Jeezus... you guys got all hot and heavy about that ZDNet article, didn't you?
The problem is that Open Source (as the term is used by 99% of the people on Slashdot) actually has multiple meanings -- there's the trademarked one, and there's the "Open Source == GPL" one, which is alas, completely and utterly *wrong* [Open Source is a superset of GPL].
However, let's go back to the context of the article:
The statement, signed by the president of the Open Source Initiative, among others, reminded Microsoft that open source code "open source is not magic pixie dust" and that "that empty demonstrations and half-measures won't do."
But Muth said the term "open source" has a variety of meanings, and the company's definition differs from the one used to describe Unix and the increasingly popular Linux - in which a worldwide community of developers are able to freely extend, modify and commercialize versions of the software.
"As a customer-service-driven organization, we're interested in any trend in the news. Open source is one of those trends. Like other software companies, we're monitoring those trends and are alert to seeking ways in which part of this idea might be of value to our customers," Muth said. "But we have absolutely no initiatives in this space to announce."
That said, Microsoft says it has, for the past five years, been licensing some or all of the underlying programming, or source, code to its Windows NT OS, as well as to its other software applications.
Differing definitions
But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists, researchers and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and engineering partners, who are offered the code under a set of restrictions that prohibit them from commercializing the technology in any way, Muth said. "They do not receive any intellectual property rights or rights to derivative works."
Now, there's always the possibility that I'm wrong, but this looks like some journo spinning it for shock value. ZDNet are a devil's advocate kinda place -- they always spin both sides of a story; this is why both the pro-MS and the anti-MS crowd point to it as an example of bias against their point of view:)
[and remember: there's always the possibility that I'm wrong here -- Ed Muth could be just a complete and utter muppet]
Problem 1: There's no actual quote from Muth on the "definition of Open Source" -- he's just stated as saying that "open source" has a variety of meanings -- now take it as a quote from someone who's not well versed on open source -- BSD and GPL are different "meanings" of Open Source. So, that's what he could be talking about.
Problem 2: The paragraph that starts out "Differing Definitions"... 'But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists' -- this DEFINITELY looks like bad reporting to me. Look at the test that goes before it: "Microsoft says it has, for the past five years, been licensing some or all of the underlying programming...." -- sounds like the journo decided that this "licensing" must be what MS meant by open sourcing its stuff!
Which isn't the case -- I'm bettting Muth said something like "Sure, we're thinking about an Open Source release of Windows... however, we already license the source code to researchers / OEM's / etc... so why do we need to change that practice? The source is there if you need to get hold of it".
So, my guess is that ZDNet, bastion of factual reporting [sic] that it is, has fucked up once more...
Sure, there's no hard evidence either way on this (I could well be wrong, as I've said) -- but there's enough of us here at the Big Borg Cube On The Hill with linux/unix experience that some of it percolates through. Which is as it should be:)
Solution? You all need to read/get hold of a transcript of the interview before blowing your stacks in future. Or at the very least, take what you read with a pinch of salt.
Windows NT Workstation. For serious users, right? MS Visual C++ Professional. For serious users, right?
The NT machines in our high school labs choke and die on VC++. It's rather sad to see. And they're from the same company. That should dispel any ideas about 'lack of credit' and compatibility out of shrinkwrap.
Try installing the latest service pack. It works WONDERS.
Then use Star Office. Or KOffice. Or do you have similar problems with them?
You were decidedly sarcastic, arrogant and condescending too.
Or did you not write this?
Then perhaps you could tell me if Word 2000 will actually let me type a character at the end of a hundred page document on a Pentium 200, go have a cup of coffee, and have the character I typed display before I get back? Or maybe Microsoft hasn't noticed this problem (it's been around as long as Word for Windows) since its 200 MB bloatware office package mostly gets used by secretaries to type two page letters.
Not to mention the fact that this ^^^ has nothing to do whatsoever with me working on an app at MS... so quite how you segue'd into it, I have no idea.
Oh. So *you're* the one who made a C++ compiler that generates code so bloated that a 20 line program cannot be compiled on a floppy disk.
You're not particularly bright, are you? As you could have seen just by clicking my name:
User Bio User Interface controls developer for Visual Studio.
But it's SO MUCH MORE fun to slam around pointless insults, isn't it?
Not only that, but you're talking complete and utter bullshit. A 20 line program (such as Hello World, perhaps?) takes up 54k.
We stopped using 8" floppies a few years ago, sonny.
VisualStudio is an abomination. You should see the poor dupes at school trying to use it...their machines lock up 2 or 3 times before it will ever load successfully. Probably because the machines are pitiful P90s with 16 megs of RAM, and we all know that that's nowhere near anouth hardware to develop programs on, right?
Go away, Microsoft Boy.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realise I was treading in *YOUR* playground, asshole.
Sure. It's called "right-mouse on the paperclip, and select the "disable paperclip" easter egg".
Or, in other words:
You can right-mouse to Hide it, and it'll stay away from that app until you hit the balloon icon.
Or, you could right mouse on it, select the "Choose Options" and take away some of its abilities. Then hide it.
And it will trouble you no more.
What amuses me is that someone was jumping up and down recently when someone came up with a script to disable the Assistant permanently. Funny thing is, if they'd done some exploring, they'd have found that they could have done it since the product was released.
Why should someone have to break the document up in the first place? Microsoft should put out a product that can handle it in the first place.
As I SAID, if you'd care to re-read my post with your eyes open this time, if I find that it's not happy with > 100 page documents (which in my experience it is, but I didn't want to say so without double checking), then this is a possible workaround.
Everytime they relase a new Office Package, it gets bigger and bigger and shittier and shittier.
Hmmm... not seen that behavior myself. How about a repro case? Or do you just like throwing around baseless statements?
I wonder if we can go on war missions in the flight simulator that is hidden in excel 2000.
Jeesus. Someone puts a 20K (if not smaller) Easter Egg in a product, and you get your panties in a bunch.
You know, I have *NO* idea how Word2k will operate on a 100 page document. But let's see, shall we? (Just got to finish installing Win2k, so please bear with me).
First of all -- how much memory, and what processor are *YOU* running so we can compare?
Secondly, if there are indeed still problems, as a workaround you can break up your document into chapters, or whatever, save them out as separate documents, and combine them in the Master Document view. Helps if your read the docs, you know.
Why am I replying to this? No idea. I work on Visual Studio, so Office2k is nothing to do with me.
Forget about Linux distro's.... Every damn system is different! We got libc5 libc6. Different widget sets, window managers, hell even different windowing systems (MetroX, XFree86 et al) A lot of boxes run kernels so well tuned you can't even boot it on another machine! I guess is too bad it all works, after all thats what really counts.
And that, after all, is the point:)
Which is why claiming that Windows is "fragmented" is both pointless and not even strictly true.
Not only that, but can you imagine the frankenstein a legion of MS hackers would come up with {{shudder}}
Jeeeeesus Christ in a sidecar.
When are you guys going to grow up?
The idea that "Linux has good coders working on it, MS has shit coders" holds no water whatsoever. It's just a vague attempt at deluding yourselves to make you feel smart.
I have a sneaking suspicion that digging through MS source code will be painful....or maybe we'll find that the real reason Windows is so bloody slow is that there's intentional pointless wait loops scattered througout that automatically get increased over time to make you want the newer version...wouldn't put it past them.
Like anything in life... You have a bit of good, a bit of bad.
Unfortunately, by the time we find bugs, they've morphed into "features" -- we can't fix them; we can only provide workarounds and document them. This is because if we changed the code to fix the bug, it'd break 1000's of applications.
I thought they got all their code given to them directly from HELL as part of Bill's deal with Satan. He just hires people to do evil on earth as his part of the bargain.
Damn! I knew it was warm in the HR buildings, but I had no idea quite *why*...
His goal was not to frame Your Boss Bill. His goal was to show how suceptable GUIDs are to forgery. For someone who bills themself as an Alan Cox alterego, your response of "You idiot", was extremely lacking. Anonymous Kevin
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear:
I don't care if he's planning to frame my boss or not; that's not the point.
The point is that if someone is seriously considering creating and letting loose a virus to show that "GUIDs can be forged" then they deserve however long they're going to be in jail for when they get caught for it -- and they will.
Of course, you may just think "heheheheh! that'll show those corporations!!!" and do it anyway, but I'd hope that IQ points aren't in such short supply around here...
How meny Cobra objects do people write? And when they do write them they usely take credit for it.
If you knew the place you where working for was doing something wrong and you wanted to tell the Media or the police/feds yet wanted to not be named would you want your GUID going into that Email/Document?
Uh, sorry - but it's not the objects. CORBA object instances have GUID's too; that's how you identify them across the network. So no, you don't have to write an object to get your MAC id sent all over the network.
Which is a moot point anyway, as you're on the network, so it's going to be pretty obvious where you are anyway.
As for your second point -- that's decidedly stupid. Why would you be emailing the police/feds an Office document to blow the whistle on your employer? Presuming that you're intelligent enough to not send it from work, you're going to still be trackable using the email headers. Not only that, but if you were to SMTP spoof the mail, you'd (a) find it difficult to send an Office document that way, (b) would probably know enough to be able to hack the GUID by hand, and (c) would probably be intelligent enough to print out the documents and send them snail-mail to the feds/police.
Not only that, but a fix was released which removes the GUIDs for you, and prevents new ones from being generated.
Forget about that Ms idiot. Visual Studio sucks so bad, i don't even wanna start.
I'd like to get a copy of Melissa (i heard of it on Jay Leno show, that's how much i know.) and see if i can find the GUID, whatever that might be, and i'm sure it can be edited. i don't believe they will put any strong encryption or stupid things like that.
but the hard part is: how do we know bill gate's network card ID?
(My view may or may not represent my hatred to microsoft suck-ups.)
Let me see...
You're planning on unleashing a virus and planting it on Bill Gates (which no-one would believe) just so that you can get a bit of bad publicity for MS?
My heart bleeds for you. You do this, and you'll be rotting in a jail cell before you know it.
As I said - the other poster was an idiot. It's obvious to me that you are one too.
Think of me as the alterego of Alan Cox... he started out on the ZX81 and the Spectrum +3, writing for Format magazine, and ended up behind the Linux movement.
I started out on a ZX81, a C16, a Spectrum +2, and a SAM Coupe, wrote for Your Sinclair magazine, and ended up behind... well... a desk in Seattle, writing chunks of Visual Studio.:)
that way if i generate a GUID on my comp, and give it to you, unless you generate GUID's for a billion years you won't get the same one... it makes things easier on distributed databases and other such things.. putting them in documents though is bullshit
Actually, it's used by Fast Find, and Index Server (I believe) to scan for dupes and to index documents. It's basically a lookup key which doesn't require a centralized assignment system.
There is no need for a GUID system. There was never one befor MS and the world still turned. The simple fact is that if you still use software THAT YOU KNOW SUCKS, don't read the bug reports or secure your own systems you WILL get screwed. Why should we take away everyones freedom for a few DUMB and LAZY users?!?
Sorry, but that's complete and utter rubbish.
The GUID was invented by the Open Source community a while back, for use in RPC environments. It's also passed around in EVERY SINGLE CORBA OBJECT YOU CREATE.
Create a new virus (based on mellissa or mailissa or whatever it is) forge the guid to be bill gates and then show the world how stupid they are for using the guid for any real purpose..
Slashdot Mirror
Is the service pack shrink wrapped? Oh, and how much does it cost?
It's a free download, though I believe you can order it on a CD for shipping + cost.
Same as the Windows 98 service pack, when that comes out, from what I've heard -- download, or order it on a CD for shipping + cost.
Or pay an extra $10-$30 for the extra Win98 goodies.
Or pay $89 for a full install CD -- that is, for a brand new retail Upgrade version of Windows 98.
Jeezus... you guys got all hot and heavy about that ZDNet article, didn't you?
:)
:)
The problem is that Open Source (as the term is used by 99% of the people on Slashdot) actually has multiple meanings -- there's the trademarked one, and there's the "Open Source == GPL" one, which is alas, completely and utterly *wrong* [Open Source is a superset of GPL].
However, let's go back to the context of the article:
The statement, signed by the president of the Open Source Initiative, among others, reminded Microsoft that open source code "open source is not magic pixie dust" and that "that empty demonstrations and half-measures won't do."
But Muth said the term "open source" has a variety of meanings, and the company's definition differs from the one used to describe Unix and the increasingly popular Linux - in which a worldwide community of developers are able to freely extend, modify and commercialize versions of the software.
"As a customer-service-driven organization, we're interested in any trend in the news. Open source is one of those trends. Like other software companies, we're monitoring those trends and are alert to seeking ways in which part of this idea might be of value to our customers," Muth said. "But we have absolutely no initiatives in this space to announce."
That said, Microsoft says it has, for the past five years, been licensing some or all of the underlying programming, or source, code to its Windows NT OS, as well as to its other software applications.
Differing definitions
But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists, researchers and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and engineering partners, who are offered the code under a set of restrictions that prohibit them from commercializing the technology in any way, Muth said. "They do not receive any intellectual property rights or rights to derivative works."
Now, there's always the possibility that I'm wrong, but this looks like some journo spinning it for shock value. ZDNet are a devil's advocate kinda place -- they always spin both sides of a story; this is why both the pro-MS and the anti-MS crowd point to it as an example of bias against their point of view
[and remember: there's always the possibility that I'm wrong here -- Ed Muth could be just a complete and utter muppet]
Problem 1: There's no actual quote from Muth on the "definition of Open Source" -- he's just stated as saying that "open source" has a variety of meanings -- now take it as a quote from someone who's not well versed on open source -- BSD and GPL are different "meanings" of Open Source. So, that's what he could be talking about.
Problem 2: The paragraph that starts out "Differing Definitions"... 'But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists' -- this DEFINITELY looks like bad reporting to me. Look at the test that goes before it: "Microsoft says it has, for the past five years, been licensing some or all of the underlying programming...." -- sounds like the journo decided that this "licensing" must be what MS meant by open sourcing its stuff!
Which isn't the case -- I'm bettting Muth said something like "Sure, we're thinking about an Open Source release of Windows... however, we already license the source code to researchers / OEM's / etc... so why do we need to change that practice? The source is there if you need to get hold of it".
So, my guess is that ZDNet, bastion of factual reporting [sic] that it is, has fucked up once more...
Sure, there's no hard evidence either way on this (I could well be wrong, as I've said) -- but there's enough of us here at the Big Borg Cube On The Hill with linux/unix experience that some of it percolates through. Which is as it should be
Solution? You all need to read/get hold of a transcript of the interview before blowing your stacks in future. Or at the very least, take what you read with a pinch of salt.
Windows NT Workstation. For serious users, right?
MS Visual C++ Professional. For serious users, right?
The NT machines in our high school labs choke and die on VC++. It's rather sad to see. And they're from the same company. That should dispel any ideas about 'lack of credit' and compatibility out of shrinkwrap.
Try installing the latest service pack. It works WONDERS.
Well, on the happy side, there isn't this problem in Win2k :)
On the sad side, I don't know of any fix for that for you -- sorry.
Then use Star Office. Or KOffice. Or do you have similar problems with them?
You were decidedly sarcastic, arrogant and condescending too.
Or did you not write this?
Then perhaps you could tell me if Word 2000 will actually let me type a character at the end of a hundred page document on a Pentium 200, go have a cup of coffee, and have the character I typed display before I get back? Or maybe Microsoft hasn't noticed this problem (it's been around as long as Word for Windows) since its 200 MB bloatware office package mostly gets used by secretaries to type two page letters.
Not to mention the fact that this ^^^ has nothing to do whatsoever with me working on an app at MS... so quite how you segue'd into it, I have no idea.
Oh. So *you're* the one who made a C++ compiler that generates code so bloated that a 20 line program cannot be compiled on a floppy disk.
You're not particularly bright, are you? As you could have seen just by clicking my name:
User Bio
User Interface controls developer for Visual Studio.
But it's SO MUCH MORE fun to slam around pointless insults, isn't it?
Not only that, but you're talking complete and utter bullshit. A 20 line program (such as Hello World, perhaps?) takes up 54k.
We stopped using 8" floppies a few years ago, sonny.
VisualStudio is an abomination. You should see the poor dupes at school trying to use it...their machines lock up 2 or 3 times before it will ever load successfully. Probably because the machines are pitiful P90s with 16 megs of RAM, and we all know that that's nowhere near anouth hardware to develop programs on, right?
Go away, Microsoft Boy.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realise I was treading in *YOUR* playground, asshole.
Fuck off, ignoramus.
Sure. It's called "right-mouse on the paperclip, and select the "disable paperclip" easter egg".
Or, in other words:
You can right-mouse to Hide it, and it'll stay away from that app until you hit the balloon icon.
Or, you could right mouse on it, select the "Choose Options" and take away some of its abilities. Then hide it.
And it will trouble you no more.
What amuses me is that someone was jumping up and down recently when someone came up with a script to disable the Assistant permanently. Funny thing is, if they'd done some exploring, they'd have found that they could have done it since the product was released.
Funny, eh?
Why should someone have to break the document up in the first place? Microsoft should put out a product that can handle it in the first place.
As I SAID, if you'd care to re-read my post with your eyes open this time, if I find that it's not happy with > 100 page documents (which in my experience it is, but I didn't want to say so without double checking), then this is a possible workaround.
Everytime they relase a new Office Package, it gets bigger and bigger and shittier and shittier.
Hmmm... not seen that behavior myself. How about a repro case? Or do you just like throwing around baseless statements?
I wonder if we can go on war missions in the flight simulator that is hidden in excel 2000.
Jeesus. Someone puts a 20K (if not smaller) Easter Egg in a product, and you get your panties in a bunch.
Yup -- sounds like you're bitter alright. :-P
You know, I have *NO* idea how Word2k will operate on a 100 page document. But let's see, shall we? (Just got to finish installing Win2k, so please bear with me).
First of all -- how much memory, and what processor are *YOU* running so we can compare?
Secondly, if there are indeed still problems, as a workaround you can break up your document into chapters, or whatever, save them out as separate documents, and combine them in the Master Document view. Helps if your read the docs, you know.
Why am I replying to this? No idea. I work on Visual Studio, so Office2k is nothing to do with me.
Forget about Linux distro's....
:)
Every damn system is different! We got libc5
libc6. Different widget sets, window managers,
hell even different windowing systems (MetroX,
XFree86 et al)
A lot of boxes run kernels so well tuned
you can't even boot it on another machine!
I guess is too bad it all works, after all thats what really counts.
And that, after all, is the point
Which is why claiming that Windows is "fragmented" is both pointless and not even strictly true.
MS's OS division earns more money than some countries. Does anyone really think that MS would allow a RedHat or Caldera distro of Windows?
BZZZZZT Sorry!
Open Source != FREE.
Open Source != GPL.
GPL == Open Source.
Please, get a clue. Try reading up on the subject.
Then why is their software so buggy?
I bet their quality control system consists of:
* Check if it breaks 3rd party apps: OK
Actually, why do you think there are so many bugs which have morphed to features? If it breaks 3rd party apps, we can't ship it. End of story.
No need to.
I'm currently writing a chunk of one right at this minute.
Let's see: Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinNT64, Win2k
WinCE...
Oh... I see, you're quoting Nicholas Petreley... how cute.
Windows 95->Windows 98. For DOS compatibility, mainly. (95 is obsolete, so in this debate it's a red herring)
NT->NT2K->NT64. You don't care about DOS compatibility/direct hardware access too much.
CE -> Embedded systems/small form factor systems.
I guess this just goes to show that when it comes down to it, you don't know JACK about Windows.
Because that sure as hell doesn't look fragmented to me. Disagree? Define fragmented.
Alternatively... if you think THAT's fragmented, try looking at all the different Linux distros... wow! talk about fragmentation!
Not only that, but can you imagine the frankenstein a legion of MS hackers would
come up with {{shudder}}
Jeeeeesus Christ in a sidecar.
When are you guys going to grow up?
The idea that "Linux has good coders working on it, MS has shit coders" holds no water whatsoever. It's just a vague attempt at deluding yourselves to make you feel smart.
I have a sneaking suspicion that digging through MS source code will be painful....or maybe we'll find that the real reason Windows is so bloody slow is that there's intentional pointless wait loops scattered througout that automatically get increased over time to make you want the newer version...wouldn't put it past them.
Like anything in life... You have a bit of good, a bit of bad.
Unfortunately, by the time we find bugs, they've morphed into "features" -- we can't fix them; we can only provide workarounds and document them. This is because if we changed the code to fix the bug, it'd break 1000's of applications.
Them's the breaks.
I thought they got all their code given to them directly from HELL as part of Bill's deal with Satan. He just hires people to do evil on earth as his part of the bargain.
Damn! I knew it was warm in the HR buildings, but I had no idea quite *why*...
His goal was not to frame Your Boss Bill. His goal was to show how suceptable GUIDs are to forgery.
For someone who bills themself as an Alan Cox alterego, your response of "You idiot", was extremely lacking.
Anonymous Kevin
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear:
I don't care if he's planning to frame my boss or not; that's not the point.
The point is that if someone is seriously considering creating and letting loose a virus to show that "GUIDs can be forged" then they deserve however long they're going to be in jail for when they get caught for it -- and they will.
Of course, you may just think "heheheheh! that'll show those corporations!!!" and do it anyway, but I'd hope that IQ points aren't in such short supply around here...
How meny Cobra objects do people write? And when they do write them they usely take credit for it.
If you knew the place you where working for was doing something wrong and you wanted to tell the Media or the police/feds yet wanted to not be named would you want your GUID going into that Email/Document?
Uh, sorry - but it's not the objects. CORBA object instances have GUID's too; that's how you identify them across the network. So no, you don't have to write an object to get your MAC id sent all over the network.
Which is a moot point anyway, as you're on the network, so it's going to be pretty obvious where you are anyway.
As for your second point -- that's decidedly stupid. Why would you be emailing the police/feds an Office document to blow the whistle on your employer? Presuming that you're intelligent enough to not send it from work, you're going to still be trackable using the email headers. Not only that, but if you were to SMTP spoof the mail, you'd (a) find it difficult to send an Office document that way, (b) would probably know enough to be able to hack the GUID by hand, and (c) would probably be intelligent enough to print out the documents and send them snail-mail to the feds/police.
Not only that, but a fix was released which removes the GUIDs for you, and prevents new ones from being generated.
Happy now?
Forget about that Ms idiot. Visual Studio sucks so bad, i don't even wanna start.
I'd like to get a copy of Melissa (i heard of it on Jay Leno show, that's how much i know.) and see if i can find the GUID, whatever that might be, and i'm sure it can be edited. i don't believe they will put any strong encryption or stupid things like that.
but the hard part is: how do we know bill gate's network card ID?
(My view may or may not represent my hatred to microsoft suck-ups.)
Let me see...
You're planning on unleashing a virus and planting it on Bill Gates (which no-one would believe) just so that you can get a bit of bad publicity for MS?
My heart bleeds for you. You do this, and you'll be rotting in a jail cell before you know it.
As I said - the other poster was an idiot. It's obvious to me that you are one too.
Wow, it's Spectec Jr, I loved your columns in YS.
:)
:)
Thanks man
Think of me as the alterego of Alan Cox... he started out on the ZX81 and the Spectrum +3, writing for Format magazine, and ended up behind the Linux movement.
I started out on a ZX81, a C16, a Spectrum +2, and a SAM Coupe, wrote for Your Sinclair magazine, and ended up behind... well... a desk in Seattle, writing chunks of Visual Studio.
Oh yeah... I still wear the floppy-brimmed hat though :)
that way if i generate a GUID on my comp, and give it to you, unless you generate GUID's for a billion years you won't get the same one... it makes things easier on distributed databases and other such things.. putting them in documents though is bullshit
Actually, it's used by Fast Find, and Index Server (I believe) to scan for dupes and to index documents. It's basically a lookup key which doesn't require a centralized assignment system.
There is no need for a GUID system. There was never one befor MS and the world still turned. The simple fact is that if you still use software THAT YOU KNOW SUCKS, don't read the bug reports or secure your own systems you WILL get screwed. Why should we take away everyones freedom for a few DUMB and LAZY users?!?
Sorry, but that's complete and utter rubbish.
The GUID was invented by the Open Source community a while back, for use in RPC environments. It's also passed around in EVERY SINGLE CORBA OBJECT YOU CREATE.
So... you were saying?
Create a new virus (based on mellissa or mailissa or whatever it is) forge the guid to be bill gates and then show the world how stupid they are for using the guid for any real purpose..
Stupid idiot.