I give it zero months since the way to defeat being identified by special keyboards with extra sensors attached to your fingers is to not use special keyboards with extra sensors attached to your fingers.
Also, the reported research results oppose much of what we know about keystroke biometrics which is used to authenticate users on many high security commercial and military systems on the assumption and previous findings that individual keystroke biometrics are unique to particular users, not to particular biological or demographic classes of users.
Firefox 3 beta 3ish un-moved its home button after widespread complaints hit the mainstream IT press to undo the unexplained decision by project leaders (Bug #404109).
Software creation is not governance, but it certainly is an important result of governance. Every non-trivial software is at least a permissive policy which enables, but more importantly, encourages particular uses and representations of your data. This means that you are correct.
Does your computer desktop clock show seconds, other time zones, or a 24-hour format? Why or why not?
If the anti-IE crowd is correct, the provision of a functional default (or even a large set of defaults) is a de-facto policy choice by the software publisher to constrain users' tendency to seek and implement alternative softwares (policies) based on different practical or moral values than those of the publisher. The values embedded in a corporate publisher (as an organization, regardless of its economic interests) as well as the process by which it formulates policy is most certainly a process of governance which operational policies may or may not value views of particular kinds of stakeholders.
Open source is certainly closer to a "rule by the people" kind of policy system than systems in which source code is less freely available, but public source code alone (like reams of legislation) does not make a system democratic. Just as one cannot claim to compile (let alone distribute) any previous or current version of "United States of America" from the legislative source tree without context and infrastructure not documented in the source, one is not able to meaningfully compile or distribute something as big and complicated as Ubuntu without context and infrastructure not documented in the source.
For the zealots to claim that Ubuntu is democratic because anyone can download a DVD's worth of source and build (an extremely narrow version of) it is to explicitly disclaim the value of the knowledge, experience, and values, of each of the Ubuntu contributors who have ever contributed to the project, and to trivialize the cost of entry barriers represented by the institutions which operate the infrastructure required by a vibrant community.
My homebrew version of Ubuntu is likely to have as many degree of freedom and dependencies on the institutions and communities of the real Ubuntu, as a Montana survivalist has on the institutions and communities of the United States: A very few additional freedoms at the cost of inefficiently compensating for a great many dependencies.
One person deciding in a group of one is quite removed from a process which considers perspectives of both the majority and the minority among several. Forking is no more a democratic decision than living in a bomb shelter.
Why bother with a virus since drive-by downloading the entire Australia blacklist in an invisible div is cross-platform and more difficult for the user to detect, prevent, and disavow?
Being able to handle 3 Tbps also requires being able to handle a few giga-packets per second. The rate at which this device could pass spam and DDoS would be devastating to existing downstream filtering mechanisms.
They will be the first to embrace and support legislation to require ISPs to adopt Cisco's new deep packet inspection and traffic-shaping products to combat this development. They've probably already come up with new ways to make anyone but themselves pay for such changes, too.
Yes. As others have probably pointed out by now, this idea has substantially the same set of theoretical disadvantages of malware detection using hypervisors, and those of poorly implemented TPM, plus the operational hassle having to almost suspend a system to disk.
Competition, like voting, should be a means to a desirable outcome, not an end state to be achieved for its own sake. I struggle to see the benefit of applying public funds to promote sub-standard products without also supporting the manufacturers of those currently sub-standard products in their efforts to make useful and desirable products.
I also do not look forward to six months from now when new browser exploits need to be patched in 12 silos instead of four via naive software update mechanisms. If browsers are important enough to the public interest to be regulated, such regulation should be based on objective standards and market information _which offers equal opportunity to all competitors who meet the minimum standard_, not just an arbitrary set of those who do and do not. To do otherwise only shifts the frictions and barriers from places such as Opera's budget to develop competent marketing and software to enter and stay in the market, to Brand X's political lobbying budget to become one of the chosen 12 participants in the government sanctioned oligopoly, with the net result that quality of the commodity of web browsers decreases overall.
Yes. Something dumb like using taking advantage of the "open" part of open software to do something the software publisher had not explicitly approved.
"they'll sheepishly turn on the printer and apologize for wasting my time"
That symptom reflects the major part of the problem. Somehow, your interaction style leaves the impression that the user is in some undeserving class, and that it's the user's fault for being there. That does not provide the user with encouragement to understand or work with the system.
The mammalian body plan is full of discoverable interfaces which encourage discovery through interaction. Humans are wired to experiment to discover and understand how the works around them. Small children put things in/on/around other things (often dangerously) before the grups tell them that doing so is inappropriate. Geeks punt around with config files and get it wrong all day, without having to apologise to the kit.
The moment that the IT support overlord becomes anything other than a partner in discovery is the moment that users stop learning.
As a first step to improving support, I would suggest never touching any deskside kit and instead teach the users how and why to perform the steps required to resolve the issue (as a support person, you already know how to do those tasks, and are not paid for performing the user's job function). I've found that telling the story of fixing the issue (what do you want to do? what do you see around you? what might that do? how might that help you?) without being condescending, and having the user act out and narrate their actions, takes around 10-15% more time per incident, but they, and their cube neighbors, will become self-supporting on the issue (and on related issues) because they've learned tactilely, visually, and aurally, what they are doing to interact with a particular sub-system. Leaving the highly critical adult mode of thought for a simpler juvenile construction of mutual discovery is quite literally childish, but its effective/because/ its closer to our default way of thinking. After a few visits, your users will have discovered and internalized your problem solving pattern, and *gazp*, will do it from start to finish on their own, or with Google, because that's faster than getting ahold of support./formally left support five years ago because everyone in my group became self sufficient in their software, except for the once in a decade circumstances (or when we've broken something in infrastructure) where Google doesn't help, so we all have to learn together
They sure use a lot of words to say very little. The only paragraph of substance:
"Recently, Verizon Wireless security and external experts detected attacks from an IP address associated with the 4Chan family of web sites that was disruptive to our customers and our network. To protect both, we eliminated connectivity to the IP address. At no time was 4Chan itself blocked. Ongoing network security team monitoring has now determined there is no longer an immediate threat. Connectivity to those sites is being restored later today."
An IP address associated with the websites, but not the website itself, leaves routers, DNS, database, cache, content and mail servers or services. But VZW customers claim that only port 80 was blocked (and not all connectivity to the IP address). Given that the rest of the Verizon statement is generic marketing boilerplate which claims to be relevant to this incident, this CYA is difficult to believe.
The incompetence or laziness of those who complained at you does not demonstrate that your strategy or interpretation are correct in the general case. If they wanted to drop the matter, and they realized this, you could have replied with a cookie recipe and achieved the same outcome.
If the concern is about privacy, then the suggestion should be to mask the face in the scans, not the junk. Very few people go around recognizing other people by their junk.
That comes close to an argument in favour of EULAs on viewing public broadcasts of newsworthy events. I'm not sure that it's in the public's interest to grant such additional exclusivities without thinking through some appropriate compensation options.
How do you know that Mozilla are not improving quality?
Read carefully: "as opposed to keeping its user base by increasing quality"
If quality was the primary focus, more than one of the "Top Features" of Firefox 3.6 would pertain to quality. "Super Speed" points out some rendering benchmarks as compared to previous versions of the browser. Since Firefox has been instrumented as you describe, it should be possible to state that Firefox 3.5 outperforms Firefox 3 in quality terms (x% decrese in memory consumption for a common use case, specific number of memory leaks fixed, frequency decrease in crashes).
It may be that Firefox is enhancing quality, but the preponderance of communication to recruit/retain users focuses on features, and not on quality.
Projects have defined, achievable end states, and should have built-in mechanisms for winding down. Firefox achieved the objectives of its project, to release a lightweight standards-compatible browser, somewhere around version 2, at which point it should have wound down into a maintenance mode if it were strictly a project.
What we have here is an activity organized by a party which has interests beyond producing a good browser as a project. At the very least, the Mozilla Foundation's and the Mozilla Corporation's desire for their own continued existence and profitability needs to be considered in all discussions about the Firefox leaders' choices.
If the plugin architecture has become a problem (and it has due analogs of shared memory and lack of process isolation leading to potential security issues), then they should work to revise or remove it. Moving to an gushing agile waterfall feature stream or whatever development and release paradigm isn't a plausible solution.
Firefox reminds me of Windows 3.1 in an uncomfortable number of ways. Besides their co-operative multi-tasking environments and storing system settings in several different places, they share in common a very low barrier to entry with respect to writing userland apps (copy and paste some XML and JS to make a Firefox plugin, draw some boxes and remember BASIC to make a VB3 app) which enabled almost unlimited customization to occur very easily. This is good for adoption and getting onto many desktops, but leads to an ecosystem rich in poorly conceived and implemented applications which are vulnerable to each others' weaknesses.
I've seen discussions about how the plugin architecture and XUL may be revised to get rid of some of these concerns (and to get rid of some of the 5-12 layers of indirection and abstraction for some routine function calls), but I'm not confident that they will completely avoid the downfalls of analogous architectural changes made in Windows 95.
Mozilla Corporation's goals are substantially to do activities which bring in revenue, as with Microsoft. Mozilla's main vehicle for doing so is to package and distribute a browser through which income is generated via Google searches. To maximize revenues, they need to maximize both market share and usage of their browser.
The new focus, maximizing market share (quantity), could help, but not as much as a new strategy which maximizes both market share and usage (quality). Under those 30 MB or so of binaries, libraries and other stuff, I'm sure exists a small feature subset set which would give all Internet users a compelling reason to switch to and stick with Firefox, if that feature subset were promoted correctly.
Private Browsing - "Surf the Web without leaving a single trace." Which inaccurately describes the functionality. Safari and Chrome can forget things in the browser, but the Firefox feature as stated requires third-party anonymising proxies or such. Password Manager - "Remember site passwords without ever seeing a pop-up." - Most browsers have had features to remember form fields since the 1990s? Awesome Bar - "Find the sites you love in seconds (and without having to remember clunky URLs)." This is better than bookmarks/favourites? Super Speed - "View Web pages way faster, using less of your computer’s memory." OK. Anti-Phishing & Anti-Malware - "Enjoy the most advanced protection against online bad guys."... Using substantially the same database as IE and Chrome. Session Restore - "Unexpected shutdown? Go back to exactly where you left off." Tires unexpectedly fall off? Can I have a browser that doesn't need to have this feature? One-Click Bookmarking - "Bookmark, search and organize Web sites quickly and easily." It doesn't trouble me to click once or twice to bookmark something in any other browser, but OK... Easy Customization - "Thousands of add-ons give you the freedom to make your browser your own." OK. But there's a handy guide to navigate those thousands, right? Tabs - "Do more at once with tabs you can organize with the drag of a mouse." Like every other browser? Personas - "Instantly change the look of your Firefox with thousands of easy-to-install themes." Instantly change the look of your windshield with thousands of... No thanks. We got here without bringing MySpace all the way to the desktop. Also does not enhance the functionality of the browser.
Actually, if you compile it yourself, cant you turn off most of the bloat?
You or I could probably piece together an understanding of how to do that inside a working week or so via this list of fragmented documentation: https://developer.mozilla.org/Special:Tags?tag=Build+documentation&language=en but I don't think the rest of their intended audience of hundreds of millions of users should need to do that in order to use an efficient browser. (In the face of mobile phones and other light devices which provide fully capable browsers, pointing out that Firefox uses 200 MB less memory than any other browser is an indictment of both.)
I'd like to use a lited Gecko in a minimal skin, but not enough for me to want to spend the next 5+ years lobbying for it in their Bugzilla. (For reference, it took 10 years for the threaded document windows feature to get looked at, even though it was the standard everywhere else. Bug #40848.)
The elegant solution to too much choice among plugins isn't to revamp the software development workflow, nor is it to load every conceivable feature into the default interface. (Assuming that the opposite were true, Firefox would ship with all 10,000 plugins loaded, which it does not.)
Since Firefox is starting to resemble an operating system anyway, it might be time for Firefox distributions, which default to a core consisting of functions expected of every browser, along with the small number of exceptional features/plugins/whatever which differentiate Firefox from everything else in a good way. (That would also give users tangible reasons to choose and stick with Firefox.) Otherwise, more features for the sake of more features leads to office productivity suites in which most users must download, install and load but will never use 95% of the available features.
Slashdot Mirror
I give it zero months since the way to defeat being identified by special keyboards with extra sensors attached to your fingers is to not use special keyboards with extra sensors attached to your fingers.
Also, the reported research results oppose much of what we know about keystroke biometrics which is used to authenticate users on many high security commercial and military systems on the assumption and previous findings that individual keystroke biometrics are unique to particular users, not to particular biological or demographic classes of users.
Firefox 3 beta 3ish un-moved its home button after widespread complaints hit the mainstream IT press to undo the unexplained decision by project leaders (Bug #404109).
Software creation is not governance, but it certainly is an important result of governance. Every non-trivial software is at least a permissive policy which enables, but more importantly, encourages particular uses and representations of your data. This means that you are correct.
Does your computer desktop clock show seconds, other time zones, or a 24-hour format? Why or why not?
If the anti-IE crowd is correct, the provision of a functional default (or even a large set of defaults) is a de-facto policy choice by the software publisher to constrain users' tendency to seek and implement alternative softwares (policies) based on different practical or moral values than those of the publisher. The values embedded in a corporate publisher (as an organization, regardless of its economic interests) as well as the process by which it formulates policy is most certainly a process of governance which operational policies may or may not value views of particular kinds of stakeholders.
Open source is certainly closer to a "rule by the people" kind of policy system than systems in which source code is less freely available, but public source code alone (like reams of legislation) does not make a system democratic. Just as one cannot claim to compile (let alone distribute) any previous or current version of "United States of America" from the legislative source tree without context and infrastructure not documented in the source, one is not able to meaningfully compile or distribute something as big and complicated as Ubuntu without context and infrastructure not documented in the source.
For the zealots to claim that Ubuntu is democratic because anyone can download a DVD's worth of source and build (an extremely narrow version of) it is to explicitly disclaim the value of the knowledge, experience, and values, of each of the Ubuntu contributors who have ever contributed to the project, and to trivialize the cost of entry barriers represented by the institutions which operate the infrastructure required by a vibrant community.
My homebrew version of Ubuntu is likely to have as many degree of freedom and dependencies on the institutions and communities of the real Ubuntu, as a Montana survivalist has on the institutions and communities of the United States: A very few additional freedoms at the cost of inefficiently compensating for a great many dependencies.
One person deciding in a group of one is quite removed from a process which considers perspectives of both the majority and the minority among several. Forking is no more a democratic decision than living in a bomb shelter.
Ghoti.
Why bother with a virus since drive-by downloading the entire Australia blacklist in an invisible div is cross-platform and more difficult for the user to detect, prevent, and disavow?
Being able to handle 3 Tbps also requires being able to handle a few giga-packets per second. The rate at which this device could pass spam and DDoS would be devastating to existing downstream filtering mechanisms.
Refusing to change? Hardly.
They will be the first to embrace and support legislation to require ISPs to adopt Cisco's new deep packet inspection and traffic-shaping products to combat this development. They've probably already come up with new ways to make anyone but themselves pay for such changes, too.
Yes. As others have probably pointed out by now, this idea has substantially the same set of theoretical disadvantages of malware detection using hypervisors, and those of poorly implemented TPM, plus the operational hassle having to almost suspend a system to disk.
"detect unknown malware... a new install of any kind was a virus"
Yes, unless the new software is authorized, it should be considered malware.
"I don't see any amazing new ideas in TFA"
Also, yes. Shockingly, unauthorized software is unauthorized; and you can inspect a running system externally without being owned by that system.
Competition, like voting, should be a means to a desirable outcome, not an end state to be achieved for its own sake. I struggle to see the benefit of applying public funds to promote sub-standard products without also supporting the manufacturers of those currently sub-standard products in their efforts to make useful and desirable products.
I also do not look forward to six months from now when new browser exploits need to be patched in 12 silos instead of four via naive software update mechanisms. If browsers are important enough to the public interest to be regulated, such regulation should be based on objective standards and market information _which offers equal opportunity to all competitors who meet the minimum standard_, not just an arbitrary set of those who do and do not. To do otherwise only shifts the frictions and barriers from places such as Opera's budget to develop competent marketing and software to enter and stay in the market, to Brand X's political lobbying budget to become one of the chosen 12 participants in the government sanctioned oligopoly, with the net result that quality of the commodity of web browsers decreases overall.
Yes. Something dumb like using taking advantage of the "open" part of open software to do something the software publisher had not explicitly approved.
"they'll sheepishly turn on the printer and apologize for wasting my time"
That symptom reflects the major part of the problem. Somehow, your interaction style leaves the impression that the user is in some undeserving class, and that it's the user's fault for being there. That does not provide the user with encouragement to understand or work with the system.
The mammalian body plan is full of discoverable interfaces which encourage discovery through interaction. Humans are wired to experiment to discover and understand how the works around them. Small children put things in/on/around other things (often dangerously) before the grups tell them that doing so is inappropriate. Geeks punt around with config files and get it wrong all day, without having to apologise to the kit.
The moment that the IT support overlord becomes anything other than a partner in discovery is the moment that users stop learning.
As a first step to improving support, I would suggest never touching any deskside kit and instead teach the users how and why to perform the steps required to resolve the issue (as a support person, you already know how to do those tasks, and are not paid for performing the user's job function). I've found that telling the story of fixing the issue (what do you want to do? what do you see around you? what might that do? how might that help you?) without being condescending, and having the user act out and narrate their actions, takes around 10-15% more time per incident, but they, and their cube neighbors, will become self-supporting on the issue (and on related issues) because they've learned tactilely, visually, and aurally, what they are doing to interact with a particular sub-system. Leaving the highly critical adult mode of thought for a simpler juvenile construction of mutual discovery is quite literally childish, but its effective /because/ its closer to our default way of thinking. After a few visits, your users will have discovered and internalized your problem solving pattern, and *gazp*, will do it from start to finish on their own, or with Google, because that's faster than getting ahold of support. /formally left support five years ago because everyone in my group became self sufficient in their software, except for the once in a decade circumstances (or when we've broken something in infrastructure) where Google doesn't help, so we all have to learn together
It seems that at least two mods think VZW did the right thing here by covering up. Interesting.
I'm also surprised that VZW's end user wireless hardware would remain vulnerable to UDP attacks.
They sure use a lot of words to say very little. The only paragraph of substance:
"Recently, Verizon Wireless security and external experts detected attacks from an IP address associated with the 4Chan family of web sites that was disruptive to our customers and our network. To protect both, we eliminated connectivity to the IP address. At no time was 4Chan itself blocked. Ongoing network security team monitoring has now determined there is no longer an immediate threat. Connectivity to those sites is being restored later today."
An IP address associated with the websites, but not the website itself, leaves routers, DNS, database, cache, content and mail servers or services. But VZW customers claim that only port 80 was blocked (and not all connectivity to the IP address). Given that the rest of the Verizon statement is generic marketing boilerplate which claims to be relevant to this incident, this CYA is difficult to believe.
We don't do that here.
The incompetence or laziness of those who complained at you does not demonstrate that your strategy or interpretation are correct in the general case. If they wanted to drop the matter, and they realized this, you could have replied with a cookie recipe and achieved the same outcome.
If the concern is about privacy, then the suggestion should be to mask the face in the scans, not the junk. Very few people go around recognizing other people by their junk.
That comes close to an argument in favour of EULAs on viewing public broadcasts of newsworthy events. I'm not sure that it's in the public's interest to grant such additional exclusivities without thinking through some appropriate compensation options.
How do you know that Mozilla are not improving quality?
Read carefully:
"as opposed to keeping its user base by increasing quality"
If quality was the primary focus, more than one of the "Top Features" of Firefox 3.6 would pertain to quality. "Super Speed" points out some rendering benchmarks as compared to previous versions of the browser. Since Firefox has been instrumented as you describe, it should be possible to state that Firefox 3.5 outperforms Firefox 3 in quality terms (x% decrese in memory consumption for a common use case, specific number of memory leaks fixed, frequency decrease in crashes).
It may be that Firefox is enhancing quality, but the preponderance of communication to recruit/retain users focuses on features, and not on quality.
Key word: Project.
Projects have defined, achievable end states, and should have built-in mechanisms for winding down. Firefox achieved the objectives of its project, to release a lightweight standards-compatible browser, somewhere around version 2, at which point it should have wound down into a maintenance mode if it were strictly a project.
What we have here is an activity organized by a party which has interests beyond producing a good browser as a project. At the very least, the Mozilla Foundation's and the Mozilla Corporation's desire for their own continued existence and profitability needs to be considered in all discussions about the Firefox leaders' choices.
If the plugin architecture has become a problem (and it has due analogs of shared memory and lack of process isolation leading to potential security issues), then they should work to revise or remove it. Moving to an gushing agile waterfall feature stream or whatever development and release paradigm isn't a plausible solution.
Firefox reminds me of Windows 3.1 in an uncomfortable number of ways. Besides their co-operative multi-tasking environments and storing system settings in several different places, they share in common a very low barrier to entry with respect to writing userland apps (copy and paste some XML and JS to make a Firefox plugin, draw some boxes and remember BASIC to make a VB3 app) which enabled almost unlimited customization to occur very easily. This is good for adoption and getting onto many desktops, but leads to an ecosystem rich in poorly conceived and implemented applications which are vulnerable to each others' weaknesses.
I've seen discussions about how the plugin architecture and XUL may be revised to get rid of some of these concerns (and to get rid of some of the 5-12 layers of indirection and abstraction for some routine function calls), but I'm not confident that they will completely avoid the downfalls of analogous architectural changes made in Windows 95.
Mozilla Corporation's goals are substantially to do activities which bring in revenue, as with Microsoft. Mozilla's main vehicle for doing so is to package and distribute a browser through which income is generated via Google searches. To maximize revenues, they need to maximize both market share and usage of their browser.
The new focus, maximizing market share (quantity), could help, but not as much as a new strategy which maximizes both market share and usage (quality). Under those 30 MB or so of binaries, libraries and other stuff, I'm sure exists a small feature subset set which would give all Internet users a compelling reason to switch to and stick with Firefox, if that feature subset were promoted correctly.
Based on their list of "new features", http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/, they don't seen to know what makes Firefox special.
Private Browsing - "Surf the Web without leaving a single trace." Which inaccurately describes the functionality. Safari and Chrome can forget things in the browser, but the Firefox feature as stated requires third-party anonymising proxies or such. ... Using substantially the same database as IE and Chrome. ... No thanks. We got here without bringing MySpace all the way to the desktop. Also does not enhance the functionality of the browser.
Password Manager - "Remember site passwords without ever seeing a pop-up." - Most browsers have had features to remember form fields since the 1990s?
Awesome Bar - "Find the sites you love in seconds (and without having to remember clunky URLs)." This is better than bookmarks/favourites?
Super Speed - "View Web pages way faster, using less of your computer’s memory." OK.
Anti-Phishing & Anti-Malware - "Enjoy the most advanced protection against online bad guys."
Session Restore - "Unexpected shutdown? Go back to exactly where you left off." Tires unexpectedly fall off? Can I have a browser that doesn't need to have this feature?
One-Click Bookmarking - "Bookmark, search and organize Web sites quickly and easily." It doesn't trouble me to click once or twice to bookmark something in any other browser, but OK...
Easy Customization - "Thousands of add-ons give you the freedom to make your browser your own." OK. But there's a handy guide to navigate those thousands, right?
Tabs - "Do more at once with tabs you can organize with the drag of a mouse." Like every other browser?
Personas - "Instantly change the look of your Firefox with thousands of easy-to-install themes." Instantly change the look of your windshield with thousands of
Actually, if you compile it yourself, cant you turn off most of the bloat?
You or I could probably piece together an understanding of how to do that inside a working week or so via this list of fragmented documentation:
https://developer.mozilla.org/Special:Tags?tag=Build+documentation&language=en
but I don't think the rest of their intended audience of hundreds of millions of users should need to do that in order to use an efficient browser. (In the face of mobile phones and other light devices which provide fully capable browsers, pointing out that Firefox uses 200 MB less memory than any other browser is an indictment of both.)
I'd like to use a lited Gecko in a minimal skin, but not enough for me to want to spend the next 5+ years lobbying for it in their Bugzilla. (For reference, it took 10 years for the threaded document windows feature to get looked at, even though it was the standard everywhere else. Bug #40848.)
The elegant solution to too much choice among plugins isn't to revamp the software development workflow, nor is it to load every conceivable feature into the default interface. (Assuming that the opposite were true, Firefox would ship with all 10,000 plugins loaded, which it does not.)
Since Firefox is starting to resemble an operating system anyway, it might be time for Firefox distributions, which default to a core consisting of functions expected of every browser, along with the small number of exceptional features/plugins/whatever which differentiate Firefox from everything else in a good way. (That would also give users tangible reasons to choose and stick with Firefox.) Otherwise, more features for the sake of more features leads to office productivity suites in which most users must download, install and load but will never use 95% of the available features.