Nobody is even sure if the next version of Office will be based on pure managed code.
Highly doubtful. That was one of the arguments Richard Grimes in his last article on.NET [ddj.com]. Not a very good argument against.NET, there are certainly better ones. Especially when many apps are still written in C.
That was a problem for MS recently with theri four business packages, Great Plains, Solomon, etc. The story was they were going to rewrite in.NET. They have 300 programmers working on it.
Then the backsliding on their Longhorn and related servers thing, and all that.NET managed code talk was pushed back. But they did their standard vaporware lock on customers in the meantime.
Imagine this scenario, over just the past year. What if...there had been no moz suite or FF for people using windowes to go to when all those nasty exploits hit? Suppose the only alternative to them to get a better browser was to also get a better OS? Suppose MS had to actually stay "stuck" with what they had and even the more techhi of their users (the only ones really switching to moz or FF anyway) had to be doubly forced to look for some alternatives? With FF and suite being handy, they had little in the way of any painful decisions to make, it was a 'crutch", completely letting MS off the hook in that regard. And who paid for that, either money or time and skull sweat? Looks like MoFo paid. And who really got rewarded for all that effort? MS got rewarded, as it allowed people to stick with what they had.
That's a good point. It is a kick in the butt to let MS off the hook from their users getting hammered by going to Moz, until another IE comes out and hammers their desktop with an "automatic" update.
Another way of thinking about that is to have some compelling F/OSS user apps written for F/OSS OS'es first. After all, it is F/OSS so who cares about traditional "market share" in that case?
Or possibly, a commercial/FOSS duality. Free on F/OSS OS'es, sold on commercial OS'es. At some point switching over to a Linux desktop could be compelling for users for the apps.
Sorry, but I can't feel any sympathy or respect or anything for these guys. Learn something new! it happens to everyone! There are many lessons to be learned from this, and from what I've been reading, most of them have already been mentioned.
The best response I saw as far as business commenting was consider it an early warning system.
The petitioners included over 200 Microsoft MVP's representing millions upon millions of lines of code. A similar reaction would be heard if C would not compile in C++, something I have seen mentioned many times as a major drawback to C++.
But if backwards compatability had been broken, I would hear the same thing from C programmers.
Will MoFo bless a true fork and be willing to totally give up the name Mozilla Suite? There's still a lot of interest in an integrated suite, starting with functionality (it has it) and with resource conservation (it's there). On the face of it it makes no sense to have to run two apps (browser & mail) with two engines running to get both active, when one engine will do it for both, and has been doing this job just swell all this time.
Although I've suggested a Firefox Classic integrated suite here elsewhere, it's not because of two Gecko engines. Here's what I posted about this on Asa's blog:
One concern I saw raised repeatedly, that is the concern of memory usage from multiple instances of the Gecko engine in each Mozilla component versus apparently one being shared in Mozilla Suite.
These concerns are likely to have been raised by non-programmers with it being seemingly sort of obvious that duplicated code is unnecessary bloat, or perhaps from loading and looking at memory resources and seeing more taken.
An operating system only pages into memory from disk that which is being used. We would have been in big trouble throughout the history of computing if memory had to hold the whole program, although nowadays such huge amounts of memory are required that people may think that.
It is more the case of large amounts of memory being allocated by programs and the operating system for data, not code. We used to have to work with small data buffers too, but with hardware now allowing nearly infinite amounts of memory at a shot to be accessed by programmers, ever approaching infinity amounts of memory are being accessed by programmers. It's painless to them now, and makes for much easier programming.
But in reality, only the code being executed is pulled into memory by the operating system as it's needed. The redundant Gecko engine code will sit in multiple.exe's on disk, so if disk space were a concern then there'd be a legitimate concern. We used to have to worry about disk space too, but that is something that really has reached infinity, so no problem there.
One may then point out that more memory has been observed to have been acquired, and the multiple Gecko thing is a pig. Again, this is more data than code. Even with a single instance of code, if you use it for multiple things it's going to grab multiple sections of memory for each use.
So in reality, in theory, because I haven't tried this at home, there's really not that much difference between a single Gecko engine grabbing two memory areas for FF and TB, or two Gecko engines grabbing an area apiece from FF and TB. It's mostly data work space needed to do the job on a web page and email.
And not only is there really no memory difference, but there should be faster performance and less possibility of internal data conflicts with two clean instances of Gecko working FF and TB versus a shared instance, not that there is any conflict in working, debugged code. Someone may very well say that a bunch of Gecko code it is spawned off for each use, and then it becomes clearer that it really doesn't matter if it starts off as two or is spawned off a couple of times from one.
And lastly, the Firefox Classic distro will be able to take advantage of any Mozilla FF, TB, etc. component integration with the Gecko engine that will conditionally compile and bring in focused Gecko code for the component at hand, versus one monolithic engine shared by all. Whether done or not now, there is certainly potential for focused integration with each component that Firefox Classic would inherit on each release.
So the response that two Gecko engines is a liability is that, actually, no, it's a plus.
What could have been done to smooth things out considerably and avoid wasted effort was simply to make an official statement at the start of the 1.8 development cycle that there would be no 1.8 public release and that the 1.8 testing cycle was specifically for testing Mozilla's backend technologies. No confusion, no fuss, the future of Mozilla is laid out right after 1.7, the perfect time to do so. The core question, in my mind, is why didn't this happen? IMHO, that's the real question that ought to be asked.
Is it just a coincidence that Google hired Ben Goodger just before this decision was made?
Would you consider putting your blessing on a Firefox Classic suite that integrates Firefox, Thunderbird, and other Mozilla projects with the advanced keyboard functionality of the Mozilla Suite?
.net is free as in beer, by the way. You can download the sdk which can compile from the command line and edit the source files in your favorite text editor. Although, to be fair, you need a non-free platform (windows) to run the stuff on.
They did the same thing with IE. Then it was Netscape, now it's Java.
rd
umm, i'm not getting this comment....?
Ie turned into netscape, then java?
The post was that.net from Microsoft was free as in beer, just download and it's yours. Microsoft did that to with IE to eliminate Netscape, now doing it with.net to eliminate Java.
They use their monopoly position to give away with Windows whatever is needed to eliminate competition. When someone says something is free from Microsoft, it's to eliminate competition.
Actually better would be to allow them to file several more patents. But not look at them for at least 6 months. This means that the patent office gets the fees plus 6 months interest.
No, the way to hinder frivilous patents is to just keep the fees.
What does that sound like to you? ASP == VBScript and all Microsoft's old sites were in ASP. So the statement leads me to beleive that he didn't know the difference.
Oh, sorry, there was a different thread I was in with VBscript explicitly named and compared to QuickBasic.
Has that even happened since the Louisiana Purchase?
A patent reform bill recently in the news being considered in the Senate would ban diversion of patent fees to the general fund. At this point patent applications are moneymakers for the US government.
Not only moneymakers from patent fees, but there is no way the federal government will willingly give up a source of control through which to extract bri^H^H^H political contributions.
""The security certificate was issued by a company that is not trusted."
While that read likes perfect valid english to me, knowing things that are irrelevant to my daily life and all, most people would NEVER understand that statement.
A clearer statement like "It is probable that a VIRUS is trying to install on your computer, do you want to STOP this VIRUS from installing" with a "yes" and "no" for the check box with "yes" the default.
This is currently rated 5 Funny but is the truth! lol So, ok, granted I am laughing.
Beyond rewording the Java install security warning into potential consequences, which is much needed as pointed out, is the problem that the.jar after installed also then installed several Windows malware programs.
If they were.exe's in the.jar file then the JVM should make the data available to OS security inspection with an OS specific security call, even if the API to call has to be provided by the Java Community to, for example, provide a program to invoke identified default AV, etc.
Also, for many of us it is assumed that what is in a.jar is Java, and although may have been given permission to write files, not assumed that those files are Windows.exe's.
Whether explicitly named as an executable file or renamed with an OS API call, in addition to the above trusted stuff Java should ask for permission to create an OS native executable which is way beyond the permission we intended to give to access files on the OS disk!
It is just a one time deal on an install, or in this worst case, several from the.jar, so is not onerous to a user. It also should not involve a lot of overhead as its only the OS API commands to create or rename files to or with an executable extension.
If any malware was subsequently downloaded and installed by the just installed Java program then another layer of permissions need to be asked for each additional install.
In other words, it is insufficient to ask if Java can be trusted, then let it install native OS programs unsupervised.
I am a Java programmer for the past year (writing my own stuff, unemployed) and have a program I plan to deploy, so this is very important to me that users can trust that Java will monitor what they have authorized to get out of the sandbox.
May not be fair, but Java will earn even more trust from users doing this. Let's make lemonade out of this lemon.
.net is free as in beer, by the way. You can download the sdk which can compile from the command line and edit the source files in your favorite text editor. Although, to be fair, you need a non-free platform (windows) to run the stuff on.
They did the same thing with IE. Then it was Netscape, now it's Java.
The name software is very misleading, because over and over again reality proofs that "software" is much harder than "hardware". The hardware we have is completely different from the one that we had ten years ago. Everything has changed. It is relatively cheap to change hardware, even to change hardware interfaces, compared to the cost of changing software to another development platform.
That is very insightful, and something I haven't seen said so well before.
I don't think your argument would apply in this case. Notice that it is VB developers (if you can call them that) that are complaining. Not businesses. The developers can always learn VB.NET (or, god forbid, a language that is actually halfway decent.) It's the companies that will have these problems.
The petition was signed by over 100 Microsoft MVP's, some sort of Developers, Developers, Developers, etc. recognition program.
They represent very large code bases, whether for businesses or commercial software. It's their careers, their livlihoods, and their need to explain why it all has to be rewritten.
It's not something they can walk away from, because it's an investment by both them and the customers.
One of the biggest drawbacks to Java for business back in the late '90s was that it wasn't ready. It hadn't stabilized as far as they were concerned. VB was stable.
Companies lose faith when their stable code base has to be rewritten to keep working.
Business losing faith in Microsoft is long overdue.
How about just advertise intent to publish in some federal register (set up for the purpose?)
yes, that would be the perfect way to publically document attempting to contact owner. Good idea.
The main thing I want to see is original copyright left on and then go into public domain. Any new copyrights on already copyrighted material is against the interest of the public, as I think your posts point out.
Not 5 years ago, Microsoft was pushing an "Enterprise Architecture" called "DNA" which was basically VB or J++ and the MTS/COM+ Application Server. It was their compeitition to J2EE.
Damned, if any of my programmers came to me bitching about this I'd likely fire them immediately.
The people complaining are owners of a lot of code that won't work under.NET. I am quite sure they don't give a damn whether you think you can fire them or not, they probably employ a lot more people than you do.
The knee jerks here go on and on about coding skills, but it's the code base that quits working natively unless rewritten that is what is being fought to protect, in other words, a lot of investment. Money.
I don't code VB, but back in the day I wrote some big systems in DOS Compiled Basic, it's predecessor, which did the job well.
Nevertheless I convinced a Fortune 200 when I was there to use Delphi instead of VB, which raised all kinds of havoc. The Microsoft Certifieds walked. But Delphi was the right choice.
I guess Microsoft hired away the Delphi team, wrote C#, and now the Microsofties say C# rules.
No, there should be no concern about copyrights being held by difficult or impossible to find owners, as in, for example, cannot find a contact to get permission to reprint.
Just require documented efforts to contact owner before publishing or using the copyrighted works, require publishing with original copyright notice, and if the owner surfaces and wants money, have an arbitration of percentage of profits to be awarded to owner.
No transfer of copyright, no legal mumbo jumbo, no providing loopholes in the copyright system. There's nothing here except lawyers looking to game the system.
The government can define the objects and interfaces and keep control of them.
Yes, I believe you and parent are right. As far as I've read, government does define data exchange file formats and, for example, for state programs exchanging data with feds, each state can come up with any system it wants for the data.
I think many states then collaborate on some the best solutions, although I still see massive failures when that is done, and source and methods are not open to public.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is even sure if the next version of Office will be based on pure managed code.
.NET [ddj.com]. Not a very good argument against .NET, there are certainly better ones. Especially when many apps are still written in C.
.NET. They have 300 programmers working on it.
.NET managed code talk was pushed back. But they did their standard vaporware lock on customers in the meantime.
Highly doubtful. That was one of the arguments Richard Grimes in his last article on
That was a problem for MS recently with theri four business packages, Great Plains, Solomon, etc. The story was they were going to rewrite in
Then the backsliding on their Longhorn and related servers thing, and all that
rd
Imagine this scenario, over just the past year. What if...there had been no moz suite or FF for people using windowes to go to when all those nasty exploits hit? Suppose the only alternative to them to get a better browser was to also get a better OS? Suppose MS had to actually stay "stuck" with what they had and even the more techhi of their users (the only ones really switching to moz or FF anyway) had to be doubly forced to look for some alternatives? With FF and suite being handy, they had little in the way of any painful decisions to make, it was a 'crutch", completely letting MS off the hook in that regard. And who paid for that, either money or time and skull sweat? Looks like MoFo paid. And who really got rewarded for all that effort? MS got rewarded, as it allowed people to stick with what they had.
:)
That's a good point. It is a kick in the butt to let MS off the hook from their users getting hammered by going to Moz, until another IE comes out and hammers their desktop with an "automatic" update.
Another way of thinking about that is to have some compelling F/OSS user apps written for F/OSS OS'es first. After all, it is F/OSS so who cares about traditional "market share" in that case?
Or possibly, a commercial/FOSS duality. Free on F/OSS OS'es, sold on commercial OS'es. At some point switching over to a Linux desktop could be compelling for users for the apps.
Now to write some compelling apps...
rd
Sorry, but I can't feel any sympathy or respect or anything for these guys. Learn something new! it happens to everyone! There are many lessons to be learned from this, and from what I've been reading, most of them have already been mentioned.
The best response I saw as far as business commenting was consider it an early warning system.
The petitioners included over 200 Microsoft MVP's representing millions upon millions of lines of code. A similar reaction would be heard if C would not compile in C++, something I have seen mentioned many times as a major drawback to C++.
But if backwards compatability had been broken, I would hear the same thing from C programmers.
rd
Will MoFo bless a true fork and be willing to totally give up the name Mozilla Suite? There's still a lot of interest in an integrated suite, starting with functionality (it has it) and with resource conservation (it's there). On the face of it it makes no sense to have to run two apps (browser & mail) with two engines running to get both active, when one engine will do it for both, and has been doing this job just swell all this time.
.exe's on disk, so if disk space were a concern then there'd be a legitimate concern. We used to have to worry about disk space too, but that is something that really has reached infinity, so no problem there.
Although I've suggested a Firefox Classic integrated suite here elsewhere, it's not because of two Gecko engines. Here's what I posted about this on Asa's blog:
One concern I saw raised repeatedly, that is the concern of memory usage from multiple instances of the Gecko engine in each Mozilla component versus apparently one being shared in Mozilla Suite.
These concerns are likely to have been raised by non-programmers with it being seemingly sort of obvious that duplicated code is unnecessary bloat, or perhaps from loading and looking at memory resources and seeing more taken.
An operating system only pages into memory from disk that which is being used. We would have been in big trouble throughout the history of computing if memory had to hold the whole program, although nowadays such huge amounts of memory are required that people may think that.
It is more the case of large amounts of memory being allocated by programs and the operating system for data, not code. We used to have to work with small data buffers too, but with hardware now allowing nearly infinite amounts of memory at a shot to be accessed by programmers, ever approaching infinity amounts of memory are being accessed by programmers. It's painless to them now, and makes for much easier programming.
But in reality, only the code being executed is pulled into memory by the operating system as it's needed. The redundant Gecko engine code will sit in multiple
One may then point out that more memory has been observed to have been acquired, and the multiple Gecko thing is a pig. Again, this is more data than code. Even with a single instance of code, if you use it for multiple things it's going to grab multiple sections of memory for each use.
So in reality, in theory, because I haven't tried this at home, there's really not that much difference between a single Gecko engine grabbing two memory areas for FF and TB, or two Gecko engines grabbing an area apiece from FF and TB. It's mostly data work space needed to do the job on a web page and email.
And not only is there really no memory difference, but there should be faster performance and less possibility of internal data conflicts with two clean instances of Gecko working FF and TB versus a shared instance, not that there is any conflict in working, debugged code. Someone may very well say that a bunch of Gecko code it is spawned off for each use, and then it becomes clearer that it really doesn't matter if it starts off as two or is spawned off a couple of times from one.
And lastly, the Firefox Classic distro will be able to take advantage of any Mozilla FF, TB, etc. component integration with the Gecko engine that will conditionally compile and bring in focused Gecko code for the component at hand, versus one monolithic engine shared by all. Whether done or not now, there is certainly potential for focused integration with each component that Firefox Classic would inherit on each release.
So the response that two Gecko engines is a liability is that, actually, no, it's a plus.
rd
What could have been done to smooth things out considerably and avoid wasted effort was simply to make an official statement at the start of the 1.8 development cycle that there would be no 1.8 public release and that the 1.8 testing cycle was specifically for testing Mozilla's backend technologies. No confusion, no fuss, the future of Mozilla is laid out right after 1.7, the perfect time to do so. The core question, in my mind, is why didn't this happen? IMHO, that's the real question that ought to be asked.
Is it just a coincidence that Google hired Ben Goodger just before this decision was made?
rd
Would you consider putting your blessing on a Firefox Classic suite that integrates Firefox, Thunderbird, and other Mozilla projects with the advanced keyboard functionality of the Mozilla Suite?
rd
.net is free as in beer, by the way. You can download the sdk which can compile from the command line and edit the source files in your favorite text editor. Although, to be fair, you need a non-free platform (windows) to run the stuff on.
.net from Microsoft was free as in beer, just download and it's yours. Microsoft did that to with IE to eliminate Netscape, now doing it with .net to eliminate Java.
.net.
They did the same thing with IE. Then it was Netscape, now it's Java.
rd
umm, i'm not getting this comment....?
Ie turned into netscape, then java?
The post was that
They use their monopoly position to give away with Windows whatever is needed to eliminate competition. When someone says something is free from Microsoft, it's to eliminate competition.
IE then, now
rd
Actually better would be to allow them to file several more patents. But not look at them for at least 6 months. This means that the patent office gets the fees plus 6 months interest.
No, the way to hinder frivilous patents is to just keep the fees.
rd
What does that sound like to you? ASP == VBScript and all Microsoft's old sites were in ASP. So the statement leads me to beleive that he didn't know the difference.
Oh, sorry, there was a different thread I was in with VBscript explicitly named and compared to QuickBasic.
rd
if a patent gets rejected for being obvious
Has that even happened since the Louisiana Purchase?
A patent reform bill recently in the news being considered in the Senate would ban diversion of patent fees to the general fund. At this point patent applications are moneymakers for the US government.
Not only moneymakers from patent fees, but there is no way the federal government will willingly give up a source of control through which to extract bri^H^H^H political contributions.
Patent reform is government reform.
rd
It is inevitable that every nation on earth but the US will switch to open source, and fairly soon in the scheme of things.
And find the whole US patent process irrelevant and not worth dealing with while they're at it.
The US will hopefully follow suit with the Justice Department and switch to WordPerfect if not open source. I don't have much hope for the US though.
rd
""The security certificate was issued by a company that is not trusted."
.jar after installed also then installed several Windows malware programs.
.exe's in the .jar file then the JVM should make the data available to OS security inspection with an OS specific security call, even if the API to call has to be provided by the Java Community to, for example, provide a program to invoke identified default AV, etc.
.jar is Java, and although may have been given permission to write files, not assumed that those files are Windows .exe's.
.jar, so is not onerous to a user. It also should not involve a lot of overhead as its only the OS API commands to create or rename files to or with an executable extension.
While that read likes perfect valid english to me, knowing things that are irrelevant to my daily life and all, most people would NEVER understand that statement.
A clearer statement like "It is probable that a VIRUS is trying to install on your computer, do you want to STOP this VIRUS from installing" with a "yes" and "no" for the check box with "yes" the default.
This is currently rated 5 Funny but is the truth! lol So, ok, granted I am laughing.
Beyond rewording the Java install security warning into potential consequences, which is much needed as pointed out, is the problem that the
If they were
Also, for many of us it is assumed that what is in a
Whether explicitly named as an executable file or renamed with an OS API call, in addition to the above trusted stuff Java should ask for permission to create an OS native executable which is way beyond the permission we intended to give to access files on the OS disk!
It is just a one time deal on an install, or in this worst case, several from the
If any malware was subsequently downloaded and installed by the just installed Java program then another layer of permissions need to be asked for each additional install.
In other words, it is insufficient to ask if Java can be trusted, then let it install native OS programs unsupervised.
I am a Java programmer for the past year (writing my own stuff, unemployed) and have a program I plan to deploy, so this is very important to me that users can trust that Java will monitor what they have authorized to get out of the sandbox.
May not be fair, but Java will earn even more trust from users doing this. Let's make lemonade out of this lemon.
rd
VBScript doesn't equal VB6
He wasn't comparing it to VB6, he was comparing it to QuickBasic, and even then he didn't say it equaled it.
rd
They did the same thing with IE. Then it was Netscape, now it's Java.
rd
Talk about answering your own question.
rd
Why is everyone here so Anti-VB 6? VB 6 is great at what it is designed for: RAD -- Rapid Application Development.
There's no other language where you can throw together a quick and dirty Windows program so easily.
The name software is very misleading, because over and over again reality proofs that "software" is much harder than "hardware". The hardware we have is completely different from the one that we had ten years ago. Everything has changed. It is relatively cheap to change hardware, even to change hardware interfaces, compared to the cost of changing software to another development platform.
That is very insightful, and something I haven't seen said so well before.
rd
I don't think your argument would apply in this case. Notice that it is VB developers (if you can call them that) that are complaining. Not businesses. The developers can always learn VB.NET (or, god forbid, a language that is actually halfway decent.) It's the companies that will have these problems.
The petition was signed by over 100 Microsoft MVP's, some sort of Developers, Developers, Developers, etc. recognition program.
They represent very large code bases, whether for businesses or commercial software. It's their careers, their livlihoods, and their need to explain why it all has to be rewritten.
It's not something they can walk away from, because it's an investment by both them and the customers.
One of the biggest drawbacks to Java for business back in the late '90s was that it wasn't ready. It hadn't stabilized as far as they were concerned. VB was stable.
Companies lose faith when their stable code base has to be rewritten to keep working.
Business losing faith in Microsoft is long overdue.
rd
How about just advertise intent to publish in some federal register (set up for the purpose?)
yes, that would be the perfect way to publically document attempting to contact owner. Good idea.
The main thing I want to see is original copyright left on and then go into public domain. Any new copyrights on already copyrighted material is against the interest of the public, as I think your posts point out.
rd
No, COM objects can be written in VB.
Not 5 years ago, Microsoft was pushing an "Enterprise Architecture" called "DNA" which was basically VB or J++ and the MTS/COM+ Application Server. It was their compeitition to J2EE.
Ok, thanks. I guess that changed in VB6.
rd
I may not know they exist. I knew VB existed because quickbasic was already on the machine...
QB or an equivalent is not on MS boxes anymore, right? I guess another good reason for a beginner to go to Linux.
rd
Because objects in VB6 have a COM interface, VB6 can be used to implement inter process communication with great ease.
But the COM objects had to be written in C/C++, right? How is that great ease for the VB6 programmer?
rd
Damned, if any of my programmers came to me bitching about this I'd likely fire them immediately.
.NET. I am quite sure they don't give a damn whether you think you can fire them or not, they probably employ a lot more people than you do.
The people complaining are owners of a lot of code that won't work under
The knee jerks here go on and on about coding skills, but it's the code base that quits working natively unless rewritten that is what is being fought to protect, in other words, a lot of investment. Money.
I don't code VB, but back in the day I wrote some big systems in DOS Compiled Basic, it's predecessor, which did the job well.
Nevertheless I convinced a Fortune 200 when I was there to use Delphi instead of VB, which raised all kinds of havoc. The Microsoft Certifieds walked. But Delphi was the right choice.
I guess Microsoft hired away the Delphi team, wrote C#, and now the Microsofties say C# rules.
Go figure.
rd
No, there should be no concern about copyrights being held by difficult or impossible to find owners, as in, for example, cannot find a contact to get permission to reprint.
Just require documented efforts to contact owner before publishing or using the copyrighted works, require publishing with original copyright notice, and if the owner surfaces and wants money, have an arbitration of percentage of profits to be awarded to owner.
No transfer of copyright, no legal mumbo jumbo, no providing loopholes in the copyright system. There's nothing here except lawyers looking to game the system.
rd
The government can define the objects and interfaces and keep control of them.
oops, I meant I believe you and grandparent, the original one making this point, are right.
rd
The government can define the objects and interfaces and keep control of them.
Yes, I believe you and parent are right. As far as I've read, government does define data exchange file formats and, for example, for state programs exchanging data with feds, each state can come up with any system it wants for the data.
I think many states then collaborate on some the best solutions, although I still see massive failures when that is done, and source and methods are not open to public.
rd