I have games that include SecureROM (GTA SA and VC) and SafeDisc (Sim City 3000) and I've never noticed them causing any problems or installing anything other than registry entries
Both of those protections use device drivers, to check for debuggers primarily.
StarForce, on the other hand, installs hidden device drivers, which totally fuck up a cd/dvd drive in some PCs.
Quite possibly. On the other hand, you really need to know how many false positives there are before having some reasonable debate about this. Hard statistics are difficult to come by, but an UbiSoft developer wrote a public report on it. Those statistics don't seem to show any serious levels of problems (blue screens or SF related hard locks were about 1 in 10,000 I think...).
Now for sure, some people who have problems won't report them, they'll just unplug CD drives or dick about with the BIOS or whatever. But not all gamers are that dedicated. I'd say most gamers I know just want to play games, and aren't super technical actually. So I think if SF causes a lot of problems, most people will either report it to tech support or return the game.
On some XP machines, it can cause actual physical damage to the burner.
You're behind the times. That's the old rumour, however there is a big reward for people who can reproduce the problem. After the reward was posted (and it's now at $10,000 I think) the rumours changed - now it's that SF causes gradual performance loss in some cases over a period of months.
It also elevates access priviledges for user-level applications, although I can't imagine why the hell it does that.
Neither can I, and in fact though this rumour is also persistent I've never seen any reports of actual exploits or any technical data on where such the bug is. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a way to do it, because writing secure kernel code is hard, but that's why the rumour has such potency. I'll believe it once it's been conclusively proven (ie there's some kind of advisory or patch for it).
Funny thing is, there are four different cracked copies of the game's.exe file at gamecopyworld.
Didja try them? Do they work? StarForce definitely is crackable, and there are even generic cracks (as I was reminded on IRC the other day), but the generic cracks are a lot of effort and the games that get cracked usually have poor integration with the system. As pointed out elsewhere the developer has a lot of flexibility to protect as little or as much of the games as they like. StarForce 3 is also quite a few years old.
Now don't get me wrong. I hate stuff like StarForce, because it makes games protected using it practically impossible to play on Linux using Wine. And of course it does cause occasional false positives. But, I've also seen products I've worked on be pirated, even idiots who tried to get tech support for pirated copies, and I can understand why companies do it. The idea that games would make more money if they halved the price and removed copy protection is crazy, copy protection really isn't that expensive, for a big commercial game I think you only need a few thousand people or so to buy the game instead of pirate it and you make your money back.
New cars are all designed in wind tunnels for maximum petrol efficiency, and there tend to be very few efficient shapes for a car so they all end up looking the same. I don't think it's got anything to do with having few manufacturers.
I knew there'd be a proper name for it, thanks. And obviously, I didn't "invent" any of that stuff, I'm just reporting my experiences with J2ME development.
No they aren't. You don't need admin privs to relay spam, hijack a web browser or force yourself to load at startup, which are just some of the things malware gets up to.
I haven't seen any compelling evidence that Linux or MacOS X are more secure than Windows is against the twin threats of malicious software and badly trained users. They're all based on similar security ideas, which just don't cut the mustard. A better security model does exist, but it's not implemented in any desktop operating system today.
Blah. Is that so? How comes then the first the world hears of AIGLX was on OSNews, but I've been reading about XGL on the Xorg mailing lists and development forums for literally years. Red Hat may claim they've been luvvy duvvy community huggers over this, but I've been watching the developments in X very carefully indeed and XDevConf 2006 (!) is the first mention I saw of it.
Let's see. The GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap extension was developed jointly by David Reveman and some guys from nVidia, according to the credits on the spec. So not Red Hat. Reveman and Matthias Hopf have been everywhere on the X/Mesa mailing lists developing Xgl. The discussion and debate on the xorg list was all about Xgl and whether it should be the main focus instead of Exa. People who don't seem to be associated with any corp like David Airlie and Jon Smirl have been working on Xgl. The plan had seemed to be to move various parts of the driver code to do with initializing the cards into the kernel, use EGL as a simple GL interface that Xgl then ran on top of, with Xglx being a short term hack until that work was completed.
Now Red Hat appear, apparently with the backing of nVidia, saying that actually this plan - which had been discussed for ages - is a bad one, and they have a brilliant new plan. Oh and by the way Evil Novell have been hoarding code and not working with the community.
So when did this AIGLX work appear in CVS then? I don't recall reading about any such branch. Let's find out shall we? Hmm, looks like it was committed in a massive checkin about a month ago. Did Kristian just magic this out of thin air one afternoon? I rather hope not.
So anyway, my point is that from my perspective what Red Hat are saying appears to be the exact inverse of the truth. Novell have been far more visible in the X community doing this sort of work than Red Hat have, they've done a lot of the upstream Mesa work necessary for it to be efficient, they've been demoing it at conferences and so on. And now Red Hat is here trying to claim they went off and did their own thing, with no real evidence to back it up.
And it's not just Red Hat, somehow Novell went off and created an entirely new window manager as they were testing what Xgl could do instead of extending an existing one. Oops! Bah. Huge, massive communications failure at best. Blatant NIH at worst.
Incidentally, am I the only one who can't quite figure out if the Wired article is satire or not? Does anybody seriously use the phrase "the Kings English" anymore?
If the language used by a culture begins to be less capable of expressing intricate thoughts and emotions, it's not a change for the better.
Right, but is that really happening? Fact is, English has a metric ton of crap in it that just kind of accumulated over the years. Many of its spellings and rules are baroque, and as time goes by I'd expect people to take simplifying shortcuts. Insisting on correctness just because seems worthless to me, as it implies that English is somehow perfect and canonical. If the meaning and nuances are still clear then why not simplify?
I don't see any evidence in the Wired polemic that the changes are for the worse. Shortening words or phrases as the language adapts to realtime text based communication is no big deal, the meaning is preserved and only the syntax has changed. I don't see any evidence that jargon is inherantly bad - the site he links to considers "email" to be a geek jargon word. All the words there refer to some specific, concrete thing and are useful as a result. Just because he doesn't understand them doesn't make them bad.
I'm also not convinced that writing standards are worse because of technology. I know my standards of English have improved as the result of writing things online (yes, here too!). If it weren't for the 'net then I would write far less than I do currently. Just because some people have a poor standard of English shouldn't be blamed on the tools, rather, blame the fact that English is such a crappy language.
A simple language is the mark of a simple culture, which was Orwell's point.
Not necessarily. See Lojban for an example of a very expressive yet simple language.
Ebola is horrific, and spreads very rapidly to people who have contact with an infected person (who is in the latter stages of the disease). It takes a while to get going but once breakdown starts it proceeds quickly.
The worry is that a person who gets infected for instance in Africa might start feeling ill, panic and head for an airport. They arrive at the airport and start leaking infected blood - worst case scenario it becomes airborne somehow and the whole airport gets infected. A few weeks later and you have a worldwide outbreak of the disease, mass panics, riots etc.
A vaccine against this thing would be very, very good to have....
Why are we having to outsource these kinds of technical jobs?
Because the education system at top universities in the UK is often completely worthless. It was recently said by a minister that the drop in numbers of students doing art degrees was "no bad thing"... which I'd agree with, but what are they supposed to do instead? Computer science degrees? How funny. It seems the more respected the university the more irrelevant the CS course becomes.
Why only the other day we were being taught parallel algorithms. You might think that this involves teaching students how to write multi-threaded code, but no. Their idea of parallel algorithms is for instance how to sort a list of n items in O(log n) time, which would be great but unfortunately it requires O(n^2) processors. So sorting a list of 1000 items would require a million shared memory processors. Interesting as an abstract theoretical exercise, but should this sort of thing be taught to the exclusion of employable skills? I think not.
Yeah because everybody knows that Linux and MacOS never need online security updates.
Oh, wait. They do. And in fact on Linux/MacOS the user has to manually trigger a software update (at least in most versions) whereas Windows has done it automatically for years. Yet these people just don't apply the updates.
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen somebodies computer go "Beep! Please click me so I can install updates!" and have them ignore it saying something like "Oh yeah it says that all the time, so annoying, can you make it stop that please?" then I'd be making as much as that guy was.
Botnets exist for two reasons, lousy software and the people that use it.
No, they exist because ignorant fuckers like this guy are completely lacking in morals or empathy. Look at him - he's saying he'll get out of the business because he's scared he might get caught, not because him and people like him made screwed over millions of people and are universally hated. Pathetic. I feel sorry for the guys parents and wonder what they did wrong.
I think people are misunderstanding how OS X handles file type icons. The file isn't presenting itself as a file of another type. If you did a Get Info, it would still say Application.
I understand just fine what's going on here. The problem is that humans go by icon to determine file type, whereas the machine goes via some other mechanism. The fact that you can find out what the machine thinks it is via some other route isn't relevant - the same was true of Windows yet the exploit still worked on significant numbers of people. It's for this reason that Outlook refuses to let you open or save executable file types these days.
The flaw is that a file of one type is able to present itself as a file of another. This flaw was widely exploited in Windows a few years ago with the notorious "britney.jpg.vbs" type attacks, in which even though the icon was wrong (!!) people saw the file extension and opened it.
On Linux MIME scanning is used to make this type of attack significantly harder. A files icon is assigned by the operating system according to what type of file it actually appears to be, and executables cannot choose their own icons.
The fact that the virus then injects itself into other processes and takes control of them is nothing we haven't seen before on Windows.
I do not see in the Ambrosia writeup where the administrator password is required. If you aren't root it simply places the app hook in a different (but equally effective) location.
I don't personally dig the shopping, though the girlfriend of a friend of mine loves that part, but for geeks the platform is pretty cool. I spent a few days playing with it in early January, and while it has a lot of problems it has even more potential. The name is a bit weird, a real turnoff for some, but if you can get over your pre-conceptions about the people in the world you'll find not only a truly impressive piece of technology but lots of perfectly sane, normal and yes even quite attractive people who get a kick out of building things.
Think of it as the equivalent of freenode IRC but for arty types and you're about 50% of the way there.
Interesting. Could you name these commercial C++ GC implementations? Googling for "c++ garbage collector" basically brings up the Boehm GC and nothing else. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm sure they do, but I'd like to find out more. Oh and.NET/Managed C++ doesn't count;)
A doctor who doesn't scrub thoroughly enough before performing a surgery cannot blame the infection on the germs. A hospital that relies on a computer system that isn't secure enough cannot blame the crackers.
What a stupid analogy. Germs don't have free will, people do.
Using XVideo via 3D does require a card that supports pixel shaders though, and according to glitztest my GeForce4MX isn't really up to the task. So I'd have to upgrade at least.
Huh? ARM Jazelle chips can run Java natively, though the VM is still present to provide GC and such. But it doesn't matter if your chip can run Java just fine, you still need an OS and it might as well be Linux. IIRC their actual OS is called JUIX and is mostly written in pure Java, with Linux providing task switching and core memory management etc.
Their basically saying that its the upload they have to limit cuz there network is too damn shitty;
Did you actually read the reply you got from them? It says explicitly that programs like BitTorrent are written to consume as much upload bandwidth as possible - there's no way any sane ISP is going to let their pipes be saturated all the time by an application that is simply badly faking multi-cast. Their network isn't "shitty", it works like any network does, ie badly when put under extreme load.
Personally, I'm with Bram on this one. The idea that users should be engaged in some sort of stupid war with their ISP is very harmful indeed - Rogers aren't rate limiting BitTorrent because they like randomly pissing off users, they rate limit it because if they didn't it'd immediately and visibly impact performance for all other users. Remember the stories of what happened to US universities before they started blocking/shaping Kazaa traffic... some legit users were getting modem speeds off the link because it was so busy shoveling warez and porn to random users around the world.
It would be great if Nintendo was open like that, but given that their business model revolves around ensuring that games houses pay them to make games it'd surprise me. Historically Nintendo has been the most closed of all the games console companies, just go check out their developer requirements at WarioWorld some time.
When this story appeared on OSNews I had a discussion with a friend about it. One security model that provides an interesting contrast to the UNIX/Windows DAC security system is J2ME security, which I wrote an article about.
Now, J2ME is a flawed platform in many ways, but in terms of security they're light-years ahead of where desktop computing is. There are many things we could learn from it.
Possibly so, but in this case he doesn't appear to know what the problem is. I read his post, then read it again, and it boils down to "Somebody told me the XBOX is better, and I didn't really understand why, but I believed them. PS I work for Sony" or whatever. If he had real, technical meat to his post, I might have more sympathy. But he's just badmouthing his companies product when it's WAY to early to call this one: if it's anything like the PS2 it'll take developers a while to get the most from the hardware. So I don't think he could have formed a group to fix the problem as he doesn't really know if there is a problem or what it is.
Huh, well it seems to me that centralised distribution causes all kinds of problems that end users hate. Just go read forums where people are struggling to understand why they have to wait 6 months to get some feature they were waiting for.
KDE, for what it's worth, has had terrible problems with C++ performance and uses a variety of evil hacks to work around it like kdeinit, which completely breaks SELinux. Prelink partly fixed some of the issues, eventually, but prelink doesn't work for dlopened code which makes up the bulk of something like OpenOffice. Just go read the various articles written by KDE developers analysing startup time of apps if you don't believe me.
Skype don't manage it at all, they're pretty much a textbook example of why it doesn't work properly. For one, go look at the relative complexity of the download pages for Windows, MacOS and Linux. For another, go see the problems people had getting Skype stable on various flavours of Ubuntu, Fedora etc. I think for a while it did not even install on Ubuntu Breezy. Now go read up on the Firefox/SCIM crashes, the game/SDL/aRts crashes etc that I have documented - they exist and are a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Both of those protections use device drivers, to check for debuggers primarily.
Quite possibly. On the other hand, you really need to know how many false positives there are before having some reasonable debate about this. Hard statistics are difficult to come by, but an UbiSoft developer wrote a public report on it. Those statistics don't seem to show any serious levels of problems (blue screens or SF related hard locks were about 1 in 10,000 I think ...).
Now for sure, some people who have problems won't report them, they'll just unplug CD drives or dick about with the BIOS or whatever. But not all gamers are that dedicated. I'd say most gamers I know just want to play games, and aren't super technical actually. So I think if SF causes a lot of problems, most people will either report it to tech support or return the game.
You're behind the times. That's the old rumour, however there is a big reward for people who can reproduce the problem. After the reward was posted (and it's now at $10,000 I think) the rumours changed - now it's that SF causes gradual performance loss in some cases over a period of months.
Neither can I, and in fact though this rumour is also persistent I've never seen any reports of actual exploits or any technical data on where such the bug is. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a way to do it, because writing secure kernel code is hard, but that's why the rumour has such potency. I'll believe it once it's been conclusively proven (ie there's some kind of advisory or patch for it).
Didja try them? Do they work? StarForce definitely is crackable, and there are even generic cracks (as I was reminded on IRC the other day), but the generic cracks are a lot of effort and the games that get cracked usually have poor integration with the system. As pointed out elsewhere the developer has a lot of flexibility to protect as little or as much of the games as they like. StarForce 3 is also quite a few years old.
Now don't get me wrong. I hate stuff like StarForce, because it makes games protected using it practically impossible to play on Linux using Wine. And of course it does cause occasional false positives. But, I've also seen products I've worked on be pirated, even idiots who tried to get tech support for pirated copies, and I can understand why companies do it. The idea that games would make more money if they halved the price and removed copy protection is crazy, copy protection really isn't that expensive, for a big commercial game I think you only need a few thousand people or so to buy the game instead of pirate it and you make your money back.
New cars are all designed in wind tunnels for maximum petrol efficiency, and there tend to be very few efficient shapes for a car so they all end up looking the same. I don't think it's got anything to do with having few manufacturers.
I knew there'd be a proper name for it, thanks. And obviously, I didn't "invent" any of that stuff, I'm just reporting my experiences with J2ME development.
I haven't seen any compelling evidence that Linux or MacOS X are more secure than Windows is against the twin threats of malicious software and badly trained users. They're all based on similar security ideas, which just don't cut the mustard. A better security model does exist, but it's not implemented in any desktop operating system today.
So you're saying an item in the DRI to do list is somehow a replacement for widespread discussion in the mailing lists?
Let's see. The GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap extension was developed jointly by David Reveman and some guys from nVidia, according to the credits on the spec. So not Red Hat. Reveman and Matthias Hopf have been everywhere on the X/Mesa mailing lists developing Xgl. The discussion and debate on the xorg list was all about Xgl and whether it should be the main focus instead of Exa. People who don't seem to be associated with any corp like David Airlie and Jon Smirl have been working on Xgl. The plan had seemed to be to move various parts of the driver code to do with initializing the cards into the kernel, use EGL as a simple GL interface that Xgl then ran on top of, with Xglx being a short term hack until that work was completed.
Now Red Hat appear, apparently with the backing of nVidia, saying that actually this plan - which had been discussed for ages - is a bad one, and they have a brilliant new plan. Oh and by the way Evil Novell have been hoarding code and not working with the community.
So when did this AIGLX work appear in CVS then? I don't recall reading about any such branch. Let's find out shall we? Hmm, looks like it was committed in a massive checkin about a month ago. Did Kristian just magic this out of thin air one afternoon? I rather hope not.
So anyway, my point is that from my perspective what Red Hat are saying appears to be the exact inverse of the truth. Novell have been far more visible in the X community doing this sort of work than Red Hat have, they've done a lot of the upstream Mesa work necessary for it to be efficient, they've been demoing it at conferences and so on. And now Red Hat is here trying to claim they went off and did their own thing, with no real evidence to back it up.
And it's not just Red Hat, somehow Novell went off and created an entirely new window manager as they were testing what Xgl could do instead of extending an existing one. Oops! Bah. Huge, massive communications failure at best. Blatant NIH at worst.
You're right. They should have called it something meaningful, like Skype.
Right, but is that really happening? Fact is, English has a metric ton of crap in it that just kind of accumulated over the years. Many of its spellings and rules are baroque, and as time goes by I'd expect people to take simplifying shortcuts. Insisting on correctness just because seems worthless to me, as it implies that English is somehow perfect and canonical. If the meaning and nuances are still clear then why not simplify?
I don't see any evidence in the Wired polemic that the changes are for the worse. Shortening words or phrases as the language adapts to realtime text based communication is no big deal, the meaning is preserved and only the syntax has changed. I don't see any evidence that jargon is inherantly bad - the site he links to considers "email" to be a geek jargon word. All the words there refer to some specific, concrete thing and are useful as a result. Just because he doesn't understand them doesn't make them bad.
I'm also not convinced that writing standards are worse because of technology. I know my standards of English have improved as the result of writing things online (yes, here too!). If it weren't for the 'net then I would write far less than I do currently. Just because some people have a poor standard of English shouldn't be blamed on the tools, rather, blame the fact that English is such a crappy language.
Not necessarily. See Lojban for an example of a very expressive yet simple language.
The worry is that a person who gets infected for instance in Africa might start feeling ill, panic and head for an airport. They arrive at the airport and start leaking infected blood - worst case scenario it becomes airborne somehow and the whole airport gets infected. A few weeks later and you have a worldwide outbreak of the disease, mass panics, riots etc.
A vaccine against this thing would be very, very good to have ....
Because the education system at top universities in the UK is often completely worthless. It was recently said by a minister that the drop in numbers of students doing art degrees was "no bad thing" ... which I'd agree with, but what are they supposed to do instead? Computer science degrees? How funny. It seems the more respected the university the more irrelevant the CS course becomes.
Why only the other day we were being taught parallel algorithms. You might think that this involves teaching students how to write multi-threaded code, but no. Their idea of parallel algorithms is for instance how to sort a list of n items in O(log n) time, which would be great but unfortunately it requires O(n^2) processors. So sorting a list of 1000 items would require a million shared memory processors. Interesting as an abstract theoretical exercise, but should this sort of thing be taught to the exclusion of employable skills? I think not.
Oh, wait. They do. And in fact on Linux/MacOS the user has to manually trigger a software update (at least in most versions) whereas Windows has done it automatically for years. Yet these people just don't apply the updates.
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen somebodies computer go "Beep! Please click me so I can install updates!" and have them ignore it saying something like "Oh yeah it says that all the time, so annoying, can you make it stop that please?" then I'd be making as much as that guy was.
No, they exist because ignorant fuckers like this guy are completely lacking in morals or empathy. Look at him - he's saying he'll get out of the business because he's scared he might get caught, not because him and people like him made screwed over millions of people and are universally hated. Pathetic. I feel sorry for the guys parents and wonder what they did wrong.
I understand just fine what's going on here. The problem is that humans go by icon to determine file type, whereas the machine goes via some other mechanism. The fact that you can find out what the machine thinks it is via some other route isn't relevant - the same was true of Windows yet the exploit still worked on significant numbers of people. It's for this reason that Outlook refuses to let you open or save executable file types these days.
On Linux MIME scanning is used to make this type of attack significantly harder. A files icon is assigned by the operating system according to what type of file it actually appears to be, and executables cannot choose their own icons.
The fact that the virus then injects itself into other processes and takes control of them is nothing we haven't seen before on Windows.
I do not see in the Ambrosia writeup where the administrator password is required. If you aren't root it simply places the app hook in a different (but equally effective) location.
I don't personally dig the shopping, though the girlfriend of a friend of mine loves that part, but for geeks the platform is pretty cool. I spent a few days playing with it in early January, and while it has a lot of problems it has even more potential. The name is a bit weird, a real turnoff for some, but if you can get over your pre-conceptions about the people in the world you'll find not only a truly impressive piece of technology but lots of perfectly sane, normal and yes even quite attractive people who get a kick out of building things.
Think of it as the equivalent of freenode IRC but for arty types and you're about 50% of the way there.
Interesting. Could you name these commercial C++ GC implementations? Googling for "c++ garbage collector" basically brings up the Boehm GC and nothing else. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm sure they do, but I'd like to find out more. Oh and .NET/Managed C++ doesn't count ;)
What a stupid analogy. Germs don't have free will, people do.
Why is this not obvious?
KDE is independent of the X server in use, and compiz is neither KDE nor GNOME ... it just "iz"
Using XVideo via 3D does require a card that supports pixel shaders though, and according to glitztest my GeForce4MX isn't really up to the task. So I'd have to upgrade at least.
Huh? ARM Jazelle chips can run Java natively, though the VM is still present to provide GC and such. But it doesn't matter if your chip can run Java just fine, you still need an OS and it might as well be Linux. IIRC their actual OS is called JUIX and is mostly written in pure Java, with Linux providing task switching and core memory management etc.
Did you actually read the reply you got from them? It says explicitly that programs like BitTorrent are written to consume as much upload bandwidth as possible - there's no way any sane ISP is going to let their pipes be saturated all the time by an application that is simply badly faking multi-cast. Their network isn't "shitty", it works like any network does, ie badly when put under extreme load.
Personally, I'm with Bram on this one. The idea that users should be engaged in some sort of stupid war with their ISP is very harmful indeed - Rogers aren't rate limiting BitTorrent because they like randomly pissing off users, they rate limit it because if they didn't it'd immediately and visibly impact performance for all other users. Remember the stories of what happened to US universities before they started blocking/shaping Kazaa traffic ... some legit users were getting modem speeds off the link because it was so busy shoveling warez and porn to random users around the world.
It would be great if Nintendo was open like that, but given that their business model revolves around ensuring that games houses pay them to make games it'd surprise me. Historically Nintendo has been the most closed of all the games console companies, just go check out their developer requirements at WarioWorld some time.
Now, J2ME is a flawed platform in many ways, but in terms of security they're light-years ahead of where desktop computing is. There are many things we could learn from it.
Possibly so, but in this case he doesn't appear to know what the problem is. I read his post, then read it again, and it boils down to "Somebody told me the XBOX is better, and I didn't really understand why, but I believed them. PS I work for Sony" or whatever. If he had real, technical meat to his post, I might have more sympathy. But he's just badmouthing his companies product when it's WAY to early to call this one: if it's anything like the PS2 it'll take developers a while to get the most from the hardware. So I don't think he could have formed a group to fix the problem as he doesn't really know if there is a problem or what it is.
KDE, for what it's worth, has had terrible problems with C++ performance and uses a variety of evil hacks to work around it like kdeinit, which completely breaks SELinux. Prelink partly fixed some of the issues, eventually, but prelink doesn't work for dlopened code which makes up the bulk of something like OpenOffice. Just go read the various articles written by KDE developers analysing startup time of apps if you don't believe me.
Skype don't manage it at all, they're pretty much a textbook example of why it doesn't work properly. For one, go look at the relative complexity of the download pages for Windows, MacOS and Linux. For another, go see the problems people had getting Skype stable on various flavours of Ubuntu, Fedora etc. I think for a while it did not even install on Ubuntu Breezy. Now go read up on the Firefox/SCIM crashes, the game/SDL/aRts crashes etc that I have documented - they exist and are a problem.