To be honest, no. I haven't noticed that to be the case at all. While Raster and Mandrake were pretty firm on sticking to the feature freeze leading up to this release (which might have looked like arrogance if you made a suggestion late in the game, but was more likely an attempt to get everything right before this release), I saw a lot of discussion about, and work on, all of the things you mentioned.
Sure, E's got its "cool graphical hacks" -- that's part of what makes it different, and I suspect they'll be a large part of E's development for the foreseeable future (and I like it that way)... But under the hood, they've done a lot of work to keep it stable, and it shows on my system.
--- Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
If it helps any, one thing I've discovered recently is that the theme you use has can have a *huge* impact on how Enlightenment performs. If it's a theme with a lot of large images, E's memory usage can be as much as doubled (or worse, I suppose, depending on the theme -- the worst I've done is double it).
I've got no problems whatsoever with the way Enlightenment performs on my system, and have found it at least as responsive as Windows. I'd say it's even better, but that's hard to guage accurately (especially not having run Windows on anything for close to a year now).
On a side note, E 0.16 rocks. I've been grabbing it from CVS since 0.15 came out, and I'm really impressed with the how new features have turned out, and really look forward to the stuff that's planned so far for 0.17. I highly recommend giving this release a shot.
Thanks to Mandrake, Raster, and the whole rest of the AUTHORS file for one hell of a kick-ass desktop!
--- Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
No, I don't believe absolutely everything that runs on Linux needs to be free -- actually, in either sense of the word. It'd be nice, yes, but I'm willing to admit that a lot of good software that isn't one or both types of "free" might still be good to see on Linux.
My problem with the Opera people is that they seem to think anything free is shoddy, and the fact that their software isn't free is some kind of incentive to use it. It just sort of flies in the face of everything that created the OS they've decided to port their browser to.
--- Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
1. Where I work (and in my position before my current one), you see a lot of suits actually wearing suits. They're not gone yet, by a long shot. I suspect Andover's not your typical tech company.
2. Was the reason there's not really a shortage of tech workers in that article somewhere? If there was, I missed it.
3. If they want to be a journal for print magazine editors, that's their business. I've got my doubts that hurling insults at them is going to change their minds.
Guess I'm just feeling ornery today.
--- Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
While I'm sure Opera is a great browser, it seems to me their marketing philosophy is about as incompatible with free software's as you can get.
From their own literature: "Nothing is really 'free'. It is merely subsidized by other products. It is done in the interest of market share and domination, but not necessarily in the interest of the user. "
They further claim that the only reason software is given away free is to "tie in" users to buying software later. To those of us backing free software, this is obviously a gross overgeneralization at best, and complete ignorance of what we stand for at worst.
The following bothers me even more: "And besides, you may get something 'free', but then it's mostly 'cheap' and of inferior quality. 'Free' and Opera don't go together - and never will."
If this is really what they believe, they need to do a little research before they even think about pushing their way into the Linux market.
--- Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
Oct 4 - Sydney: In an attempt to cool the strong public outcry following his statement that Lotus Corporation supported Internet cencorship, Senator Alston, Australian Minister for Communications, defended his position.
"These people say I have only two backers in the technology industry. This is a complete lie. I have three."
Alston has published his recollection of a discussion with highly-regarded members of the industry, at which he recalls W. Warner saying:
"...I, as a member of the IT industry, fully endorse content filtering!"
Who needs a flamethrowing car alarm? Check out the last winner -- the centrifugal birthing table.
Mount one of those bad boys on top of your car, strap a mother-to-be-any-minute on it, and walk away. I guarantee your car won't get stolen, and any thief brave enough to come within an arm's reach of Mama is going to *wish* it was just a flamethrower.
Then's there's the potential for using it as a projectile weapon, but I'd think the accuracy would be pretty bad, and it'd take ninth months to reload.
That would be correct. I have an AT&T account I use regularly. While the sign-up *does* require a Windows box (or maybe a Mac; I forget), it tells you during the setup where it has stored your account name and password. POP those into your Linux PPP config, and it works like a champ.
Well, assuming their modems answer, but that's another story.
Hey, it's a valid test. After four days if merciless attempts to compromise the system, they've determined beyond a reasonable doubt that nobody at PC Week has a clue when it comes to Linux.
Thanks -- There was a little bit of language in the GPL that made me wonder (about guarantees of machine code, or some such thing.) Just making sure it wasn't some kind of loophole.
I've got no problem with them taking a little time to cut CDs -- though I'd suggest that, should the license ever need to stand up in court, setting a permissible time period for things like that wouldn't be a bad idea.
I'm starting to understand how legal documents get as long and boring as they are.
Not to pick nits or anything, but are they really "entirely fulfilling their obligations" by *promising* to ship source? They've got to actually provide it be complaint, right?
If I understand what you're saying, they're currently in violation of the GPL, but that's O.K. as long as they make good on their promise at some point in the (I'm assuming near) future.
(And people think this GPL stuff is complicated...)
Not tryin' to flame you or anything -- Call me a wanna-be legal student.
I'm generally about as diplomatic as they come, but I can't fault anyone who was vocally upset about the way Corel licensed their beta. They didn't get it right the first time. If everybody had just waited for them to fix it, assuming the best, it's quite possible nothing would have ever happened.
I'm not condoning abuse or unfounded accusations of evil intentions, but I think anyone who sees the discussion of this topic on Slashdot as some sort of religious frenzy is missing the point.
The GPL is ours (as software users), and the only way it's going to stay that way is if people are willing to stand up for it, defend it, and even call an otherwise good company on their screw-ups. One of the easiest ways to do that is to discuss our issues right here, out in the open, where Corel and the rest of the world can see it.
Personally, I would have been a lot more worried if it looked like someone was violating our license and nobody cared.
The language that states that the whole thing is the property of Corel and not subject to other licenses is just flat out a violation of the GPL, no matter whether it's internal or not. Legally, (assuming the GPL is binding), they're prohibited from placing their own license on it. Period. What it's being used for is irrelevant.
I'm not even close to being a "GPL or Die!" kind of guy, and I thing people who demand Linux be called "GNU/Linux" are a little silly. However, a license is a license, and if Corel wants to use the software, they've got to abide by the license.
I know a lot of companies that only use Windows internally. Does that mean they don't need to license it from Microsoft? Can they just say they own it, and all the code to it, as long as they don't resell it? Of course not.
I'm not sure how Corel can figure they've got a right to do this.
Glad to see this baby's gone stable. Though I see a hell of a lot of sniping (not in the comments here yet, though, strangely enough) about which is better, I've got no problem using both 'em, and I find it really hard to beat *BSD as a server platform.
I think Linux may have some headway on the desktop (and whether that's because it's more suitable, or just because it's gotten more apps through media coverage, I can't say), but if I'm setting up a box I just want to connect and have workwithout any worries, I still go with a BSD.
Besides, if the two mascots got into a fight, you know the daemon'd win. An angry penguin biting you in the butt ain't jack compared to the damage of a red-hot trident.
I can't say that this trademark's bad (we don't know their motices -- though I'll admit to a healthy amount of suspicion since it's a law firm), but in the case of "clue.com," Clue Computing had just as much of a right to the domain name as the big guys. If they did business under that name, and got the domain registered first, more power to 'em.
Veronica and Ajax are also a common name and a name from well-known literature, respectively, and as such any company claiming to "own" them deserves a good fight.
Gumby.org? I hadn't heard about it, but I'd have to side with the trademark owners on that one -- just as I would with Linus's ownership of "Linux."
There's a huge difference between someone owning a trademark on something they "made up" (like the words "Linux" and "Gumby") and someone else trying to usurp that word from its originator, knowing full well it isn't their own creation.
As far as these guys wanting to make money from the trademark -- no mind reading involved. Unless they intend to give it away, *by definition* they're in it for the money. That's why they're called 'trade' marks.
Thanks. You know, you live here in the US long enough and it gets easy to screw up those dates (and money... had some friends visit from France recently, and I thought they'd been getting hit really hard by inflation until I figured out they were using commas where I'd use a period).
Warning: Calling my German weak would be an understatement. However, it's probably better than what Babelfish (when I can get it to work) does to English.
Will "Linux" Soon No Longer Be Free?
Hamburg patent lawyers Hauck, Graalfs, and Wehnert have registered the word "Linux" with the German patent office. This was confirmed to c't today by an employee of the firm. Deutsche Markenblatt also lists the trademark -- In issue 36 of September 9, 1999 on page 9919, Linux is listed 399 36 517,6.
Which owner Roy Boldt plans to do with the trademark is unclear. The managing director of Hamburg Systemhauses and the Management of Consultation (?)at ChannelOne were not available by telephone despite repeated attempts to contact them. Whether this is another case of "trademark grabbing" or whether Boldt -- like the owner of the "Linux" trademark in Austria -- has unselfish motives, is unknown at this time.
However, Boldt may not yet be sure of his rights to the "Linux" name. According to U.S. law, the trademark, since 1997, has belonged to Linux creator Linus Torvalds. However, Torvalds himself only got the rights to the name after (a legal battle?)
The output of a similar legal case in Germany would be uncertain. According to the German patent law, trademark ownership ends at a country's borders. How it applies in this country will only be revealed in the coming weeks. On September 12, 1999, the protest period for the "Linux" trademark ends. Until then, anyone could make put forth a valid claim that it should be protected.
The patent office has allowances for such a case. The form "W7202" to file objections is already in place on the Internet.
Again, forgive me if I've completely screwed this up.
Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but what's wrong with the statement you quoted (other than the misspelling)? Wasn't Linus the original creator of Linux? And isn't the code scrutinized and tested...blah blah blah?
I doesn't say Linus wrote everything -- only that he created Linux. Last time I checked, he did.
It drives me absolutely friggin' nuts when I see people say things like "It's not communist; it's democratic" and vice versa.
Communism is an *economic* system, like capitalism. Democracy is a political system, like totalitarianism.
That said, I have problems with any comparison of a "gift culture" to communism. One of the basic tenets of communicsm is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." It's a two-way street, and a gift, by definition, is a one-way deal. Nobody is making sure that writers of open-source software are given *anything* in return, and that's where any comparison to communism will fall apart.
Sure enough, there's nothing in there about what happens if you link with something from a non-GNU compiler. In that case, it looks like the resulting program would fall under the standard GPL, which says:
"This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
Pretty clear, so I think it's safe to assume that Compaq will *not* be using GNU's library for its compiler.
Actually, all the part you quoted says is that linking the library with files compiled by a GNU compiler does NOT cause an executable to fall under the GPL. It doesn't even mention what happens if you link with output from a non-GNU compiler.
What you've said may be true (I'm definitely no expert on the GPL, and haven't got time to research the validity of your claim right now), but it's definitely not what the language you posted states.
On the off chance I'm missing your point completely (and I believe I am), here are a few quick responses to your points:
1. Red Hat doesn't come in a box big enough to hold a sticker acknowledging everyone who's contributed to it. If there's one on Mandrake, the only reason it fits is because someone was awfully selective about whose names got printed on it, and left out the vast majority of contributors.
2. Are you saying Mandrake *isn't* based on Red Hat? How do you figure? Last time I checked, a VERY high percentage of packages were recompiled versions of the RedHat packages, and it was still being described as "based on Red Hat Linux."
3. Where are the Mandrake versions for non-Intel processors? I'm sure I'm missing your point here.
4. Sticking to a "Red Hat hierarchy" in itself does not a clone make. However, coupled with the almost direct copying of the packages available, most with absolutely no differences beyond the compiler used to build them, does in some eyes. My apologies if you don't like the perception, but IMHO it's pretty justified.
My apologies for a way-off-topic post, or if it sounds like I'm putting down Mandrake. I've got no problem with it -- some of my best friends use Mandrake.:)
However, for someone to come right out and say it's not the direct offspring of Red Hat (without which it probably never would have existed) seems to me to be some really blind egotism.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm with you on not jumping the gun on this, I don't see that they've:
a) accompanied it with source
b) offered source, or
c) said where the source may be obtained
Of course, option [c] does not apply here, anyway.
Still, they should definitely be given a chance to make things right before people go jumping down their throats.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
To be honest, no. I haven't noticed that to be the case at all. While Raster and Mandrake were pretty firm on sticking to the feature freeze leading up to this release (which might have looked like arrogance if you made a suggestion late in the game, but was more likely an attempt to get everything right before this release), I saw a lot of discussion about, and work on, all of the things you mentioned.
Sure, E's got its "cool graphical hacks" -- that's part of what makes it different, and I suspect they'll be a large part of E's development for the foreseeable future (and I like it that way)... But under the hood, they've done a lot of work to keep it stable, and it shows on my system.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
It doesn't, TX. The new default theme (BrushedMetal, created by the ubiquitous TigerT) is VERY toned down from previous releases.
:)
It's still cool, though.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
If it helps any, one thing I've discovered recently is that the theme you use has can have a *huge* impact on how Enlightenment performs. If it's a theme with a lot of large images, E's memory usage can be as much as doubled (or worse, I suppose, depending on the theme -- the worst I've done is double it).
I've got no problems whatsoever with the way Enlightenment performs on my system, and have found it at least as responsive as Windows. I'd say it's even better, but that's hard to guage accurately (especially not having run Windows on anything for close to a year now).
On a side note, E 0.16 rocks. I've been grabbing it from CVS since 0.15 came out, and I'm really impressed with the how new features have turned out, and really look forward to the stuff that's planned so far for 0.17. I highly recommend giving this release a shot.
Thanks to Mandrake, Raster, and the whole rest of the AUTHORS file for one hell of a kick-ass desktop!
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
No, I don't believe absolutely everything that runs on Linux needs to be free -- actually, in either sense of the word. It'd be nice, yes, but I'm willing to admit that a lot of good software that isn't one or both types of "free" might still be good to see on Linux.
My problem with the Opera people is that they seem to think anything free is shoddy, and the fact that their software isn't free is some kind of incentive to use it. It just sort of flies in the face of everything that created the OS they've decided to port their browser to.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
1. Where I work (and in my position before my current one), you see a lot of suits actually wearing suits. They're not gone yet, by a long shot. I suspect Andover's not your typical tech company.
2. Was the reason there's not really a shortage of tech workers in that article somewhere? If there was, I missed it.
3. If they want to be a journal for print magazine editors, that's their business. I've got my doubts that hurling insults at them is going to change their minds.
Guess I'm just feeling ornery today.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
While I'm sure Opera is a great browser, it seems to me their marketing philosophy is about as incompatible with free software's as you can get.
From their own literature: "Nothing is really 'free'. It is merely subsidized by other products. It is done in the interest of market share and domination, but not necessarily in the interest of the user. "
They further claim that the only reason software is given away free is to "tie in" users to buying software later. To those of us backing free software, this is obviously a gross overgeneralization at best, and complete ignorance of what we stand for at worst.
The following bothers me even more: "And besides, you may get something 'free', but then it's mostly 'cheap' and of inferior quality. 'Free' and Opera don't go together - and never will."
If this is really what they believe, they need to do a little research before they even think about pushing their way into the Linux market.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
Oct 4 - Sydney: In an attempt to cool the strong public outcry following his statement that Lotus Corporation supported Internet cencorship, Senator Alston, Australian Minister for Communications, defended his position.
"These people say I have only two backers in the technology industry. This is a complete lie. I have three."
Alston has published his recollection of a discussion with highly-regarded members of the industry, at which he recalls W. Warner saying:
"...I, as a member of the IT industry, fully endorse content filtering!"
Warner was unavailable for comment at press time.
Who needs a flamethrowing car alarm? Check out the last winner -- the centrifugal birthing table.
Mount one of those bad boys on top of your car, strap a mother-to-be-any-minute on it, and walk away. I guarantee your car won't get stolen, and any thief brave enough to come within an arm's reach of Mama is going to *wish* it was just a flamethrower.
Then's there's the potential for using it as a projectile weapon, but I'd think the accuracy would be pretty bad, and it'd take ninth months to reload.
That would be correct. I have an AT&T account I use regularly. While the sign-up *does* require a Windows box (or maybe a Mac; I forget), it tells you during the setup where it has stored your account name and password. POP those into your Linux PPP config, and it works like a champ.
Well, assuming their modems answer, but that's another story.
Hey, it's a valid test. After four days if merciless attempts to compromise the system, they've determined beyond a reasonable doubt that nobody at PC Week has a clue when it comes to Linux.
:)
This is news?
Thanks -- There was a little bit of language in the GPL that made me wonder (about guarantees of machine code, or some such thing.) Just making sure it wasn't some kind of loophole.
I've got no problem with them taking a little time to cut CDs -- though I'd suggest that, should the license ever need to stand up in court, setting a permissible time period for things like that wouldn't be a bad idea.
I'm starting to understand how legal documents get as long and boring as they are.
Not to pick nits or anything, but are they really "entirely fulfilling their obligations" by *promising* to ship source? They've got to actually provide it be complaint, right?
If I understand what you're saying, they're currently in violation of the GPL, but that's O.K. as long as they make good on their promise at some point in the (I'm assuming near) future.
(And people think this GPL stuff is complicated...)
Not tryin' to flame you or anything -- Call me a wanna-be legal student.
I'm generally about as diplomatic as they come, but I can't fault anyone who was vocally upset about the way Corel licensed their beta. They didn't get it right the first time. If everybody had just waited for them to fix it, assuming the best, it's quite possible nothing would have ever happened.
I'm not condoning abuse or unfounded accusations of evil intentions, but I think anyone who sees the discussion of this topic on Slashdot as some sort of religious frenzy is missing the point.
The GPL is ours (as software users), and the only way it's going to stay that way is if people are willing to stand up for it, defend it, and even call an otherwise good company on their screw-ups. One of the easiest ways to do that is to discuss our issues right here, out in the open, where Corel and the rest of the world can see it.
Personally, I would have been a lot more worried if it looked like someone was violating our license and nobody cared.
You know, I'd tend to agree, but...
The language that states that the whole thing is the property of Corel and not subject to other licenses is just flat out a violation of the GPL, no matter whether it's internal or not. Legally, (assuming the GPL is binding), they're prohibited from placing their own license on it. Period. What it's being used for is irrelevant.
I'm not even close to being a "GPL or Die!" kind of guy, and I thing people who demand Linux be called "GNU/Linux" are a little silly. However, a license is a license, and if Corel wants to use the software, they've got to abide by the license.
I know a lot of companies that only use Windows internally. Does that mean they don't need to license it from Microsoft? Can they just say they own it, and all the code to it, as long as they don't resell it? Of course not.
I'm not sure how Corel can figure they've got a right to do this.
Glad to see this baby's gone stable. Though I see a hell of a lot of sniping (not in the comments here yet, though, strangely enough) about which is better, I've got no problem using both 'em, and I find it really hard to beat *BSD as a server platform.
I think Linux may have some headway on the desktop (and whether that's because it's more suitable, or just because it's gotten more apps through media coverage, I can't say), but if I'm setting up a box I just want to connect and have workwithout any worries, I still go with a BSD.
Besides, if the two mascots got into a fight, you know the daemon'd win. An angry penguin biting you in the butt ain't jack compared to the damage of a red-hot trident.
Cut 'em a little slack. If they were using Internet Explorer the page would have been white.
I can't say that this trademark's bad (we don't know their motices -- though I'll admit to a healthy amount of suspicion since it's a law firm), but in the case of "clue.com," Clue Computing had just as much of a right to the domain name as the big guys. If they did business under that name, and got the domain registered first, more power to 'em.
Veronica and Ajax are also a common name and a name from well-known literature, respectively, and as such any company claiming to "own" them deserves a good fight.
Gumby.org? I hadn't heard about it, but I'd have to side with the trademark owners on that one -- just as I would with Linus's ownership of "Linux."
There's a huge difference between someone owning a trademark on something they "made up" (like the words "Linux" and "Gumby") and someone else trying to usurp that word from its originator, knowing full well it isn't their own creation.
As far as these guys wanting to make money from the trademark -- no mind reading involved. Unless they intend to give it away, *by definition* they're in it for the money. That's why they're called 'trade' marks.
Thanks. You know, you live here in the US long enough and it gets easy to screw up those dates (and money... had some friends visit from France recently, and I thought they'd been getting hit really hard by inflation until I figured out they were using commas where I'd use a period).
Warning: Calling my German weak would be an understatement. However, it's probably better than what Babelfish (when I can get it to work) does to English.
Will "Linux" Soon No Longer Be Free?
Hamburg patent lawyers Hauck, Graalfs, and Wehnert have registered the word "Linux" with the German patent office. This was confirmed to c't today by an employee of the firm. Deutsche Markenblatt also lists the trademark -- In issue 36 of September 9, 1999 on page 9919, Linux is listed 399 36 517,6.
Which owner Roy Boldt plans to do with the trademark is unclear. The managing director of Hamburg Systemhauses and the Management of Consultation (?)at ChannelOne were not available by telephone despite repeated attempts to contact them. Whether this is another case of "trademark grabbing" or whether Boldt -- like the owner of the "Linux" trademark in Austria -- has unselfish motives, is unknown at this time.
However, Boldt may not yet be sure of his rights to the "Linux" name. According to U.S. law, the trademark, since 1997, has belonged to Linux creator Linus Torvalds. However, Torvalds himself only got the rights to the name after (a legal battle?)
The output of a similar legal case in Germany would be uncertain. According to the German patent law, trademark ownership ends at a country's borders. How it applies in this country will only be revealed in the coming weeks. On September 12, 1999, the protest period for the "Linux" trademark ends. Until then, anyone could make put forth a valid claim that it should be protected.
The patent office has allowances for such a case. The form "W7202" to file objections is already in place on the Internet.
Again, forgive me if I've completely screwed this up.
Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but what's wrong with the statement you quoted (other than the misspelling)? Wasn't Linus the original creator of Linux? And isn't the code scrutinized and tested...blah blah blah?
I doesn't say Linus wrote everything -- only that he created Linux. Last time I checked, he did.
It drives me absolutely friggin' nuts when I see people say things like "It's not communist; it's democratic" and vice versa.
Communism is an *economic* system, like capitalism. Democracy is a political system, like totalitarianism.
That said, I have problems with any comparison of a "gift culture" to communism. One of the basic tenets of communicsm is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." It's a two-way street, and a gift, by definition, is a one-way deal. Nobody is making sure that writers of open-source software are given *anything* in return, and that's where any comparison to communism will fall apart.
Sure enough, there's nothing in there about what happens if you link with something from a non-GNU compiler. In that case, it looks like the resulting program would fall under the standard GPL, which says:
"This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
Pretty clear, so I think it's safe to assume that Compaq will *not* be using GNU's library for its compiler.
Actually, all the part you quoted says is that linking the library with files compiled by a GNU compiler does NOT cause an executable to fall under the GPL. It doesn't even mention what happens if you link with output from a non-GNU compiler.
What you've said may be true (I'm definitely no expert on the GPL, and haven't got time to research the validity of your claim right now), but it's definitely not what the language you posted states.
FYI: I don't work for any software company.
:)
On the off chance I'm missing your point completely (and I believe I am), here are a few quick responses to your points:
1. Red Hat doesn't come in a box big enough to hold a sticker acknowledging everyone who's contributed to it. If there's one on Mandrake, the only reason it fits is because someone was awfully selective about whose names got printed on it, and left out the vast majority of contributors.
2. Are you saying Mandrake *isn't* based on Red Hat? How do you figure? Last time I checked, a VERY high percentage of packages were recompiled versions of the RedHat packages, and it was still being described as "based on Red Hat Linux."
3. Where are the Mandrake versions for non-Intel processors? I'm sure I'm missing your point here.
4. Sticking to a "Red Hat hierarchy" in itself does not a clone make. However, coupled with the almost direct copying of the packages available, most with absolutely no differences beyond the compiler used to build them, does in some eyes. My apologies if you don't like the perception, but IMHO it's pretty justified.
My apologies for a way-off-topic post, or if it sounds like I'm putting down Mandrake. I've got no problem with it -- some of my best friends use Mandrake.
However, for someone to come right out and say it's not the direct offspring of Red Hat (without which it probably never would have existed) seems to me to be some really blind egotism.