I think my first reaction at reading this announcement was one of disappointment. This seems a lot like a step backwards, especially when many important components are affected. However, after a bit of thought on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that this is a good idea anyway.
First, if I am interpreting this correctly, this entire issue revolves around Debian remaining 100% free (under a certain definition of "free"), and not requiring the use of any non-free component. This is in stark contrast to, say, the NetBSD project, which is a bit more lax on which "free"/"open" licenses qualify for inclusion in their software. Their idea is that they do not have infinite time to reproduce every single component under the BSD license, so inclusion of other software benefits the community. This would seem to place Debian at a disadvantage.
But upon further reflection, I reminded myself that free software is all about the freedom to choose. In other words, I can choose to use Debian, or not, and further, if I choose to use Debian, nobody said that I can't install components from other distros, specific developers whose software was not included, or even earlier versions of Debian. Therefore, this becomes a great advantage to the community: A 100% "free" distribution, into which you can add whatever components, free or not, that you wish.
Microsoft's products all use formless colored figures as mascots. How come we don't get to use boring mascots like they do? All we get to use are high quality creative characters. That's not fair. I think all free/open source programs should adopt boring businesslike formless colored figures, so we can appear as boring as that crowd.
a marvelous volume purchased at a specialist bookstore that was referred to as "the shop manual." It wasn't much help teaching you how to drive or how to park but if you needed to know how to perform an oil change, flush the radiator or bleed the brakes it told you all the details
I wonder if this marvelous volume would show me how to put my car back together, because the tranny, block, and head are sitting on the floor, and tons of other parts are scattered on 3 tables and a cart. Oh, and don't forget the several containers I have that hold its old oils and fluids. This used to be a car. Now, it's a paperweight on jackstands.
At least it'll haul ass when I finish it... if I finish it.
I think a worldwide system should be put in place to monitor and record the contents of everybody's email. Certain phrases would raise red flags, and the next thing you know, "they" are knocking on your door.
Yeah. Peoples' computers are so full of crap that it is disgusting. I get these things all the time. That's what happens when people know that you know computers. They say they get some "black screen" or something incredibly descriptive like that, and that the computer doesn't work anymore. (Most people who have money will, at this point, decide that the computer is no longer any good, in much the same way that unknowledgeable drivers with money decide that their car has gotten 40,000 miles on it and is therefore useless, and will replace it with a new one, costing 10 times what it should, with 90% of its features being totally unnecessary for their needs, despite what you'll tell them if they consult with you before buying it, and with 1000 programs preinstalled that they'll never ever use.)
So I take a look. In my experience, most people have about 3 programs they use most of the time. For most people using Windows, that would be Explorer, Outlook, and then something else, like Word or something. But, and this NEVER EVER fails, they ALWAYS have about 175 programs installed that take up tons of space, many of which have all kinds of daemons that run in the background, causing the hard drive to grind around all the time, causing all kinds of weird and questionable messages and popups to appear, and best of all, make the whole thing run so damn slow that it's a wonder they can get any work done.
Unfortunately, no matter how hard you try to explain it, 99% of the users DON'T understand: Use this computer for its intended purpose, and DON'T download or install all kinds of shit! Don't go to all kinds of web sites that you aren't familiar with! Don't run or open something when you don't know 100% for sure what it is!
But do they listen? NO!!! Of course not!
The solution is to develop a finely grained security model where not only is the user and his files protected, but so are processes, pipes, and just about any other "object", as it were. And these damn things should ship, by default, to do what most users need to do, but under extremely limiting circumstances, so that their computer will refuse even to download some attachment to an email unless some really complicated process is first carried out. Something requiring commands to be entered into a terminal window. Because even if you ask, "Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY SURE you want to open this attachment, which will MOST LIKELY **D**E**L**E**T**E your files, beginning with those that are most important to you??? Push any key to answer "no" or type, "I, [your name here], do hereby solemnly swear, under penalty of deletion of all of my files, that I am absolutely positively sure that I WANT TO OPEN THIS ATTACHMENT, which will most likely delete my files, beginning with those that are most important to me," you can rest assured that MOST users will simply punch all of that in to answer "yes" and then wonder why in the hell their computer doesn't work properly.
But the best part is when they don't understand that the malfunction is all in software, which should, at that point, be blown off and reinstalled, and instead think that replacing the entire computer will solve their problem. And then they download all of the same **S**H**I**T** into it and end up in the same situation.
Hell... I'd communicate on a constant basis with everyone and anyone I could get a hold of who is involved with any free software, and try to put together an organization that would take money donations and use them to provide libraries with "official" free software CDs to be borrowed and copied by their patrons.
In other words, a real charity organization, with glossy professional looking literature describing to those in charge of libraries the benefits of allowing people to borrow, use, and copy free software. All the library has to do is contact the organization and a 4211 disc crate of CDs will arrive in the mail shortly thereafter, fully labeled with the contents and nice little explanation pamphlets attached that explain what is what.
If such a thing can be successful around the world, and I see no reason why it shouldn't, then the corresponding materials might be put together by the project that produces the software, just as RPMs are produced today.
I would love to see this happen. The more free software we put out there, all over the place, the more people will consider switching.
The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?
Because, Steve, if your company would work with No. 2, No. 3, No. 4...No. N, your company could kick Microsoft's ass and Apple would become the Number 1 computer platform in use.
I'm a big fan of Apple. But if you folks don't push and shove to get your stuff out there, you'll still be "only" 2 or 3 percent of a huge market. Hell, if I were you, Mac OS would have been released for x86 a LONG time ago. Who cares about the driver problems and whatnot? Make it work with drivers from the various BSDs and from Linux. People who use x86 are accustomed to the bullshit; anything would be better than Windows. But noooooooo... That would mean stooping too low for Apple.
So maybe No. 1 should get off its high horse and work together with any and every company it can to blow MS out of the water.
You just wait. I give this thing about 30 days, and then people will start hearing from all kinds of lawyers, and we'll have another SCO on our hands, claiming we jacked source code which we did not, in fact, jack.
So this is what I suggest: Distribute this source code as widely as possible. Like the way DeCSS was widely distributed. But instead of using it to build the product, use it to plan a completely new design, and build that as a separate project altogether, using none of the original source code. Call it a different name, make it do slightly different things... when they come to bitch and moan, the damn thing won't share any lines of code. Shit, if there's int i in that source, our version should define int to INT and write INT i, just to throw off code comparison.
Oh yeah, and for our protection, I think laws should passed worldwide that anything posted on the Internet and subsequently removed cannot be recalled once downloaded by at least one person, so that if a company releases something as GPL and then pulls it, even if that is due to copyright violations on their part in including the thing in a GPL download, that company is subject to damages but not the downloaders, since they downloaded something as licensed under the GPL.
This system sounds like it's going to save many lives.
For example, I can envision the following scenerio: You're driving down the street, just minding your own business, when all of a sudden, a message window appears on the display to warn you that a car is about to hit you. Of course, since the display is mounted behind the driver, visible only to the back seat, you can't see the message. But in typical Windows style, the vehicle's controls become completely unresponsive until you click 'ok' in that window. (For convenience, though, you can click on 'don't show this message again' or something like that.)
The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.
Hmmm... That sounds like a really good deal. But I think I have a better one. How about, I give you the finger, and you let me play the songs that I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WITH GOOD MONEY on whichever device I see fit, whether you believe that it's appropriate or not.
Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a song if you're unable to hear?
One day, some geek mathematician is going to work on a simple right triangle problem, you know, sin, cos, etc., to figure out how many tiles he'll need to buy for his bathroom or something, while standing on the toilet to get a bird's eye view of the room. But, as luck would have it, this idjit won't notice that the porcelain is wet, and in the excitement of multiplying, in his head, the opposite by the hypotenuse, he'll slip, hit his head on the edge of the sink, and in coming to, figure out a six-step process for finding any private encryption key given a public key and an encrypted or signed message at least 10 bytes in length; said calculation taking less than 10 milliseconds on modern CPUs.
And then the price of quantum cryptography hardware will drop to that of your El Cheapo video card lacking support for 3D acceleration.
And, yes, I do believe that this will happen, because if software was able to generate two keys, then it stands to reason that software should be capable of finding one key given the other and a sample of data. In the same way as a triangle has 3 sides and 3 angles, and knowing any two pieces of information can allow one to solve for a third, thus works encryption, in which the three possible pieces of information are: the private key, the public key, and the encrypted message.
IANAM (I Am Not A Mathematician.) BMSI (But My Sister Is.)
due to similiarities in the instruction sets of AMD64 chips and the new 64-bit extensions for Intel Xeons, it is clear that Intel reverse-engineered the AMD64
So? Even if they did reverse-engineer something, what's wrong with that? Without reverse-engineering, IBM would probably still be producing the only PCs, and the computer market, Internet, and many related technologies might not have grown to the extent that they did.
Besides, they could have bought the instruction set documentation and built a similar processor based on that. Just like you can read the Windows API manuals and make libraries that provide the same functionality.
I'll tell you how things could get really innovative. Instead of sending one little rover here, one little rover there, why not send many little rovers, each of which can, once on Mars, attach to the others, to form a really big rover. You don't have to send all the rovers at the same time. It's enough that you launch them so that when one runs out of power, the next one arrives, attaches to it, gives it more power, and continues to operate. Within 10 years, you'll have a huge rover the size of a building driving around with tons of equipment measuring everything. When people land on Mars, they could use this bigger rover as their temporary home, while additional materials are sent to build a big dome, which would house a big nature scene. It would work because it would be cool. It would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars.
They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies.
Yeah, right. Reminds me of the navy showers. You'd just barely turn on the water, and the officer responsible for the conservation of water would yell at you that you're using too much!
Honestly, for every person who takes great pains to conserve, there are at least 100 who take 30 minute showers, leave the faucet running when brushing their teeth, flush the toilet 2 or 3 times per use, leave the hose running outside when washing the car, run the dishwasher with two glasses inside, and put their washing machine on oversize when washing two underwears.
And you don't have to go to extremes to get the point, either... When we had a drought a few years ago, they told us we could only use 40 gallons per day... well, that's barely enough to run the washing machine. So what's the point? Just generate more clean water and be done with it.
Can we really trust closed- source vendors, such as Cisco, to develop secure products that are free of backdoors?
The answer is NO. We simply cannot trust closed-source vendors of any kind.
Think of it this way: Any kind of physical machine that you can get can be taken apart and inspected. But when it comes to software, which has grown in the last decades to very large and complex systems, doing so without the source is extremely difficult and wouldn't give any benefit because the results could be impossible to understand.
Therefore, RMS is absolutely right in this respect, no matter how wacko some people think he is.
This isn't fair. I mean, it's extremely fair when the government storms Microsoft offices and smashes up everything over there. But if they kindly walk into Intel offices and ask to be shown around, that's a bit invasive and unfair.
Researchers also tested a so-called "active" system in which the vehicle would actually adjust the steering automatically if it veered too far one way or the other.
This is wonderful. This way, if I have to steer around an obstacle in an emergency, the car--which is obviously smarter than I am, in the same way that Microsoft's software products are smarter than I am, and therefore must make my decisions for me--will correct my defective steering and plow me directly into the obstacle.
Suppose you install Linux in your car... And get pulled over by Darl McBride. "License and registration, please," he says. You produce a driver license, to which he replies, "No, you idiot... your $699 Linux license! Oh, you don't have one? Step out of the vehicle with your hands up..."
...and the funkiest of all, dynamic display of an image pulled off the web based on keywords extracted from each sentence -- hey, turn all your web pages into slide shows today!
It looks like a real dilemma where if you refuse to hire your replacement, you are fired without severance and are ineligible for unemployment benefits, and if you quit, you don't receive severance and are ineligible for unemployment.
A dilemma, eh? (No, I'm not from Canada.) The answer is so simple, I'm surprised nobody has thought of this...
All you have to do is teach your replacement all the wrong and worst ways to do things. In the meantime (even if you have to work extra at home to accomplish this), you continue to do all of your work, so it looks like the foreign replacement is getting the hang of things and doing them right, but for less money. Management thinks the cheap labor is ready to take over, and they fire you. Next thing they find out: Big damages. And they, the MANAGEMENT, gets in big trouble with the higher-ups, or with the shareholders, or, if it's a small business, the business loses a lot and could go down. In the meantime, you get your severage package, and before you get fired, you start looking for your new job.
This might seem like a really mean, rude, and nasty thing to do, but think of it this way: The more businesses are damaged by cheap foreign labor, the more they'll be inclined to STOP DESTROYING THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY and hire people over friggen here. And you're getting a job somewhere where hopefully they won't treat you like some kind of garbage.
Good that the community is responding to Forrester's bullschitt report about Linux vs. Losedows.
It fits to mention, by the way, that since I am a conservative republican right-wing extremist conspiracy theorist, I strongly believe that Forrester was paid by Micrapsoft to produce their little bullschitt report, because most PHBs don't understand anything technical, nor do they want to understand anything technical. Therefore, reading Micrapsoft's garbage (that's seemingly always advertised at the top of Slashdot for some reason) about why Losedows has a lower TCO than Linux, and then reading Forrester's bullschitt report about how Losedows is more secure than Linux, makes these PHBs, whom I like to call StuplePeopid (tm), feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like the leftist liberal democrats that they are.
StuplePeopid (tm) is a trademark of rice_burners_suck.
rice_burners_suck (tm) is a trademark of its respective owner. (And you had better respect its owner.)
The basic idea is to represent different folders on your computer as rooms in a 3D environment. Then, armed to your teeths you go through these rooms and delete files by shooting att them.
And let me guess... the bigger the file, the more times you have to shoot at it to kill it...
They should allow you to kill running programs, too.
Slashdot Mirror
First, if I am interpreting this correctly, this entire issue revolves around Debian remaining 100% free (under a certain definition of "free"), and not requiring the use of any non-free component. This is in stark contrast to, say, the NetBSD project, which is a bit more lax on which "free"/"open" licenses qualify for inclusion in their software. Their idea is that they do not have infinite time to reproduce every single component under the BSD license, so inclusion of other software benefits the community. This would seem to place Debian at a disadvantage.
But upon further reflection, I reminded myself that free software is all about the freedom to choose. In other words, I can choose to use Debian, or not, and further, if I choose to use Debian, nobody said that I can't install components from other distros, specific developers whose software was not included, or even earlier versions of Debian. Therefore, this becomes a great advantage to the community: A 100% "free" distribution, into which you can add whatever components, free or not, that you wish.
Microsoft's products all use formless colored figures as mascots. How come we don't get to use boring mascots like they do? All we get to use are high quality creative characters. That's not fair. I think all free/open source programs should adopt boring businesslike formless colored figures, so we can appear as boring as that crowd.
If you think a factory job is going to be less stressful than a website job, you've got something else coming.
I wonder if this marvelous volume would show me how to put my car back together, because the tranny, block, and head are sitting on the floor, and tons of other parts are scattered on 3 tables and a cart. Oh, and don't forget the several containers I have that hold its old oils and fluids. This used to be a car. Now, it's a paperweight on jackstands.
At least it'll haul ass when I finish it... if I finish it.
In other words, they went on Google and punched in Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, etc.
Yeah... Only world superpowers could have figured that one out.
Oh wait... nevermind.
So I take a look. In my experience, most people have about 3 programs they use most of the time. For most people using Windows, that would be Explorer, Outlook, and then something else, like Word or something. But, and this NEVER EVER fails, they ALWAYS have about 175 programs installed that take up tons of space, many of which have all kinds of daemons that run in the background, causing the hard drive to grind around all the time, causing all kinds of weird and questionable messages and popups to appear, and best of all, make the whole thing run so damn slow that it's a wonder they can get any work done.
Unfortunately, no matter how hard you try to explain it, 99% of the users DON'T understand: Use this computer for its intended purpose, and DON'T download or install all kinds of shit! Don't go to all kinds of web sites that you aren't familiar with! Don't run or open something when you don't know 100% for sure what it is!
But do they listen? NO!!! Of course not!
The solution is to develop a finely grained security model where not only is the user and his files protected, but so are processes, pipes, and just about any other "object", as it were. And these damn things should ship, by default, to do what most users need to do, but under extremely limiting circumstances, so that their computer will refuse even to download some attachment to an email unless some really complicated process is first carried out. Something requiring commands to be entered into a terminal window. Because even if you ask, "Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY SURE you want to open this attachment, which will MOST LIKELY **D**E**L**E**T**E your files, beginning with those that are most important to you??? Push any key to answer "no" or type, "I, [your name here], do hereby solemnly swear, under penalty of deletion of all of my files, that I am absolutely positively sure that I WANT TO OPEN THIS ATTACHMENT, which will most likely delete my files, beginning with those that are most important to me," you can rest assured that MOST users will simply punch all of that in to answer "yes" and then wonder why in the hell their computer doesn't work properly.
But the best part is when they don't understand that the malfunction is all in software, which should, at that point, be blown off and reinstalled, and instead think that replacing the entire computer will solve their problem. And then they download all of the same **S**H**I**T** into it and end up in the same situation.
Yeah dude, this story is such a dupe. I can't find the damn link, but I assure you, it was posted no longer ago than three weeks.
In other words, a real charity organization, with glossy professional looking literature describing to those in charge of libraries the benefits of allowing people to borrow, use, and copy free software. All the library has to do is contact the organization and a 4211 disc crate of CDs will arrive in the mail shortly thereafter, fully labeled with the contents and nice little explanation pamphlets attached that explain what is what.
If such a thing can be successful around the world, and I see no reason why it shouldn't, then the corresponding materials might be put together by the project that produces the software, just as RPMs are produced today.
I would love to see this happen. The more free software we put out there, all over the place, the more people will consider switching.
Because, Steve, if your company would work with No. 2, No. 3, No. 4...No. N, your company could kick Microsoft's ass and Apple would become the Number 1 computer platform in use.
I'm a big fan of Apple. But if you folks don't push and shove to get your stuff out there, you'll still be "only" 2 or 3 percent of a huge market. Hell, if I were you, Mac OS would have been released for x86 a LONG time ago. Who cares about the driver problems and whatnot? Make it work with drivers from the various BSDs and from Linux. People who use x86 are accustomed to the bullshit; anything would be better than Windows. But noooooooo... That would mean stooping too low for Apple.
So maybe No. 1 should get off its high horse and work together with any and every company it can to blow MS out of the water.
So this is what I suggest: Distribute this source code as widely as possible. Like the way DeCSS was widely distributed. But instead of using it to build the product, use it to plan a completely new design, and build that as a separate project altogether, using none of the original source code. Call it a different name, make it do slightly different things... when they come to bitch and moan, the damn thing won't share any lines of code. Shit, if there's int i in that source, our version should define int to INT and write INT i, just to throw off code comparison.
Oh yeah, and for our protection, I think laws should passed worldwide that anything posted on the Internet and subsequently removed cannot be recalled once downloaded by at least one person, so that if a company releases something as GPL and then pulls it, even if that is due to copyright violations on their part in including the thing in a GPL download, that company is subject to damages but not the downloaders, since they downloaded something as licensed under the GPL.
For example, I can envision the following scenerio: You're driving down the street, just minding your own business, when all of a sudden, a message window appears on the display to warn you that a car is about to hit you. Of course, since the display is mounted behind the driver, visible only to the back seat, you can't see the message. But in typical Windows style, the vehicle's controls become completely unresponsive until you click 'ok' in that window. (For convenience, though, you can click on 'don't show this message again' or something like that.)
Hmmm... That sounds like a really good deal. But I think I have a better one. How about, I give you the finger, and you let me play the songs that I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WITH GOOD MONEY on whichever device I see fit, whether you believe that it's appropriate or not.
Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a song if you're unable to hear?
And then the price of quantum cryptography hardware will drop to that of your El Cheapo video card lacking support for 3D acceleration.
And, yes, I do believe that this will happen, because if software was able to generate two keys, then it stands to reason that software should be capable of finding one key given the other and a sample of data. In the same way as a triangle has 3 sides and 3 angles, and knowing any two pieces of information can allow one to solve for a third, thus works encryption, in which the three possible pieces of information are: the private key, the public key, and the encrypted message.
IANAM (I Am Not A Mathematician.) BMSI (But My Sister Is.)
So? Even if they did reverse-engineer something, what's wrong with that? Without reverse-engineering, IBM would probably still be producing the only PCs, and the computer market, Internet, and many related technologies might not have grown to the extent that they did.
Besides, they could have bought the instruction set documentation and built a similar processor based on that. Just like you can read the Windows API manuals and make libraries that provide the same functionality.
I'll tell you how things could get really innovative. Instead of sending one little rover here, one little rover there, why not send many little rovers, each of which can, once on Mars, attach to the others, to form a really big rover. You don't have to send all the rovers at the same time. It's enough that you launch them so that when one runs out of power, the next one arrives, attaches to it, gives it more power, and continues to operate. Within 10 years, you'll have a huge rover the size of a building driving around with tons of equipment measuring everything. When people land on Mars, they could use this bigger rover as their temporary home, while additional materials are sent to build a big dome, which would house a big nature scene. It would work because it would be cool. It would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars.
Yeah, right. Reminds me of the navy showers. You'd just barely turn on the water, and the officer responsible for the conservation of water would yell at you that you're using too much!
Honestly, for every person who takes great pains to conserve, there are at least 100 who take 30 minute showers, leave the faucet running when brushing their teeth, flush the toilet 2 or 3 times per use, leave the hose running outside when washing the car, run the dishwasher with two glasses inside, and put their washing machine on oversize when washing two underwears.
And you don't have to go to extremes to get the point, either... When we had a drought a few years ago, they told us we could only use 40 gallons per day... well, that's barely enough to run the washing machine. So what's the point? Just generate more clean water and be done with it.
The answer is NO. We simply cannot trust closed-source vendors of any kind.
Think of it this way: Any kind of physical machine that you can get can be taken apart and inspected. But when it comes to software, which has grown in the last decades to very large and complex systems, doing so without the source is extremely difficult and wouldn't give any benefit because the results could be impossible to understand.
Therefore, RMS is absolutely right in this respect, no matter how wacko some people think he is.
This isn't fair. I mean, it's extremely fair when the government storms Microsoft offices and smashes up everything over there. But if they kindly walk into Intel offices and ask to be shown around, that's a bit invasive and unfair.
This is wonderful. This way, if I have to steer around an obstacle in an emergency, the car--which is obviously smarter than I am, in the same way that Microsoft's software products are smarter than I am, and therefore must make my decisions for me--will correct my defective steering and plow me directly into the obstacle.
Good deal. Next time, I'm buying Chrysler.
That would be really bad.
In other words, if I put a recipe for chicken breasts on the Internet, this software will detect the word 'breasts' and display some pr0n next to it, whereupon the justice department will beset your door and drag you kicking and screaming to the slammer. Now go and TRY to prove that it was the computer's fault.
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh well.
A dilemma, eh? (No, I'm not from Canada.) The answer is so simple, I'm surprised nobody has thought of this...
All you have to do is teach your replacement all the wrong and worst ways to do things. In the meantime (even if you have to work extra at home to accomplish this), you continue to do all of your work, so it looks like the foreign replacement is getting the hang of things and doing them right, but for less money. Management thinks the cheap labor is ready to take over, and they fire you. Next thing they find out: Big damages. And they, the MANAGEMENT, gets in big trouble with the higher-ups, or with the shareholders, or, if it's a small business, the business loses a lot and could go down. In the meantime, you get your severage package, and before you get fired, you start looking for your new job.
This might seem like a really mean, rude, and nasty thing to do, but think of it this way: The more businesses are damaged by cheap foreign labor, the more they'll be inclined to STOP DESTROYING THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY and hire people over friggen here. And you're getting a job somewhere where hopefully they won't treat you like some kind of garbage.
It fits to mention, by the way, that since I am a conservative republican right-wing extremist conspiracy theorist, I strongly believe that Forrester was paid by Micrapsoft to produce their little bullschitt report, because most PHBs don't understand anything technical, nor do they want to understand anything technical. Therefore, reading Micrapsoft's garbage (that's seemingly always advertised at the top of Slashdot for some reason) about why Losedows has a lower TCO than Linux, and then reading Forrester's bullschitt report about how Losedows is more secure than Linux, makes these PHBs, whom I like to call StuplePeopid (tm), feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like the leftist liberal democrats that they are.
StuplePeopid (tm) is a trademark of rice_burners_suck.
rice_burners_suck (tm) is a trademark of its respective owner. (And you had better respect its owner.)
And let me guess... the bigger the file, the more times you have to shoot at it to kill it...
They should allow you to kill running programs, too.