Binary BLOBs are a huge problem. Not only are they bad for open development, the BLOBs I've had the displeasure of using have horrible reliability problems. My favorite was the RocketRAID driver for FreeBSD. When we sent a fourth hot spare to the datacenter and they plugged it in, the system crashed. There are also horrible security implications. And the hardware vendors will just arbitrarily decide they don't want to support the hardware anymore, and then you don't have a driver for newer kernels and you're screwed.
The only OS that has taken a principled stand on this issue is OpenBSD. They do not allow binary BLOBs in their kernel, period. Linux people, you have a wonderful opportunity to use your clout to fight this. So quit being fat nerds in your moms basement and do it.
"For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time."
- Richard Stallman
Most filesystems optimize for spinning disks primarily by starting the layout of the partition on the inner part of the spindle. The reason they do this is that it's much faster for the head to read these sectors than the ones on the outer part of the drive. So when you do this, the Operating System gets the fastest access part of the hard drive, which makes sense since your computer frequently accesses this to keep your system running.
There's probably a ton of other optimizations like this, you are on to a very good point. A good person to ask this question would be Kirk McKusick, who is the genius behind FFS and a lot of other great filesystem ideas.
No really, TV news is a lot funnier. At least in the Twin Cities, where there isn't all that much crime. Most of the news involves "shocking" college drinking "exposes", and -always- has the cute animal story towards the end. If it wasn't for the internet, my news sources would be horrible (not helped out by the Star Tribune, an agenda-driven rag that would make William Randolph Hearst proud).
I doubt I hold a majority opinion, but I don't find Jon Stewart very funny, and the obvious bias kindof defeats the perpose of doing a no-holds-barred news satire show. Oh, and if you're getting your news from either source.. you're going to find yourself extremely uninformed on issues. You just can't boil down complex issues into 15 second speech blurbs and expect to know what's going on in the world.
I'll probably get a couple jabs for this.. but I actually think the WSJ has the most opinion neutral articles I've seen in a paper (outside of the opinion section of course). If they even had a pro-business-at-all-costs bias, I doubt I would have seen that Chinese lead expose on the front a few days ago.
People are progressively starting to realize that a poorly rounded CS degree and a huge college loan doesn't neccessarily make you good for a job. It used to be the main criteria, but that just doesn't fly anymore. I for one couldn't be happier that companies are starting to adopt ability-based hiring systems.
One of the reasons I dare say is that college students are getting lazy. They think they're entitled to an education and a good job (an arrogance not exactly helped by the pell grants, which are doing everything they can to drive college fees into the cosmos), so they don't take it as seriously as people used to. Thus, you get a lot of people who kindof learn, but don't really engorge in whatever they happen to be learning, and then they blame [whomever happens to be the President of the United States at the moment] when they get out of college and realize they're not just going to get a six figure job off the ball without doing any serious work. I'll never forget the time when I talked to a college student who had taken a course on relational databases, but had never used an SQL database before. Why not just learn about it on Wikipedia if you're not even going to try to apply the knowlege you're learning?
With these new systems (I hope), you'll need to show real ability rather than an expensive peice of paper that signifies that you kindof learned FORTRAN and boozed it up on the weekends. If it wasn't for a company that just did this for me, I would have never gotten a programming job. Good riddance to bad applicants.
There's no way you can model something like this. This is what kills me about the Harvard school - they have no problem taking millions of variables and shoving them into a couple oversimplified models. When are people going to learn that econometrics simply doesn't work?
The reason that it doesn't work is simple: subjective marginal utility. The choices being made are by people from all kinds of backgrounds with all kinds of needs (which are constantly changing and evolving, thus changing how computers are utilized), with subjective valuations on which operating system is preferred.
There is no way to mathematically compute the utility difference between Linux and Windows for each and every person in the model. I prefer OpenBSD (already breaking one of their model assumptions) because it presents a very high level of utility for what I do (web applications), and because I like the way it is controlled. Other people disagree, or have tasks that OpenBSD is not as good for. The point is, they have their reasons, but we have no statistically-accurate way of determining them.
The authors also make a weird assumption that linux is free (as in beer). The Linux distributions that companies are adopting are -not- free, they are systems like Red Hat Enterprise. Price is just one of many factors that makes people choose Linux over Windows - I can get a rock outside my house for "free", but that doesn't mean I'll use it to run a web site.
I could probably throw out random examples all day, my point is we simply don't have enough information to make conclusions like this. Maybe it's Linux. Maybe it's a completely different operating system altogether. We'll know who's on top when we get there. Meanwhile, if you think being the 100 ton gorilla -guarantees- you future market dominance, Wikipedia for Ford, IBM and Intel and see how well that theory has worked for them.
> Debian is well structured and manageable. Ideal for medium scale server deployments. It's not a desktop OS. It wasn't intended to be.
People run Debian for servers? Good god, no wonder there's so many spam zombies out there.
As for this announcement, doesn't shock me at all, Debian's gimmick is being old and riddled with security holes (but not neccessarily in that order). The distribution itself is thoroughly overrated and its development method needs some serious restructuring. If you want a server OS that's 'structured and manageable', AND up-to-date, and won't get the words 31337 Ha>3D d00d on your front page in a week, then go with something like OpenBSD. Just don't run sendmail, because even the their crack security auditors can't lock down that POS.
It is not wise to create laws on anecdotal evidence. Particularly ones that ultimately affect people's right to their own labor (IE, the money they make before it is taken at gunpoint from them by the government to fund boondoggles created by people that believe in laws like this).
New York Times pulling shit out of their ass? NO WAY! With such stellar journalists as the Keynesian hack Paul Krugman and the "Kevin Mitnick = Russian Terrorist" John Markoff, how could they possibly be wrong about this one?
It's amazing the kind of garbage the anti MS crowd can pull out of their asses sometimes. Wages at microsoft might be capped, but that doesn't mean much when they make a shitload of money. I have a college friend who they practically threw a job on. He wouldn't tell us how much he would get paid, only that it was "above 50 grand". Mind you he isn't some genuis programmer, he's good but still has a lot to learn. Trust me, the last people you should be sobbing about in terms of earnings are MS employees. Working for them will make you a lot more money than most software companies, -especially- when you're just starting out. Then if you really think they're not paying you enough, get bought out by google (just make sure to duck when the chairs start flying).
Next time give that money back to us and write "USE OPENBSD" on your report. Better yet, just give them the money, and they'll actually do security stuff with it.
The CCC describes itself as "a galactic community of life's beings, independent of age, sex, race or societal orientation, which strives across borders for freedom of information."
Does anybody else think that the spokesman of the Chaos Computer Club should espouse similar beliefs? Nice hypocrisy here, we really appreciate that you're using government to try to censor Wikipedia from printing the truth about this whole thing. You don't deserve to be called a hacker, and you obviously don't understand what freedom of information really is.
Amen, man. Here's a DHS security initiative that would have cost nothing: Switch to OpenBSD if security is a concern, and check periodically for security advisories.
This spending is just more pork barrel crap that will probably not accomplish anything and will just get pocketed by somebody. Security doesn't just get fixed with a couple million bucks and a year of coding, it's an ongoing long term process, and the #1 problem with security today is lack of education and/or indifference on security issues, NOT a lack of pork barrel spending.
If women want to get into Wiccan studies instead of intelligent things like CS then you know what, more power to them. I don't want to work with a bunch of goofs that don't have the drive for this industry, CS has already got too many of them in the male department. If anything this ratio has helped to keep down the level of politically correct bullshit we've had to deal with. There's a lot of minorities in CS and it would be pointless to cherry pick on the basis of being a woman because you wouldn't have enough programmers, so the end result is that people are chosen based on their ability instead of how big of a token they are going to be.
If you think that statement makes me a sexist mysoginspellingwhatever, then I'd like to point out there's more women in college than men, so you're a womensogynist whos picking on the minority and you should be working to equalize the college entry numbers to 50/50 (something I would never call for, for one obvious reason and for another considerably more principled one). Go ahead hypocrite get to work.
I think I interpreted your post wrong and I apologize.
To turn the tables and be harsh about America, I totally agree. Born-in-America Americans are the laziest bastards ever. They want everything to happen for them, not do any work, and just generally stink up the place. And then when somebody else does more work for less and better than they do, they cry foul and scream for protectionism instead of improving productivity and getting some work done. I only know a couple born-in-Americans that actually have ambitious plans AND a good work ethic, and most of the people I know are college students, which is really just sad.
America is a country where you can succeed if you try hard, read the markets right, and aren't afraid to try new things. But nowadays most people don't want to try at all, they want to work for a couple hours at a boring riskless job and then go home, play playstation, smoke pot and drive a boat around.
It's the immigrants from countries like India and Japan, ect ect that are really running this country's business. I can only assume its a cultural thing, or maybe it's the crappy schools, but either way I could definetely see America as a receeding power in the future, not because we're not training engineering students like everybody thinks, but because people here are all lazy about work, and don't want to actually apply what they learn into anything new or creative. I'm sick of reading the articles that go like this: "Waahh, I got a college degree, why didn't I instantly get a desk job for it?". Seriously, shut up. I self-learned instead of going to college, I have to earn people's respect through my work rather than a peice of paper that symbolizes my possible ability to do that work, otherwise people think I don't know what I'm doing. Which position would you rather be in?
So yeah, Americans definetely feel they are "entitled" to the riches of wealth. Hopefully they will put down the bong and quit voting for hack politicans so that we can actually maintain this current growth.
Maybe you should try looking at your problems instead of blaming "the man" all the time. India's own socialist, uber-regulatory government is doing just about everything it can to guarantee permanent poverty economy. As of 2005 India is ranked 115 on the Economic Freedom Index out of 155, whereas countries like the US are near the top. "Democracy, Democracy, Democracy" blah blah, Democracy doesn't mean squat when you aren't actually free, just because you can vote for who represents you doesn't mean you are free.
Now for a contrast, Hong Kong isn't democratic, never really has been, was a colony of Britan for EVEN LONGER, and sixty years ago Hong Kong was probably in equal economic shape at the time as India, but they had the wisdom to encourage economic development (allow "freedom") rather than suck everything into the state and make insane regulations that make it impossible to be an entrepeneur, and guess what now that resourceless rock is aiming to be a wealthier country per-capita than the United States. Hmm maybe "the man" AKA George Bush forgot to push the "destroy economy" button for Hong Kong too, yeah that's it. Give me a break.
Americans, like any other successful country, didn't get "entitled" to wealth. What we were entitled to (though it's been tough to hold onto it) is freedom. Freedom has given us capitalism, which has allowed us to EARN our wealth through hard work. That's the only true secret to wealth, there's no wizard of oz pushing the "keep the brothers down" lever, okay?
1) SPEED. People love to say "it goes fast even on old equipment". Opera goes faster on fast equipment too. Firefox still has that annoying lag time when you click the back button, and Opera is nearly instantaneous. It is more memory efficient too, so it lasts for a longer time before a restart. It reloads to your previous position on crashes (which almost never happen). It can save your old pages you were viewing too, so if you close the browser, it will load them all back up. On benchmarks, Opera takes almost every single benchmark, as is shown here: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
2) Configurability. Opera is configurable as hell. Basically everything on the browser can be changed. Don't like the skin? Change it. Don't like the status bar on top? Move it to the bottom, or turn it off completely. Don't like the fast forward button? Get rid of it. It's this that gives you a highly functional browsing experience, while at the same time taking up a lot less space so you get more web page viewing. Choice is power.
The one down point that people like to point out is that occasionally Opera won't work on a page. The opera guys have spent years engineering little differences out of the engine, and that almost never happens anymore. And the thing is, that will start to change when a lot of people start using the browser. That, and I mean even Firefox misses on some of those gross IE designed garbage pages.
Look, I know a lot of people here are set on Firefox exclusively because its open source and blahdeblah, but don't decide your browser on nontechnocratic grounds. I've been surfing the net for over 10 years, and I remember when Opera 3 was out. Opera used to be a slow, buggy peice of crap that didn't work on anything. It's now an incredible browser, and it blows the competition away.
Slashdot Mirror
Binary BLOBs are a huge problem. Not only are they bad for open development, the BLOBs I've had the displeasure of using have horrible reliability problems. My favorite was the RocketRAID driver for FreeBSD. When we sent a fourth hot spare to the datacenter and they plugged it in, the system crashed. There are also horrible security implications. And the hardware vendors will just arbitrarily decide they don't want to support the hardware anymore, and then you don't have a driver for newer kernels and you're screwed. The only OS that has taken a principled stand on this issue is OpenBSD. They do not allow binary BLOBs in their kernel, period. Linux people, you have a wonderful opportunity to use your clout to fight this. So quit being fat nerds in your moms basement and do it.
"For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me. It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time." - Richard Stallman
self.__this_is_not_a_good_way_to_call_private_instance_variables
"Hey guys... WONDER JOINTS!"
Most filesystems optimize for spinning disks primarily by starting the layout of the partition on the inner part of the spindle. The reason they do this is that it's much faster for the head to read these sectors than the ones on the outer part of the drive. So when you do this, the Operating System gets the fastest access part of the hard drive, which makes sense since your computer frequently accesses this to keep your system running.
There's probably a ton of other optimizations like this, you are on to a very good point. A good person to ask this question would be Kirk McKusick, who is the genius behind FFS and a lot of other great filesystem ideas.
-Kyle
Isn't Ford going bankrupt and losing all its business? That should show how successful this employee model is working.
So I can block them when I read slashdot.
No really, TV news is a lot funnier. At least in the Twin Cities, where there isn't all that much crime. Most of the news involves "shocking" college drinking "exposes", and -always- has the cute animal story towards the end. If it wasn't for the internet, my news sources would be horrible (not helped out by the Star Tribune, an agenda-driven rag that would make William Randolph Hearst proud).
I doubt I hold a majority opinion, but I don't find Jon Stewart very funny, and the obvious bias kindof defeats the perpose of doing a no-holds-barred news satire show. Oh, and if you're getting your news from either source.. you're going to find yourself extremely uninformed on issues. You just can't boil down complex issues into 15 second speech blurbs and expect to know what's going on in the world.
I'll probably get a couple jabs for this.. but I actually think the WSJ has the most opinion neutral articles I've seen in a paper (outside of the opinion section of course). If they even had a pro-business-at-all-costs bias, I doubt I would have seen that Chinese lead expose on the front a few days ago.
People are progressively starting to realize that a poorly rounded CS degree and a huge college loan doesn't neccessarily make you good for a job. It used to be the main criteria, but that just doesn't fly anymore. I for one couldn't be happier that companies are starting to adopt ability-based hiring systems.
One of the reasons I dare say is that college students are getting lazy. They think they're entitled to an education and a good job (an arrogance not exactly helped by the pell grants, which are doing everything they can to drive college fees into the cosmos), so they don't take it as seriously as people used to. Thus, you get a lot of people who kindof learn, but don't really engorge in whatever they happen to be learning, and then they blame [whomever happens to be the President of the United States at the moment] when they get out of college and realize they're not just going to get a six figure job off the ball without doing any serious work. I'll never forget the time when I talked to a college student who had taken a course on relational databases, but had never used an SQL database before. Why not just learn about it on Wikipedia if you're not even going to try to apply the knowlege you're learning?
With these new systems (I hope), you'll need to show real ability rather than an expensive peice of paper that signifies that you kindof learned FORTRAN and boozed it up on the weekends. If it wasn't for a company that just did this for me, I would have never gotten a programming job. Good riddance to bad applicants.
There's no way you can model something like this. This is what kills me about the Harvard school - they have no problem taking millions of variables and shoving them into a couple oversimplified models. When are people going to learn that econometrics simply doesn't work?
The reason that it doesn't work is simple: subjective marginal utility. The choices being made are by people from all kinds of backgrounds with all kinds of needs (which are constantly changing and evolving, thus changing how computers are utilized), with subjective valuations on which operating system is preferred.
There is no way to mathematically compute the utility difference between Linux and Windows for each and every person in the model. I prefer OpenBSD (already breaking one of their model assumptions) because it presents a very high level of utility for what I do (web applications), and because I like the way it is controlled. Other people disagree, or have tasks that OpenBSD is not as good for. The point is, they have their reasons, but we have no statistically-accurate way of determining them.
The authors also make a weird assumption that linux is free (as in beer). The Linux distributions that companies are adopting are -not- free, they are systems like Red Hat Enterprise. Price is just one of many factors that makes people choose Linux over Windows - I can get a rock outside my house for "free", but that doesn't mean I'll use it to run a web site.
I could probably throw out random examples all day, my point is we simply don't have enough information to make conclusions like this. Maybe it's Linux. Maybe it's a completely different operating system altogether. We'll know who's on top when we get there. Meanwhile, if you think being the 100 ton gorilla -guarantees- you future market dominance, Wikipedia for Ford, IBM and Intel and see how well that theory has worked for them.
> Debian is well structured and manageable. Ideal for medium scale server deployments. It's not a desktop OS. It wasn't intended to be.
People run Debian for servers? Good god, no wonder there's so many spam zombies out there.
As for this announcement, doesn't shock me at all, Debian's gimmick is being old and riddled with security holes (but not neccessarily in that order). The distribution itself is thoroughly overrated and its development method needs some serious restructuring. If you want a server OS that's 'structured and manageable', AND up-to-date, and won't get the words 31337 Ha>3D d00d on your front page in a week, then go with something like OpenBSD. Just don't run sendmail, because even the their crack security auditors can't lock down that POS.
One of the main reasons that e-mail is so popular is that it -isn't- taxed by the government, unlike just about every form of communication in Europe.
It is not wise to create laws on anecdotal evidence. Particularly ones that ultimately affect people's right to their own labor (IE, the money they make before it is taken at gunpoint from them by the government to fund boondoggles created by people that believe in laws like this).
New York Times pulling shit out of their ass? NO WAY! With such stellar journalists as the Keynesian hack Paul Krugman and the "Kevin Mitnick = Russian Terrorist" John Markoff, how could they possibly be wrong about this one?
It's amazing the kind of garbage the anti MS crowd can pull out of their asses sometimes. Wages at microsoft might be capped, but that doesn't mean much when they make a shitload of money. I have a college friend who they practically threw a job on. He wouldn't tell us how much he would get paid, only that it was "above 50 grand". Mind you he isn't some genuis programmer, he's good but still has a lot to learn. Trust me, the last people you should be sobbing about in terms of earnings are MS employees. Working for them will make you a lot more money than most software companies, -especially- when you're just starting out. Then if you really think they're not paying you enough, get bought out by google (just make sure to duck when the chairs start flying).
Next time give that money back to us and write "USE OPENBSD" on your report. Better yet, just give them the money, and they'll actually do security stuff with it.
...It's cold in Minnesota.
Having problems taking a side? Oh what is this:
The CCC describes itself as "a galactic community of life's beings, independent of age, sex, race or societal orientation, which strives across borders for freedom of information."
Does anybody else think that the spokesman of the Chaos Computer Club should espouse similar beliefs? Nice hypocrisy here, we really appreciate that you're using government to try to censor Wikipedia from printing the truth about this whole thing. You don't deserve to be called a hacker, and you obviously don't understand what freedom of information really is.
Amen, man. Here's a DHS security initiative that would have cost nothing: Switch to OpenBSD if security is a concern, and check periodically for security advisories.
This spending is just more pork barrel crap that will probably not accomplish anything and will just get pocketed by somebody. Security doesn't just get fixed with a couple million bucks and a year of coding, it's an ongoing long term process, and the #1 problem with security today is lack of education and/or indifference on security issues, NOT a lack of pork barrel spending.
If women want to get into Wiccan studies instead of intelligent things like CS then you know what, more power to them. I don't want to work with a bunch of goofs that don't have the drive for this industry, CS has already got too many of them in the male department. If anything this ratio has helped to keep down the level of politically correct bullshit we've had to deal with. There's a lot of minorities in CS and it would be pointless to cherry pick on the basis of being a woman because you wouldn't have enough programmers, so the end result is that people are chosen based on their ability instead of how big of a token they are going to be.
If you think that statement makes me a sexist mysoginspellingwhatever, then I'd like to point out there's more women in college than men, so you're a womensogynist whos picking on the minority and you should be working to equalize the college entry numbers to 50/50 (something I would never call for, for one obvious reason and for another considerably more principled one). Go ahead hypocrite get to work.
I think I interpreted your post wrong and I apologize.
To turn the tables and be harsh about America, I totally agree. Born-in-America Americans are the laziest bastards ever. They want everything to happen for them, not do any work, and just generally stink up the place. And then when somebody else does more work for less and better than they do, they cry foul and scream for protectionism instead of improving productivity and getting some work done. I only know a couple born-in-Americans that actually have ambitious plans AND a good work ethic, and most of the people I know are college students, which is really just sad.
America is a country where you can succeed if you try hard, read the markets right, and aren't afraid to try new things. But nowadays most people don't want to try at all, they want to work for a couple hours at a boring riskless job and then go home, play playstation, smoke pot and drive a boat around.
It's the immigrants from countries like India and Japan, ect ect that are really running this country's business. I can only assume its a cultural thing, or maybe it's the crappy schools, but either way I could definetely see America as a receeding power in the future, not because we're not training engineering students like everybody thinks, but because people here are all lazy about work, and don't want to actually apply what they learn into anything new or creative. I'm sick of reading the articles that go like this: "Waahh, I got a college degree, why didn't I instantly get a desk job for it?". Seriously, shut up. I self-learned instead of going to college, I have to earn people's respect through my work rather than a peice of paper that symbolizes my possible ability to do that work, otherwise people think I don't know what I'm doing. Which position would you rather be in?
So yeah, Americans definetely feel they are "entitled" to the riches of wealth. Hopefully they will put down the bong and quit voting for hack politicans so that we can actually maintain this current growth.
Maybe you should try looking at your problems instead of blaming "the man" all the time. India's own socialist, uber-regulatory government is doing just about everything it can to guarantee permanent poverty economy. As of 2005 India is ranked 115 on the Economic Freedom Index out of 155, whereas countries like the US are near the top. "Democracy, Democracy, Democracy" blah blah, Democracy doesn't mean squat when you aren't actually free, just because you can vote for who represents you doesn't mean you are free.
Now for a contrast, Hong Kong isn't democratic, never really has been, was a colony of Britan for EVEN LONGER, and sixty years ago Hong Kong was probably in equal economic shape at the time as India, but they had the wisdom to encourage economic development (allow "freedom") rather than suck everything into the state and make insane regulations that make it impossible to be an entrepeneur, and guess what now that resourceless rock is aiming to be a wealthier country per-capita than the United States. Hmm maybe "the man" AKA George Bush forgot to push the "destroy economy" button for Hong Kong too, yeah that's it. Give me a break.
Americans, like any other successful country, didn't get "entitled" to wealth. What we were entitled to (though it's been tough to hold onto it) is freedom. Freedom has given us capitalism, which has allowed us to EARN our wealth through hard work. That's the only true secret to wealth, there's no wizard of oz pushing the "keep the brothers down" lever, okay?
It's about time they fixed the "slow as hell back/forward buttons" problem. It's been driving me nuts.
And those Nazi suckers fell for it by creating one of the most nightmarish bureaucracies in the history of man, right?
Earn yourself some Friedrich Hayek
1) SPEED. People love to say "it goes fast even on old equipment". Opera goes faster on fast equipment too. Firefox still has that annoying lag time when you click the back button, and Opera is nearly instantaneous. It is more memory efficient too, so it lasts for a longer time before a restart. It reloads to your previous position on crashes (which almost never happen). It can save your old pages you were viewing too, so if you close the browser, it will load them all back up. On benchmarks, Opera takes almost every single benchmark, as is shown here: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
2) Configurability. Opera is configurable as hell. Basically everything on the browser can be changed. Don't like the skin? Change it. Don't like the status bar on top? Move it to the bottom, or turn it off completely. Don't like the fast forward button? Get rid of it. It's this that gives you a highly functional browsing experience, while at the same time taking up a lot less space so you get more web page viewing. Choice is power.
The one down point that people like to point out is that occasionally Opera won't work on a page. The opera guys have spent years engineering little differences out of the engine, and that almost never happens anymore. And the thing is, that will start to change when a lot of people start using the browser. That, and I mean even Firefox misses on some of those gross IE designed garbage pages.
Look, I know a lot of people here are set on Firefox exclusively because its open source and blahdeblah, but don't decide your browser on nontechnocratic grounds. I've been surfing the net for over 10 years, and I remember when Opera 3 was out. Opera used to be a slow, buggy peice of crap that didn't work on anything. It's now an incredible browser, and it blows the competition away.
In short, just try it.