The case I used had a power supply that would accept a 12VDC input, so I connected the power directly to the ignition switch on the truck.
The power supply and motherboard were subjected to all the spikes and noise from the trucks power system being cycled off and on, starting and what not. Believe me, it was harsh duty.
I perused some of my favorite hardware sites and the best I could come up with is in the $149 to $179 range. And that is for what I would consider a reasonable box that could run popular open source applications.
So I don't believe it is possible at this point but I also don't want to see everyone in the hardware industry struggling to meet Ballmer's challenge. Why should everyone in the hardware industry work even harder to destroy our miniscule margins so MS can keep their 80% margins?
The hardware industry is extrememly competitive almost to the point of self destruction. I know first hand from working in the industry and talking to others. i.e. I was at AMD's fab25 in Austin a couple weeks ago looking at some equipment in the fab and they were running full steam. You would think they are making money hand over fist, however, in talking with an engineer it turns out they were just getting by because they were trying to cut prices to the bare minimum to compete.
If anything I'd say that MS needs to embrace competition in their industry so they can drive their prices down the same way hardware manufacturers have over the years. In my opinion Windows isn't worth crap, but I'm sure people in India and China would be more interested in paying MS $10 for their product instead of $299.
Sorry, kind of a rant, but Ballmer's statement combined with the stress from working in the hardware industry just burns me up!
I have 5 Via mini-itx boards in varied levels of service (ogg player, firewall, yum repo, web content filter, etc.) and haven't had a problem with any of them. One of them I used for about a year in my truck to play ogg files off a harddrive which was some severe duty in a harsh environment.
Of course that is a very small sample size so statistically speaking there could be a reliability issue that I'm not aware of. But I'm happy with their products to date.
Yeah, when I read that statement in the article I had to go back and read it again to see if I really did read "BASIC". I truly hope Jef is just being facetious when he claims that a BASIC program on an Apple II will run faster than the same program written in an advanced language on a dual G4.
But thinking back I can recall even how slow those computers were at running compiled assembly code. I was working on an assembly program that flipped through pages of memory for a graphical display and at first I calculated the LSB and MSB for the page offsets, but it was too damn slow so I ended up creating a lookup table instead of doing the math. You had to get creative back then even when using the fastest programming method available.
But I suspect you are correct that he is trying to make a statement about the efficiency of the code today. But I would argue that although the code may not be as efficient it doesn't always have to be. You don't need to go back and tweak your assembly code these days to create mathematic look up tables, you just do the math.
Considering Jef's vast knowledge and experience there is good reason to listen to his opinions, however, I must say he seems to be exagerating significantly.
Some programs I wrote in Basic on an Apple II ran faster than when written in a modern language on a G4 Dual-processor Mac with hardware 1,000 times faster
This is just plain bull. I used the old Apple II and the various other "inexpensive" computers of its day, in fact I have an Atari 130xe setup behind me at my desk and it is fully operational. I've written programs in both BASIC and 6052 assembly on the box and I'm sorry but Jef is very wrong with that statement. The computers of the Apple II era are so mind numbingly slow at BASIC execution that his statement is simply laughable.
And just to pick on him a little more, how can he whine about the interface and then have a picture of himself with some techno gadget hanging in front of his face with only his glasses to protect his eye from almost certain lacerations. Yeah that has to be a really "Humane Interface".
Looking at
securityfocus.com and secunia.com
it seems that IIS 6.0 has had at least 3 vulnerabilities discovered, one of which is still unpatched.
Apache 2.0.x, on the other hand, has at least 20 vulnerabilities listed
so your point about IIS vs Apache is valid, but I just don't want you to fool yourself into thinking IIS 6.0 is somehow the savior of the web.
Its also interesting to note that Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition has 31 advisories
while Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 has 89
advisories
Now what is really interesting is to see the number of vulnerabilities that are unpatched when comparing Microsoft's solutions to the FOSS solutions. It seems that even though Microsoft has fewer advisories they also have more of them that seem to be unpatched. So that seems to be good news for FOSS and perhaps is proof in what has been said all along on the FOSS side, the bugs get fixed faster than on the closed source side.
Its interesting to look at the numbers anyhow, but I still see no reason to dump my linux installs for any expensive Microsoft offerings anytime soon.
I'm not surprised that people are installing pirated copies of Windows on PCs which they purchase with no OS, DOS, linux, or some older version of Windows.
But I am also aware that this report serves no purpose other than to slam linux and open source. If they really wanted to produce some valuable information they would have included other parameters in their study, i.e. linux PCs legally converted to Windows, other OS's converted to Windows, and Windows converted to other OS's.
It seems the report is also lacking some additional information which is important. Even if their numbers are correct on the quantity of linux PCs that end up running a pirated copy of Windows, how has this impacted the total number of PCs running pirated copies of Windows before linux was offered? Many PCs can be had with linux preloaded or included at no additional cost when compared to a no OS PC. So it could be that the usual suspects who have always pirated their copies of Windows are ordering linux PCs so they can check out linux and dual boot to their pirated copy of Windows which they would have pirated with or without linux.
And finally, your 1) statement is incorrect. Linux is a replacement for a Windows desktop. You may be locked in to your Windows only apps, but there are many of us out here who are getting along just fine with a Linux desktop in place of a Windows alternative.
It was bound to happen. PCs with Windows preinstalled are so readily available it was only a matter of time before people started buying Windows loaded PCs just so they could install a pirated copy of linux once they get the box home. . . oh wait. Nevermind.
I agree the developers should not have used this tick counter. And when they discovered there was a problem it should have been fixed immediately as the code change would not be that significant if it was only a matter of the tick counter rolling over.
But from what I've seen first hand and heard from others I still believe that Windows is not up to the task. And rather than it being the wrong API for the task it appears to me its the entire system (Operating System, API, Developers, Vendors, etc.) that is wrong for the job.
I'm not sure exactly what downtime for routine maintenance on an AIX system running DBase has to do with a Windows bug that causes a system failure. However, in response, there is a difference between planned downtime where a service is made unavailable while planned routine maintenance is performed and planned downtime or an unplanned failure due to a flaw in the system.
It appears that in this case Windows has a flaw which they try to work around with routine maintenance during planned downtime.
In your case I would say you have planned downtime for routine maintenance to work around the need for an appropriate system to handle the work load.
I suppose what is the same between these two cases is that you both need to change your system to something that is more appropriate for the task at hand. And to be more specific in the FCC case, Windows should not be allowed for use in any application where life, limb, or property is at risk. Hmm, I suppose that may rule out just about every use.:P
I track hits on a home page I keep at my ISP. The page has some notes and pictures for various projects I've worked on from modifications to mufflers on motorcycles, welding up custom racks for a seti cluster, to some coding in java, C, and C++.
My Ausgust data shows:
91% Windows machines
6.5% linux machines
1.96% macs
and
80.5% IE
16.22% Mozilla
2.7% Opera
0.5% Konqueror
So I suspect the numbers this site is pulling has something to do with their demographics.
What I see that is interesting is a significant downward trend in the number of hits from Windows boxes. Its as if for the past 3 to 4 months Windows users have curtailed their surfing habits.
This really isn't an SBC, but its a very small, low power, and low cost motherboard + processor that costs about the same as some SBCs but has many times more processing power.
I know the linux TCP/IP stack has a fair amount of BSD code and hence I would also agree that Microsofts implementation has a fair amount of BSD code. This would explain the similarities you may notice when using both implementations. We are in agreement. Perhaps I should have been more blunt, so here it is.
I doubt that Microsofts TCP/IP implementation is a clean room implementation from non tainted programmers. And I suspect there is a fair amount of BSD code in the Microsoft implementation. This is not to say there is anything wrong with this, however, if anyone tries to tell you how good Microsoft is at ensuring no open source code makes it into their proprietary products you can tell them its likely they are full of something.
And thus I take the comments concerning whether Microsofts implementation of Kerberos is clean room, non tainted, and free of any open source code which may have security holes as a statement that I would not put much faith in even if it was a statement directly from the halls of Redmond.
I suppose it is pointless to argue about whether or not Microsoft borrowed code unless you are prepared to file a law suit that will force Microsoft to show everyone their code. But I would not put much faith into the word of a corporation which has been found guilty of corporate misconduct when it comes to dealing with competitors and customers.
What I can say though is that after doing some TCP and UDP IP socket programming in Windows and in linux the API, header files, and what not sure seem to be earily similar for Microsofts TCP/IP stack to be a "clean room" implementation from non "tainted" programmers.
And in some places, a government-run community based fiber system has worked - for now.
Government has some success at building, maintaining, and regulating infrastructure in a way that has been exceedingly profitable for corporations. Just take a look at the transportation system with freeways, highways, airports, etc., and look at the regulation of radio broadcast standards and frequencies.
Although I'm not one for having the government dinking around with everything, there are times when it makes sense to have the government pushing infrastructure that will benefit all.
Now from what I've seen in my area the service companies are very slow to roll out infrastructure because they are too busy mulling over ROI numbers and putting together plans that will take 100 years to get a decent infrastructure together. It appears to me that they see no incentive to dump capital into a monopoly that already guarantees them big margins.
And when the government has started looking at building infrastructure that everyone would benefit from the owners of these monopolies lobby the projects to death to ensure they maintain their monopoly.
IMO the government needs to ignore the lobbiest and kick these slow buggers in the butt with some nice fiber optic lines where ever their roads may roam.
1) Standard control panel through EVERY distro & desktop environment.
They all pretty much let you point and click with the mouse. That is standard enough for me. I understand your point and realize how this can be an issue for some people but I see the leaps and bounds which linux desktop capabilities have made and I'd prefer they keep progressing the way they are. Trying to lock down the flexibility the developers currently have could have a stifling affect. If you need to standardize then pick a distro and stick with it.
2) An installer. n00b's don't know what the hell a freakin' tar.gz file is and once they do figure it out, they don't know to where they should extract it.
Actually most of the distros come with package management systems and require no tar.gz unless you really are an expert and your playing with bleeding edge or fringe projects. In fact I'd say from my experience that the package management in linux systems is far superior to the Windows methods that put crap everywhere across your hard drive and desktop and then leave junk everywhere when you try to remove them.
3) Rules for software companies. Right now, there's no problems with this as there are with Windows because Linux hasn't become mainstream.
Again, I disagree. I do agree with your statement about how messed up software installs are on Windows system, where I disagree is how linux needs to start making rules. I believe the reason linux does not have the same issues as Windows has nothing to do with marketshare and more to do with the design of the system, the development methodologies, and foremost the competition that occurs between projects.
If you get caught then I think there is something like a $250,000 fine for violating Microsoft's copyright.
So that would be $250,000 / $1.50 (a 3 CD distro) = 166,667 times more expensive to run Windows. And that's not considering lost revenue due to down time behind bars.
But don't let that dissuade you. Do a risk assessment based on the probability of you getting caught and then make your decision.
The irony in a company named Creative holding a software patent from which they have never created anything is just amazing.
Anyhow, there is precedent for this type of stupidity. Believe it or not the American car manufacturers at one time paid a patent holding company for every car they sold. Ford challenged the patent and the court ordered the holding company to build the car for which they held the patent on. Needless to say the car was a dismal failure and the patent was overturned in 1911.
In case you don't get it let me help, Phelps is not interested in protecting MS from submarine patents. He intends to assist MS in smashing any competition be they open source or proprietary.
I think you have a good arguement concerning volunteer work, however, I disagree with your statement that open source doesn't create jobs. That statement simply is not true.
Fujitsu will be paying developers on the Postgresql project to develop additional features for the open source database.
And that is just an example of open source developer jobs created due to the demand for open source software. I could give you lots of examples where open source software is creating new companies and jobs in various industries around the world because the free part of open source software makes the entry point much easier for those who are interested in entering the market.
I guess I should have mentioned RtCW as well. Damn, missed another.:)
btw, the Windows attitude is not constant, I just have a temporary attitude because there are some major offensives in affect from the greed mongers. I do like and use some of the stuff that comes out of Redmond but I'm not going to rally around any of their products in any public forum until they lighten up. If they had their way we wouldn't even have these great games for non-Windows platforms since they seem to believe we must be stealing something from them if we don't contribute to their bank accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I should have given more details.
The case I used had a power supply that would accept a 12VDC input, so I connected the power directly to the ignition switch on the truck.
The power supply and motherboard were subjected to all the spikes and noise from the trucks power system being cycled off and on, starting and what not. Believe me, it was harsh duty.
burnin
I perused some of my favorite hardware sites and the best I could come up with is in the $149 to $179 range. And that is for what I would consider a reasonable box that could run popular open source applications.
So I don't believe it is possible at this point but I also don't want to see everyone in the hardware industry struggling to meet Ballmer's challenge. Why should everyone in the hardware industry work even harder to destroy our miniscule margins so MS can keep their 80% margins?
The hardware industry is extrememly competitive almost to the point of self destruction. I know first hand from working in the industry and talking to others. i.e. I was at AMD's fab25 in Austin a couple weeks ago looking at some equipment in the fab and they were running full steam. You would think they are making money hand over fist, however, in talking with an engineer it turns out they were just getting by because they were trying to cut prices to the bare minimum to compete.
If anything I'd say that MS needs to embrace competition in their industry so they can drive their prices down the same way hardware manufacturers have over the years. In my opinion Windows isn't worth crap, but I'm sure people in India and China would be more interested in paying MS $10 for their product instead of $299.
Sorry, kind of a rant, but Ballmer's statement combined with the stress from working in the hardware industry just burns me up!
burnin
I have 5 Via mini-itx boards in varied levels of service (ogg player, firewall, yum repo, web content filter, etc.) and haven't had a problem with any of them. One of them I used for about a year in my truck to play ogg files off a harddrive which was some severe duty in a harsh environment.
Of course that is a very small sample size so statistically speaking there could be a reliability issue that I'm not aware of. But I'm happy with their products to date.
burnin
directron.com has a couple of epia mini-itx boards $100.
Yeah, when I read that statement in the article I had to go back and read it again to see if I really did read "BASIC". I truly hope Jef is just being facetious when he claims that a BASIC program on an Apple II will run faster than the same program written in an advanced language on a dual G4.
But thinking back I can recall even how slow those computers were at running compiled assembly code. I was working on an assembly program that flipped through pages of memory for a graphical display and at first I calculated the LSB and MSB for the page offsets, but it was too damn slow so I ended up creating a lookup table instead of doing the math. You had to get creative back then even when using the fastest programming method available.
But I suspect you are correct that he is trying to make a statement about the efficiency of the code today. But I would argue that although the code may not be as efficient it doesn't always have to be. You don't need to go back and tweak your assembly code these days to create mathematic look up tables, you just do the math.
burnin
This is just plain bull. I used the old Apple II and the various other "inexpensive" computers of its day, in fact I have an Atari 130xe setup behind me at my desk and it is fully operational. I've written programs in both BASIC and 6052 assembly on the box and I'm sorry but Jef is very wrong with that statement. The computers of the Apple II era are so mind numbingly slow at BASIC execution that his statement is simply laughable.
And just to pick on him a little more, how can he whine about the interface and then have a picture of himself with some techno gadget hanging in front of his face with only his glasses to protect his eye from almost certain lacerations. Yeah that has to be a really "Humane Interface".
He is correct about one thing, he is a footnote.
burnin
Looking at securityfocus.com and secunia.com it seems that IIS 6.0 has had at least 3 vulnerabilities discovered, one of which is still unpatched.
Apache 2.0.x, on the other hand, has at least 20 vulnerabilities listed so your point about IIS vs Apache is valid, but I just don't want you to fool yourself into thinking IIS 6.0 is somehow the savior of the web.
Its also interesting to note that Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition has 31 advisories while Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 has 89 advisories
Now what is really interesting is to see the number of vulnerabilities that are unpatched when comparing Microsoft's solutions to the FOSS solutions. It seems that even though Microsoft has fewer advisories they also have more of them that seem to be unpatched. So that seems to be good news for FOSS and perhaps is proof in what has been said all along on the FOSS side, the bugs get fixed faster than on the closed source side.
Its interesting to look at the numbers anyhow, but I still see no reason to dump my linux installs for any expensive Microsoft offerings anytime soon.
burnin
I'm not surprised that people are installing pirated copies of Windows on PCs which they purchase with no OS, DOS, linux, or some older version of Windows.
But I am also aware that this report serves no purpose other than to slam linux and open source. If they really wanted to produce some valuable information they would have included other parameters in their study, i.e. linux PCs legally converted to Windows, other OS's converted to Windows, and Windows converted to other OS's.
It seems the report is also lacking some additional information which is important. Even if their numbers are correct on the quantity of linux PCs that end up running a pirated copy of Windows, how has this impacted the total number of PCs running pirated copies of Windows before linux was offered? Many PCs can be had with linux preloaded or included at no additional cost when compared to a no OS PC. So it could be that the usual suspects who have always pirated their copies of Windows are ordering linux PCs so they can check out linux and dual boot to their pirated copy of Windows which they would have pirated with or without linux.
And finally, your 1) statement is incorrect. Linux is a replacement for a Windows desktop. You may be locked in to your Windows only apps, but there are many of us out here who are getting along just fine with a Linux desktop in place of a Windows alternative.
burnin
It was bound to happen. PCs with Windows preinstalled are so readily available it was only a matter of time before people started buying Windows loaded PCs just so they could install a pirated copy of linux once they get the box home. . . oh wait. Nevermind.
burnin
You are correct, I did mean the FAA. My bad.
So would this be the same "wrong API for the job" that Microsoft's developers are using to code Windows services?
; EN-US;318152
Print Spooler Stops Scheduling Print Jobs
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb
I agree the developers should not have used this tick counter. And when they discovered there was a problem it should have been fixed immediately as the code change would not be that significant if it was only a matter of the tick counter rolling over.
But from what I've seen first hand and heard from others I still believe that Windows is not up to the task. And rather than it being the wrong API for the task it appears to me its the entire system (Operating System, API, Developers, Vendors, etc.) that is wrong for the job.
burnin
I'm not sure exactly what downtime for routine maintenance on an AIX system running DBase has to do with a Windows bug that causes a system failure. However, in response, there is a difference between planned downtime where a service is made unavailable while planned routine maintenance is performed and planned downtime or an unplanned failure due to a flaw in the system.
:P
It appears that in this case Windows has a flaw which they try to work around with routine maintenance during planned downtime.
In your case I would say you have planned downtime for routine maintenance to work around the need for an appropriate system to handle the work load.
I suppose what is the same between these two cases is that you both need to change your system to something that is more appropriate for the task at hand. And to be more specific in the FCC case, Windows should not be allowed for use in any application where life, limb, or property is at risk. Hmm, I suppose that may rule out just about every use.
burnin
I track hits on a home page I keep at my ISP. The page has some notes and pictures for various projects I've worked on from modifications to mufflers on motorcycles, welding up custom racks for a seti cluster, to some coding in java, C, and C++.
My Ausgust data shows:
91% Windows machines
6.5% linux machines
1.96% macs
and
80.5% IE
16.22% Mozilla
2.7% Opera
0.5% Konqueror
So I suspect the numbers this site is pulling has something to do with their demographics.
What I see that is interesting is a significant downward trend in the number of hits from Windows boxes. Its as if for the past 3 to 4 months Windows users have curtailed their surfing habits.
This is just my 2 cents.
burnin
This really isn't an SBC, but its a very small, low power, and low cost motherboard + processor that costs about the same as some SBCs but has many times more processing power.
http://www.viamainboards.com/product/index.jsp
I know the linux TCP/IP stack has a fair amount of BSD code and hence I would also agree that Microsofts implementation has a fair amount of BSD code. This would explain the similarities you may notice when using both implementations. We are in agreement. Perhaps I should have been more blunt, so here it is.
I doubt that Microsofts TCP/IP implementation is a clean room implementation from non tainted programmers. And I suspect there is a fair amount of BSD code in the Microsoft implementation. This is not to say there is anything wrong with this, however, if anyone tries to tell you how good Microsoft is at ensuring no open source code makes it into their proprietary products you can tell them its likely they are full of something.
And thus I take the comments concerning whether Microsofts implementation of Kerberos is clean room, non tainted, and free of any open source code which may have security holes as a statement that I would not put much faith in even if it was a statement directly from the halls of Redmond.
better?
burnin
I suppose it is pointless to argue about whether or not Microsoft borrowed code unless you are prepared to file a law suit that will force Microsoft to show everyone their code. But I would not put much faith into the word of a corporation which has been found guilty of corporate misconduct when it comes to dealing with competitors and customers.
What I can say though is that after doing some TCP and UDP IP socket programming in Windows and in linux the API, header files, and what not sure seem to be earily similar for Microsofts TCP/IP stack to be a "clean room" implementation from non "tainted" programmers.
burnin
And in some places, a government-run community based fiber system has worked - for now.
Government has some success at building, maintaining, and regulating infrastructure in a way that has been exceedingly profitable for corporations. Just take a look at the transportation system with freeways, highways, airports, etc., and look at the regulation of radio broadcast standards and frequencies.
Although I'm not one for having the government dinking around with everything, there are times when it makes sense to have the government pushing infrastructure that will benefit all.
Now from what I've seen in my area the service companies are very slow to roll out infrastructure because they are too busy mulling over ROI numbers and putting together plans that will take 100 years to get a decent infrastructure together. It appears to me that they see no incentive to dump capital into a monopoly that already guarantees them big margins.
And when the government has started looking at building infrastructure that everyone would benefit from the owners of these monopolies lobby the projects to death to ensure they maintain their monopoly.
IMO the government needs to ignore the lobbiest and kick these slow buggers in the butt with some nice fiber optic lines where ever their roads may roam.
burnin
Here's my list of needs/wants:
1) Standard control panel through EVERY distro & desktop environment.
They all pretty much let you point and click with the mouse. That is standard enough for me. I understand your point and realize how this can be an issue for some people but I see the leaps and bounds which linux desktop capabilities have made and I'd prefer they keep progressing the way they are. Trying to lock down the flexibility the developers currently have could have a stifling affect. If you need to standardize then pick a distro and stick with it.
2) An installer. n00b's don't know what the hell a freakin' tar.gz file is and once they do figure it out, they don't know to where they should extract it.
Actually most of the distros come with package management systems and require no tar.gz unless you really are an expert and your playing with bleeding edge or fringe projects. In fact I'd say from my experience that the package management in linux systems is far superior to the Windows methods that put crap everywhere across your hard drive and desktop and then leave junk everywhere when you try to remove them.
3) Rules for software companies. Right now, there's no problems with this as there are with Windows because Linux hasn't become mainstream.
Again, I disagree. I do agree with your statement about how messed up software installs are on Windows system, where I disagree is how linux needs to start making rules. I believe the reason linux does not have the same issues as Windows has nothing to do with marketshare and more to do with the design of the system, the development methodologies, and foremost the competition that occurs between projects.
burnin
If you get caught then I think there is something like a $250,000 fine for violating Microsoft's copyright.
So that would be $250,000 / $1.50 (a 3 CD distro) = 166,667 times more expensive to run Windows. And that's not considering lost revenue due to down time behind bars.
But don't let that dissuade you. Do a risk assessment based on the probability of you getting caught and then make your decision.
burnin
The irony in a company named Creative holding a software patent from which they have never created anything is just amazing.
e ldona.htm
Anyhow, there is precedent for this type of stupidity. Believe it or not the American car manufacturers at one time paid a patent holding company for every car they sold. Ford challenged the patent and the court ordered the holding company to build the car for which they held the patent on. Needless to say the car was a dismal failure and the patent was overturned in 1911.
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarss
burnin
MS hires their IP task master
In case you don't get it let me help, Phelps is not interested in protecting MS from submarine patents. He intends to assist MS in smashing any competition be they open source or proprietary.
burnin
MS preparing to do battle
burnin
MS is doing alot more than just filing patents. They are making other preparations as well. The SCO suit was just a litmus test.
burnin
I think you have a good arguement concerning volunteer work, however, I disagree with your statement that open source doesn't create jobs. That statement simply is not true.
7 21222.shtml?tid=72&tid=82
Fujitsu will be paying developers on the Postgresql project to develop additional features for the open source database.
http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/01/0
And that is just an example of open source developer jobs created due to the demand for open source software. I could give you lots of examples where open source software is creating new companies and jobs in various industries around the world because the free part of open source software makes the entry point much easier for those who are interested in entering the market.
burnin
I guess I should have mentioned RtCW as well. Damn, missed another. :)
btw, the Windows attitude is not constant, I just have a temporary attitude because there are some major offensives in affect from the greed mongers. I do like and use some of the stuff that comes out of Redmond but I'm not going to rally around any of their products in any public forum until they lighten up. If they had their way we wouldn't even have these great games for non-Windows platforms since they seem to believe we must be stealing something from them if we don't contribute to their bank accounts.
burnin