They could just use 'grep', because most data is plaintext.
Aside from that.. don't you just hate when people say that "firefox stores files in a different place" ?
Different from what ? I do understand they mean "in a different place than iexplore.exe", but I don't enjoy the fact that people expect me to take that as the default. It just shows ignorance, it's typical of people who think that the blue "e" is the internet. I just dislike ignorant people.
If you want to make a point, then use evidence that matters. Job listings do not indicate what is in production except on the system needing attention at the organization needing the employee. Perhaps something relevent from http://www.netcraft.com/ or http://www.alexa.com/.
I read those sites, and I learned that BSD is dying. I don't know what to do with that information right now.
I believe that the term is an issue. There is no such thing as Intellectual Property.
That term tries to cover different things, and confuses their characteristics.
1 - Patents. Patents are a _temporary_ monopoly intended to encourage the development of new products and processes. You don't patent an idea, but the product or process that implements it. Think industry.
2 - Copyrights. Copyrights are a long monopoly on distribution of creative _works_. Not the actual idea, but the representation itself. You don't copyright the idea of a love song, you patent one love song. You don't copyright the mail program, you copyright Outlook. Copyrights came to existence, in an effort to protect creators from abuse by distributors. Without this kind of law, distributors could reap the benefits from an artist hand, without paying them, and thats where the term "pirate" comes from, and of course has some parallelism with the original meaning of the word. Right now, distributors do abuse creators, by making them sign contracts where they give up their rights, effectively making copyright law effectively useless.
3 - Trademarks. They are a protection granted for names of things, I don't understand why people also use that "Intellectual Property" term to talk about them, too.
What I am whining about is that term, I believe you should be talking about "copyright" when talking about games. And while you are at it, don't use that word, "pirate". It doesn't really mean what you say. I live in Uruguay, and there are shops (in regular shopping malls, not on the streets) that sell Sony Playstation II from regular Sony distributors, and in the same shop, sell unlicensed copies of games. The fact is that in my country nobody would buy games for 50 dollars, so Sony sells their consoles for 350 or 400 dollars (PS2 consoles), and lets retail shops sell unlicensed copies in the same place. I would thin that it's actually Sony the one getting profit from consoles, reaping the benefits of having a good game selection available. I wouldn't call the actual consumer a "pirate", most of theam think that the "chip upgrade" they need to run games is just a regular procedure. The one making money and not paying the creators is Sony (and the shops, of course).
Te difference here is that it costs next to nothing to take "Linux" out of the name of your product.
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server ? ok, let's call it SuSE Enterprise Server, and list Linux as its kernel, on the side of the box. You say that maybe you don't get enough recognition (> money ) without using th "Linux" trademark ? ok, you can always pay for it, or probably get it for "free", in exchange of some developers.
_If_ the name "Linux" is a revenue-generating part of your name, it's not that crazy that you have to pay for it. The good part is that nobody can blackmail you, because the cost of actually changing the name is usually negligible, although there could be costs associated with not having "Linux" in your name anymore. Nobody said you could profit off the name, though, the GPL doesn't say you can use the name of some project as you wish.
If, on the other hand, they didn't let you use the actual software, you could be in a problem, because changing the kernel of a server has a bigger cost associated than just reprinting some boxes. You could be blackmailed for a fraction of that cost, if the GPL didn't protect you.
Nonsense. See: You have an execution stack. You can do some operation with the video driver (OS code) that may or not be successful, test for failure and manage it.
If the OS crashes in the middle of your call, your code has no access to that, and you don't have the oportunity to fix it. For that kind of problem, there are three solutions.
1 - have OpenOffice waste a shitload of money testing every functionality with every MSWindows version, with every video driver. The financing part comes as an excercise for the reader.
2 - have some expert in MSWindows with access to the code and ask him about the safety of every system call.
3 - code it right, test it, release betas, and hope that people can file bug reports, and release fixes releases often.
Hey! I started the fight. The GP hit the nail. Ok/Apply/Cancel.
That was ok in the nineties. Lots of books were written in the nineties, and lots before, that show you how Ok/Apply/Cancel buttons don't belong in human-computer dialogs. When I am in Gedit, and want to overwrite a text file, I am asked if I can to Cancel the operation, or Replace the file. If I want to leave without saving, it asks: don't save/cancel/save. A Yes/No/Cancel button, like in kedit is very difficult to understand for a user whose locus of attention is leaving the application. Of course, you can argue that it could be accomplished by a search and replace. But _I_ think it's a substantial difference. And _I_ think they keep doing this wrong, because they don't want to lose the familiarity for users of Windows. That, and that it's easier to use Yes/No/Cancel buttons than actually thinking about the right names for the buttons, even is it implies long names. Anyway, I am talking about two things. 1 - I think KDE has a sub-par user interface. 2 - I think they fail at the same spots as MSWindows
Of course, I understand that KDE has usually more functionality for the user, and more features, but I think that Gnome has a much better user interface, _including_ the default configuration, because the default configuration sets a standard, and actually has a meaning and a reason, and an effect in the actual usage of the software.
KDE has resemblances of MSWindows, with much of the good, and some of the bad (too much for _my_ own taste). It seems to _me_, just from observation, with no scientific evidence whatsoever, that they try to implement all the functionality the user needs, and they make it accesible with ways familiar to a common [MSWindows] user, thus obtaining a familiar environment for common [MSWindows] users.
Gnome, on the other hand, seems to me that they might lack some functionality common users can miss, but they focus more on making the interface they want than on providing every little fature users are accustomed to, but keeping more control on the interface.
The fact that Gnome might seems similar to OSX is possible, because is you are going to copy interfaces, Apple is one of the leaders, and there are not many good ways of implementing a good interface, you might even implement the same things starting from scratch, if you follow the same authors guidelines. On the other hand, I don't see where you see that KDE seems like OSX.
I'll bite. Enlightenment is not a flavor of anything. Enlightenment is not a desktop environment a la MSWindows explorer.exe . KDE and Gnome are something like that.
Enlightenment is a window manager evolved into a desktop shell and lots more. Imagine you were not a Windows user, and you didn't feel their metaphor is the natural metaphor for a GUI system. Enlightenment proposes a different interface, plus a different interaction with objects from the user perspective. You can't really compare enlightenment with gnome, because they are completely different in their own essence. Aside from that, enlightenment is a project that provides lots of useful general purpose libs, but back in the day, they defined what general purpose meant in many areas (e.g.:imlib, esd). They are building libs that they think should be available to anyone building next generation stuff. They can be right, like before, or they can be coding useless stuff. We'll see.
DRM is the end of anonymity. Just because of that, DRM is bad. I believe the focus should be on keeping non-DRM alternatives viable. Even letting the big consortiums make their own DRM is good, because they have failed miserabily in the past, and the least help they can get, the better. As long as they come up with shitty solutions, there will be room for non-DRM stuff. As long as they develop a convenient DRM solution, non-DRM hardware and content is at much bigger risk.
Of course. Only bad people use human shields. The problem is that killing the enemies human shields means targetting civilians. So, the enemiess warfare practices turn you into a civilian killer.
That was the point, originally, that in the context of warfare, killing civilians (and assesing its value) is something that is done regularly. Of course, it's shocking to read it in a manual, but it is a fact.
Collateral damage is a word that was used in the past with the meaning you say, but long ago lost that meaning. I was pointing out to the GGP poster that collateral damage is just an euphemism for killing civilians, of even friendly targets, when fighting the enemy. Of course they use "collateral damage" to say that they didn't really mean to kill those people, but when you cover a city with bombs, you are killing innocent people, and saying that it was incidental, and not planned, would just be a lie.
I am not a native English speaking person, so I did look up "collateral damage". Of course, a dictionary from 1940 won't say the current meaning, but that would happen with lots of words and expressions that have changed their meanings with the years.
Re:Bought the t-shirt but didn't read the Che book
on
Is Your Boss a Psychopath?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Collateral damage is _exactly_ harming innocent people intentionally, and measuring collateral damage is rationalizing that harm. Of course, the guy could be more honest about his thoughts, because he didn't have to care about PR, but it's exactly the same thing, there are no substantial differences. The US military bombed Baghdad, where inocent people lived, and now die. Just because they did it to "fight the terrorism" or "liberate iraq", and CG talked aout killing civilians to "free the people", it doesn't make the method any better. Kiling civilians is bad, of course, but it's very common, and most militaries, US included, do it strategically.
The fact that most people who mess with war or war-like scenarios do believe that civilian sacrifices needs to be made, is undeniable.
Every military is itself based on the fact that people are willing to kill other people for what they want.
Right now, the US troops needed to kill civilians on Iraq, their oppenents think they need to do it too, and everybody thinks they are right.
The problem with killing innocents, is that it is inevitable once you are in the business of killing people.
Of course, I am against killing all kinds of people (_all_ kinds), but I don't believe Che's recomendations are any worst than carpet-bombing a city, or any less acceptable, taking into account that I disprove of both.
Not copyrights. Copyright is about content. Trademark is about names.
Trademarks say: you can't sell product with the name I registered. Of course, you can sell any product with any name I didn't register.
Copyrights say: you can't further distribute the product I made, unless I say you can.
Being that Linux is copylefted, there are no other restrictions to its further redistribution other than you can't distribute it less freely than you received it. So you can distribute Linux all you want, but you can't use the Linux trademark to promote it.
See the difference? Trademarks are about names and promotion, and building a reputation, and copyrights are about content and its distribution.
"You certainly could create and distribute a useful product without having 'Linux' in the trademarked name," he said. "Debian comes to mind. Red Hat Software is another."
Ok, but Debian doesn't have the word "Linux" in its name, because it's not completely based on Linux, it's based on GNU, so you can run in with Linux or with GNU/Hurd, jokes aside.
Anyhow, this can only be good for free software, "Linux" being a overused word that overshadows the importance of other free software. If companies were forced to stop using "Linux", as a name, the concept of a "free software" distribution could become stronger (or not, of course).
Please, stop whining. On Radioshack you can buy a hand crank operated radio. Buy it, strip the radio, and you have a hand crank generator. Build a generator yourself, it's not that hard, it involves magnets and copper wire.
If what you want is standard hand cranks and plugs, and stuff, then it would have to be actually useful. Sorry , it isn't.
Again. Of course WP6.0 coexisted with Windows 3.0, but what I was arguing was that Windows had a significant, but not all that necessary role in the switch to GUI apps, because without the widespread use of windows, most of the GUI apps were already usable for most people. Of course they were great at marketing their platform, but they really had competitors in the DOS market, and the revolution was just waiting to happen, even without Windows, because all the parts were already developed. They were great at marketing Windows, and maybe their win was a sum of the success of win 3.1 and the flop of the windows-version Word Perfect. I don't think the story would have been much different without a successful Windows 3.1. IBM could have regained some market, or maybe Apple, but Microsoft wasn't needed for the widespread use of computers at that point, it just was useful.
I believe there is no Atlas holding the world, standng on a giant turtle. Does that make me a religious atheist too? Does the fact that I can't prove it doesn't exist make me more of a blind believer? And don't tell me all that space travel crap, the man never traveled to the moon, I saw it on TV!!
Do you believe in atlas and the giant turtle?? * Don't you? are you a religious atheist?
The turtle is nowhere to be found in the Wikipedia page, maybe they are religious atheis fundamentalists.
Hm..... Apple made possible that I had a used Ami IIe back in the day. It was accesible to me, and I was a middle-class kid from a South American family (well, Uruguayan family). I could program Basic and Pascal, and I could play games. I had Apple Works. It basically did all that lots of people use their machines for. The whole office experience hasn't changed so much for me. So, I believe MS didn't have such a decisive role in making the personal computer accesible to the public. They were in the right place at the right time.
Even on the PC, before MS dominance, we already had graphical word processing programs (WordPerfect 6.0) and spreadsheets, like Lotus 1-2-3, even Quattro Pro.
So, all these years of MS dominance have brought only a flawed desktop metaphor, that every new person I try to introduce to, has trouble grasping.
So, well, we already had accesible computers, we had GUIs, I believe the Pc revolution would have happened anyway without MS. And don't even get me started about DOS!!. That was really an issue against the usage of computers.
COMMAND.COM was to CP/M as CMD.COM is to bash!! I don't think they made possible any revolution, they just were clever enough to benefit from it.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, first you ignore THEM. Then you laugh at THEM. Then you fight THEM. Then they win YOU.
They could just use 'grep', because most data is plaintext.
Aside from that.. don't you just hate when people say that "firefox stores files in a different place" ?
Different from what ?
I do understand they mean "in a different place than iexplore.exe", but I don't enjoy the fact that people expect me to take that as the default. It just shows ignorance, it's typical of people who think that the blue "e" is the internet. I just dislike ignorant people.
If you want to make a point, then use evidence that matters. Job listings do not indicate what is in production except on the system needing attention at the organization needing the employee. Perhaps something relevent from http://www.netcraft.com/ or http://www.alexa.com/.
I read those sites, and I learned that BSD is dying. I don't know what to do with that information right now.
I believe that the term is an issue.
There is no such thing as Intellectual Property.
That term tries to cover different things, and confuses their characteristics.
1 - Patents.
Patents are a _temporary_ monopoly intended to encourage the development of new products and processes. You don't patent an idea, but the product or process that implements it. Think industry.
2 - Copyrights.
Copyrights are a long monopoly on distribution of creative _works_. Not the actual idea, but the representation itself. You don't copyright the idea of a love song, you patent one love song. You don't copyright the mail program, you copyright Outlook.
Copyrights came to existence, in an effort to protect creators from abuse by distributors. Without this kind of law, distributors could reap the benefits from an artist hand, without paying them, and thats where the term "pirate" comes from, and of course has some parallelism with the original meaning of the word.
Right now, distributors do abuse creators, by making them sign contracts where they give up their rights, effectively making copyright law effectively useless.
3 - Trademarks.
They are a protection granted for names of things, I don't understand why people also use that "Intellectual Property" term to talk about them, too.
What I am whining about is that term, I believe you should be talking about "copyright" when talking about games. And while you are at it, don't use that word, "pirate". It doesn't really mean what you say.
I live in Uruguay, and there are shops (in regular shopping malls, not on the streets) that sell Sony Playstation II from regular Sony distributors, and in the same shop, sell unlicensed copies of games.
The fact is that in my country nobody would buy games for 50 dollars, so Sony sells their consoles for 350 or 400 dollars (PS2 consoles), and lets retail shops sell unlicensed copies in the same place. I would thin that it's actually Sony the one getting profit from consoles, reaping the benefits of having a good game selection available. I wouldn't call the actual consumer a "pirate", most of theam think that the "chip upgrade" they need to run games is just a regular procedure. The one making money and not paying the creators is Sony (and the shops, of course).
Te difference here is that it costs next to nothing to take "Linux" out of the name of your product.
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server ?
ok, let's call it SuSE Enterprise Server, and list Linux as its kernel, on the side of the box.
You say that maybe you don't get enough recognition (> money ) without using th "Linux" trademark ? ok, you can always pay for it, or probably get it for "free", in exchange of some developers.
_If_ the name "Linux" is a revenue-generating part of your name, it's not that crazy that you have to pay for it. The good part is that nobody can blackmail you, because the cost of actually changing the name is usually negligible, although there could be costs associated with not having "Linux" in your name anymore. Nobody said you could profit off the name, though, the GPL doesn't say you can use the name of some project as you wish.
If, on the other hand, they didn't let you use the actual software, you could be in a problem, because changing the kernel of a server has a bigger cost associated than just reprinting some boxes. You could be blackmailed for a fraction of that cost, if the GPL didn't protect you.
Don't worry, you can buy support for that.
Nonsense.
See:
You have an execution stack.
You can do some operation with the video driver (OS code) that may or not be successful, test for failure and manage it.
If the OS crashes in the middle of your call, your code has no access to that, and you don't have the oportunity to fix it.
For that kind of problem, there are three solutions.
1 - have OpenOffice waste a shitload of money testing every functionality with every MSWindows version, with every video driver. The financing part comes as an excercise for the reader.
2 - have some expert in MSWindows with access to the code and ask him about the safety of every system call.
3 - code it right, test it, release betas, and hope that people can file bug reports, and release fixes releases often.
Hey! I started the fight.
The GP hit the nail. Ok/Apply/Cancel.
That was ok in the nineties.
Lots of books were written in the nineties, and lots before, that show you how Ok/Apply/Cancel buttons don't belong in human-computer dialogs.
When I am in Gedit, and want to overwrite a text file, I am asked if I can to Cancel the operation, or Replace the file. If I want to leave without saving, it asks: don't save/cancel/save. A Yes/No/Cancel button, like in kedit is very difficult to understand for a user whose locus of attention is leaving the application. Of course, you can argue that it could be accomplished by a search and replace. But _I_ think it's a substantial difference.
And _I_ think they keep doing this wrong, because they don't want to lose the familiarity for users of Windows. That, and that it's easier to use Yes/No/Cancel buttons than actually thinking about the right names for the buttons, even is it implies long names.
Anyway, I am talking about two things.
1 - I think KDE has a sub-par user interface.
2 - I think they fail at the same spots as MSWindows
Of course, I understand that KDE has usually more functionality for the user, and more features, but I think that Gnome has a much better user interface, _including_ the default configuration, because the default configuration sets a standard, and actually has a meaning and a reason, and an effect in the actual usage of the software.
KDE has resemblances of MSWindows, with much of the good, and some of the bad (too much for _my_ own taste). It seems to _me_, just from observation, with no scientific evidence whatsoever, that they try to implement all the functionality the user needs, and they make it accesible with ways familiar to a common [MSWindows] user, thus obtaining a familiar environment for common [MSWindows] users.
Gnome, on the other hand, seems to me that they might lack some functionality common users can miss, but they focus more on making the interface they want than on providing every little fature users are accustomed to, but keeping more control on the interface.
The fact that Gnome might seems similar to OSX is possible, because is you are going to copy interfaces, Apple is one of the leaders, and there are not many good ways of implementing a good interface, you might even implement the same things starting from scratch, if you follow the same authors guidelines.
On the other hand, I don't see where you see that KDE seems like OSX.
I'll bite.
Enlightenment is not a flavor of anything.
Enlightenment is not a desktop environment a la MSWindows explorer.exe .
KDE and Gnome are something like that.
Enlightenment is a window manager evolved into a desktop shell and lots more.
Imagine you were not a Windows user, and you didn't feel their metaphor is the natural metaphor for a GUI system.
Enlightenment proposes a different interface, plus a different interaction with objects from the user perspective. You can't really compare enlightenment with gnome, because they are completely different in their own essence.
Aside from that, enlightenment is a project that provides lots of useful general purpose libs, but back in the day, they defined what general purpose meant in many areas (e.g.:imlib, esd).
They are building libs that they think should be available to anyone building next generation stuff. They can be right, like before, or they can be coding useless stuff. We'll see.
DRM is the end of anonymity.
Just because of that, DRM is bad.
I believe the focus should be on keeping non-DRM alternatives viable.
Even letting the big consortiums make their own DRM is good, because they have failed miserabily in the past, and the least help they can get, the better.
As long as they come up with shitty solutions, there will be room for non-DRM stuff.
As long as they develop a convenient DRM solution, non-DRM hardware and content is at much bigger risk.
Of course.
Only bad people use human shields.
The problem is that killing the enemies human shields means targetting civilians.
So, the enemiess warfare practices turn you into a civilian killer.
That was the point, originally, that in the context of warfare, killing civilians (and assesing its value) is something that is done regularly. Of course, it's shocking to read it in a manual, but it is a fact.
Collateral damage is a word that was used in the past with the meaning you say, but long ago lost that meaning.
I was pointing out to the GGP poster that collateral damage is just an euphemism for killing civilians, of even friendly targets, when fighting the enemy.
Of course they use "collateral damage" to say that they didn't really mean to kill those people, but when you cover a city with bombs, you are killing innocent people, and saying that it was incidental, and not planned, would just be a lie.
I am not a native English speaking person, so I did look up "collateral damage". Of course, a dictionary from 1940 won't say the current meaning, but that would happen with lots of words and expressions that have changed their meanings with the years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
The center half
Collateral damage is _exactly_ harming innocent people intentionally, and measuring collateral damage is rationalizing that harm.
Of course, the guy could be more honest about his thoughts, because he didn't have to care about PR, but it's exactly the same thing, there are no substantial differences.
The US military bombed Baghdad, where inocent people lived, and now die. Just because they did it to "fight the terrorism" or "liberate iraq", and CG talked aout killing civilians to "free the people", it doesn't make the method any better. Kiling civilians is bad, of course, but it's very common, and most militaries, US included, do it strategically.
The fact that most people who mess with war or war-like scenarios do believe that civilian sacrifices needs to be made, is undeniable.
Every military is itself based on the fact that people are willing to kill other people for what they want.
Right now, the US troops needed to kill civilians on Iraq, their oppenents think they need to do it too, and everybody thinks they are right.
The problem with killing innocents, is that it is inevitable once you are in the business of killing people.
Of course, I am against killing all kinds of people (_all_ kinds), but I don't believe Che's recomendations are any worst than carpet-bombing a city, or any less acceptable, taking into account that I disprove of both.
Not copyrights.
Copyright is about content.
Trademark is about names.
Trademarks say: you can't sell product with the name I registered. Of course, you can sell any product with any name I didn't register.
Copyrights say: you can't further distribute the product I made, unless I say you can.
Being that Linux is copylefted, there are no other restrictions to its further redistribution other than you can't distribute it less freely than you received it. So you can distribute Linux all you want, but you can't use the Linux trademark to promote it.
See the difference?
Trademarks are about names and promotion, and building a reputation, and copyrights are about content and its distribution.
"You certainly could create and distribute a useful product without having 'Linux' in the trademarked name," he said. "Debian comes to mind. Red Hat Software is another."
Ok, but Debian doesn't have the word "Linux" in its name, because it's not completely based on Linux, it's based on GNU, so you can run in with Linux or with GNU/Hurd, jokes aside.
Anyhow, this can only be good for free software, "Linux" being a overused word that overshadows the importance of other free software. If companies were forced to stop using "Linux", as a name, the concept of a "free software" distribution could become stronger (or not, of course).
I do as I was told. /usr/share/lib !!
My filesystem said:
So I shared.
Or how about a dildo with built in sensors for teaching women how to give a decent blowjob? (Up until now that has been an acquired skill).
You need strong robotic muscles to make that teaching, reinforceable.
Please, stop whining.
On Radioshack you can buy a hand crank operated radio.
Buy it, strip the radio, and you have a hand crank generator.
Build a generator yourself, it's not that hard, it involves magnets and copper wire.
If what you want is standard hand cranks and plugs, and stuff, then it would have to be actually useful. Sorry , it isn't.
It's spelled "burrito", muchas gracias (ándale ándale ándale, arriba!).
Again.
Of course WP6.0 coexisted with Windows 3.0, but what I was arguing was that Windows had a significant, but not all that necessary role in the switch to GUI apps, because without the widespread use of windows, most of the GUI apps were already usable for most people.
Of course they were great at marketing their platform, but they really had competitors in the DOS market, and the revolution was just waiting to happen, even without Windows, because all the parts were already developed.
They were great at marketing Windows, and maybe their win was a sum of the success of win 3.1 and the flop of the windows-version Word Perfect.
I don't think the story would have been much different without a successful Windows 3.1.
IBM could have regained some market, or maybe Apple, but Microsoft wasn't needed for the widespread use of computers at that point, it just was useful.
I believe there is no Atlas holding the world, standng on a giant turtle.
Does that make me a religious atheist too?
Does the fact that I can't prove it doesn't exist make me more of a blind believer? And don't tell me all that space travel crap, the man never traveled to the moon, I saw it on TV!!
Do you believe in atlas and the giant turtle?? *
Don't you? are you a religious atheist?
The turtle is nowhere to be found in the Wikipedia page, maybe they are religious atheis fundamentalists.
Hm.....
Apple made possible that I had a used Ami IIe back in the day.
It was accesible to me, and I was a middle-class kid from a South American family (well, Uruguayan family).
I could program Basic and Pascal, and I could play games.
I had Apple Works. It basically did all that lots of people use their machines for.
The whole office experience hasn't changed so much for me.
So, I believe MS didn't have such a decisive role in making the personal computer accesible to the public. They were in the right place at the right time.
Even on the PC, before MS dominance, we already had graphical word processing programs (WordPerfect 6.0) and spreadsheets, like Lotus 1-2-3, even Quattro Pro.
So, all these years of MS dominance have brought only a flawed desktop metaphor, that every new person I try to introduce to, has trouble grasping.
So, well, we already had accesible computers, we had GUIs, I believe the Pc revolution would have happened anyway without MS.
And don't even get me started about DOS!!.
That was really an issue against the usage of computers.
COMMAND.COM was to CP/M as CMD.COM is to bash!!
I don't think they made possible any revolution, they just were clever enough to benefit from it.