Either the editors read your comment (and I've been struck by lightning), or you're just a good prognosticator. They did post an article about the new clustering Xserve sometime after your post.
We tried that. Every time, with only one exception, they failed to follow the directions, exacerbated the situation, lied to us, and in the end resulted in several hours of down time.
Its a very difficult battle, compounded by the fact that many of us don't want to sell them our server hosting services because the system administrators don't want to do more than the bare minium, and lean on the developers for anything more complicated than basic system installation and maintenance. Oh, and should I mention that routinely screw the servers up and lie to us? The best part is their boss is employee of the year. Gotta love it around here.
Normally, I would never make the recommendation to a system administrator not to run the lockdown tool, but a lot of our clients are folks who were put into the job of sys admin because noone else in the financial institution wanted it. A lot of these people earn barely above minimum wage, and are not competent for the job.
I'm not apologizing for my employer's decisions, just explaining them. It is for this, and many other reasons, I would never put my money in the hands of any of our clients.
Not to be judgemental, but you seem to be determined to throw around an arrogant attitude in this thread.
if this is where you come to get a heads up with what's happening in the security arena, you need to try harder.
This is not my only source of news and information on security issues. In this instance, I caught the news about this exploit here before I checked other sites before going home for the night.
Slashdot publishes articles about major security holes discovered in Apache, Sendmail, and IIS. Immature MS bashing aside, IIS security holes get a lot of notice because they affect a considerable number of users. In my job I've seen client systems exploited heavily by the Code Red, Nimda, and Sadmind worms, amongst others. This affects many of the professionals who read this site. It doesn't matter where I, or others, heard of this information-we got it, and we're acting on it, as quickly as we can. My development server is patched, and every server running in this building will be patched by nights end.
Frankly sir, you sound like a Monday morning quarter back.
Why would you run a IIS server without using the lockdown utility??
Good point. However, my company advises our clients against running it, mainly because their sysadmins are...not well versed in the arts of running a windows web server. The default configuration for the lockdown tool shuts down everything except for HTML. That includes the ASP engine, which our product requires. If the sysadmin spends a few minutes to go through the list of what to disable and what not to, they're fine.
Sadly, our clients just blindly run it and then panic when the whole site ceases functioning. Usually they delete the lockdown tool (instead of reversing the changes, which you would know you could do if you read the documentation-they don't), and then call us and claim "It just stopped working! We didn't change anything!". A little later, we find out what they really did and fix things. In the end, we've found its better to just tell them to disable what they don't need by hand based upon documentation we provide, and avoid the whole problem with the lockdown tool.
Why post it here? Because a number of us work in Microsoft houses. This bug is going to make things a nightmare, because our clients rarely, if ever, bother to install any security patches. Code Red and Nimda were a nightmare to deal with. This affects many of the professionals who read this site substantially, and certainly qualifies as news. I heard about this from slashdot before anyone else did in the company.
I'm surprised you only know one developer who has used Linux. For example, I work in a financial services corporation. Currently, all of our client side products are windows based (including our home banking application). Our host software runs on VMS. Speaking for my team of 10 developers alone, half of us have either worked in a linux environment in our careers, or we run it at home. I've been using Linux personally for over seven years now. Several of us are picking up macs because they're just a better end-user Unix than Linux is.
Maybe I'm in a microcosm here. We are using Linux for proof of concept projects, and we're working to convince management to go with a cross platform strategy for our home banking software over the current ASP implementation.
The biggest hurdle Linux, and any non-MS operating system, has is convincing people that it is worth their time to learn another system. Many people don't seem to realize that even if you never use the system professionally, there are technologies available that will help you better understand your trade. I don't know how many times I've heard developers say, "I make my living with Windows, so I won't speak against it, or waste my time on another system." That makes as much sense as the people who learn one language and refuse to learn any others.
If we apply the legal standard of the country, which you appear to be doing, then Korea, Vietnam, and the our first conflict with Iraq were not wars, either. Just because congress hasn't officially declared war does not make this any less of a war.
In answer to the question of how we declare victory in this war: that is a difficult question, one I haven't fully answered for myself. The death of every Al Qaeda member? The death of every member of every terrorist organisation who is active against the United States? Merely breaking these groups? The big issue here, and we're facing this right now, is dealing with state sponsors of terrorism (Iraq does qualify, especially in the case of Pallestinian suicide bombers-but so does Saudi Arabia, an issue we will have to address). This is a difficult war because we aren't up against just one or two countries-we're up against numerous sub-national groups spread across the world.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, this man is accused of having joined an enemy military against the United States during a time of war. He actively conspired to kill Americans. According to US law (look at a passport), you lose your citizenship when you join an enemy military. He did so, and frankly is only guaranteed the rights of a captured soldier. Not only that, when he was captured he was not in a uniform (and with the money for bomb on him). The military is permitted, under international law, to execute him for spying.
This man should be stripped of all rights as a US citizenship, appropriately tried by the military, and either executed or imprisoned for a damned long time. This has happened in the past with other American citizens who turned on this country during war, and for good reason-other comments on this article cite examples.
This is war, people. Get it straight. Find a worthy cause for your ire.
People used to complain about how buggy IE was, but when finally Netscape's code was released for Mozilla turned out it was no better. So much so that Mozilla had to discard Netscape's code.
I really wouldn't hold up Netscape as any sort of an example for good software development, unless you're trying to show people how software shouldn't be developed by a business. Their model of letting the user base do most of the testing (with their continuous stream of beta and "stable" releases), combined with their habit of scotch taping features into the code wherever it seemed to work, resulted in a less than stellar code base. In some ways its amazing that they managed to keep the code stable for as long as they did.
I vaguely recall a story about this on 3-2-1 Contact way back in the day. It was a weird combination of wow and gross. I also remember getting into trouble with one teacher the next day because I mentioned it. Apparently, she thought manure was a bad word for a 3rd grader to know.
I wonder how my grandparents would have reacted to that one, they owned a farm.
Rest of the gaming industry? From my viewpoint it was Carmack alone.
Incorrect. There were a number of developers who agreed with Carmack, not the least of them Chris Hecker.
OpenGL certainly wasnt (and still isnt in many cases) faster on consumer level cards.
This was not the point of the developer's complaint with Direct3D. The problem with Direct3D was (from what I've heard things have gotten better, but I have little use for D3D these days) development speed. It typically took an order of magnitude more code to implement the same feature (such as, say, rendering a triangle) in D3D as it does in OpenGL. Anyone out there remember the difficulty of getting geometric operations functional in D3D? This was built in from day one in OpenGL, so OpenGL apps used the GPU without modification? Microsoft missed the point of the argument as well, and publicly embarassed themselves when they paid an intern to write an OpenGL wrapper for Direct3D to show that GLQuake ran just as fast through D3D as OpenGL. Sure, it was the same speed-but that wasn't the point!
Direct3D was developed alongside consumer level hardware supporting features that actually exist, OpenGL was designed on paper.
And so, unlike OpenGL, requires additional effort to grow the design for new hardware. I would far rather be able to let the library figure out what can work and what doesn't than having a half dozen code paths to handle all of the various hardware out there. D3D at the time (version 3 and 5 era), did not grow well for new features, and made code maintenance a nightmare for a large project. Also, OpenGL was designed by people who had a great deal of experience in graphics software development-DirectX (and Direct3D especially) was designed by people who openly admitted to having limited experience in graphics and game development. Hence the numerous complaints with the design.
By and large 3D gaming was being written for glide, and developers absolutely loved an open api specifically targetted for game development.
Glide was a nice library, for the time. There were a couple downsides to it, however: 1) it was only for 3Dfx hardware. This didn't win over the portability benefits of OpenGL. 2) It was designed for the hardware of the time. Like D3D, it didn't always expand well, although it was far better designed. Also, I really wouldn't consider it any more "open" than D3D, as there was no standards body beyond 3Dfx.
Its not "more important"-for many of us building a product that people actually want to use is very rewarding. I can tell you from my own experience that there is nothing more boring and draining than spending months on end fixing unending bugs without writing something new to break the tedium. Feeling like there is no end in sight and you are fighting an unwinable battle is draining for everyone, not just programmers. At times like that I've been thankful for even a day where I could get something new written.
That's one of the reasons why we see a lot of turnover in support. All those folks ever hear is negative news. And then they get their raises.
I'll take an axe to the flashing red light hanging right over developers so everyone knows a client site is down. Even though all of the developers who can do anything about it are already involved in fixing the problem.
This was management's brilliant idea for showing that we're "doing something". All it really did was piss off all of the developers by telling the world we need a red light to do our jobs.
I don't know if this is common parlance, but during meetings if something comes up that is not directly on topic, they'll say "Lets discuss this off line." That means "We'll talk about it later." This wouldn't drive us nuts if it was during phone conferences, but I've even had managers use this during informal design discussions. Utterly bizarre.
for why I take dead hard drives to a friend's range and shoot them. Of course, its really just have some fun (hard drives explode quite nicely, especially if you hit the magnets). I would love to see someone reconstruct much of anything on a hard drive I've put 50 rounds of.30-06 through.
I've written the software to generate the QFX file and transmit it to the client system. As long as your browser has been configured correctly for the MIME type (application/vnd.intu.QFX), your browser should be able to pipe the data to Quicken. It sounds like your bank either did not set the MIME type in the script, or your browser didn't have the appropriate entries to pass data of that type to Quicken.
QFX (really OFX) is platform independent. The tech rep was lying to you.
The QFX file format is a standard implementation of OFX. For those not in the know, OFX (Open Financial eXchange) is an XML standard for financial data exchange. This is supported by a number of third party financial software providers (including my glorious employer). If your bank doesn't have OFX support, then you're pretty much up a creek. QIF, Intuit's older data format, is pretty much dead now. I don't know if they still support it, but from what I've been told support is sunsetting rapidly.
I don't know who told you that no banks support QFX/OFX for non-windows platforms, it is a platform independent standard. Unless, of course, your bank purchased a windows/IE specific solution. I know our software does work on mac versions of Quicken (I wrote it), and if they follow the intuit example code it is trivial to write.
The OFX standard, including the DTD, can be found here
Amazing repost. Well thought out, with intelligence flowing from every letter.
If you were responding to my comment on Mumps, I would hope that you have at least seen the language. It was a decent language for the needs of its time (circa 1966 if memory serves), however the syntax of the language has led to decades of cryptic, obfuscated language. The only data type of the language is the string, which endows the language with considerable power for database applications. However, the language syntax, coupled with its interpreted heritage, encourages incredibly cryptic code. My employer has well over thirty years of Mumps code driving their database product, and the language's problems have lead to no end of headaches.
If, however, your comment was in response to my comment on the syntax of Water, in my view the language forces the programmer to write considerably more code to do the same job as other languages. In my view, this is not a step forward. A good, well designed language, should work to improve on the effort of previous languages without forgetting the lessons learned from them. This language does not, in my opinion, do so.
This was an interesting effort, particularly given the bifurcation of languages we have seen for internet development. However, they would have paid themselves signficant dividends by considering another path that did not tie their syntax to the SGML heritage. It was good for data presentation, but in my experience it does not expand well to solve other problems.
I stand by my comment on the readability of Water code and the maintenance issues of the language. I work with a number of programmers whose job security is derived from the poor quality code they have produced. It is bad enough that we have professional C++ programmers who are allowed (by their employers) to produce almost entirely unmaintainable code. The situation is compounded by creating a language that serves to make this easier.
Only thing I have to say is, now I have to type twice the keystrokes to get half the work done? And, the language forces me to generate code that is difficult to read at a glance? Where do I sign up? Talk about job security in a language! Only thing better is Mumps!
Fantastic. I write home banking software for a living, and this is just going to drive us up a wall. Not to get on a high horse (our code is far from perfect, for a variety of reasons, but I'm going to say this anyway), but this version of Mozilla should not have been released with this bug. I don't know what other issues exist in Mozilla, but announcing a major release with a bug that has a significant negative impact upon users was not a wise decision. (Not being able to fully use secure sites properly is a serious loss of functionality.) I hope they fix this soon, but I have no doubt I'm going to be barraged with calls about this before too long.
If you want Open Source development to be taken seriously, then you can not afford to release code with known failures of this significance. This only serves to erode the trust of users.
Slashdot Mirror
Either the editors read your comment (and I've been struck by lightning), or you're just a good prognosticator. They did post an article about the new clustering Xserve sometime after your post.
Do you have any good lottery numbers?
We tried that. Every time, with only one exception, they failed to follow the directions, exacerbated the situation, lied to us, and in the end resulted in several hours of down time.
Its a very difficult battle, compounded by the fact that many of us don't want to sell them our server hosting services because the system administrators don't want to do more than the bare minium, and lean on the developers for anything more complicated than basic system installation and maintenance. Oh, and should I mention that routinely screw the servers up and lie to us? The best part is their boss is employee of the year. Gotta love it around here.
Normally, I would never make the recommendation to a system administrator not to run the lockdown tool, but a lot of our clients are folks who were put into the job of sys admin because noone else in the financial institution wanted it. A lot of these people earn barely above minimum wage, and are not competent for the job.
I'm not apologizing for my employer's decisions, just explaining them. It is for this, and many other reasons, I would never put my money in the hands of any of our clients.
Not to sound insulting
Not to be judgemental, but you seem to be determined to throw around an arrogant attitude in this thread.
if this is where you come to get a heads up with what's happening in the security arena, you need to try harder.
This is not my only source of news and information on security issues. In this instance, I caught the news about this exploit here before I checked other sites before going home for the night.
Slashdot publishes articles about major security holes discovered in Apache, Sendmail, and IIS. Immature MS bashing aside, IIS security holes get a lot of notice because they affect a considerable number of users. In my job I've seen client systems exploited heavily by the Code Red, Nimda, and Sadmind worms, amongst others. This affects many of the professionals who read this site. It doesn't matter where I, or others, heard of this information-we got it, and we're acting on it, as quickly as we can. My development server is patched, and every server running in this building will be patched by nights end.
Frankly sir, you sound like a Monday morning quarter back.
Why would you run a IIS server without using the lockdown utility??
Good point. However, my company advises our clients against running it, mainly because their sysadmins are...not well versed in the arts of running a windows web server. The default configuration for the lockdown tool shuts down everything except for HTML. That includes the ASP engine, which our product requires. If the sysadmin spends a few minutes to go through the list of what to disable and what not to, they're fine.
Sadly, our clients just blindly run it and then panic when the whole site ceases functioning. Usually they delete the lockdown tool (instead of reversing the changes, which you would know you could do if you read the documentation-they don't), and then call us and claim "It just stopped working! We didn't change anything!". A little later, we find out what they really did and fix things. In the end, we've found its better to just tell them to disable what they don't need by hand based upon documentation we provide, and avoid the whole problem with the lockdown tool.
Why post it here? Because a number of us work in Microsoft houses. This bug is going to make things a nightmare, because our clients rarely, if ever, bother to install any security patches. Code Red and Nimda were a nightmare to deal with. This affects many of the professionals who read this site substantially, and certainly qualifies as news. I heard about this from slashdot before anyone else did in the company.
I'm surprised you only know one developer who has used Linux. For example, I work in a financial services corporation. Currently, all of our client side products are windows based (including our home banking application). Our host software runs on VMS. Speaking for my team of 10 developers alone, half of us have either worked in a linux environment in our careers, or we run it at home. I've been using Linux personally for over seven years now. Several of us are picking up macs because they're just a better end-user Unix than Linux is.
Maybe I'm in a microcosm here. We are using Linux for proof of concept projects, and we're working to convince management to go with a cross platform strategy for our home banking software over the current ASP implementation.
The biggest hurdle Linux, and any non-MS operating system, has is convincing people that it is worth their time to learn another system. Many people don't seem to realize that even if you never use the system professionally, there are technologies available that will help you better understand your trade. I don't know how many times I've heard developers say, "I make my living with Windows, so I won't speak against it, or waste my time on another system." That makes as much sense as the people who learn one language and refuse to learn any others.
If we apply the legal standard of the country, which you appear to be doing, then Korea, Vietnam, and the our first conflict with Iraq were not wars, either. Just because congress hasn't officially declared war does not make this any less of a war.
In answer to the question of how we declare victory in this war: that is a difficult question, one I haven't fully answered for myself. The death of every Al Qaeda member? The death of every member of every terrorist organisation who is active against the United States? Merely breaking these groups? The big issue here, and we're facing this right now, is dealing with state sponsors of terrorism (Iraq does qualify, especially in the case of Pallestinian suicide bombers-but so does Saudi Arabia, an issue we will have to address). This is a difficult war because we aren't up against just one or two countries-we're up against numerous sub-national groups spread across the world.
Here goes the karma.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, this man is accused of having joined an enemy military against the United States during a time of war. He actively conspired to kill Americans. According to US law (look at a passport), you lose your citizenship when you join an enemy military. He did so, and frankly is only guaranteed the rights of a captured soldier. Not only that, when he was captured he was not in a uniform (and with the money for bomb on him). The military is permitted, under international law, to execute him for spying.
This man should be stripped of all rights as a US citizenship, appropriately tried by the military, and either executed or imprisoned for a damned long time. This has happened in the past with other American citizens who turned on this country during war, and for good reason-other comments on this article cite examples.
This is war, people. Get it straight. Find a worthy cause for your ire.
People used to complain about how buggy IE was, but when finally Netscape's code was released for Mozilla turned out it was no better. So much so that Mozilla had to discard Netscape's code.
I really wouldn't hold up Netscape as any sort of an example for good software development, unless you're trying to show people how software shouldn't be developed by a business. Their model of letting the user base do most of the testing (with their continuous stream of beta and "stable" releases), combined with their habit of scotch taping features into the code wherever it seemed to work, resulted in a less than stellar code base. In some ways its amazing that they managed to keep the code stable for as long as they did.
I vaguely recall a story about this on 3-2-1 Contact way back in the day. It was a weird combination of wow and gross. I also remember getting into trouble with one teacher the next day because I mentioned it. Apparently, she thought manure was a bad word for a 3rd grader to know.
I wonder how my grandparents would have reacted to that one, they owned a farm.
We've not had a switcher/MS-bashing/Apple rules/etc. article in a little while, so here you are.
Either you're being sarcastic, or you haven't been reading the replies in every Apple related article lately...
Rest of the gaming industry? From my viewpoint it was Carmack alone.
Incorrect. There were a number of developers who agreed with Carmack, not the least of them Chris Hecker.
OpenGL certainly wasnt (and still isnt in many cases) faster on consumer level cards.
This was not the point of the developer's complaint with Direct3D. The problem with Direct3D was (from what I've heard things have gotten better, but I have little use for D3D these days) development speed. It typically took an order of magnitude more code to implement the same feature (such as, say, rendering a triangle) in D3D as it does in OpenGL. Anyone out there remember the difficulty of getting geometric operations functional in D3D? This was built in from day one in OpenGL, so OpenGL apps used the GPU without modification? Microsoft missed the point of the argument as well, and publicly embarassed themselves when they paid an intern to write an OpenGL wrapper for Direct3D to show that GLQuake ran just as fast through D3D as OpenGL. Sure, it was the same speed-but that wasn't the point!
Direct3D was developed alongside consumer level hardware supporting features that actually exist, OpenGL was designed on paper.
And so, unlike OpenGL, requires additional effort to grow the design for new hardware. I would far rather be able to let the library figure out what can work and what doesn't than having a half dozen code paths to handle all of the various hardware out there. D3D at the time (version 3 and 5 era), did not grow well for new features, and made code maintenance a nightmare for a large project. Also, OpenGL was designed by people who had a great deal of experience in graphics software development-DirectX (and Direct3D especially) was designed by people who openly admitted to having limited experience in graphics and game development. Hence the numerous complaints with the design.
By and large 3D gaming was being written for glide, and developers absolutely loved an open api specifically targetted for game development.
Glide was a nice library, for the time. There were a couple downsides to it, however: 1) it was only for 3Dfx hardware. This didn't win over the portability benefits of OpenGL. 2) It was designed for the hardware of the time. Like D3D, it didn't always expand well, although it was far better designed. Also, I really wouldn't consider it any more "open" than D3D, as there was no standards body beyond 3Dfx.
Its not "more important"-for many of us building a product that people actually want to use is very rewarding. I can tell you from my own experience that there is nothing more boring and draining than spending months on end fixing unending bugs without writing something new to break the tedium. Feeling like there is no end in sight and you are fighting an unwinable battle is draining for everyone, not just programmers. At times like that I've been thankful for even a day where I could get something new written.
That's one of the reasons why we see a lot of turnover in support. All those folks ever hear is negative news. And then they get their raises.
mumble mumble...correcting me...I'll burn the place down...
I'll take an axe to the flashing red light hanging right over developers so everyone knows a client site is down. Even though all of the developers who can do anything about it are already involved in fixing the problem.
This was management's brilliant idea for showing that we're "doing something". All it really did was piss off all of the developers by telling the world we need a red light to do our jobs.
I actually work at a company that developes software for credit unions. Office Space is terrifying in how accurate it is to this place.
I keep wondering if Matt Judge worked here at some point. I'm just glad noone here has a red stapler.
I don't know if this is common parlance, but during meetings if something comes up that is not directly on topic, they'll say "Lets discuss this off line." That means "We'll talk about it later." This wouldn't drive us nuts if it was during phone conferences, but I've even had managers use this during informal design discussions. Utterly bizarre.
for why I take dead hard drives to a friend's range and shoot them. Of course, its really just have some fun (hard drives explode quite nicely, especially if you hit the magnets). I would love to see someone reconstruct much of anything on a hard drive I've put 50 rounds of .30-06 through.
I've written the software to generate the QFX file and transmit it to the client system. As long as your browser has been configured correctly for the MIME type (application/vnd.intu.QFX), your browser should be able to pipe the data to Quicken. It sounds like your bank either did not set the MIME type in the script, or your browser didn't have the appropriate entries to pass data of that type to Quicken.
QFX (really OFX) is platform independent. The tech rep was lying to you.
The QFX file format is a standard implementation of OFX. For those not in the know, OFX (Open Financial eXchange) is an XML standard for financial data exchange. This is supported by a number of third party financial software providers (including my glorious employer). If your bank doesn't have OFX support, then you're pretty much up a creek. QIF, Intuit's older data format, is pretty much dead now. I don't know if they still support it, but from what I've been told support is sunsetting rapidly.
I don't know who told you that no banks support QFX/OFX for non-windows platforms, it is a platform independent standard. Unless, of course, your bank purchased a windows/IE specific solution. I know our software does work on mac versions of Quicken (I wrote it), and if they follow the intuit example code it is trivial to write.
The OFX standard, including the DTD, can be found here
Amazing repost. Well thought out, with intelligence flowing from every letter.
If you were responding to my comment on Mumps, I would hope that you have at least seen the language. It was a decent language for the needs of its time (circa 1966 if memory serves), however the syntax of the language has led to decades of cryptic, obfuscated language. The only data type of the language is the string, which endows the language with considerable power for database applications. However, the language syntax, coupled with its interpreted heritage, encourages incredibly cryptic code. My employer has well over thirty years of Mumps code driving their database product, and the language's problems have lead to no end of headaches.
If, however, your comment was in response to my comment on the syntax of Water, in my view the language forces the programmer to write considerably more code to do the same job as other languages. In my view, this is not a step forward. A good, well designed language, should work to improve on the effort of previous languages without forgetting the lessons learned from them. This language does not, in my opinion, do so.
This was an interesting effort, particularly given the bifurcation of languages we have seen for internet development. However, they would have paid themselves signficant dividends by considering another path that did not tie their syntax to the SGML heritage. It was good for data presentation, but in my experience it does not expand well to solve other problems.
I stand by my comment on the readability of Water code and the maintenance issues of the language. I work with a number of programmers whose job security is derived from the poor quality code they have produced. It is bad enough that we have professional C++ programmers who are allowed (by their employers) to produce almost entirely unmaintainable code. The situation is compounded by creating a language that serves to make this easier.
Only thing I have to say is, now I have to type twice the keystrokes to get half the work done? And, the language forces me to generate code that is difficult to read at a glance? Where do I sign up? Talk about job security in a language! Only thing better is Mumps!
Fantastic. I write home banking software for a living, and this is just going to drive us up a wall. Not to get on a high horse (our code is far from perfect, for a variety of reasons, but I'm going to say this anyway), but this version of Mozilla should not have been released with this bug. I don't know what other issues exist in Mozilla, but announcing a major release with a bug that has a significant negative impact upon users was not a wise decision. (Not being able to fully use secure sites properly is a serious loss of functionality.) I hope they fix this soon, but I have no doubt I'm going to be barraged with calls about this before too long.
If you want Open Source development to be taken seriously, then you can not afford to release code with known failures of this significance. This only serves to erode the trust of users.
Thanks guys.
Burn karma, burn! Flames are getting higher!
Some folks just can't take a little criticism.
Yet again, Slashdot proves that it doesn't need something so lame as a spell checker. Its spelled quiet folks, not qiuet.