And Microsoft says that Palladium will benefit end users. I'd take "explanations" from Roxio (and MS) with a huge grain of salt.
If it's in the EULA (legalese), Roxio may not interpret it to mean the same tomorrow as it explains it to mean today. They may still be tempted to DRM your PC tomorrow, IMHO.
There goes CNet again releasing M$ biased FUD and calling it journalism. At first I figured I would quote examples from the article to prove my point, but each line is worse than the last. So if you haven't, I'd go read the article to see for yourself.
What bothers me most about this article is that the author implies that Apple owes M$ gratitude for "helping" them out in the past. I'm sorry but it's entirely too obvious that the only reason Microsoft has ever helped Apple was to make sure that they had a competitor to point to and say "we're not a monopoly, see? People can buy Macs if they don't like Windows."
And if MS really did help Apple fix "bugs" in the OS that allowed them to run Office, it was again only for their gain. Apple cannot be blamed for the lack of sales on Office Mac. Seriously, if I had a Windows box I wouldn't even pay the $500 MS wants for office Mac. That's just ridiculous considering it comes bundled with a new PC.
CNet: if you really want to be a respected new outlet, you really need to stop producing MS FUD. This is a disgrace to the media in general and worth only of a publication like the National Enquirer.
This spring I traded my PC in for a new iMac and was immediately impressed. After using it at home and falling in love with it I decided that I would work much more efficiently at work with an Apple than a Windows box, so I traded in my laptop for a TiBook.
So that's two new Apple's and two used Windoze boxes. Meaning profit for Apple and another two used Windoze boxes on eBay to hurt MS and Dell's profits.
But really why I say that MS should worry is because everyone in the office loves my new Mac, even the CIO. People are impressed at how much the Mac can do and how much better it is than a Windows box. Apple just needs to beat the bad image that their floundering years without Jobs caused them. Once people give them a chance, they're incredibly impressed. BTW, the CIO is getting a new TiBook next week.
I think Apple is on to something here with a great OS and innovative products. I can't wait to see what they come up with this week at Mac World.
I know that copying is the best form of flattery, but this is getting ridiculous.
KDE 1 - 2 were attempts to copy windows UI with some small differences.
It now appears that KDE 3.1 is going for the Appple OS X Aqua look. Look at the screen shots. The task bar looks like the OS X dock and they even called it Qwertz.
I love Linux on the desktop, and I love KDE, but unless it offers something original, something that Windows and Mac OS don't, then what's the point?
Not that I don't agree (because I do). But I just think it's funny that this is what Windows NT was supposed to be: an entirely new OS built from the scratch.
Except for the constant BSOD was all know how that turned o
Actually, if you try to run an OS 9 app from within OS X, the full OS 9 environment must be launched. OS 9 runs on Mac OS X in a way similar to the way VM Ware runs Windows on Linux. However, from the user's persepective it looks more like the way X-Windows apps look on Mac OS X. The apps appear to be running natively (except they have the x-windows or os 9 look at feel). I know this is a slightly bad example since the X-Windows apps really are running natively! But you get the picture.
Honestly, it's really inappropriate to make refer to people as "El Stupido" when it is really you who does not understand. I hope this clears things up for you.:)
While the controversial/. headline makes this article sound like a Linux bashing, MS FUD - the actual article is actually well written and possibly even informative for the non-geek community.
The author even points out that Linux is being pushed more and more by 3rd party software vendors like Oracle. I think this article, more than anything else, should be taken as a wake-up call to all of the developers on here who want to see Linux prosper on the desktop. Linux (as in the kernel) has been ready for prime time for a while. It is being improved daily and with the release of 2.6 or 3.0 next year, will be well on the way to playing in the Big Iron Unix territory. IBM, Oracle, and now even Sybase realized that Linux could be the next big platform for pushing their software into new markets and stealing up some of the low-end from MSFT.
Sadly, GNU/Linux is years behind the Windows and MAC world in terms of desktop useability. No, I am not trying to start a flame war here. But let's think about Mom, Dad and the commercial software developer. Regardless of what ppl think about freedom of choice, there must be a standard desktop for Linux. Unfortunately, neither Gnome nor KDE can be this standard. Why not? As Sun as pointed out before, QT is not free for non-free software projects. Therefore, if we standardize on KDE software developers are going to have to pay to use QT to develop for linux. IDE kits are free on Windows and Mac, so this simply won't fly. Gnome on the other hand, is just a complete mess. It may be great for the techie, but just imagine trying to tell Mom or Dad to use it. I seriously doubt that would go well.
Anyway, the point is, if we want Linux on the desktop, we have to make it happen. Anyone here (hint to KDE developers) who hasn't taken a look at the UI of Mac OS X should. You just might realize that the desktop doesn't have to look like Windows in order to be useful.
I think this is another step in the wrong direction for MSFT. However, I am glad to see it happening because the more aggressively they attack free software (and non-MS software in general), the more quickly they postion themselves to be irrelevent.
Think about this in conjuction with their plans to make Longhorn debut in 2006 as a radically new OS. Do you know what "radically" new says to me? It says completely incompatible. And not simply with Unix/Linux/et al, but with former Microsoft products as well.
Bear with me for a minute.... let's say for a minute that Longhorn is to Windows XP what Mac OS X is to OS 9 - a complete rewrite, completely incompatible, and arguably 100 times better. But adoption is slow. People are entrenched in thier current OS of choice, OS 9 or even 8 for some. So when Microsoft prepares to move the masses to their radically new OS in late 2006, a great deal of segmentation will occur.
Now let's pretend that Linux is ready for the masses (on the desktop) by 2006, and it has a stronghold in the server market. Now you're looking at two paths (at least for corporate types): 1. Continue to allow MS to shove upgrades down your throat and keep following the Windows donkey cart. Further, subject yourself to the new DRM of Longhorn and face issues of your free software and possbily other commercial software (IE Oracle and other DBMS) not working correctly. 2. Switch to Linux or maybe Macs. When companies are forced off Win 2k/XP and forced onto Longhorn via MSFT, we'll see how many are willing to comply. Continuing to use XP/2k may not be an option, but ditching MS entirely may be a reality in 4 years.
I know it took a long time to get to my point but it's a complex issue. Far more complex even than I have portrayed above. But seriously, I think MS is going down a road to making themselves irrelevant. However, never count out the power or marketing! What MS lacks in software reliablity they make up for with a powerful marketing department and an unfortunate following of corporate weenies.
Does everyone who is claiming that United Linux is bad and won't contribute to Linux development realize that Red Hat already does what United Linux is planning to do?
In late April, Red Hat released Advanced Server - a distribution that will be guaranteed to be supported for an 18-month period with minimal change. If you go to ftp.redhat.org and poke around for this distro, you will find that Red Hat has a nice collection of SRPMS (source RPMs) for the distro, yet no public binary release. Any complaints?
Do people not realize that this is going on, or is it not a problem because it's Red Hat?
Personally, I think it would be great if all Linux companies made all of their distros freely available in binary form on ISOs, but sadly this is not the case, not even with Red Hat.
So what's it going to be? If everyone is going to get up in arms over United Linux, they better put Red Hat in the same boat (IMHO).
The whole Techie's don't buy music thing is a farse.
I downloaded some songs from Play and liked it, so I bought the CD. When 18 came out I did not even have a chance to download songs to "try before you buy" and just went out and bought the album.
Maybe a lot of techie's like the try before you buy aspect. But I'd be willing to bet that most people fall into the same boat as me: download it, if you like it buy it, if not, move on. I bought 18 on the merits of Play. I was dissapointed. 18, IMHO, is terrible. But that's just my opinion.
Maybe most people agree with me, and that's why Moby's 18 isn't selling. Write good music and people will buy it. I don't buy into the idea that downloading / copying your friends is really hurting CD sales.
We've been down this road too many times before and all studies have pointed to the obvious: on the whole, downloading music has helped CD sales, not hurt them.
Moby, this is a bad excuse for a badly written CD!
Okay fine for Joe User but not for a journalist. If he wants to point out what he thinks the average user's opinion will be, that fine. But he didn't, he himself made an observation that the product was not as good as IE because well, it's not IE. That is narrow minded in my book.
This is the type of review that really annoys me. The review spends 10 paragraphs praising Mozilla for it's standards compliance, speed, reliability, etc and then has to go and ruin it all by saying "Good but no IE Killer."
"Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla"
What?!? So because a bunch of lazy web "developers" have written IE specific html, we should not just assume this means IE is the better browser? I think this is a really narrow-minded observation. Granted he may be right about the rendering, but it does not mean that Mozilla is not as good as IE.
Seriously, IE simply renders pages more "correctly" because it dominates the market and lazy "developers" have written IE specific code.
I guess this journalist also believes that Windows is superior to Mac OS X because there is more software available for it. Or maybe he just enjoys BSODs. Get real, this is not a fair way to compare browsers.
One last thing... can someone please show me a page link to all these pages that don't render correctly in Mozilla? I use Mozilla exclusively and have not come upon any pages in the last few months that do not work correctly with Mozilla.
RMS' statement basically contradicts itself. If you release software under the GPL you cannot restrict your work from being distributed in a pay-per-seat distribution - I just isn't feasable.
All the GPL says is that if you distribute binaries containing GPL'd code, you must make the source code for those GPL'd binaries available under the GPL I am still free to distribute any binaries I created for a fee, as long as I give you the source under the GPL!
Additionally, a Linux distribution such as SuSE and others, may contain code that is licensed under proprietary licenses. These other applications such as installers, management software, config tools, and other value-added features may be licensed under whatever schema its creator sees fit. Such tools can be licensed on a per-seat basis if chosen.
If I buy a license for United Linux, I can take any GPL'd software distributed with United Linux and reuse the on 100,000 different machines without paying anyone for that useage.
I really don't see the problem here. I write GPL'd software. If my software were to be distributed with commercial software that was charged for under a different license I would not have a problem with this! Hell, it's part of the reason I chose to use GPL in the first place!
Free to use, free to modify, free to redistribute, and free to chage a fee for redistribution!!! RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!
There is no doubt that Microsoft products are shoddy and filled with security holes, and yes the Unix security model is superior to that of, say a Windoze 95/98/ME box. However, my point is just that a virus does not have to destroy the system in order to be effective. Simply trashing a user's home directory is enough to really hurt a PC or Mac user.
Your point about the Mail.app vs Outlook address book argument is interesting, but I don't think that an OS X hacker would have a hard time getting into your address book as well. Once that virus is running, it can find a way to read anything that you have read access to (and is not encrypted). That includes your address book. A litte C program (maybe even apple script) could most likely find your address book and begin mailing itself to all your contacts.
Seems like SuSE is the "Standard"
on
United Linux is Here
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A quick look at
Netcraft Survey reveals that this site is running on SuSE Linux.
Also interstingly enough, SuSE 8.0 was fully LSB compliant, the first commercial distro to be so.
My guess is that the base OS will be SuSE. Who's management tools they decide to go with is still anyone's guess. Maybe it'll be a whole new set entirely.
This is clearly a case of someone trying to make a case that Mac users need virus protection as much as Windows users do.
The fact that all Operating Systems are subject to virus attacks cannot be argued, but some are more secure than others. There are three requirements for a virus to damage a user's machine. First, the user must acquire the virus (download, email attachement, etc). Second, the user must execute the infected application (thinking it's something else). Three, the user must have permission to modify/edit/delete the resources that the virus intends to attack.
Seriously, we hear the argument time and time again that Mac and Linux are less succeptable to Viruses than Windows, but what they really mean is point three from above: OS X and Linux to a better job of protecting system resources than Windows. So yes, Windows is more succeptable to catastrophic damage than OS X and Linux.
What really goes without saying here is that viruses follow the same pattern as useful software: 90+ percent of the population uses Windows, so target that population and you will see the most damage (or revenue for real software).
No one should really think that they are not Vulnerable to viri simply because they run a more secure OS. While a OS X or Linux virus executed by a local user with limited privledges cannot necessarily damage the system, they could still delete all of that user's personal data because that user has full permission on their stuff. I don't know about any of you, but if a virus wiped out my entire home directory, I'd be pretty pissed, and the fact that my system still booted up would be no consolation. =)
My point here is just that anyone who runs foreign applications on their machine from a user account that has write permissions on their own files is succeptable to a virus attack.
As long as Windows enjoys the overwhelming majority share of desktop operating systems, it will be the target of the majority of virus attacks. If that balance shifts towards the Mac, don't doubt that the virus writers won't prey on Mac users as well.
Especially on Linux, there are at least 3 excellent browsers, or 4 if you count Galeon/Gecko as separate to Mozilla, with none of them having a significant lead over the others as far as I'm aware.
As long as Windows has 95% of the desktop OS market and IE is the preferred browser on that platform, all of the the browser competition on the Linux front is somewhat meaningless.
I am thrilled to have great web browsers for Linux (my platform of choice), but 4 browsers for a platform that has less than 2% of the deskotp market does nothing to sway web developers to target anything other than IE.
Maybe some decent web browsers will help the cause to increase Linux's presence in the desktop market. I guess only time will tell.
You must be kidding. Linux did not support either asychronous I/O or pre-emptive mutitasking until kernel 2.5 (current devel branch). There is only one production quality linux kernel supporting Asynchronous I/O, and that is the kernel used for Red Hat Advanced Server (just released). They put asychronous I/O into this kernel because they felt it was production ready. And no, that kernel does not do pre-emtive multitasking. See this PDF from
Red Hat if you doubt me.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before claiming to understand things which you really don't.
Slashdot Mirror
You can also watch it live via QuickTime or MPEG 4 via QuickTime 6. It's at apple.com
If it's in the EULA (legalese), Roxio may not interpret it to mean the same tomorrow as it explains it to mean today. They may still be tempted to DRM your PC tomorrow, IMHO.
What bothers me most about this article is that the author implies that Apple owes M$ gratitude for "helping" them out in the past. I'm sorry but it's entirely too obvious that the only reason Microsoft has ever helped Apple was to make sure that they had a competitor to point to and say "we're not a monopoly, see? People can buy Macs if they don't like Windows."
And if MS really did help Apple fix "bugs" in the OS that allowed them to run Office, it was again only for their gain. Apple cannot be blamed for the lack of sales on Office Mac. Seriously, if I had a Windows box I wouldn't even pay the $500 MS wants for office Mac. That's just ridiculous considering it comes bundled with a new PC.
CNet: if you really want to be a respected new outlet, you really need to stop producing MS FUD. This is a disgrace to the media in general and worth only of a publication like the National Enquirer.
So that's two new Apple's and two used Windoze boxes. Meaning profit for Apple and another two used Windoze boxes on eBay to hurt MS and Dell's profits.
But really why I say that MS should worry is because everyone in the office loves my new Mac, even the CIO. People are impressed at how much the Mac can do and how much better it is than a Windows box. Apple just needs to beat the bad image that their floundering years without Jobs caused them. Once people give them a chance, they're incredibly impressed. BTW, the CIO is getting a new TiBook next week.
I think Apple is on to something here with a great OS and innovative products. I can't wait to see what they come up with this week at Mac World.
They'll have it figured out real quick, and Macs are not "just like" Windows.
KDE 1 - 2 were attempts to copy windows UI with some small differences.
It now appears that KDE 3.1 is going for the Appple OS X Aqua look. Look at the screen shots. The task bar looks like the OS X dock and they even called it Qwertz.
I love Linux on the desktop, and I love KDE, but unless it offers something original, something that Windows and Mac OS don't, then what's the point?
Except for the constant BSOD was all know how that turned o
MS says leap, BN.com jumps. Seriously.
Honestly, it's really inappropriate to make refer to people as "El Stupido" when it is really you who does not understand. I hope this clears things up for you. :)
The author even points out that Linux is being pushed more and more by 3rd party software vendors like Oracle. I think this article, more than anything else, should be taken as a wake-up call to all of the developers on here who want to see Linux prosper on the desktop. Linux (as in the kernel) has been ready for prime time for a while. It is being improved daily and with the release of 2.6 or 3.0 next year, will be well on the way to playing in the Big Iron Unix territory. IBM, Oracle, and now even Sybase realized that Linux could be the next big platform for pushing their software into new markets and stealing up some of the low-end from MSFT.
Sadly, GNU/Linux is years behind the Windows and MAC world in terms of desktop useability. No, I am not trying to start a flame war here. But let's think about Mom, Dad and the commercial software developer. Regardless of what ppl think about freedom of choice, there must be a standard desktop for Linux. Unfortunately, neither Gnome nor KDE can be this standard. Why not? As Sun as pointed out before, QT is not free for non-free software projects. Therefore, if we standardize on KDE software developers are going to have to pay to use QT to develop for linux. IDE kits are free on Windows and Mac, so this simply won't fly. Gnome on the other hand, is just a complete mess. It may be great for the techie, but just imagine trying to tell Mom or Dad to use it. I seriously doubt that would go well.
Anyway, the point is, if we want Linux on the desktop, we have to make it happen. Anyone here (hint to KDE developers) who hasn't taken a look at the UI of Mac OS X should. You just might realize that the desktop doesn't have to look like Windows in order to be useful.
Think about this in conjuction with their plans to make Longhorn debut in 2006 as a radically new OS. Do you know what "radically" new says to me? It says completely incompatible. And not simply with Unix/Linux/et al, but with former Microsoft products as well.
Bear with me for a minute.... let's say for a minute that Longhorn is to Windows XP what Mac OS X is to OS 9 - a complete rewrite, completely incompatible, and arguably 100 times better. But adoption is slow. People are entrenched in thier current OS of choice, OS 9 or even 8 for some. So when Microsoft prepares to move the masses to their radically new OS in late 2006, a great deal of segmentation will occur.
Now let's pretend that Linux is ready for the masses (on the desktop) by 2006, and it has a stronghold in the server market. Now you're looking at two paths (at least for corporate types): 1. Continue to allow MS to shove upgrades down your throat and keep following the Windows donkey cart. Further, subject yourself to the new DRM of Longhorn and face issues of your free software and possbily other commercial software (IE Oracle and other DBMS) not working correctly. 2. Switch to Linux or maybe Macs. When companies are forced off Win 2k/XP and forced onto Longhorn via MSFT, we'll see how many are willing to comply. Continuing to use XP/2k may not be an option, but ditching MS entirely may be a reality in 4 years.
I know it took a long time to get to my point but it's a complex issue. Far more complex even than I have portrayed above. But seriously, I think MS is going down a road to making themselves irrelevant. However, never count out the power or marketing! What MS lacks in software reliablity they make up for with a powerful marketing department and an unfortunate following of corporate weenies.
In late April, Red Hat released Advanced Server - a distribution that will be guaranteed to be supported for an 18-month period with minimal change. If you go to ftp.redhat.org and poke around for this distro, you will find that Red Hat has a nice collection of SRPMS (source RPMs) for the distro, yet no public binary release. Any complaints?
Do people not realize that this is going on, or is it not a problem because it's Red Hat?
Personally, I think it would be great if all Linux companies made all of their distros freely available in binary form on ISOs, but sadly this is not the case, not even with Red Hat.
So what's it going to be? If everyone is going to get up in arms over United Linux, they better put Red Hat in the same boat (IMHO).
I downloaded some songs from Play and liked it, so I bought the CD. When 18 came out I did not even have a chance to download songs to "try before you buy" and just went out and bought the album.
Maybe a lot of techie's like the try before you buy aspect. But I'd be willing to bet that most people fall into the same boat as me: download it, if you like it buy it, if not, move on. I bought 18 on the merits of Play. I was dissapointed. 18, IMHO, is terrible. But that's just my opinion.
Maybe most people agree with me, and that's why Moby's 18 isn't selling. Write good music and people will buy it. I don't buy into the idea that downloading / copying your friends is really hurting CD sales.
We've been down this road too many times before and all studies have pointed to the obvious: on the whole, downloading music has helped CD sales, not hurt them.
Moby, this is a bad excuse for a badly written CD!
select a,b,c,d,e
from foo, bar
where foo.a = bar.a
and (foo.a, foo.b) in (select a, b from zee)
You just can do it in SQL Server without doing some ugly casting like:
select a,b,c,d,e
from foo, bar
where foo.a = bar.a
and (foo.a + '|' + foo.b) in (select a + '|' + b from zee)
Which really hurts query performance
BTW: SQL Server isn't half the dbms that Oracle is
Oracle will be releasing Oracle 9i for OS X later this summer. (It should be available as a developer's download from their site very soon).
Joe User is another story.
"Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla"
What?!? So because a bunch of lazy web "developers" have written IE specific html, we should not just assume this means IE is the better browser? I think this is a really narrow-minded observation. Granted he may be right about the rendering, but it does not mean that Mozilla is not as good as IE.
Seriously, IE simply renders pages more "correctly" because it dominates the market and lazy "developers" have written IE specific code.
I guess this journalist also believes that Windows is superior to Mac OS X because there is more software available for it. Or maybe he just enjoys BSODs. Get real, this is not a fair way to compare browsers.
One last thing... can someone please show me a page link to all these pages that don't render correctly in Mozilla? I use Mozilla exclusively and have not come upon any pages in the last few months that do not work correctly with Mozilla.
All the GPL says is that if you distribute binaries containing GPL'd code, you must make the source code for those GPL'd binaries available under the GPL I am still free to distribute any binaries I created for a fee, as long as I give you the source under the GPL!
Additionally, a Linux distribution such as SuSE and others, may contain code that is licensed under proprietary licenses. These other applications such as installers, management software, config tools, and other value-added features may be licensed under whatever schema its creator sees fit. Such tools can be licensed on a per-seat basis if chosen.
If I buy a license for United Linux, I can take any GPL'd software distributed with United Linux and reuse the on 100,000 different machines without paying anyone for that useage.
I really don't see the problem here. I write GPL'd software. If my software were to be distributed with commercial software that was charged for under a different license I would not have a problem with this! Hell, it's part of the reason I chose to use GPL in the first place!
Free to use, free to modify, free to redistribute, and free to chage a fee for redistribution!!! RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!
Your point about the Mail.app vs Outlook address book argument is interesting, but I don't think that an OS X hacker would have a hard time getting into your address book as well. Once that virus is running, it can find a way to read anything that you have read access to (and is not encrypted). That includes your address book. A litte C program (maybe even apple script) could most likely find your address book and begin mailing itself to all your contacts.
Also interstingly enough, SuSE 8.0 was fully LSB compliant, the first commercial distro to be so.
My guess is that the base OS will be SuSE. Who's management tools they decide to go with is still anyone's guess. Maybe it'll be a whole new set entirely.
The fact that all Operating Systems are subject to virus attacks cannot be argued, but some are more secure than others. There are three requirements for a virus to damage a user's machine. First, the user must acquire the virus (download, email attachement, etc). Second, the user must execute the infected application (thinking it's something else). Three, the user must have permission to modify/edit/delete the resources that the virus intends to attack.
Seriously, we hear the argument time and time again that Mac and Linux are less succeptable to Viruses than Windows, but what they really mean is point three from above: OS X and Linux to a better job of protecting system resources than Windows. So yes, Windows is more succeptable to catastrophic damage than OS X and Linux.
What really goes without saying here is that viruses follow the same pattern as useful software: 90+ percent of the population uses Windows, so target that population and you will see the most damage (or revenue for real software).
No one should really think that they are not Vulnerable to viri simply because they run a more secure OS. While a OS X or Linux virus executed by a local user with limited privledges cannot necessarily damage the system, they could still delete all of that user's personal data because that user has full permission on their stuff. I don't know about any of you, but if a virus wiped out my entire home directory, I'd be pretty pissed, and the fact that my system still booted up would be no consolation. =)
My point here is just that anyone who runs foreign applications on their machine from a user account that has write permissions on their own files is succeptable to a virus attack.
As long as Windows enjoys the overwhelming majority share of desktop operating systems, it will be the target of the majority of virus attacks. If that balance shifts towards the Mac, don't doubt that the virus writers won't prey on Mac users as well.
Obviously (I hope) that was a joke. :)
Now I need to buy at least two hard drives, just so I can fill this Optical disk to capacity!
As long as Windows has 95% of the desktop OS market and IE is the preferred browser on that platform, all of the the browser competition on the Linux front is somewhat meaningless.
I am thrilled to have great web browsers for Linux (my platform of choice), but 4 browsers for a platform that has less than 2% of the deskotp market does nothing to sway web developers to target anything other than IE.
Maybe some decent web browsers will help the cause to increase Linux's presence in the desktop market. I guess only time will tell.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before claiming to understand things which you really don't.