While it is true that both Red Hat and SuSE have free versions of their distributions, Fedora and SuSE Linux Personal/Professional respectively, and they provide free patches for these products, neither provides enterprise products for free.
So, why not use the free version? Quite simply, it is because the upgrade and obsolescence cycle of the free products is too rapid for enterprise environments. The Linux version upgrade process is definitely not without its problems, some of which are cited here. Using the free products would require these upgrades every year. This is an enormous problem for production environments where large numbers of systems with things like third party accounting applications or databases are used. This is also part of the reason that the major vendors, such as Oracle and SAP, will not support their product on the free distributions.
Novell/SuSE and Red Hat address this issue by offering Enterprise versions of their products. These Enterprise distributions have a much longer life/support cycle requiring far fewer upgrades. The third party vendors also support their applications on these Enterprise distributions which makes the Enterprise distributions a necessity for an enterprise that wishes to utilize Linux.
It is these Enterprise distributions, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8&9 and Red Hat Enterprise Server 2&3, that I was referring to in my previous post. Neither of these distributions are free. They both require a subscription fee for "support". This support is primarily password restricted access to the updates for these products. To the best of my knowledge, there is no free source for these updates. Red Hat does provide free access to the source code for their product but, Novell does not make even the source code available to the downloading public. If you want bug fixes and security updates for these products you must pay for it.
Microsoft is not blind to this. They are watching it very closely. If they determine that their customers in the enterprise space are suitably "softened up" by this business model it is entirely possible, if not likely, that Microsoft will try to cash in on it as well. If that happens, customers will be required to pay a subscription fee to access service packs for Windows instead of the free ones they get today.
Now, as far as I am concerned, it is fine to charge for your product. It is also OK to charge for version upgrades. I suppose that the software industry has trained me to be accustomed to this and accept it. However, I have a major issue with paying for bug and security fixes to software that I have already paid good money for. In my opinion, the software that I paid for is defective and I should not have to pay additional fees for the repair or removal of those defects. I suppose we will have to wait and see what the future holds.
This sounds like a likely possibility but, there are concerns with this idea too. In fact, Open Source vendors may make it easier for Microsoft to start charging for bug fixes. See my comment below. How long until they charge for services packs?
This is something that has been bothering me lately. How long will it be before Microsoft starts charging for Service Packs and Hot Fixes? So far, they haven't done it but, it occurs to me that it is only a matter of time.
But, the worst part of the idea is that Open Source vendors are opening the door for Microsoft and blazing a trail toward exactly that. Open Source vendors such as Red Hat and Novell/SuSE are selling "cheap" software, built by the Open Source community, and charging a premium for patches. It is a "new business model".
The base software is sold cheap or given away and they make their real money from "support services". However, close inspection of the "support services" show that they offer very little in the way of technical support. They do however offer password protected access to the sites used to download the patches and security fixes for the free/cheap software.
All this isn't going un-noticed by Microsoft, who has toyed with the idea of charging for Service Packs before. In the past however, customers told them in no uncertain terms that they would not pay for bug fixes to software that those customers had already paid a premium for.
Microsoft then developed the "Software Assurance" subscription model, where customers pay a subscription fee that entitles them to future version upgrades. But, Microsoft is still spending money and effort to provide free patches and they don't like doing it as they perceive it as lost revenue.
But, with the "new business model" that Open Source vendors are acclimating their customers to is likely to open up that revenue stream for Microsoft. Just as all the other software vendors were able to leverage the subscription model after Microsoft had acclimatized the customers, it is entirley likely that customers who are accustomed to the the Open Source method of paying for patches will not balk at paying Microsoft for their patches too.
It's a dark and pessimistic vision of the future, I know. But, can you imagine Microsoft actually passing up a new revenue stream from the same old product? That doesn't seem likely to me.
I know- don't bother telling me: You won't be buying my product anyway - but anything that hurts their marketshare helps ours:)
Do you really work for CA? Is CA as aware of how people feel about them? If the answer to these questions is yes, why doesn't CA do something about it? Why must CA destroy products and anger customers?
Indeed the analogy is flawed but, it does cause most people to have have a greater understanding of why supposedly honest people, with nothing to hide, resent constant surveillance.
Additionally, I personally, don't have any problem with the USPS system. These machines use credit and debit cards to perform their functions and having a photograph of the person performing the transaction is simply a means of preventing fraud, just as it is with the ATM.
I do, however, dislike the increasing amount of surveillance in general. "Security" cameras, facial recognition systems and other systems are proliferating at, what I deem to be, an alarming rate. These systems are either specifically intended to track individuals or could easily be re-purposed to do so and they are increasingly "everywhere". Perhaps I do suffer paranoia, as the AC stated earlier. Regardless, it is a means of control that I resent.
To offer another flawed analogy, try this scenario. You are an honest person with nothing to hide. You go to a party at a friend's. While there, you socialize, dance, drink, commit a faux pas or two and generally have a good time. You don't make an ass of yourself or do anything that you shouldn't, you just loosen up and have a good time.
Now, suppose that someone conspicuously set up a video camera in the corner to capture everything on tape. Would you still behave in the same manner and have as good a time, or would it make you feel uncomfortable?
Are you a great dancer? Most people are terrible dancers, despite what they might think, and wouldn't care to have their efforts documented. What if you spilled your drink on yourself? It isn't really a big deal, similar things happen to everyone all the time but, would you like it recorded for you friends to laugh at for years to come? It is my opinion that most people would feel uncomfortable about having the party documented like this. Just look at how people stiffen up and conversation stops when Uncle Bob swings the camcorder in their direction. Of course there are extroverts out there that truly don't care or even enjoy it. These are the people that we see, making fools of themselves, on America's Funniest Videos.
Some people feel the same discomfort about public surveillance. Most people say they don't care about it because they are not consciously aware of it happening. They do not see the "hidden" cameras. I see lots of them, everywhere I go. There are probably even more that are truly hidden that I don't see. What are the images being used for? How long are they retained? Who has access to them?
Knowing all this, can you honestly say that your behavior is not altered, in anyway, by public surveillance? If your behavior is being altered, do you like the idea that someone else is controlling you?
My program requires a three month placement in the IT security and forensics industry.
Your program should then have some mechanism to facilitate such placement. Most programs that require intenships provide assistance in placement. If yours doesn't, then you are being shorted. This isn't a DJB class is it?
In its present state this tool isn't much more useful than a regular Google search. However, if and when there is extensive meta data indexing the actual content of the video it becomes tremendously useful. Imagine the ability to search for something and be able to locate a specific 30 second portion of a 2 hour long video. Wouldn't that be handy?
The "I'm an honest person so, I don't care" argument is very old and most analogies, such as yours, are lost on such people. The best analogy I have heard so far is much simpler.
Ask them how they would feel if they were sitting in a restaurant and someone at the next table was staring directly at them the entire time. Most people find this very disconcerting and sometimes react with great hostility. That is how I feel when someone, the government or otherwise, is constantly recording my activities no matter where I go. I don't have to be hiding something to not like being stared at.
When presented with this scenario, most people begin to understand and are less likely to present the "I'm an honest person" retort.
I haven't seen pricing on the TX Matix yet but, its competitor the Cisco CRS-1 starts at $450,000US. What a bargain!
Cue the; "Phhhht. I can build a Linux box running Zebra for $100" comments. Which will be followed by: "FreeBSD is a much better platform than Linux for such a solution."
The size of the packet doesn't make any difference at all. If a system sends a single packet, the IP addresses can be logged. Also, regardless of how small the transaction between two hosts, it is necessary for the requester to tell the sender which part of which file it is requesting. Finally, lets not forget that the tracker has a list of all the IPs.
If an interested party wants to know who is trafficking in a particular file, they simply have to look at the tracker. If that interested party then offers the file from their own system it is possible/likely that your system will connect to it for some part of the transfer. If you get a single bit of the file from their system, they have just logged a transfer of that file from their system to yours. The reverse is also true in that, if you are offering the file, they could connect to you and transfer from you to them. This last scenario is what PeerGuardian seems to try to prevent but, it certainly can't guarantee 100% effectiveness.
From the article: Our WAN is insane --multi-vendor frame, ATM, private DSL, private-line, lashed to a Sonet-MGX core (among other aggregation schemes), you name it we do it.
It seems to me that he is already trained and experienced in much more advanced WAN scenarios than FreeSCO could ever offer.
Does FreeSCO support frame-relay, ATM, private DSL, leased line or Sonet? No, I didn't think so. For that matter, does FreeSCO even support a rouing protocol like, RIP2, EIGRP, OSPF, IS-IS or BGP? Even Windows 95 can do the "routing" that FreeSCO does but, that doesn't make Windows 95 a router.
Well, there are a few standards in the area of VoIP so, your request shouldn't be out-of-line. But, the fact is that the two biggest players in the VoIP arena are Cisco and Nortel. They both claim to follow the standards but, they also both have enough of their own proprietary stuff in there to make them non-standard. Cisco waffles on about H323 and SIP, Nortel does too but, both prefer their own signaling system.
Your employer, a government agency, is unlikely to implement any of the lessor vendor's products. Furthermore, you will never see the likes of Asterisk or Skype while employed there. This all means that you should get vendor training from whomever your employer is most likely to implement. On the surface, it sounds like that would be Cisco but, check the telephone on your desk. If it is a Nortel phone, then there is a good chance that your state may implement a Nortel VoIP solution.
I have never before had need for such a viewer so, I didn't know that it didn't exist yet. But, I am shocked that it doesn't exist! How hard would it be for a competent programmer to rip out the rendering component from Open Office and create a standalone viewer? I can't imaging that it would be difficult, relatively speaking. Open Office is open source after all, and the rendering code is freely available for copying.
From my viewpoint, there definitely needs to be such a viewer. It should be cross platform, or versions for each platform, and a browser plug-in would be a good idea too. If the viewers are available, you can then start distributing the documents and everyone can read them, not just Open Office users. Acrobat and Word have both been succesful with this scheme and I'm sure that Open Office could achieve greater penetration if it followed suit.
Time is money. The problem is that much more time is wasted trying to decipher poorly written emails than, if the writer had taken the time to write it properly in the first place. The problem is even worse when the writing is so poorly done that it conveys a different message than was intended. In fact, just such an example was given in the article.
Indeed, your own post is another example of time wasted due to poor writing skills. It was necessary for me to read your message two or three times in order to determine your meaning. A properly written post would not have required rereading. My time was further wasted by replying to your post with this chastizing comment. You now owe me $2.00
You state that Netware would be an acceptable suggestion so, why not use it? Novell Netware can do what you want. Have a look at their iFolder product. But the funny part is that they use Apache and Tomcat/Jakarta to accomplish it.
With this in mind, it is probably less surprising that Novell also offers this functionality on the Linux platform using SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8/9 and Novell Nterprise services for Linux.
It appears that the original poster's username is an accurate description of them. The "logic" that he is using for future PC purchases is very fuzzy indeed.
Anything is possible. In fact there are numerous palmtops and PDAs, that can satisfy your needs and desires, already available today.
However, somethings, though possible, are improbable. The likelihood of finding your dream PDA for cheap is one of those things that falls under the heading of highly improbable. If, on the other hand, you consider $300-$1000 cheap then have a look at the Sharp Zaurus, HP iPaq or Dell Axim They are all very nice PDA/palm tops.
It's illegal in all 50 states (I'm assuming you're in the US). It often falls under the Peeping Tom laws but, there are also more stringent and specific laws in many places. In many states the person will become a registered sex offender, as they should be.
Here's a case from 2002. This story, dated August 2004, sounds very much like yours.
Ever seen a 500-1000 port FC switch or trunked network? Any idea what such a beast, if it existed, would cost? What's the cost on 500-1000 FC interface cards for the PCs? You do know that most PCs now come with gigabit ethernet onboard, right?
Nortel's Passport 8600 384 ports per chassis, true wire-speed, redundant everything, layer 2-7 switching. Also, if you need more ports simply add another 8600 and use Multi-link-trunking (MLT) between the switches. Wash Rinse Repeat. Networks that use these are smokin!
Of course, if you are looking for the typical Ask Slashdot for free solutions answer you can forget it. These puppies cost a bundle.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is true that both Red Hat and SuSE have free versions of their distributions, Fedora and SuSE Linux Personal/Professional respectively, and they provide free patches for these products, neither provides enterprise products for free.
So, why not use the free version? Quite simply, it is because the upgrade and obsolescence cycle of the free products is too rapid for enterprise environments. The Linux version upgrade process is definitely not without its problems, some of which are cited here. Using the free products would require these upgrades every year. This is an enormous problem for production environments where large numbers of systems with things like third party accounting applications or databases are used. This is also part of the reason that the major vendors, such as Oracle and SAP, will not support their product on the free distributions.
Novell/SuSE and Red Hat address this issue by offering Enterprise versions of their products. These Enterprise distributions have a much longer life/support cycle requiring far fewer upgrades. The third party vendors also support their applications on these Enterprise distributions which makes the Enterprise distributions a necessity for an enterprise that wishes to utilize Linux.
It is these Enterprise distributions, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8&9 and Red Hat Enterprise Server 2&3, that I was referring to in my previous post. Neither of these distributions are free. They both require a subscription fee for "support". This support is primarily password restricted access to the updates for these products. To the best of my knowledge, there is no free source for these updates. Red Hat does provide free access to the source code for their product but, Novell does not make even the source code available to the downloading public. If you want bug fixes and security updates for these products you must pay for it.
Microsoft is not blind to this. They are watching it very closely. If they determine that their customers in the enterprise space are suitably "softened up" by this business model it is entirely possible, if not likely, that Microsoft will try to cash in on it as well. If that happens, customers will be required to pay a subscription fee to access service packs for Windows instead of the free ones they get today.
Now, as far as I am concerned, it is fine to charge for your product. It is also OK to charge for version upgrades. I suppose that the software industry has trained me to be accustomed to this and accept it. However, I have a major issue with paying for bug and security fixes to software that I have already paid good money for. In my opinion, the software that I paid for is defective and I should not have to pay additional fees for the repair or removal of those defects. I suppose we will have to wait and see what the future holds.
This sounds like a likely possibility but, there are concerns with this idea too. In fact, Open Source vendors may make it easier for Microsoft to start charging for bug fixes. See my comment below.
How long until they charge for services packs?
--Is this astro turfing or is it spam?
This is something that has been bothering me lately. How long will it be before Microsoft starts charging for Service Packs and Hot Fixes? So far, they haven't done it but, it occurs to me that it is only a matter of time.
But, the worst part of the idea is that Open Source vendors are opening the door for Microsoft and blazing a trail toward exactly that. Open Source vendors such as Red Hat and Novell/SuSE are selling "cheap" software, built by the Open Source community, and charging a premium for patches. It is a "new business model".
The base software is sold cheap or given away and they make their real money from "support services". However, close inspection of the "support services" show that they offer very little in the way of technical support. They do however offer password protected access to the sites used to download the patches and security fixes for the free/cheap software.
All this isn't going un-noticed by Microsoft, who has toyed with the idea of charging for Service Packs before. In the past however, customers told them in no uncertain terms that they would not pay for bug fixes to software that those customers had already paid a premium for.
Microsoft then developed the "Software Assurance" subscription model, where customers pay a subscription fee that entitles them to future version upgrades. But, Microsoft is still spending money and effort to provide free patches and they don't like doing it as they perceive it as lost revenue.
But, with the "new business model" that Open Source vendors are acclimating their customers to is likely to open up that revenue stream for Microsoft. Just as all the other software vendors were able to leverage the subscription model after Microsoft had acclimatized the customers, it is entirley likely that customers who are accustomed to the the Open Source method of paying for patches will not balk at paying Microsoft for their patches too.
It's a dark and pessimistic vision of the future, I know. But, can you imagine Microsoft actually passing up a new revenue stream from the same old product? That doesn't seem likely to me.
I know- don't bother telling me: You won't be buying my product anyway - but anything that hurts their marketshare helps ours :)
Do you really work for CA? Is CA as aware of how people feel about them? If the answer to these questions is yes, why doesn't CA do something about it? Why must CA destroy products and anger customers?
Who does Symantec think they are? Computer Associates?
Indeed the analogy is flawed but, it does cause most people to have have a greater understanding of why supposedly honest people, with nothing to hide, resent constant surveillance.
Additionally, I personally, don't have any problem with the USPS system. These machines use credit and debit cards to perform their functions and having a photograph of the person performing the transaction is simply a means of preventing fraud, just as it is with the ATM.
I do, however, dislike the increasing amount of surveillance in general. "Security" cameras, facial recognition systems and other systems are proliferating at, what I deem to be, an alarming rate. These systems are either specifically intended to track individuals or could easily be re-purposed to do so and they are increasingly "everywhere". Perhaps I do suffer paranoia, as the AC stated earlier. Regardless, it is a means of control that I resent.
To offer another flawed analogy, try this scenario. You are an honest person with nothing to hide. You go to a party at a friend's. While there, you socialize, dance, drink, commit a faux pas or two and generally have a good time. You don't make an ass of yourself or do anything that you shouldn't, you just loosen up and have a good time.
Now, suppose that someone conspicuously set up a video camera in the corner to capture everything on tape. Would you still behave in the same manner and have as good a time, or would it make you feel uncomfortable?
Are you a great dancer? Most people are terrible dancers, despite what they might think, and wouldn't care to have their efforts documented. What if you spilled your drink on yourself? It isn't really a big deal, similar things happen to everyone all the time but, would you like it recorded for you friends to laugh at for years to come? It is my opinion that most people would feel uncomfortable about having the party documented like this. Just look at how people stiffen up and conversation stops when Uncle Bob swings the camcorder in their direction. Of course there are extroverts out there that truly don't care or even enjoy it. These are the people that we see, making fools of themselves, on America's Funniest Videos.
Some people feel the same discomfort about public surveillance. Most people say they don't care about it because they are not consciously aware of it happening. They do not see the "hidden" cameras. I see lots of them, everywhere I go. There are probably even more that are truly hidden that I don't see. What are the images being used for? How long are they retained? Who has access to them?
Knowing all this, can you honestly say that your behavior is not altered, in anyway, by public surveillance? If your behavior is being altered, do you like the idea that someone else is controlling you?
Haven't you seen the Slashdot - HotJobs ads? What about the Tech Jobs link under Slashdot's Services menu?
My program requires a three month placement in the IT security and forensics industry.
Your program should then have some mechanism to facilitate such placement. Most programs that require intenships provide assistance in placement. If yours doesn't, then you are being shorted. This isn't a DJB class is it?
In its present state this tool isn't much more useful than a regular Google search. However, if and when there is extensive meta data indexing the actual content of the video it becomes tremendously useful. Imagine the ability to search for something and be able to locate a specific 30 second portion of a 2 hour long video. Wouldn't that be handy?
The "I'm an honest person so, I don't care" argument is very old and most analogies, such as yours, are lost on such people. The best analogy I have heard so far is much simpler.
Ask them how they would feel if they were sitting in a restaurant and someone at the next table was staring directly at them the entire time. Most people find this very disconcerting and sometimes react with great hostility. That is how I feel when someone, the government or otherwise, is constantly recording my activities no matter where I go. I don't have to be hiding something to not like being stared at.
When presented with this scenario, most people begin to understand and are less likely to present the "I'm an honest person" retort.
As the AC stated, the page consists of only the "word" pwn3d.
I wonder if the webmaster was in the class. He definitely desrves to fail.
I haven't seen pricing on the TX Matix yet but, its competitor the Cisco CRS-1 starts at $450,000US. What a bargain!
Cue the; "Phhhht. I can build a Linux box running Zebra for $100" comments. Which will be followed by: "FreeBSD is a much better platform than Linux for such a solution."
The size of the packet doesn't make any difference at all. If a system sends a single packet, the IP addresses can be logged. Also, regardless of how small the transaction between two hosts, it is necessary for the requester to tell the sender which part of which file it is requesting. Finally, lets not forget that the tracker has a list of all the IPs.
If an interested party wants to know who is trafficking in a particular file, they simply have to look at the tracker. If that interested party then offers the file from their own system it is possible/likely that your system will connect to it for some part of the transfer. If you get a single bit of the file from their system, they have just logged a transfer of that file from their system to yours. The reverse is also true in that, if you are offering the file, they could connect to you and transfer from you to them. This last scenario is what PeerGuardian seems to try to prevent but, it certainly can't guarantee 100% effectiveness.
From the article:
Our WAN is insane --multi-vendor frame, ATM, private DSL, private-line, lashed to a Sonet-MGX core (among other aggregation schemes), you name it we do it.
It seems to me that he is already trained and experienced in much more advanced WAN scenarios than FreeSCO could ever offer.
Does FreeSCO support frame-relay, ATM, private DSL, leased line or Sonet? No, I didn't think so. For that matter, does FreeSCO even support a rouing protocol like, RIP2, EIGRP, OSPF, IS-IS or BGP? Even Windows 95 can do the "routing" that FreeSCO does but, that doesn't make Windows 95 a router.
Well, there are a few standards in the area of VoIP so, your request shouldn't be out-of-line. But, the fact is that the two biggest players in the VoIP arena are Cisco and Nortel. They both claim to follow the standards but, they also both have enough of their own proprietary stuff in there to make them non-standard. Cisco waffles on about H323 and SIP, Nortel does too but, both prefer their own signaling system.
Your employer, a government agency, is unlikely to implement any of the lessor vendor's products. Furthermore, you will never see the likes of Asterisk or Skype while employed there. This all means that you should get vendor training from whomever your employer is most likely to implement. On the surface, it sounds like that would be Cisco but, check the telephone on your desk. If it is a Nortel phone, then there is a good chance that your state may implement a Nortel VoIP solution.
I have never before had need for such a viewer so, I didn't know that it didn't exist yet. But, I am shocked that it doesn't exist! How hard would it be for a competent programmer to rip out the rendering component from Open Office and create a standalone viewer? I can't imaging that it would be difficult, relatively speaking. Open Office is open source after all, and the rendering code is freely available for copying.
From my viewpoint, there definitely needs to be such a viewer. It should be cross platform, or versions for each platform, and a browser plug-in would be a good idea too. If the viewers are available, you can then start distributing the documents and everyone can read them, not just Open Office users. Acrobat and Word have both been succesful with this scheme and I'm sure that Open Office could achieve greater penetration if it followed suit.
Time is money. The problem is that much more time is wasted trying to decipher poorly written emails than, if the writer had taken the time to write it properly in the first place. The problem is even worse when the writing is so poorly done that it conveys a different message than was intended. In fact, just such an example was given in the article.
Indeed, your own post is another example of time wasted due to poor writing skills. It was necessary for me to read your message two or three times in order to determine your meaning. A properly written post would not have required rereading. My time was further wasted by replying to your post with this chastizing comment. You now owe me $2.00
Just look at the fan boys in the Open Source world. Look at what happens when I utter the words:
d ows????
vi
emacs
Gentoo
KDE
Gnome
Linux
*BSD
Win
You state that Netware would be an acceptable suggestion so, why not use it? Novell Netware can do what you want. Have a look at their iFolder product. But the funny part is that they use Apache and Tomcat/Jakarta to accomplish it.
With this in mind, it is probably less surprising that Novell also offers this functionality on the Linux platform using SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8/9 and Novell Nterprise services for Linux.
Great. Now I sound like a shill.
It appears that the original poster's username is an accurate description of them. The "logic" that he is using for future PC purchases is very fuzzy indeed.
[root@linux root]#ncpmount -m -S SERVERNAME -A 10.0.0.2 -V VOL1 -U admin.bigcorp
That's been working since 7.x or earlier. Changing rights is another story though.
Anything is possible. In fact there are numerous palmtops and PDAs, that can satisfy your needs and desires, already available today.
However, somethings, though possible, are improbable. The likelihood of finding your dream PDA for cheap is one of those things that falls under the heading of highly improbable. If, on the other hand, you consider $300-$1000 cheap then have a look at the Sharp Zaurus, HP iPaq or Dell Axim They are all very nice PDA/palm tops.
It's illegal in all 50 states (I'm assuming you're in the US). It often falls under the Peeping Tom laws but, there are also more stringent and specific laws in many places. In many states the person will become a registered sex offender, as they should be.
Here's a case from 2002. This story, dated August 2004, sounds very much like yours.
Ever seen a 500-1000 port FC switch or trunked network? Any idea what such a beast, if it existed, would cost? What's the cost on 500-1000 FC interface cards for the PCs? You do know that most PCs now come with gigabit ethernet onboard, right?
Nortel's Passport 8600 384 ports per chassis, true wire-speed, redundant everything, layer 2-7 switching. Also, if you need more ports simply add another 8600 and use Multi-link-trunking (MLT) between the switches. Wash Rinse Repeat. Networks that use these are smokin!
Of course, if you are looking for the typical Ask Slashdot for free solutions answer you can forget it. These puppies cost a bundle.