it trust?
Doesn't sound like such a great idea to me...
simon
huh?
what's the connection?
... the connection between this story and another recent story ?????
/know/ that it's pointless. DRM tech doens't work, won't work, will never work.
Tech companies aren't "cooperating" because they
The only way DRM will ever work is as legislation, not technology.
Simon
... having a conversation with a pretty sharp friend of mine at school about all this crap about four years ago. It seemed to me as though all of these efforts to create copy-protection (the old name for DRM) were totally useless because you /can't/ protect the data. There's always a way around it. This is not encryption people. This is like saying "I want to give you something and not give you something at the same time." How the hell do you do that? You don't, that's how.
/somewhere/ ... so the best thing any programmers can do is just try to hide it through obfuscation. Since there is no REAL way to actually protect the data, instead we're going to be deluged with hare-brained schemes that just make it harder and harder for us to do what we want with our data.
... sure that might work, hypothetically. But I hope and pray that the public won't take it.
Consider watermarking. If I know there's a watermark in the data, I can fiddle it until I understand the watermark and remove it. Like other people have said, any decryption key has to be in memory
So, DRM == copy protection. Anyone else remember where copy-protection went with games and everything for the first 15 years of commercial software? More and more annoying, until finally the companies gave up. Same thing will happen with DRM unless the antagonists can learn from history.
As far as legislation, and "secure" platforms go
simon
Your server is fine. It's my brain that's been slashdotted.
The peercast web page says "To download the PeerCast source you must also agree to the following conditions..."
The GPL says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
The GPL also says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
So there's no problem. Move along.
"There are 250 Million blank CDRs and tapes bought and used this year for copying music in comparison to 213 Million prerecorded audio media. This means the owners are only being paid for 46 per cent of the musical content. For a comparison: In 1998 almost 90% of all audio media was paid for."
... finally they gave up (thank god) but guess what, the game companies are still here!
Well, that's great, but this statement is relevant only in a world where you expect owners to be paid for EVERY COPY EVER MADE. There's absolutely no proof that those CD-Rs are replacing CD purchases. You know, jolly gee whiz, maybe people are using them to replace music that _wouldn't_ever_have_had_ (bought/afforded) before.
Just because there is MORE music out "in total" there doesn't necessarily mean that people are BUYING LESS music.
This whole thing reminds me of all the shenanigans about people pirating games, game companies installing all kinds of "anti-piracy" measures which just lead to cracks
Simon
Well, there's a couple of ways to look at it. If you look at raw benchmarks on the kernel, IIRC linux is faster. By a lot in some places, not at all in other places, but overall.
... the biggest speedup was for people who've got the latest video chipsets with 32 or more begs of VRAM. I don't have that personally but the people who says "WOW 10.2 is so fast!" all seem to have the latest machines.
RAM has a big effect. Personally, I'm running 10.2 on a TiBook and the only time I notice it getting slow is when it starts hitting the swap file. That only happens when I run classic (almost never) or photoshop (well, rarely, because GraphicConverter is almost as good). I've only got 256 ram so I think I'm pretty behind in that regard.
Then there's the whole speedup in 10.2
File system performance improved dramatically with 10.2 I noticed. It used to take forever to rm -rf a few thousand files; now it's pretty quick, I haven't had to wait since I upgraded. That's nice.
Someone else brought up the whole issue of availability. The OS is responsive even when the spinning colour ball is going. That's just the local app being unresponsive. A lot of people don't realize you can just click to some other app and keep working until whatever is finished.
Internet Explorer is slow. But chimera is not slow. It's very fast. I'm not going back.
simon