You forgot Bird 4: whoever does this is tracked down, fined a huge amount of money and given a long jail sentence, and is hit with a civil suit or two from the users whose they machines they toasted.
I can understand your desire to demonstrate that quietly installing software like this will not be tolerated, but it's not really the Kazaa users' fault. All they've done is fail to read an EULA properly. If that were a crime, we'd all be in trouble...
I think i woul be interesting to mandatorily implant these in every citizen...I realise privacy advocates may find this a shocking and unpalatable notion
Privacy nothing, what about my rights over my own body? The privacy implications pale into insignificance compared to that.
Yes, that is how copyright law works, in this country, but you seem to be forgetting two things:
1) Most likely the original poster is an American 2) He's not discussing copyright, he's talking about the EULA that comes with "shared source" code
If the EULA to shared source (and I admit I've not read it) says something along the lines of "you are not permitted to use any knowledge gained from reading this source in any work of your own", then you are indeed screwed. If you work on anything similar to the code you've read, then you are breaking the terms of the EULA, as you cannot simply forget what you have read. It will always influence the code you write, at least in the short term. Microsoft doesn't have to (indeed, can't) go after you under copyright law, they'll use contract law.
The question as to whether such a clause in an EULA would be enforceable is another matter entirely. It also probably doesn't matter - I know I couldn't afford to argue the toss in court with Microsoft's lawyers.
Yes, popups are evil. What does that have to do with this article though?
Popup menus have nothing to do with opening new browser windows. In this context, "popup" menus means "menus like the context menu in desktop applications" (the one you get from right-clicking with the mouse). As such, "popup" is something of a misnomer, especially as it is so easily confused with popup window.
Other than that, I agree - browsers allowing sites to open new windows is a horrible usability no-no.
2) cpu power is not a concern 3) memory usage is not a concern
Try telling that to someone who's tearing their hair out at 8pm on a Friday trying to get something finished so that they can finally go home, only to have their underspecced machine grind to a halt as it swaps due to lack of RAM, and/or run at a snail's pace due to a slow CPU.
Admittedly, I'm speaking from the perspective of a programmer, but for me, resource usage is of paramount concern. My work must be finished on time, and I don't get paid overtime. "Sorry it's late, but my PC is too slow to run the software I use" is not something the client will accept if a deadline is missed.
Linux works just fine on my desktop, thank you very much, and frankly, that's the only one I care about.
I don't understand why the pro and anti linux on the desktop groups bother flaming each other. They're not going to convince anyone to change their minds. It just wastes time, effort, bandwidth and storage space, and needlessly gets people's backs up. Use what works for you; what do you care what other people use?
What doubts do you have? That's one of the central results of Special Relativity, and so far we have failed to disprove it. It is also used to predict the energy yield of nuclear reactions, where m is the "mass defect" - the difference in mass between the reactant(s) and the product(s).
Einstein had a hard time convincing people because relativity was so radically different from Newtonian mechanics. In fact, it was because of this that he did not receive the Nobel Prize for relativity - he got it for his work on the photo-electric effect. Relativity was simply too radical a departure from the accepted state of Physics.
noone understands why gravitation mass is the same as intertial mass
Strictly speaking, they are not the same. That's why the gravitational constant (G) exists - it's the "scaling factor" between inertial and gravitational mass. Hence, g = GMm/(r^2), not Mm/(r^2).
Inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent, which is very nearly what you said, and probably what you meant. That's the thing that noone understands. It is the only force that behaves like that, and also the only force that we have only seen one charge for (eg electrical charges come in positive and negative, magnetic charges come in north and south, etc). All mass attracts all other mass, there is not a different type of mass that repells "normal" mass, at least as far as we've been able to see. I find that as intriguing as the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.
Not the least of which is that the platform is visible to the occupant and causes disorientation.
Maybe I'm missing something, but can't you just create a windowless torus, spin it about an axis going through its centre perpendicular to the plane of the torus, and use the outer wall as the floor? (Pretty much how it was done in 2001, iirc).
There's no disorientation, as there's nothing visibly moving. Sure, if you think about it too hard, it might cause you a few conceptual problems, but surely no more so than thinking about people on the other side of a planet.
the moon is a shitload closer and we cant convince anyone to fork over funding to go back there
I'm hopeful about a Mars mission; after all, we've sent people to the Moon, and there are no more political points to be gained from doing so again. Mars, on the other hand, is another "Species First" thing - the first time a human being has set foot on another fully-fledged planet. I can see Bush now - "not only are we successfully waging war on terror and making the world a safer place, we're expanding our reach to the rest of the Solar System too, furthering the cause of all humankind. God Bless America!"
I just have to hope that he sees it that way, too, and not just as a waste of valuable dollars that could be better spent on expanding America's reach on this planet.
The upshot of this is that it requires a force to "push" something into this area of microgravity...You could get energy for free.
No, there is no need for an external force. The energy comes from the field that is responsible for the local reduction in the gravitational force. When an object enters it and gains energy, the field must somehow restore its energy level, or fade. That comes down to drawing more energy from whatever's powering it. Assuming the field is artificial, that will probably, ultimately, be an electrical supply of some sort - a battery will be drained, more coal will have to be burnt, whatever.
You're not gaining free energy (which is impossible, at least macroscopically, and for "long" periods of time), you're just changing its form.
Win98 was released in 1998, and so was designed for the hardware that was around then. This is 2002, 4 years later, so you should expect an OS/desktop shell (like Gnome and KDE) to be designed for the hardware that is commonplace now.
Taking into account Moore's Law, PCs are roughly 5 times the speed they were in '98, so to run an OS released this year "just fine", you'd want a machine around 1.33GHz (5 times the speed of your laptop). That's probably about the average that consumers are being told is the right speed for surfing the web at the moment...
Yes, it does suck that old hardware sometimes struggles with the latest software, but that's just the way it is. Owning a computer is like owning a car - you never stop spending money on it.
That said, I do feel your pain - my work machine is desperately slow, and it can be extremely frustrating.
Up to a point, true - but how many university machines have routable IP addresses? Home machines hanging off cable modems? xDSL? (Mine is routable) Machines at work (I was at my company over a year before we even had a firewall)? Even most ISPs (at least here in the UK) give each dial-up machine a real, routable IP address.
HTTP is indeed stateless - but that doesn't mean that a process checking page impressions (== perl script calls) for originating IP address can't work. Store IP address and account ID in another table in the db along with a timestamp, and check it each time a page is requested - job done. What does the statelessness of HTTP have to do with that?
That's reasonably easy to combat, if you don't mind a quick and dirty solution - have something make a note of the IP address used to access pages under that account. If it changes too rapidly, block it.
What constitutes "changing too rapidly" is pretty subjective, but one possibility is that pages are accessed using that login from 2 IP address within 10 minutes of each other. That would at least prevent people from distributing account info on the 'net, and would confine it to a few friends who even then have to either co-ordinate their browsing, or all have the same apparent IP address (ie be behind the same firewall/NATing router, etc)
Nothing too complicated or expensive about that, at least in its most basic form.
the privacy policy I made you sign said that I have the right to come to your house
That would probably never hold up in a court of law - don't forget, folks, that just because two people sign a contract doesn't make it legal. They have to be fair, too; if it's unfairly slanted in favour of one of the parties, a court can and will declare it void.
I was wondering about that "long-timers" line too, and was about to post a witty (yeah right) retort.
I got as far as "Hey, Office 97 is only 5.. years..." and realised that actually, that is a long time.
Damn I feel old (although getting 4 hours sleep because my daughter was up half the night with a cough isn't helping either - mind you, nor is having a daughter...)
I work at a web agency, and we've been putting Oracle dbs on Linux machines (generally dual processor boxes with a gig or so of RAM running RedHat) for at least a year and a half now, and it may be closer to two years. I can't comment on support levels, as that's not my department, but I've not heard of any problems. Our CTO used to work for Oracle, though, so that may help;-)
Not quite - most (if not all) hard drive manufacturers define megabyte as 1000*1000 bytes, gigabyte as 1000megabytes, etc.
(See, for example, the note on http://maxtor.com/products/diamondmax/diamondmaxpl us/QuickSpecs/42093.htm stating that "1GB = 1 billion bytes")
Therefore, in *this* case, 1TB = 1000GB = 1000000MB, which puts the price up a little (although not much, I'll admit:-) )
I later found out that it wouldn't automount my CD-ROM or floppy
This is a known problem, and is fixed in an update available either through the MandrakeUpdate tool, or in the updates dir of your favourite mirror site.
Beware, though, that if you do what I did and use the update tool to upgrade your kernel, you *will* have to fix some dangling symlinks in/boot and rerun lilo in order to have a bootable system. To be fair, the details of the update said not to use the tool, but to download the package, but the page it directed you to said to use the tool, so I did...:-)
I dislike HTML format mail, despite using clients that can read it. I dislike it for the following reasons:
1) It adds little or no value. Okay, so you feel that you can format the mail more readably using HTML. I find that I can make mails perfectly readable without it, so for me, it adds no value.
2) It wastes bandwidth. So what? I have a 10Mbps connection at work internally, with a 100Mbps connection to the outside world. At home, I have a 0.5Mbps ADSL conneciton, so what do I care? Well, email is the single biggest cause of traffic on the internet, beating web browsing, P2P apps, ftp, etc. If everyone sent all their mails in HTML, that amount of traffic would double or triple - HTML format mails tend to be two or three times the size of the equivalent plain text. That's simply a waste of bandwidth (given 1 above, which I know you disagree with)
3) Not all mail readers cope with HTML properly. This is a bigger concern for me - I'm afraid some of my friends use mail clients such as mutt, and so HTML mail is a hassle for them.
4) HTML spam is much worse than plain text spam. I always set my mail client to prefer plain text, because you can't embed cookies in URLs to images in plain text. Doing so in an HTML mail gives a clear indication that the mail address is valid (as the image has been requested, the mail has been recieved and read). I don't reply to spam for the same reason; let them think that there's no-one at the address, that the mail was just swallowed silently by a server somewhere.
5) I have a big, fast connection now, but I didn't two weeks ago. Until two weeks ago, i had a 33.6 dial up connection with 'phone charges per minute. HTML mails sucked then because they're bigger, and they almost invariably come with img tags. Unless you can set your client to download the images too *and* cache them sensibly, you have to go online to read the mail properly everytime you want to read it.
I could probably go on, but they're the 5 biggest reasons why I dislike HTML mail. That said, I do think that everyone should feel free to send mail in whatever format they want. Of course, everyone also has the right to request that people communicate with them in a different format. Kind of like if I started speaking Japanese to you - I'd expect you to ask me to speak English. (I don't speak Japanese, but you get my point)
Oh, and his mails don't croak Outlook Express, it just doesn't display them properly. For what it's worth, though, I just tried the "begin bug" in OE 5.5 and the mail displayed correctly, so it looks like it's been fixed.
I think that, providing Mono is a success, we'll see ".NET clean" versions of Office, etc running on Linux under Mono.
I'd be surprised if there weren't the odd little "foible", a la Office for Mac - sure, it worked, mostly, but it just wasn't as good as the "real" version. What it was, however, was a little extra incentive to Mac users to make their next purchase a PC + Windows, rather than a Mac. I think we'll see the same thing with Mono, ie Microsoft using it to tempt people "back to the fold".
Failing that, it will be another sale of Office, and Microsoft makes far more money from that than they do from selling their OS, especially as most people get Windows "free" with their PC and never actually buy it at full retail.
First off they come out with Windows 2000 which doesn't crash
It doesn't crash as often, and is a vast improvement over 98, but it does crash. Of course, this is a bog-standard Professional install with Service Packs 1 and 2 and a few fixes from Windows update applied, used mostly to play games, so YMMV. (In fact, once every few boots, it boots to a black screen and sits there indefinitely (this defined as being "beyond the limit of my patience", ie significantly longer than on a successful boot.)
To say that it doesn't crash at all, however, is as inaccurate as saying that Linux never crashes.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they must have heard of the great 'free software' hype or something.
More likely is that they're protecting themselves from accusations of copyright infringement for offering software for download at no cost...
Cheers,
Tim
What do they mean, Windows would be crippled? ;-)
Cheers,
Tim
You forgot Bird 4: whoever does this is tracked down, fined a huge amount of money and given a long jail sentence, and is hit with a civil suit or two from the users whose they machines they toasted.
I can understand your desire to demonstrate that quietly installing software like this will not be tolerated, but it's not really the Kazaa users' fault. All they've done is fail to read an EULA properly. If that were a crime, we'd all be in trouble...
Cheers,
Tim
I think i woul be interesting to mandatorily implant these in every citizen...I realise privacy advocates may find this a shocking and unpalatable notion
Privacy nothing, what about my rights over my own body? The privacy implications pale into insignificance compared to that.
Cheers,
Tim
Yes, that is how copyright law works, in this country, but you seem to be forgetting two things:
1) Most likely the original poster is an American
2) He's not discussing copyright, he's talking about the EULA that comes with "shared source" code
If the EULA to shared source (and I admit I've not read it) says something along the lines of "you are not permitted to use any knowledge gained from reading this source in any work of your own", then you are indeed screwed. If you work on anything similar to the code you've read, then you are breaking the terms of the EULA, as you cannot simply forget what you have read. It will always influence the code you write, at least in the short term. Microsoft doesn't have to (indeed, can't) go after you under copyright law, they'll use contract law.
The question as to whether such a clause in an EULA would be enforceable is another matter entirely. It also probably doesn't matter - I know I couldn't afford to argue the toss in court with Microsoft's lawyers.
Cheers,
Tim
Yes, popups are evil. What does that have to do with this article though?
Popup menus have nothing to do with opening new browser windows. In this context, "popup" menus means "menus like the context menu in desktop applications" (the one you get from right-clicking with the mouse). As such, "popup" is something of a misnomer, especially as it is so easily confused with popup window.
Other than that, I agree - browsers allowing sites to open new windows is a horrible usability no-no.
Cheers,
Tim
2) cpu power is not a concern
3) memory usage is not a concern
Try telling that to someone who's tearing their hair out at 8pm on a Friday trying to get something finished so that they can finally go home, only to have their underspecced machine grind to a halt as it swaps due to lack of RAM, and/or run at a snail's pace due to a slow CPU.
Admittedly, I'm speaking from the perspective of a programmer, but for me, resource usage is of paramount concern. My work must be finished on time, and I don't get paid overtime. "Sorry it's late, but my PC is too slow to run the software I use" is not something the client will accept if a deadline is missed.
Cheers,
Tim
Wake up to what reality?
Linux works just fine on my desktop, thank you very much, and frankly, that's the only one I care about.
I don't understand why the pro and anti linux on the desktop groups bother flaming each other. They're not going to convince anyone to change their minds. It just wastes time, effort, bandwidth and storage space, and needlessly gets people's backs up. Use what works for you; what do you care what other people use?
Cheers,
Tim
I have serious concerns against that theory.
What doubts do you have? That's one of the central results of Special Relativity, and so far we have failed to disprove it. It is also used to predict the energy yield of nuclear reactions, where m is the "mass defect" - the difference in mass between the reactant(s) and the product(s).
Einstein had a hard time convincing people because relativity was so radically different from Newtonian mechanics. In fact, it was because of this that he did not receive the Nobel Prize for relativity - he got it for his work on the photo-electric effect. Relativity was simply too radical a departure from the accepted state of Physics.
Cheers,
Tim
noone understands why gravitation mass is the same as intertial mass
Strictly speaking, they are not the same. That's why the gravitational constant (G) exists - it's the "scaling factor" between inertial and gravitational mass. Hence, g = GMm/(r^2), not Mm/(r^2).
Inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent, which is very nearly what you said, and probably what you meant. That's the thing that noone understands. It is the only force that behaves like that, and also the only force that we have only seen one charge for (eg electrical charges come in positive and negative, magnetic charges come in north and south, etc). All mass attracts all other mass, there is not a different type of mass that repells "normal" mass, at least as far as we've been able to see. I find that as intriguing as the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.
Cheers,
Tim
Not the least of which is that the platform is visible to the occupant and causes disorientation.
Maybe I'm missing something, but can't you just create a windowless torus, spin it about an axis going through its centre perpendicular to the plane of the torus, and use the outer wall as the floor? (Pretty much how it was done in 2001, iirc).
There's no disorientation, as there's nothing visibly moving. Sure, if you think about it too hard, it might cause you a few conceptual problems, but surely no more so than thinking about people on the other side of a planet.
the moon is a shitload closer and we cant convince anyone to fork over funding to go back there
I'm hopeful about a Mars mission; after all, we've sent people to the Moon, and there are no more political points to be gained from doing so again. Mars, on the other hand, is another "Species First" thing - the first time a human being has set foot on another fully-fledged planet. I can see Bush now - "not only are we successfully waging war on terror and making the world a safer place, we're expanding our reach to the rest of the Solar System too, furthering the cause of all humankind. God Bless America!"
I just have to hope that he sees it that way, too, and not just as a waste of valuable dollars that could be better spent on expanding America's reach on this planet.
Cheers,
Tim
The upshot of this is that it requires a force to "push" something into this area of microgravity...You could get energy for free.
No, there is no need for an external force. The energy comes from the field that is responsible for the local reduction in the gravitational force. When an object enters it and gains energy, the field must somehow restore its energy level, or fade. That comes down to drawing more energy from whatever's powering it. Assuming the field is artificial, that will probably, ultimately, be an electrical supply of some sort - a battery will be drained, more coal will have to be burnt, whatever.
You're not gaining free energy (which is impossible, at least macroscopically, and for "long" periods of time), you're just changing its form.
Cheers,
Tim
My PII266mhz/96MB/Voodoo3 runs Win98 just fine
Win98 was released in 1998, and so was designed for the hardware that was around then. This is 2002, 4 years later, so you should expect an OS/desktop shell (like Gnome and KDE) to be designed for the hardware that is commonplace now.
Taking into account Moore's Law, PCs are roughly 5 times the speed they were in '98, so to run an OS released this year "just fine", you'd want a machine around 1.33GHz (5 times the speed of your laptop). That's probably about the average that consumers are being told is the right speed for surfing the web at the moment...
Yes, it does suck that old hardware sometimes struggles with the latest software, but that's just the way it is. Owning a computer is like owning a car - you never stop spending money on it.
That said, I do feel your pain - my work machine is desperately slow, and it can be extremely frustrating.
Cheers,
Tim
Up to a point, true - but how many university machines have routable IP addresses? Home machines hanging off cable modems? xDSL? (Mine is routable) Machines at work (I was at my company over a year before we even had a firewall)? Even most ISPs (at least here in the UK) give each dial-up machine a real, routable IP address.
HTTP is indeed stateless - but that doesn't mean that a process checking page impressions (== perl script calls) for originating IP address can't work. Store IP address and account ID in another table in the db along with a timestamp, and check it each time a page is requested - job done. What does the statelessness of HTTP have to do with that?
Cheers,
Tim
That's reasonably easy to combat, if you don't mind a quick and dirty solution - have something make a note of the IP address used to access pages under that account. If it changes too rapidly, block it.
What constitutes "changing too rapidly" is pretty subjective, but one possibility is that pages are accessed using that login from 2 IP address within 10 minutes of each other. That would at least prevent people from distributing account info on the 'net, and would confine it to a few friends who even then have to either co-ordinate their browsing, or all have the same apparent IP address (ie be behind the same firewall/NATing router, etc)
Nothing too complicated or expensive about that, at least in its most basic form.
Cheers,
Tim
the privacy policy I made you sign said that I have the right to come to your house
That would probably never hold up in a court of law - don't forget, folks, that just because two people sign a contract doesn't make it legal. They have to be fair, too; if it's unfairly slanted in favour of one of the parties, a court can and will declare it void.
Cheers,
Tim
I was wondering about that "long-timers" line too, and was about to post a witty (yeah right) retort.
I got as far as "Hey, Office 97 is only 5.. years..." and realised that actually, that is a long time.
Damn I feel old (although getting 4 hours sleep because my daughter was up half the night with a cough isn't helping either - mind you, nor is having a daughter...)
Cheers,
Tim
Every time I fear I may be in danger of becoming too geeky, someone somewhere demonstrates that I have absolutely nothing to worry about ;-)
Cheers,
Tim
Indeed.
;-)
I work at a web agency, and we've been putting Oracle dbs on Linux machines (generally dual processor boxes with a gig or so of RAM running RedHat) for at least a year and a half now, and it may be closer to two years. I can't comment on support levels, as that's not my department, but I've not heard of any problems. Our CTO used to work for Oracle, though, so that may help
Cheers,
Tim
Not quite - most (if not all) hard drive manufacturers define megabyte as 1000*1000 bytes, gigabyte as 1000megabytes, etc.l us/QuickSpecs/42093.htm stating that "1GB = 1 billion bytes")
:-) )
(See, for example, the note on http://maxtor.com/products/diamondmax/diamondmaxp
Therefore, in *this* case, 1TB = 1000GB = 1000000MB, which puts the price up a little (although not much, I'll admit
Cheers,
Tim
I later found out that it wouldn't automount my CD-ROM or floppy
/boot and rerun lilo in order to have a bootable system. To be fair, the details of the update said not to use the tool, but to download the package, but the page it directed you to said to use the tool, so I did... :-)
This is a known problem, and is fixed in an update available either through the MandrakeUpdate tool, or in the updates dir of your favourite mirror site.
Beware, though, that if you do what I did and use the update tool to upgrade your kernel, you *will* have to fix some dangling symlinks in
Cheers,
Tim
displayed correctly...
Of course, it may just be my natural talent for failing to reproduce bugs kicking in (if you can't reproduce it, they can't make you fix it
Cheers,
Tim
I dislike HTML format mail, despite using clients that can read it. I dislike it for the following reasons:
1) It adds little or no value. Okay, so you feel that you can format the mail more readably using HTML. I find that I can make mails perfectly readable without it, so for me, it adds no value.
2) It wastes bandwidth. So what? I have a 10Mbps connection at work internally, with a 100Mbps connection to the outside world. At home, I have a 0.5Mbps ADSL conneciton, so what do I care? Well, email is the single biggest cause of traffic on the internet, beating web browsing, P2P apps, ftp, etc. If everyone sent all their mails in HTML, that amount of traffic would double or triple - HTML format mails tend to be two or three times the size of the equivalent plain text. That's simply a waste of bandwidth (given 1 above, which I know you disagree with)
3) Not all mail readers cope with HTML properly. This is a bigger concern for me - I'm afraid some of my friends use mail clients such as mutt, and so HTML mail is a hassle for them.
4) HTML spam is much worse than plain text spam. I always set my mail client to prefer plain text, because you can't embed cookies in URLs to images in plain text. Doing so in an HTML mail gives a clear indication that the mail address is valid (as the image has been requested, the mail has been recieved and read). I don't reply to spam for the same reason; let them think that there's no-one at the address, that the mail was just swallowed silently by a server somewhere.
5) I have a big, fast connection now, but I didn't two weeks ago. Until two weeks ago, i had a 33.6 dial up connection with 'phone charges per minute. HTML mails sucked then because they're bigger, and they almost invariably come with img tags. Unless you can set your client to download the images too *and* cache them sensibly, you have to go online to read the mail properly everytime you want to read it.
I could probably go on, but they're the 5 biggest reasons why I dislike HTML mail. That said, I do think that everyone should feel free to send mail in whatever format they want. Of course, everyone also has the right to request that people communicate with them in a different format. Kind of like if I started speaking Japanese to you - I'd expect you to ask me to speak English. (I don't speak Japanese, but you get my point)
Oh, and his mails don't croak Outlook Express, it just doesn't display them properly. For what it's worth, though, I just tried the "begin bug" in OE 5.5 and the mail displayed correctly, so it looks like it's been fixed.
Cheers,
Tim
Personally, I think you're right.
I think that, providing Mono is a success, we'll see ".NET clean" versions of Office, etc running on Linux under Mono.
I'd be surprised if there weren't the odd little "foible", a la Office for Mac - sure, it worked, mostly, but it just wasn't as good as the "real" version. What it was, however, was a little extra incentive to Mac users to make their next purchase a PC + Windows, rather than a Mac. I think we'll see the same thing with Mono, ie Microsoft using it to tempt people "back to the fold".
Failing that, it will be another sale of Office, and Microsoft makes far more money from that than they do from selling their OS, especially as most people get Windows "free" with their PC and never actually buy it at full retail.
Cheers,
Tim
First off they come out with Windows 2000 which doesn't crash
It doesn't crash as often, and is a vast improvement over 98, but it does crash. Of course, this is a bog-standard Professional install with Service Packs 1 and 2 and a few fixes from Windows update applied, used mostly to play games, so YMMV. (In fact, once every few boots, it boots to a black screen and sits there indefinitely (this defined as being "beyond the limit of my patience", ie significantly longer than on a successful boot.)
To say that it doesn't crash at all, however, is as inaccurate as saying that Linux never crashes.
Cheers,
Tim