LIMBO doesn't seem to be a terribly good name for a release, is it saying that they just barely kept the release from going straight to hell?
It's a BETA. Betas are releases from hell. You have to know what you are doing if you are using betas.:) Judging from previous history, it won't be the name of the final release.
I'm running 7.1, and I had to upgrade GCC from the broken 2.96, which wasn't easy for me, me being a linux n00b.
Im curious. What problems did you have with gcc-2.96-rh? Did you upgrade to the official errata updates for the compiler? Are you sure that the compiler was at fault and not the applications you were trying to compile? Some developers have been more keen on blaming the compiler than on fixing broken code.
I guess I'm just inclined to cynicism because I see how commercial software gets slower and slower with every release -- hope the reverse is happening with Gnome & co.
You won't get disappointed. A lot of people (me included) can testify that it is a lot faster.
It's not very strange. It just means that options should be organized/categorized/foldered better.
And this is what people are trying to do. However, it still doesn't make sense to keep every option ever invented in any operating system in, no matter how well organized they are. If hardly noone uses an option or if noone is prepared to maintain it, it's usually just unmaintained code that may have been broken for years and a source for bug reports. Preferences have a cost. Better organization and careful decisions on what to have and what to keep is what's needed, and that's what people are trying to do.
1) We compiled something here with 2.96 (C) it did not work. We compiled with 3.0.1 and it did. Since I cannot release our source code to the public as it isn't my property, you won't be seeing. We now use ICC because of the performance boost (that is considerable.) If RedHat took it upon itself to actually optimize the compiler, rather than what they have done, maybe I would use it.
So you are saying it doesn't work but you cannot reproduce it with any free sample code test case. Why on earth should I believe you? A test case shouldn't be that hard to produce, and you'd have to do that anyway if you wanted the alleged compiler error to get fixed. But there isn't a free test case. Only God knows why...
2) I'm not inclined to believe what he says due to where he works - kind of simple.
Understandable. He works at Red Hat and can be believed to have opinions in favor of Red Hat, so everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. But you're not prepared to discuss anything he says. He brings up a lot of reasons for going with gcc-2.96-rh but all you say is "he works at Red Hat so I will completely ignore anything he says" instead of debating the individual points. Me thinks it's easier for you to dismiss him altogether rather than actually debating individual claims. Maybe because he actually brings up valid points?
Also, what you asked here was why Red Hat includes this compiler in their new version. I find it kind of natural that the full answer to this question you will only get from people working at Red Hat. But you won't accept an answer from a person working at Red Hat?!
3) Yes it is. As I am the one using the software, anything I say should be considered.
Maybe if you are paying for the software. I don't know if you or your company payed for your Red Hat boxes. But I can tell you that this "you should damn well listen to me when I say you suck" policy otherwise wont get you anywhere in the free software world. It's terribly rude and people (including developers) tend to avoid and ignore people that are rude, regardless of what they say have merits or not. There's only so much crap a single individual can take.
Your snarky attitude will not help gain industry support for GNU.
Who has the snarky attitude? In any case, I neither work for Red Hat nor speak for GNU.
It's kind of amusing how large companies have to sugar coat this stuff because people like you won't even listen to someone's opinion.
Not if they cannot provide valid criticisms in a polite manner, no.
(Case in point: The fact Cobalt exists is a testament to customer requirements not being thoroughly evaluated by the likes of RedHat, there should have been NO room in the market for boxes like that.)
This is getting terribly off-topic.
4) I believe what I see. I also want a choice. RedHat can compile anything it wants to with whatever compiler it wants to.
I'm happy that you give them that freedom.
I want to grab SRC RPMS or source packages and compile with what I want to.
Well, noone says you aren't allowed to (except for maybe support issues but I take it that you can live without that).
5) Been around long enough, and Bero's site hasn't been updated in ages, that site was there before GCC 3 came along. He added a few uninspiring things about GCC 3 when it came along. Its funny, when that little tirade began it was RH-SECKR3T compiler vs. 2.91.66 and 2.95. It's like he did a replace with VI wherever there was 2.95 he put 3.01. I'm not inclined to believe the compiler hasn't been "fixed," because I don't consider the people working on GCC retarded, as you seem to.
No I don't. And out of the core GCC developers, many of them are actually employed by Red Hat. Go figure. So Red Hat obviously knows something about compilers.
While I don't claim to be an expert, or much of a contributor, lets just say this and a few other things makes me more interested in SuSE, Gentoo, Debian and Mandrake. Competition is good.
Fully agreed. But your right to use anything else that you want to use doesn't give you the right to bad-mouth others without reason.
RedHat, prepare to lose market share. Shitting on people wit valid complaints and going against the grain doesn't win you friends or customers.
Now here is that trolling part again. You extract your discomfort with the Red Hat compiler into some holy war against Red Hat, and claim that a secret "Red Hat wants no customers" conspiracy exists. That's totally unfounded, irrelevant, and brings nothing to the discussion except for a lot of hot air. Trolling.
Thanks for trying to police my thought.
I'm not. I'm just trying to bring some sanity into your rants. It seems I have failed, because you are obviously still not prepared for having a serious discussion.
As I had seen those pages before, and read them in their entirety, you have done nothing whatsoever to disarm my thinking about the RedHat compilers. I will continue to avoid them.
You are free to.
You are way too evangelical, holding this Bero URL, a man with stock in the company being criticized, and holding it as gospel.
I'm not. I just want to have a serious discussion about compiler choices instead of one persons unfounded rant and bad-mouthing. Given this, it is only natural to start the discussion with debating some of the topics regarding Red Hat's compiler choice that Bero brings up. Debating individual claims and whether they are substantiated or possibly unfounded. But it seems that you are still not prepared to have that discussion; you are still continuing your rants and bringing them into more off-topic areas.
Also, I'm not sure Bero even has stock in Red Hat, or where you got that from. It was always my impression that he joined Red Hat rather late.
It isn't.
Some say time is the fire in which we burn. My time is running out.
Well, go on with your life then instead of spending it ranting on Slashdot. But I must say that I'm quite disappointed that you are not prepared (and seemingly never will be) to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand.
While I may not be able to say QED, I have personally seen evidence that leads me to believe there is something going on.
So where is this "evidence"?
I was merely pointing out that if Gentoo can compile essentially all of GNU with a "broken" and "heinous" compiler (with regards to 2.95.3),
and producing a working dist (I have evidence, not proof that this is true as well), why RedHat chose to continue with his particular compiler.
Ever heard about binary compatibility? The major version number of 7.x is there for a reason.
I like RedHat, I aprecate them and wish them the best, but no one is without faults. Criticism can be constructive
Well, your's isn't. You've been saying over and over in this thread that you think it's a broken compiler, but without ever mentioning why you think so. Thus it most certainly isn't "constructive criticism" because it lacks the fundamental part with the facts that would make it constructive.
Without it it is only seemingly pointless bad-mouthing.
and at this point, even if they are correct, the crap that has been said about 2.96 would have me running away from it to make the customers happy, or at least give them alternatives to suit their bias.
If you believe everything that people say, I wish you the best of luck.
If a discussion of a feature in a distribution that's being announced isn't relevant to you and you refer to it as a troll, I'm sorry, Mr. Orwellian thought police brave new world prefect. You will not suppress me or my opinions or my experiences simply by trying to pass off an argument as a troll.
Well, 1) you are not argumenting since you don't have any arguments besides "there are some other distributions that use some other compiler version" and 2) you aren't anything new that hasn't been carefully explained over and over on Slashdot and Bero's site for the last couple of years. Thus, unless you haven't been around for that long of a time and taken part in those discussions or read the explanations, you must be trolling.
Replace his Geforce4 with something from Matrox or ATI? Are you serious or just trolling?
I'm as serious as can be.
The most high end Matrox or ATI doesn't do dri-OpenGL as fast as glx-OpenGL on a low end Geforce3.
And this guy has a GEFORCE 4!
This thread was about out-of-the-box driver support and configuration. There's nothing beating free drivers there.
If this guy doesn't want to use vi, then simply install redhat using the default "nv" drivers, download the "nvidia" drivers from Nvidia's sight and edit his X config with Kedit or Gedit or Open Office or something. Just restart X and load up Return to Castle Wolfenstien:)
And repeat every time there's a new kernel or XFree86 or new release...
Gee, could you please stop the trolling? There's no reason to call a compiler broken just because you think it is (without proof). And this article was about Red Hat, not Gentoo.
Get rid of the Nvidia card and replace it with a Matrox or ATI one, or card from any other manufacturer that allows free drivers to be written. I'm serious. That change alone will make your experienses with graphics configuration in distros to be so much better.
Two CD:s are minimum, if you want any -server package to be installed at least. And even if you go for two CD:s it may be possible that packages you choose are on the third CD (some binary rpm packages are on the third CD).
So my advise is to get all three of them; that usually saves a lot of trouble later on.
Umm, that method wouldn't work even if the code was all the same, simply because the version number has changed. The betas were not called 7.3, and the version number is mentioned on quite a few places in the distro. So even if all code was the same md5sums wouldn't match.
However, I strongly suspect there are more changes then just the version number change.
And as other people have pointed out, betas are unsupported and not to be used on production systems. That means that there will never more be updates or any kind of even the slightest security fix for the past betas in the future, so you're really out on your own if you are running the beta.
Some say it's possible to use up2date for upgrading by tweaking/etc/redhat-release to the new value, thus tricking up2date in the next run to upgrade the whole distro. I haven't tried it myself.
The easiest and supported way of upgrading from one release to another is of course using the installer. Just get the cd:s, pop them in and select "upgrade existing install". This is supported and will also take care of interrelease changes (like boot loader change, ext3 migration etc.), which most hacks for upgrading that only updates packages won't. Granted, there seems to be few of those changes this time, but I'd recommend the CD upgrade method any day.
Umm, you can't just look at version numbers of packages like that and say "that's vulnerable". Have a look at the list of patches applied in the source rpm:s, I'm fairly certain you will find the necessary security patches if you do.
You can still manually upgrade from one version to another using the newer rpms. I did that on one low memory machine. It won't automatically handle things like filesystem conversion (ext2->ext3) or switch of bootloader (lilo->grub), but you can do that later manually.
Or update from one version to another using up2date (I've heard it's possible, but I haven't tested).
.deb doesn't allow for different versions of the same package to be installed at the same time. This is useful for packages that are explicitly designed to be parallell-installed.
.rpm-based distributions usually make use of this for the kernel. It's perfectly valid to have two or more versions of the "kernel" package installed.
What makes you think that features in Red Hat Linux won't end up in other distributions? The source code is free to begin with, and Red Hat pays an awful lot of software developers to contribute to various free software projects.
Galeon depends on Mozilla to build. That is a serious problem, imho-- since it requires the building of the monster in the first place. And yes, I realize that even some geeks these days don't go to the extreme measure of compiling as much of their systems as possible from scratch. *grin*
Nah, myself I always grab the fresh RPM:s from ftp.mozilla.org.:-)
Maybe Galeon developers can figure out a way to lift the relevant shared library code from Mozilla so we can build Galeon without Mozilla.
This really has to be done by Mozilla developers. I think Chris Blizzard has promised that he will work on splitting gtkmozembed libraries into a seperate RPM package, for example.
I have liked Galeon when I've used it, but I didn't try it for some of my more important tasks that Konq handles quite well--
That's a shame, you should have.:-)
I have heard many people that like Galeon better than Konqueror, but that's of course a matter of taste. It certainly is a worthy competitor to Konqueror.
things like page-specific decisions on cookies and scripting,
Cookies yes. Scripting is a global setting but easily accessible
lying to online financial institutions about the user agent so that I can access my accounts, etc.
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to express. I in no way inteded that RedHat is the only significant "Linux Distro", or that there is a conspiracy against any other distributions.
Yes, I probably misunderstood. I assumed your post was about some sort of conspiracy against other distributions. Sorry.
My point is that there is no Operating System distribution that can accurately be called a "Linux Distribution". It would not be appropriate to call RedHat an "Apache Distribution" just because Apache httpd is on the media. Apache and Linux are just packages included on the disk to enhance the usefulness of the system. Linux is a kernel, RedHat is one of many distributions of the GNU system.
This is very true. However, I think there is a minor difference between Apache and the kernel and the basic GNU libraries and utilities. Apache is not an essential package for the system, but both the GNU libraries and the GNU utilites and the kernel are. Thus it is entirely appropriate to give them credit when naming the system; to point out the most essential parts of the system.
I beleive naming it GNU/Linux is entirely appropriate, and while Red Hat calls their product "Linux", I personally don't believe that they intentionally want to miscredit the GNU project. That would be strange since Red Hat pays a lot of developers working with the GNU project. You should by the way also check out the Red Hat website right now. "GNU" in bold letters.:-)
If your posted email address is accurate, then I can assume that you are a freshmaker who is already very aware of this issue. The only logical assumtion, if this isn't "gnus" to you, is that you neglected to read most of my post before responding.
It is accurate, and I'm certainly aware of the issue. I just misread your post in another context (a conspiracy theory one), and for that I apologize.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a BETA. Betas are releases from hell. You have to know what you are doing if you are using betas. :)
Judging from previous history, it won't be the name of the final release.
I'm running 7.1, and I had to upgrade GCC from the broken 2.96, which wasn't easy for me, me being a linux n00b.
Im curious. What problems did you have with gcc-2.96-rh? Did you upgrade to the official errata updates for the compiler? Are you sure that the compiler was at fault and not the applications you were trying to compile? Some developers have been more keen on blaming the compiler than on fixing broken code.
Try the 2.0 version. Speed-wise and performerance-wise there is simply no comparison between the GNOME 1.4 and the GNOME 2.0 versions of Nautilus.
You won't get disappointed. A lot of people (me included) can testify that it is a lot faster.
Personally, I'd rather see a release now than delayed forever. Especially since 2.0 brings a good lot of improvements over previous releases.
And this is what people are trying to do. However, it still doesn't make sense to keep every option ever invented in any operating system in, no matter how well organized they are. If hardly noone uses an option or if noone is prepared to maintain it, it's usually just unmaintained code that may have been broken for years and a source for bug reports. Preferences have a cost. Better organization and careful decisions on what to have and what to keep is what's needed, and that's what people are trying to do.
So you are saying it doesn't work but you cannot reproduce it with any free sample code test case. Why on earth should I believe you? A test case shouldn't be that hard to produce, and you'd have to do that anyway if you wanted the alleged compiler error to get fixed. But there isn't a free test case. Only God knows why...
2) I'm not inclined to believe what he says due to where he works - kind of simple.
Understandable. He works at Red Hat and can be believed to have opinions in favor of Red Hat, so everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. But you're not prepared to discuss anything he says. He brings up a lot of reasons for going with gcc-2.96-rh but all you say is "he works at Red Hat so I will completely ignore anything he says" instead of debating the individual points. Me thinks it's easier for you to dismiss him altogether rather than actually debating individual claims. Maybe because he actually brings up valid points?
Also, what you asked here was why Red Hat includes this compiler in their new version. I find it kind of natural that the full answer to this question you will only get from people working at Red Hat. But you won't accept an answer from a person working at Red Hat?!
3) Yes it is. As I am the one using the software, anything I say should be considered.
Maybe if you are paying for the software. I don't know if you or your company payed for your Red Hat boxes. But I can tell you that this "you should damn well listen to me when I say you suck" policy otherwise wont get you anywhere in the free software world. It's terribly rude and people (including developers) tend to avoid and ignore people that are rude, regardless of what they say have merits or not. There's only so much crap a single individual can take.
Your snarky attitude will not help gain industry support for GNU.
Who has the snarky attitude? In any case, I neither work for Red Hat nor speak for GNU.
It's kind of amusing how large companies have to sugar coat this stuff because people like you won't even listen to someone's opinion.
Not if they cannot provide valid criticisms in a polite manner, no.
(Case in point: The fact Cobalt exists is a testament to customer requirements not being thoroughly evaluated by the likes of RedHat, there should have been NO room in the market for boxes like that.)
This is getting terribly off-topic.
4) I believe what I see. I also want a choice. RedHat can compile anything it wants to with whatever compiler it wants to.
I'm happy that you give them that freedom.
I want to grab SRC RPMS or source packages and compile with what I want to.
Well, noone says you aren't allowed to (except for maybe support issues but I take it that you can live without that).
5) Been around long enough, and Bero's site hasn't been updated in ages, that site was there before GCC 3 came along. He added a few uninspiring things about GCC 3 when it came along. Its funny, when that little tirade began it was RH-SECKR3T compiler vs. 2.91.66 and 2.95. It's like he did a replace with VI wherever there was 2.95 he put 3.01. I'm not inclined to believe the compiler hasn't been "fixed," because I don't consider the people working on GCC retarded, as you seem to.
No I don't. And out of the core GCC developers, many of them are actually employed by Red Hat. Go figure. So Red Hat obviously knows something about compilers.
While I don't claim to be an expert, or much of a contributor, lets just say this and a few other things makes me more interested in SuSE, Gentoo, Debian and Mandrake. Competition is good.
Fully agreed. But your right to use anything else that you want to use doesn't give you the right to bad-mouth others without reason.
RedHat, prepare to lose market share. Shitting on people wit valid complaints and going against the grain doesn't win you friends or customers.
Now here is that trolling part again. You extract your discomfort with the Red Hat compiler into some holy war against Red Hat, and claim that a secret "Red Hat wants no customers" conspiracy exists. That's totally unfounded, irrelevant, and brings nothing to the discussion except for a lot of hot air. Trolling.
Thanks for trying to police my thought.
I'm not. I'm just trying to bring some sanity into your rants. It seems I have failed, because you are obviously still not prepared for having a serious discussion.
As I had seen those pages before, and read them in their entirety, you have done nothing whatsoever to disarm my thinking about the RedHat compilers. I will continue to avoid them.
You are free to.
You are way too evangelical, holding this Bero URL, a man with stock in the company being criticized, and holding it as gospel.
I'm not. I just want to have a serious discussion about compiler choices instead of one persons unfounded rant and bad-mouthing. Given this, it is only natural to start the discussion with debating some of the topics regarding Red Hat's compiler choice that Bero brings up. Debating individual claims and whether they are substantiated or possibly unfounded. But it seems that you are still not prepared to have that discussion; you are still continuing your rants and bringing them into more off-topic areas.
Also, I'm not sure Bero even has stock in Red Hat, or where you got that from. It was always my impression that he joined Red Hat rather late.
It isn't. Some say time is the fire in which we burn. My time is running out.
Well, go on with your life then instead of spending it ranting on Slashdot. But I must say that I'm quite disappointed that you are not prepared (and seemingly never will be) to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand.
So where is this "evidence"?
I was merely pointing out that if Gentoo can compile essentially all of GNU with a "broken" and "heinous" compiler (with regards to 2.95.3), and producing a working dist (I have evidence, not proof that this is true as well), why RedHat chose to continue with his particular compiler.
Ever heard about binary compatibility? The major version number of 7.x is there for a reason.
I like RedHat, I aprecate them and wish them the best, but no one is without faults. Criticism can be constructive
Well, your's isn't. You've been saying over and over in this thread that you think it's a broken compiler, but without ever mentioning why you think so. Thus it most certainly isn't "constructive criticism" because it lacks the fundamental part with the facts that would make it constructive.
Without it it is only seemingly pointless bad-mouthing.
and at this point, even if they are correct, the crap that has been said about 2.96 would have me running away from it to make the customers happy, or at least give them alternatives to suit their bias.
If you believe everything that people say, I wish you the best of luck.
If a discussion of a feature in a distribution that's being announced isn't relevant to you and you refer to it as a troll, I'm sorry, Mr. Orwellian thought police brave new world prefect. You will not suppress me or my opinions or my experiences simply by trying to pass off an argument as a troll.
Well, 1) you are not argumenting since you don't have any arguments besides "there are some other distributions that use some other compiler version" and 2) you aren't anything new that hasn't been carefully explained over and over on Slashdot and Bero's site for the last couple of years. Thus, unless you haven't been around for that long of a time and taken part in those discussions or read the explanations, you must be trolling.
I'm as serious as can be.
The most high end Matrox or ATI doesn't do dri-OpenGL as fast as glx-OpenGL on a low end Geforce3. And this guy has a GEFORCE 4!
This thread was about out-of-the-box driver support and configuration. There's nothing beating free drivers there.
If this guy doesn't want to use vi, then simply install redhat using the default "nv" drivers, download the "nvidia" drivers from Nvidia's sight and edit his X config with Kedit or Gedit or Open Office or something. Just restart X and load up Return to Castle Wolfenstien :)
And repeat every time there's a new kernel or XFree86 or new release...
Gee, could you please stop the trolling? There's no reason to call a compiler broken just because you think it is (without proof). And this article was about Red Hat, not Gentoo.
Get rid of the Nvidia card and replace it with a Matrox or ATI one, or card from any other manufacturer that allows free drivers to be written. I'm serious. That change alone will make your experienses with graphics configuration in distros to be so much better.
Two CD:s are minimum, if you want any -server package to be installed at least. And even if you go for two CD:s it may be possible that packages you choose are on the third CD (some binary rpm packages are on the third CD).
So my advise is to get all three of them; that usually saves a lot of trouble later on.
However, I strongly suspect there are more changes then just the version number change.
And as other people have pointed out, betas are unsupported and not to be used on production systems. That means that there will never more be updates or any kind of even the slightest security fix for the past betas in the future, so you're really out on your own if you are running the beta.
The easiest and supported way of upgrading from one release to another is of course using the installer. Just get the cd:s, pop them in and select "upgrade existing install". This is supported and will also take care of interrelease changes (like boot loader change, ext3 migration etc.), which most hacks for upgrading that only updates packages won't. Granted, there seems to be few of those changes this time, but I'd recommend the CD upgrade method any day.
Umm, you can't just look at version numbers of packages like that and say "that's vulnerable". Have a look at the list of patches applied in the source rpm:s, I'm fairly certain you will find the necessary security patches if you do.
http://apt-rpm.codefactory.se/ is also a useful link if you like to setup apt-rpm on Red Hat 7.2. Will possibly be updated for 7.3 soon.
The correct spelling of Red Hat is "Red Hat", not "RedHat". I'm interested in what the results are if you ignore these kind of mistakes in spelling?
You can still manually upgrade from one version to another using the newer rpms. I did that on one low memory machine. It won't automatically handle things like filesystem conversion (ext2->ext3) or switch of bootloader (lilo->grub), but you can do that later manually.
Or update from one version to another using up2date (I've heard it's possible, but I haven't tested).
2002-04-09. Simple.
The internationalization in GNOME *is* good, but the "internationalisation" above was the Slashdot poster's words. :)
What makes you think that features in Red Hat Linux won't end up in other distributions? The source code is free to begin with, and Red Hat pays an awful lot of software developers to contribute to various free software projects.
Nah, myself I always grab the fresh RPM:s from ftp.mozilla.org. :-)
Maybe Galeon developers can figure out a way to lift the relevant shared library code from Mozilla so we can build Galeon without Mozilla.
This really has to be done by Mozilla developers. I think Chris Blizzard has promised that he will work on splitting gtkmozembed libraries into a seperate RPM package, for example.
I have liked Galeon when I've used it, but I didn't try it for some of my more important tasks that Konq handles quite well--
That's a shame, you should have. :-)
I have heard many people that like Galeon better than Konqueror, but that's of course a matter of taste. It certainly is a worthy competitor to Konqueror.
things like page-specific decisions on cookies and scripting,
Cookies yes. Scripting is a global setting but easily accessible
lying to online financial institutions about the user agent so that I can access my accounts, etc.
Yes. See the Galeon FAQ.
Can it handle this stuff? And does it have tabs?
Certainly. What did you expect? :-)
Sorry about that. I hope what I meant with my comment still was clear though.
Yes, I probably misunderstood. I assumed your post was about some sort of conspiracy against other distributions. Sorry.
My point is that there is no Operating System distribution that can accurately be called a "Linux Distribution". It would not be appropriate to call RedHat an "Apache Distribution" just because Apache httpd is on the media. Apache and Linux are just packages included on the disk to enhance the usefulness of the system. Linux is a kernel, RedHat is one of many distributions of the GNU system.
This is very true. However, I think there is a minor difference between Apache and the kernel and the basic GNU libraries and utilities. Apache is not an essential package for the system, but both the GNU libraries and the GNU utilites and the kernel are. Thus it is entirely appropriate to give them credit when naming the system; to point out the most essential parts of the system. :-)
I beleive naming it GNU/Linux is entirely appropriate, and while Red Hat calls their product "Linux", I personally don't believe that they intentionally want to miscredit the GNU project. That would be strange since Red Hat pays a lot of developers working with the GNU project. You should by the way also check out the Red Hat website right now. "GNU" in bold letters.
If your posted email address is accurate, then I can assume that you are a freshmaker who is already very aware of this issue. The only logical assumtion, if this isn't "gnus" to you, is that you neglected to read most of my post before responding.
It is accurate, and I'm certainly aware of the issue. I just misread your post in another context (a conspiracy theory one), and for that I apologize.