And for a long time, people could sell drugs that were nothing more than colored water and alcohol. That it is a widespread or long-standing practice does not make it acceptable.
Hm, there's a good amount of code NASA has that would likely qualify - particularly on their manned vehicles, e.g. the orbiter. TeX might as well.
But hell, we're talking about a theoretical proof, remember. Hello world can indeed be, and often is, written bug free. Just because a given program might be exceptionally large does not mean that it cannot be bug free, it just makes it difficult.
Again, are you really willing to claim that you don't care about products liability? Welcome to the minority, then.
If someone introduced a bug, either by placing it into the original program, or by modifying it later, that's the person I feel is liable.
As for 100% bug free code -- it's a high demand, but the same excuse could be made of any product, and yet people seem to generally applaud mandated product warranties, torts, etc. If all the car manufacturers claimed that cars just explode, that's the way it is, I'd be upset about them too. My having to be harmed because programmers cannot be bothered is not a satisfactory solution.
You say that there will always be bugs -- prove it. Show me that *all* code *must* have a bug. I imagine that this would be some rather nice mathematical proof you could do. Otherwise it just means that it's hard, not impossible.
It seems that perhaps then, many of the GPL proponents you encounter are paraphrasing or misstating the actual situation, which is more as how I described it. The people you accuse of changing the subject are more accurately, I think, trying to rein it back onto track by correcting that error.
I'm certainly _not_ contesting that the original work BSD'd is lost. But I do think that its value is minimal because it does nothing to encourage others to do likewise, and at least in this sector, code doesn't really increase in usefulness or importance with age.
Aside from the people that simply don't like the GPL camp, many of the complaints with the GPL seem to be coming more from people who would benefit from BSD'd or public domained code, rather than those who would be releasing it. The releasors at least get to weigh how likely it is that GPL'd code will be improved upon, with a guaranteed value, against how likely it is that improved BSD'd code will be released openly.
GPL proponents seem to be, perhaps, less trusting, but hell, that's okay too. Not like we have to be pollyannas.
There's limits to that! Basically, it hinges on a subjective test of how derivative the 2d work is. If it is only very vaguely related, you're alright.
But there are other exceptions... if you were parodying Star Wars, it would not be an infringement to have the Millenium Falcon feature prominently, much less be only on the edge of the screen in a single scene.
(certainly there might be parodies in the realm of software. why, windows practically parodies itself;)
Er, no, any copyright holder may choose to place a work into the public domain at any time prior to the expiration of copyright. This happens all the time. In fact, as noted by my sig here, this post itself is in the public domain. I hold _no_ rights over it. I can never reassert rights over it. They're gone, and I likes it that way. (assuming that I ever had rights on it to begin with....)
Additionally, Congress may (probably - don't recall this to've ever actually happened) revoke copyright at any time, causing a work to fall into the public domain.
But p.d. would be extremely difficult to show to have been implicitly offered. Perhaps a license for any possible use or redistribution to a specific person or class, but to everyone... seems unlikely.
Additionally, copyright law is chock full of exclusions, and being a positive law, must be explicitly made to exist to apply to some given domain. E.g. there is no copyright on backups of copies of copyrighted software which have been legally obtained by the backer-up. Congress simply does not permit copyright to govern that. Somewhat earlier in history - a few decades ago - copyright did not govern software; it took a while for the courts and Congress to extend it to do so, and until that happened, copying was fair game.
Fair use is only one of several types of exclusions, defenses, etc. that exist both statutorially and judicially. (and in some situations would not cover the things you refer to)
Yeah, but because the work is being disseminated, presumably for no charge, that will really significantly lower any possible damage awards. The copyright holder is, after all, seemingly getting along fine without any compensation already... what's he out, exactly?
Nevertheless it is worth something, and if it happened a lot, punative damages to discourage such behavior in general increases in probability.
While this is only incidental, I do kind of wish you'd be a bit more guarded in discussing the nature of copyright. Firstly, it's a positive right, not a natural one. The difference is significant. Secondly, the scope of copyright is more limited in a number of ways than you state. I realize you're most likely just paraphrasing, but this does tend to spread misconceptions.
Additionally, it is completely possible to obtain, specially, different licenses than the GPL for a GPL'd work. However, this will require specific negotiations with the copyright holder, who may or may not be ameniable to it, just as with any other work. Or you can wait n years, and the work will fall into the public domain, or Congress will find the work not worthy of copyright, etc.
Think of it though, as a solution to the tragedy of the commons problem. If the original version is free, and all successive versions are not, there's comparatively little gain to the community, particularly as things move forwards, and things fork, with no folding of the improvements of the fork back into the original.
GPL attempts to solve this by restricting access to the commons (not use per se, but distribution and modification) to those who are willing to make a comittment to maintain and improve the commons, to their own benefit, and to the benefit of others. It's not perfect, but it seems to ultimately result in a more sustainable output of free software.
Blackmail? Sheesh, that's like saying that there's something terrible about labor unions because it involves many people acting in concert. If many of your users boycott your product because you don't include pictures of baby antelopes, and by God, they want them, you're going to cave, or you're going to live without them.
Nothing unusual here, honestly. Everyone has to meet demands on the terms of the demandees, all other things being equal.
I've also seen the movie. However, AFAICT, he's not referenced in the credits, which is different from referring to him in the movie itself (which is fictional, and thus not a reputable place to find credit) or in the quote at the beginning.
Not that I mind that they left him out; I don't care. But they aren't compelled to leave him in.
Free doesn't really seem to me to have the same connotations you think it does, with regards to copyright, though, even if it were just something that the distributor had put up on a page.
As many GPL advocates know, free, in English, where products are concerned, tend to relate to the price, i.e. free as in beer. Are you really proposing that if I went to a bookstore, and they gave me a free book, that I could reasonably infer from that that they were surrendering the copyright? Doesn't really jibe to me. I think that you have to be fairly specific, when you are placing something into the public domain - your action has to be quite easily interpreted in only that one manner.
(incidentally, you can, IIRC offer things under the two different terms. if they accept the worse of the two though, that's their problem, they assented.)
You're right about EULAs of course... here's hoping we can get them thrown out en masse.
Heh. From what they've been telling us in school, ~99% of cases are settled or dropped well before ever getting to court. The courts like that: they could not handle the load if absolutely everyone insisted on going to trial. They're already overburdened as it is. (and this is pretty chronic throughout history, really)
It does at least make sure that the people who go to court are at least the ones who are really really confident, or believe that they have a really strong case, and avoids wasting time with spurious complaints.
Which is why, if you genuinely believe that there's an infringement, you compel them to show you their source code or show it to mutually trusted third parties for comparison, get testimony from programmers, etc. There are limits to this veil of secrecy, you know. Trick is, you can't just do this on a whim, either.
??? - If you copy out, by hand, a work copyrighted to someone other than yourself, you're infringing. (generally)
A pretty decent number of people, even back in the 18th century when the first modern copyright laws were enacted in Britain and in America could do that.
NB that in the US, copyright does not extend to copying programs to disk, memory, or backup, if the program was legally obtained. EULA's powers come through the doctrine of contracts of adhesion, and not significantly from copyright. That is, the question is whether or not buying a program prior to reading or agreeing to a contract binds you to it regardless of anything further that happens. It's somewhat contested, but unfortunately prevailing practices will guide the courts, so if you _really_ want to eliminate it, don't take advantage of it either.
Well, Netscape just had this come up in, IIRC, the 9th Circuit. Turns out that if you do not need to agree to a license in order to download, etc. a program, it's inapplicable. This was in regards to the SmartDownload feature.
But! That's irrelevant. The possible states are clearly visible for copyrighted software distributed with the GPL:
1) The user gets the software, never agrees to anything, uses it, and never distributes it. This is legal under copyright law.
2) The user gets the software, never agrees to anything, and distrubutes it or a closely derivative version of it. This is illegal under copyright law.
3) The user gets the software, never agrees to anything, and distributes it or a closely derivative version of it, AS THOUGH COMPLYING WITH THE GPL. This is illegal under copyright law. BUT! Since the court cannot read minds, and there is no objective assent to the GPL aside from complying with its terms if one undertakes activities only permissible under it, the court will certainly find that the user _did_ agree to the GPL, since he behaved in a fashion identical to someone who did.
4) The user gets the software, agrees to the GPL, and complies with its terms. This is legal.
5) The user gets the software, agrees to the GPL, but does not comply with its terms. This is illegal; it is either (or both) a copyright infringement and a breech of contract.
So proving acceptance is in fact, relatively easy. Look at what the user actually did -- did he distribute the software? If not, stop right there, you're done. If so, did he do so in accordance with the GPL? If so, he's agreed, whether he knew it or not, to the contract. If not, he's definately infringing on copyright, and may be in breech of contract.
The only complication is in gathering the evidence that reveals that someone is distributing the code in compliance, before they might get a chance to suddenly comply and cover their tracks. It's merely an evidenciary thing, and nothing amazingly complicated.
Don't go to law school-- Out of context exerpts like that would _never_ fly. E.g. in the GPL, if one part says that the software was free (which has multiple meanings) and another part said that it was copyrighted (which does not) then it's damn well going to remain copyrighted.
You can't say "this is public domain except for x, y and z," because those two things are mutually exclusive of one another, and the intent is quite clear. Besides which, in the absence of a very clear statement, most judges are quite likely to behave prudently, and keep the software copyrighted; if that were a mistake, the author can still correct it by more clearly affirming that it was public domain. Not so the other way.
Copyright absolutely does not govern the use of software; only copies. HOWEVER, it is essential to note that due to the architecture of most (but probably not all) computer architectures, copies must be made in order to be able to use them, e.g. copying software from CD to HD, from HD to RAM, etc.
Fortunately, in the US at least, copyright is statutorially exempted from applying to both copies of legally owned software needed in order to make use of it, and copies made for backup purposes. Thus, if you buy a program, you can copy it onto your hard disk in order to use it, since copyright just doesn't apply to that.
Just be _really_ cautious about what activities you describe as 'use' (i.e. executing software) and what you describe as copying (i.e. copying software so as to execute it, copying source into another program, copying the program or a derivative in a disseminatory fashion, etc.)
As for copyright law, what's there to accept? It's the law whether you like it or not; refusal to accept it doesn't work well.
No, that's in the language of the GPL alright. And a good thing too. I don't mind a GPL type of license where I must agree in order to acquire rights that I otherwise wouldn't have. But I take great offense to being asked or compelled to agree to an adhesive contract when I can accomplish literally the precise same goals w/o doing so.
Just detach the warrantability from the GPL, and fold it into the software itself... though I don't much like that. I'd be pretty pissed off if my car routinely exploded -- there's nothing special about software that should grant it exemptions from warranties, save for shoddy development. I'll cry no tears for programmers that get sued because they left bugs in their code. It was their fault for being sloppy, frankly, and even should they all be sloppy, that doesn't excuse it.
As a fraud issue, yes, that's true. But that does not satisfy his demand -- I could also republish it just as easily w/o any name attached at all. Or modify it and attach my name to the work, inclusive of the modifications. Tricky then, I suspect, to determine if it was fradulent to let people so assume the authorship. (e.g. Disney can put out "Atlantis" but I seem to have missed the credit given to Plato)
Oh that - no, that doesn't apply. If there was a problem at all, Apple's liable for it, regardless of whether or not it's fixed later. The argument that there was a wrong done is not even in the least bit time-dependant.
The only way that it being fixed factors into it in any way at all is in the damages. Evidently Apple either settled, in which case they don't have a problem with it, or they don't seem to be appealing it, which amounts to the same thing. They're satisfied, and they had to pay out; what's your beef?
Can't say I see a problem with it. The lawyers are working on contingency basis. They don't get paid unless they win. In exchange for assuming the greater risks, they get the opportunity, if they can earn it, of greater reward. If a plantiff doesn't like it, he can always pay for the litigation out of pocket.
Besides, only an incredibly small fraction of cases get anywhere at all, much less an award or settlement that big. The chances of any particular lawyer getting that lucky are as low, if not lower, than a company going IPO, making everyone instant millionares, and not crashing with the rest of the dot coms. Infinitesimal.
The Apple Menu has been hierarchical since System 7.5, with third party INITs and CDEVs to do the same thing (often better, IMHO) since System 7.
Of course, one wonders why we're trying to cram things into menus, when the only reason for doing so seems to be that menus are what come out of the menubar. No reason why a more folder-like object could not do so, or why these menus must be based on information in some obscure part of the file structure, etc. OS X is pretty crappy, I agree -- Win2K has some good points, but is also pretty bad. If only the MacOS had significantly improved since ~1990, we might really be somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Pft- You should know better than that. Attackers cheat. Easier to just have MS install selectively active keyboard loggers in the OS. :)
And for a long time, people could sell drugs that were nothing more than colored water and alcohol. That it is a widespread or long-standing practice does not make it acceptable.
Hm, there's a good amount of code NASA has that would likely qualify - particularly on their manned vehicles, e.g. the orbiter. TeX might as well.
But hell, we're talking about a theoretical proof, remember. Hello world can indeed be, and often is, written bug free. Just because a given program might be exceptionally large does not mean that it cannot be bug free, it just makes it difficult.
Again, are you really willing to claim that you don't care about products liability? Welcome to the minority, then.
If someone introduced a bug, either by placing it into the original program, or by modifying it later, that's the person I feel is liable.
As for 100% bug free code -- it's a high demand, but the same excuse could be made of any product, and yet people seem to generally applaud mandated product warranties, torts, etc. If all the car manufacturers claimed that cars just explode, that's the way it is, I'd be upset about them too. My having to be harmed because programmers cannot be bothered is not a satisfactory solution.
You say that there will always be bugs -- prove it. Show me that *all* code *must* have a bug. I imagine that this would be some rather nice mathematical proof you could do. Otherwise it just means that it's hard, not impossible.
It seems that perhaps then, many of the GPL proponents you encounter are paraphrasing or misstating the actual situation, which is more as how I described it. The people you accuse of changing the subject are more accurately, I think, trying to rein it back onto track by correcting that error.
I'm certainly _not_ contesting that the original work BSD'd is lost. But I do think that its value is minimal because it does nothing to encourage others to do likewise, and at least in this sector, code doesn't really increase in usefulness or importance with age.
Aside from the people that simply don't like the GPL camp, many of the complaints with the GPL seem to be coming more from people who would benefit from BSD'd or public domained code, rather than those who would be releasing it. The releasors at least get to weigh how likely it is that GPL'd code will be improved upon, with a guaranteed value, against how likely it is that improved BSD'd code will be released openly.
GPL proponents seem to be, perhaps, less trusting, but hell, that's okay too. Not like we have to be pollyannas.
There's limits to that! Basically, it hinges on a subjective test of how derivative the 2d work is. If it is only very vaguely related, you're alright.
;)
But there are other exceptions... if you were parodying Star Wars, it would not be an infringement to have the Millenium Falcon feature prominently, much less be only on the edge of the screen in a single scene.
(certainly there might be parodies in the realm of software. why, windows practically parodies itself
Er, no, any copyright holder may choose to place a work into the public domain at any time prior to the expiration of copyright. This happens all the time. In fact, as noted by my sig here, this post itself is in the public domain. I hold _no_ rights over it. I can never reassert rights over it. They're gone, and I likes it that way. (assuming that I ever had rights on it to begin with....)
Additionally, Congress may (probably - don't recall this to've ever actually happened) revoke copyright at any time, causing a work to fall into the public domain.
But p.d. would be extremely difficult to show to have been implicitly offered. Perhaps a license for any possible use or redistribution to a specific person or class, but to everyone... seems unlikely.
Additionally, copyright law is chock full of exclusions, and being a positive law, must be explicitly made to exist to apply to some given domain. E.g. there is no copyright on backups of copies of copyrighted software which have been legally obtained by the backer-up. Congress simply does not permit copyright to govern that. Somewhat earlier in history - a few decades ago - copyright did not govern software; it took a while for the courts and Congress to extend it to do so, and until that happened, copying was fair game.
Fair use is only one of several types of exclusions, defenses, etc. that exist both statutorially and judicially. (and in some situations would not cover the things you refer to)
Yeah, but because the work is being disseminated, presumably for no charge, that will really significantly lower any possible damage awards. The copyright holder is, after all, seemingly getting along fine without any compensation already... what's he out, exactly?
Nevertheless it is worth something, and if it happened a lot, punative damages to discourage such behavior in general increases in probability.
While this is only incidental, I do kind of wish you'd be a bit more guarded in discussing the nature of copyright. Firstly, it's a positive right, not a natural one. The difference is significant. Secondly, the scope of copyright is more limited in a number of ways than you state. I realize you're most likely just paraphrasing, but this does tend to spread misconceptions.
Additionally, it is completely possible to obtain, specially, different licenses than the GPL for a GPL'd work. However, this will require specific negotiations with the copyright holder, who may or may not be ameniable to it, just as with any other work. Or you can wait n years, and the work will fall into the public domain, or Congress will find the work not worthy of copyright, etc.
Think of it though, as a solution to the tragedy of the commons problem. If the original version is free, and all successive versions are not, there's comparatively little gain to the community, particularly as things move forwards, and things fork, with no folding of the improvements of the fork back into the original.
GPL attempts to solve this by restricting access to the commons (not use per se, but distribution and modification) to those who are willing to make a comittment to maintain and improve the commons, to their own benefit, and to the benefit of others. It's not perfect, but it seems to ultimately result in a more sustainable output of free software.
Blackmail? Sheesh, that's like saying that there's something terrible about labor unions because it involves many people acting in concert. If many of your users boycott your product because you don't include pictures of baby antelopes, and by God, they want them, you're going to cave, or you're going to live without them.
Nothing unusual here, honestly. Everyone has to meet demands on the terms of the demandees, all other things being equal.
I've also seen the movie. However, AFAICT, he's not referenced in the credits, which is different from referring to him in the movie itself (which is fictional, and thus not a reputable place to find credit) or in the quote at the beginning.
Not that I mind that they left him out; I don't care. But they aren't compelled to leave him in.
Free doesn't really seem to me to have the same connotations you think it does, with regards to copyright, though, even if it were just something that the distributor had put up on a page.
As many GPL advocates know, free, in English, where products are concerned, tend to relate to the price, i.e. free as in beer. Are you really proposing that if I went to a bookstore, and they gave me a free book, that I could reasonably infer from that that they were surrendering the copyright? Doesn't really jibe to me. I think that you have to be fairly specific, when you are placing something into the public domain - your action has to be quite easily interpreted in only that one manner.
(incidentally, you can, IIRC offer things under the two different terms. if they accept the worse of the two though, that's their problem, they assented.)
You're right about EULAs of course... here's hoping we can get them thrown out en masse.
Heh. From what they've been telling us in school, ~99% of cases are settled or dropped well before ever getting to court. The courts like that: they could not handle the load if absolutely everyone insisted on going to trial. They're already overburdened as it is. (and this is pretty chronic throughout history, really)
It does at least make sure that the people who go to court are at least the ones who are really really confident, or believe that they have a really strong case, and avoids wasting time with spurious complaints.
Which is why, if you genuinely believe that there's an infringement, you compel them to show you their source code or show it to mutually trusted third parties for comparison, get testimony from programmers, etc. There are limits to this veil of secrecy, you know. Trick is, you can't just do this on a whim, either.
??? - If you copy out, by hand, a work copyrighted to someone other than yourself, you're infringing. (generally)
A pretty decent number of people, even back in the 18th century when the first modern copyright laws were enacted in Britain and in America could do that.
NB that in the US, copyright does not extend to copying programs to disk, memory, or backup, if the program was legally obtained. EULA's powers come through the doctrine of contracts of adhesion, and not significantly from copyright. That is, the question is whether or not buying a program prior to reading or agreeing to a contract binds you to it regardless of anything further that happens. It's somewhat contested, but unfortunately prevailing practices will guide the courts, so if you _really_ want to eliminate it, don't take advantage of it either.
Well, Netscape just had this come up in, IIRC, the 9th Circuit. Turns out that if you do not need to agree to a license in order to download, etc. a program, it's inapplicable. This was in regards to the SmartDownload feature.
But! That's irrelevant. The possible states are clearly visible for copyrighted software distributed with the GPL:
1) The user gets the software, never agrees to anything, uses it, and never distributes it. This is legal under copyright law.
2) The user gets the software, never agrees to anything, and distrubutes it or a closely derivative version of it. This is illegal under copyright law.
3) The user gets the software, never agrees to anything, and distributes it or a closely derivative version of it, AS THOUGH COMPLYING WITH THE GPL. This is illegal under copyright law. BUT! Since the court cannot read minds, and there is no objective assent to the GPL aside from complying with its terms if one undertakes activities only permissible under it, the court will certainly find that the user _did_ agree to the GPL, since he behaved in a fashion identical to someone who did.
4) The user gets the software, agrees to the GPL, and complies with its terms. This is legal.
5) The user gets the software, agrees to the GPL, but does not comply with its terms. This is illegal; it is either (or both) a copyright infringement and a breech of contract.
So proving acceptance is in fact, relatively easy. Look at what the user actually did -- did he distribute the software? If not, stop right there, you're done. If so, did he do so in accordance with the GPL? If so, he's agreed, whether he knew it or not, to the contract. If not, he's definately infringing on copyright, and may be in breech of contract.
The only complication is in gathering the evidence that reveals that someone is distributing the code in compliance, before they might get a chance to suddenly comply and cover their tracks. It's merely an evidenciary thing, and nothing amazingly complicated.
Don't go to law school-- Out of context exerpts like that would _never_ fly. E.g. in the GPL, if one part says that the software was free (which has multiple meanings) and another part said that it was copyrighted (which does not) then it's damn well going to remain copyrighted.
You can't say "this is public domain except for x, y and z," because those two things are mutually exclusive of one another, and the intent is quite clear. Besides which, in the absence of a very clear statement, most judges are quite likely to behave prudently, and keep the software copyrighted; if that were a mistake, the author can still correct it by more clearly affirming that it was public domain. Not so the other way.
Copyright absolutely does not govern the use of software; only copies. HOWEVER, it is essential to note that due to the architecture of most (but probably not all) computer architectures, copies must be made in order to be able to use them, e.g. copying software from CD to HD, from HD to RAM, etc.
Fortunately, in the US at least, copyright is statutorially exempted from applying to both copies of legally owned software needed in order to make use of it, and copies made for backup purposes. Thus, if you buy a program, you can copy it onto your hard disk in order to use it, since copyright just doesn't apply to that.
Just be _really_ cautious about what activities you describe as 'use' (i.e. executing software) and what you describe as copying (i.e. copying software so as to execute it, copying source into another program, copying the program or a derivative in a disseminatory fashion, etc.)
As for copyright law, what's there to accept? It's the law whether you like it or not; refusal to accept it doesn't work well.
No, that's in the language of the GPL alright. And a good thing too. I don't mind a GPL type of license where I must agree in order to acquire rights that I otherwise wouldn't have. But I take great offense to being asked or compelled to agree to an adhesive contract when I can accomplish literally the precise same goals w/o doing so.
Just detach the warrantability from the GPL, and fold it into the software itself... though I don't much like that. I'd be pretty pissed off if my car routinely exploded -- there's nothing special about software that should grant it exemptions from warranties, save for shoddy development. I'll cry no tears for programmers that get sued because they left bugs in their code. It was their fault for being sloppy, frankly, and even should they all be sloppy, that doesn't excuse it.
As a fraud issue, yes, that's true. But that does not satisfy his demand -- I could also republish it just as easily w/o any name attached at all. Or modify it and attach my name to the work, inclusive of the modifications. Tricky then, I suspect, to determine if it was fradulent to let people so assume the authorship. (e.g. Disney can put out "Atlantis" but I seem to have missed the credit given to Plato)
Oh that - no, that doesn't apply. If there was a problem at all, Apple's liable for it, regardless of whether or not it's fixed later. The argument that there was a wrong done is not even in the least bit time-dependant.
The only way that it being fixed factors into it in any way at all is in the damages. Evidently Apple either settled, in which case they don't have a problem with it, or they don't seem to be appealing it, which amounts to the same thing. They're satisfied, and they had to pay out; what's your beef?
Can't say I see a problem with it. The lawyers are working on contingency basis. They don't get paid unless they win. In exchange for assuming the greater risks, they get the opportunity, if they can earn it, of greater reward. If a plantiff doesn't like it, he can always pay for the litigation out of pocket.
Besides, only an incredibly small fraction of cases get anywhere at all, much less an award or settlement that big. The chances of any particular lawyer getting that lucky are as low, if not lower, than a company going IPO, making everyone instant millionares, and not crashing with the rest of the dot coms. Infinitesimal.
I call descendants that look like Ookla the Mok.
The Apple Menu has been hierarchical since System 7.5, with third party INITs and CDEVs to do the same thing (often better, IMHO) since System 7.
Of course, one wonders why we're trying to cram things into menus, when the only reason for doing so seems to be that menus are what come out of the menubar. No reason why a more folder-like object could not do so, or why these menus must be based on information in some obscure part of the file structure, etc. OS X is pretty crappy, I agree -- Win2K has some good points, but is also pretty bad. If only the MacOS had significantly improved since ~1990, we might really be somewhere.