Don't get me wrong -- there's nothing wrong with taking grant money. Just because something isn't economically sustainable, doesn't mean it's not worth doing. I just get very tired of the way the "Free Software" folk insist that they've transcended the evils of software "ownership". Which they've never actually done. Their bills are paid for by revenues from the very businesses they are too pure to work for.
You know, it's not as if the lack of IP doesn't have prescedent for functioning. Art and science haven't had a form of property protection for most of mankind for most of our history, and knowledge production didn't stop.
Also, I'm unsure as to whether RMS actually has the burden of justifying the feasibility of Free Software in the current economic situation (I think it's doable, but suppose it isn't). Suppose that it took a tax,.2% of federal revenue (a tenth of what NASA gets) to ensure that Free software can be produced, and that the overall benefit to mankind is well in excess of the resources spent. It would be easy to provide for federal subsidies. (Note that I'm not suggesting any particular system, just proposing a hypothetical.)
If you want to take a strict free-market, no-academia business-only approach, very little useful research would ever be conducted, we would have fewer and lower-caliber instructors, etc.
Look at roads. Roads can't exist as a private enterprise either. But they're so damn useful that it's worth dropping our conventional economic model on the floor to do what's necessary to take advantage of them.
So of course RMS now works in a building that was paid for by the license fees that Microsoft gouged out of hapless computer buyers. What could be more appropriate?
What do you want to bet that the system that handles some of Mr. Gates' vast wealth has Free software somewhere in it? The influence of both RMS and Gates is both pervasive and common. I don't think you can draw anything useful from it.
Much as I like and appreciate Ogg Vorbis, was there any real expectation of them putting it on the DVD? Many home users probably still have old boxes, have never *heard* of WinAMP, much less consider installing something on their computer, and there is only one or two hardware ogg vorbis players out there.
Though I am a bit surprised that they didn't go with MP3 -- it seems that hardware player compatibility would have been an overriding goal, but who knows.
Except that's what the Mozilla team did. They piled on feature after feature, without worrying about whether they were destroying the performance of the product. I guess they assumed this was something they could fix later. Well it is later, and they still haven't fixed it. Yeah, we just had this breathless annoucement with gee-whiz figure about how Mozilla is smaller and faster. Except it still hasn't gotten as fast as IE 6.
I'm not an expert on the Mozilla codebase (though I have worked a small bit on optimizing an HTML renderer), but I still think you're wrong about your claim.
The main things that are going to be hit when rendering a page (which is going to be what people care about WRT Gecko performance) are going to be core things -- layout and rendering code. They aren't going to be "features" like the dialog that someone added in to let you choose a font.
The only way you can have a "feature" in a layout engine is really to comply with an element of a spec, and I don't think that they should have put off spec correctness for performance, given the number of people that depend on the browser operating correctly for the webpages they write to show up correctly.
That would seem to indicate that it isn't the additional features causing slowdown (the mail client code just plain isn't using cycles when you're viewing a web page), but insufficiently optimized core code, not something that can be fixed by omitting features.
But I don't so I won't, so enough with the "switch to something else" mantra.
I didn't tell you that you should switch in my post.
I think it was Carlin that said, "Think of how dumb the average person is... Half the people are dumber than that guy." Scary.
Carlin is almost certainly wrong. He is only correct if the following points are true:
* he's using the uncommon "median" definition of average (if he was using the more common "mean" definition, it would be extremely unlikely that he was correct, since there would have to be a distribution that splits exactly halfway at the mean intelligence point).
* There are not an odd number of people. If there are an odd number of people, fewer than half of the people out there are necessarily on either side of the median.
* Whatever metric Carlin is using for intelligence does not rate the two people used in calculating the mean to determine the median value as having the same degree of intelligence. If he is using something as roughly grained as an IQ score, for instance, he would certainly be wrong. (If he were, a number of people that would have been to one side of the median would be equally dumb as the median value, preventing half of the people out there from being dumber).
If I'm actually looking to buy something, and I see an ad that is *relevant*, sure I'll click on it. We advertise heavily on AdWords ourselves and get a phenomenal amount of traffic on them, with click-throughs over 25% on certain keyword combinations.
"Sex-crazed underage lesbians?"
Don't get me wrong, I think that Google's ad system is the best thing since sliced bread, but 25% for any terms that I can think of seems absurd. Even if you simply inserted part numbers for products you sold (eg "AZR-3120"), you'd still run into people just searching for data on those parts.
Harvard, in a laudable attempt to retain solidarity with the Open Source community, dedicated the Maxwell Dworkin building (named after Gates' and Ballmer's mothers respectively)
I'm sure I'm just missing something here, but how does naming a building after the mothers of the cofounders of Microsoft build solidiarity with the OSS community in the least?
They did it with MSN. They did it with IE. They did it with Media Player. Why ask if they're going to do it with their Tunes site?
They managed to beat Apple last time they faced off against the Apple flagship product in the OS market. What makes people think that *this* time Apple is going to win?
I mean, not that I want Microsoft to do well, but honestly, Apple is currently smaller relative to MS than they were during the OS War, doesn't have a desktop monopoly to leverage (sure, they're clearly in the process of leveraging OS X, but it isn't anything near the Windows market share), and hasn't demonstrated the skill at using dirty tricks that Microsoft has.
"Your honor, we *need* to embed our store in Windows Media Player to coninue to innovate!"
For crying out loud, Microsoft (admittedly, with the fortuitous help of Bush winning office before penalties were imposed on them by Reno) has already managed to get by regulators with a *Web browser* tied to their file manager and with a built-in misspelling/keyword system that forces you to Microsoft's MSN search engine (and the associated profitable ads) already. If that isn't precedent enough for a judge to let this by, I don't know what is.
The image of horde of vision-impaired Steve Jobs clones wearing evening gowns is definitely the funniest mental picture Slashdot's given me for a while!
I'm curious as to whether the human brain has a limit as to number of outputs. We know that with a feedback device so that a person can see what they're doing, it's possible to teach someone to be able to control characteristics of their brain waves. This could, presumably, be used as an output to control some device. What happens if we just take this higher resolution, add more types of devices Babies don't grow up knowing how to operate their hands and feet -- they have to see them moving and form links to understand what output signals correspond to "leg moved". Why couldn't we do the same with the brain? We wait for particular parts of the brain to be activated at a particular level, and treat that as a signal. I've no idea what kind of bandwidth we're talking about, but if you consider the complexity of talking and that we can deal with going from zero knowledge about talking to learning how to talk properly, that we could manage the same with a brain output device.
It would be nice to be able to type into my computer, to be able to interface in a more efficient manner than putting myself in a particular position, putting my fleshy extensions on a bunch of blocks on a keyboard, and then having the keyboard record how they wiggle and tell the computer.
OTOH, a brain-controlled computer would deprive my fingers of their precious exercise.
Oh, yes...a hands-free headset with goggles, one controlled by the brain, would be terribly cool.
Well, this could be wrong, but it's one guess on Microsoft's media strategy.
Microsoft's most profitable and popular two products -- Office and Windows -- primarily rely on a single mechanism to ensure their continued dominance. IE probably uses this as at least a secondary mechanism, and the X-Box uses it as well.
The idea is to ensure that third-party-produced content is produced in a form that is only useful to someone that purchases a Microsoft product, jump-start an industry producing content for that product, and then erect as many barriers as possible to anyone attempting to produce a compatible, competing product. They then enjoy a profitable feedback loop as *more* third parties are forced more and more to produce content for their system. Since their product *is* the standard (bugs and all), 100% compatibility is not likely to happen, and can be avoided by making their product a moving target when necessary.
In the case of Windows, it's Windows applications. Windows is the Microsoft-produced tool that allows the consumer to deal with Windows applications. Because Windows is around, everyone develops for Windows, and because everyone develops for Windows, it's difficult to move to anything else, even in the case of poor product quality and pricing issues that are complained about today.
In the case of MSIE, it's HTML/CSS/etc.
In the case of Office, it's Office documents.
In the case of the X-Box, it's games for the X-Box.
In the case of Media Player, it is content in the Windows Media file format.
Well, I've been using privoxy recently, which pretty much completely eliminates ads, but I've used enough non-privoxied machines that I would have expected to hit a Google ad. I've seen TV ads for Google, but certainly not a banner ad. I take it that they *are* present?
I've yet to see Web-based advertising of Google, much less pop-up advertising. This makes me think that the story is simply wrong, and reversed the roles.
* Google does not provide "pop-up ads". They provide text-based ads.
* Google does not pay website owners for AdWords. The owners pay Google to for advertising space on Google.
Xiph is a group (I believe European or something to get the odd-to-my-USian-ear names) that puts out codecs.
Ogg is a wrapper format that they put out. It serves much the same purpose as QuickTime, AVI, or ASF does. One wraps it around an encoded stream of audio or data. Currently, Ogg is mostly commonly used to contain audio data encoded with the Vorbis codec, which is notable for tending to sound better than MP3, being patent-free and having a completely free implementation for anyone to use.
Theora is a video codec also put out by Xiph. It is based on an older, originally proprietary video codec that was donated to the Xiph project. I'm not sure how it measures up to existing video codecs.
Alpha-3 is, I think, pretty self-explanatory to a developer. It's an alpha release, so the developers are leaving open the possibility that they will make large changes (unlike beta software, where the software should be considered ready, and only lacks feedback from a broad base of people). It is the third alpha release.
Oh, yes. I love the Far Side strip about Ginger. Remember, though, that saying "awk", "sed", or "grep", which sound quite reasonable to people on Slashdot, sounds absolutely bizarre to most folks.
DivX doesn't stream, and has a bit of a dicey reputation. I haven't seen much corporate use -- QuickTime, RealMedia, and WMV seem to be what companies go for.
Frankly, I'd just as soon that everyone uses DivX for everything, but they just don't today.
No, you just modify the.bashrc to alias su to be a command that echos "Password:", reads the password, cats it to a file (and starts doing its evil work in the background using said password), removes the alias and unmodifies the.bashrc, prints "su: incorrect password", then runs su.
I agree that running with elevated privilege is a real problem with many Microsoft products (IIS, filesharing), but I don't think this is all that bad relative to how you make it out.
Two cases:
* Corporate user. The corporate user is not running as Administrator any more than he is running as root.
* Home user. The home user may have Administrator privileges. However, it's a good bet that most home UNIX/Linux users really don't follow stringent enough security procedures to avoid being rooted quickly once their account is compromised. Do you always log in as root when you need to do something important, or do you ever use sudo or su? All it takes is trojaning the interface, making "su" and "sudo" actually run some kind of evil code that calls the real "su" or "sudo", and having appropriated the root password, takes over the system.
What's sad is that performance wasn't a priority from day one.
See, this is a funny thing to say. The first thing I though of when I read your post is that "this guy has never written software before". Then I discovered that you had, indeed, written software, which makes this an even odder thing to say.
Nobody sits down and optimizes software from day 1. The goal at Day 1 is to get the thing working. Oh, performace isn't something that you completely ignore -- you don't want to have to do something where you *know* that you're going to have to rewrite the codebase to get acceptable performace -- but it just isn't all that important. The point of Moz up to somewhere around 1.0 was to get something out and working properly. People have been optimizing and bug-fixing ever since.
Keep in mind that my writeup was done based on something like thirty seconds of actual use and staying only on the main page. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of problems with the site, just a set of examples why using a similar approach on a website is not a good idea.
The problem is that the "in theory Flash could be useful" argument is used to justify a huge range of websites that, frankly, are a pain in the ass to use, load slowly, are uncomfortable for users of older computers, and exclude the disabled and users of alternate browsers or people that disable plugins for security reasons.
In my entire life, I have seen *one* website that used Flash in what I could consider a significantly beneficial manner, and I have seen many, many websites in my life. The website was for an MP3 player, and one could try out the interface in an embedded Flash object. The rest of the site did not use Flash. There was no equally effective way to reproduce this functionality without Flash, the functionality was clearly important to the product (the product was partly being sold based on having a good interface), and a user without Flash still had the ability to work with the rest of the website.
On the whole, I have seen so little effective use of Flash, and taking into consideration the significant drawbacks of it, that if someone asked me whether to use Flash on their site, I would feel comfortable simply saying "no". The odds of it being a good idea are so phenomenally low that it's just not worth trying.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, I'm sorry sir, we don't accept uncut diamonds or American Express. Would you happen to have a Visa or Mastercard?"
Or look at it this way -- Gates' money is going to house systems that provide us with GNU software.
Don't get me wrong -- there's nothing wrong with taking grant money. Just because something isn't economically sustainable, doesn't mean it's not worth doing. I just get very tired of the way the "Free Software" folk insist that they've transcended the evils of software "ownership". Which they've never actually done. Their bills are paid for by revenues from the very businesses they are too pure to work for.
.2% of federal revenue (a tenth of what NASA gets) to ensure that Free software can be produced, and that the overall benefit to mankind is well in excess of the resources spent. It would be easy to provide for federal subsidies. (Note that I'm not suggesting any particular system, just proposing a hypothetical.)
You know, it's not as if the lack of IP doesn't have prescedent for functioning. Art and science haven't had a form of property protection for most of mankind for most of our history, and knowledge production didn't stop.
Also, I'm unsure as to whether RMS actually has the burden of justifying the feasibility of Free Software in the current economic situation (I think it's doable, but suppose it isn't). Suppose that it took a tax,
If you want to take a strict free-market, no-academia business-only approach, very little useful research would ever be conducted, we would have fewer and lower-caliber instructors, etc.
Look at roads. Roads can't exist as a private enterprise either. But they're so damn useful that it's worth dropping our conventional economic model on the floor to do what's necessary to take advantage of them.
So of course RMS now works in a building that was paid for by the license fees that Microsoft gouged out of hapless computer buyers. What could be more appropriate?
What do you want to bet that the system that handles some of Mr. Gates' vast wealth has Free software somewhere in it? The influence of both RMS and Gates is both pervasive and common. I don't think you can draw anything useful from it.
Much as I like and appreciate Ogg Vorbis, was there any real expectation of them putting it on the DVD? Many home users probably still have old boxes, have never *heard* of WinAMP, much less consider installing something on their computer, and there is only one or two hardware ogg vorbis players out there.
Though I am a bit surprised that they didn't go with MP3 -- it seems that hardware player compatibility would have been an overriding goal, but who knows.
Except that's what the Mozilla team did. They piled on feature after feature, without worrying about whether they were destroying the performance of the product. I guess they assumed this was something they could fix later. Well it is later, and they still haven't fixed it. Yeah, we just had this breathless annoucement with gee-whiz figure about how Mozilla is smaller and faster. Except it still hasn't gotten as fast as IE 6.
I'm not an expert on the Mozilla codebase (though I have worked a small bit on optimizing an HTML renderer), but I still think you're wrong about your claim.
The main things that are going to be hit when rendering a page (which is going to be what people care about WRT Gecko performance) are going to be core things -- layout and rendering code. They aren't going to be "features" like the dialog that someone added in to let you choose a font.
The only way you can have a "feature" in a layout engine is really to comply with an element of a spec, and I don't think that they should have put off spec correctness for performance, given the number of people that depend on the browser operating correctly for the webpages they write to show up correctly.
That would seem to indicate that it isn't the additional features causing slowdown (the mail client code just plain isn't using cycles when you're viewing a web page), but insufficiently optimized core code, not something that can be fixed by omitting features.
But I don't so I won't, so enough with the "switch to something else" mantra.
I didn't tell you that you should switch in my post.
I think it was Carlin that said, "Think of how dumb the average person is... Half the people are dumber than that guy." Scary.
Carlin is almost certainly wrong. He is only correct if the following points are true:
* he's using the uncommon "median" definition of average (if he was using the more common "mean" definition, it would be extremely unlikely that he was correct, since there would have to be a distribution that splits exactly halfway at the mean intelligence point).
* There are not an odd number of people. If there are an odd number of people, fewer than half of the people out there are necessarily on either side of the median.
* Whatever metric Carlin is using for intelligence does not rate the two people used in calculating the mean to determine the median value as having the same degree of intelligence. If he is using something as roughly grained as an IQ score, for instance, he would certainly be wrong. (If he were, a number of people that would have been to one side of the median would be equally dumb as the median value, preventing half of the people out there from being dumber).
If I'm actually looking to buy something, and I see an ad that is *relevant*, sure I'll click on it. We advertise heavily on AdWords ourselves and get a phenomenal amount of traffic on them, with click-throughs over 25% on certain keyword combinations.
"Sex-crazed underage lesbians?"
Don't get me wrong, I think that Google's ad system is the best thing since sliced bread, but 25% for any terms that I can think of seems absurd. Even if you simply inserted part numbers for products you sold (eg "AZR-3120"), you'd still run into people just searching for data on those parts.
Harvard, in a laudable attempt to retain solidarity with the Open Source community, dedicated the Maxwell Dworkin building (named after Gates' and Ballmer's mothers respectively)
I'm sure I'm just missing something here, but how does naming a building after the mothers of the cofounders of Microsoft build solidiarity with the OSS community in the least?
They did it with MSN. They did it with IE. They did it with Media Player. Why ask if they're going to do it with their Tunes site?
They managed to beat Apple last time they faced off against the Apple flagship product in the OS market. What makes people think that *this* time Apple is going to win?
I mean, not that I want Microsoft to do well, but honestly, Apple is currently smaller relative to MS than they were during the OS War, doesn't have a desktop monopoly to leverage (sure, they're clearly in the process of leveraging OS X, but it isn't anything near the Windows market share), and hasn't demonstrated the skill at using dirty tricks that Microsoft has.
"Your honor, we *need* to embed our store in Windows Media Player to coninue to innovate!"
For crying out loud, Microsoft (admittedly, with the fortuitous help of Bush winning office before penalties were imposed on them by Reno) has already managed to get by regulators with a *Web browser* tied to their file manager and with a built-in misspelling/keyword system that forces you to Microsoft's MSN search engine (and the associated profitable ads) already. If that isn't precedent enough for a judge to let this by, I don't know what is.
blind Steve Jobs fanbois
The image of horde of vision-impaired Steve Jobs clones wearing evening gowns is definitely the funniest mental picture Slashdot's given me for a while!
I'm curious as to whether the human brain has a limit as to number of outputs. We know that with a feedback device so that a person can see what they're doing, it's possible to teach someone to be able to control characteristics of their brain waves. This could, presumably, be used as an output to control some device. What happens if we just take this higher resolution, add more types of devices Babies don't grow up knowing how to operate their hands and feet -- they have to see them moving and form links to understand what output signals correspond to "leg moved". Why couldn't we do the same with the brain? We wait for particular parts of the brain to be activated at a particular level, and treat that as a signal. I've no idea what kind of bandwidth we're talking about, but if you consider the complexity of talking and that we can deal with going from zero knowledge about talking to learning how to talk properly, that we could manage the same with a brain output device.
It would be nice to be able to type into my computer, to be able to interface in a more efficient manner than putting myself in a particular position, putting my fleshy extensions on a bunch of blocks on a keyboard, and then having the keyboard record how they wiggle and tell the computer.
OTOH, a brain-controlled computer would deprive my fingers of their precious exercise.
Oh, yes...a hands-free headset with goggles, one controlled by the brain, would be terribly cool.
Well, this could be wrong, but it's one guess on Microsoft's media strategy.
Microsoft's most profitable and popular two products -- Office and Windows -- primarily rely on a single mechanism to ensure their continued dominance. IE probably uses this as at least a secondary mechanism, and the X-Box uses it as well.
The idea is to ensure that third-party-produced content is produced in a form that is only useful to someone that purchases a Microsoft product, jump-start an industry producing content for that product, and then erect as many barriers as possible to anyone attempting to produce a compatible, competing product. They then enjoy a profitable feedback loop as *more* third parties are forced more and more to produce content for their system. Since their product *is* the standard (bugs and all), 100% compatibility is not likely to happen, and can be avoided by making their product a moving target when necessary.
In the case of Windows, it's Windows applications. Windows is the Microsoft-produced tool that allows the consumer to deal with Windows applications. Because Windows is around, everyone develops for Windows, and because everyone develops for Windows, it's difficult to move to anything else, even in the case of poor product quality and pricing issues that are complained about today.
In the case of MSIE, it's HTML/CSS/etc.
In the case of Office, it's Office documents.
In the case of the X-Box, it's games for the X-Box.
In the case of Media Player, it is content in the Windows Media file format.
Well, I've been using privoxy recently, which pretty much completely eliminates ads, but I've used enough non-privoxied machines that I would have expected to hit a Google ad. I've seen TV ads for Google, but certainly not a banner ad. I take it that they *are* present?
I've yet to see Web-based advertising of Google, much less pop-up advertising. This makes me think that the story is simply wrong, and reversed the roles.
* Google does not provide "pop-up ads". They provide text-based ads.
* Google does not pay website owners for AdWords. The owners pay Google to for advertising space on Google.
This is my 5000th post.
Xiph is a group (I believe European or something to get the odd-to-my-USian-ear names) that puts out codecs.
Ogg is a wrapper format that they put out. It serves much the same purpose as QuickTime, AVI, or ASF does. One wraps it around an encoded stream of audio or data. Currently, Ogg is mostly commonly used to contain audio data encoded with the Vorbis codec, which is notable for tending to sound better than MP3, being patent-free and having a completely free implementation for anyone to use.
Theora is a video codec also put out by Xiph. It is based on an older, originally proprietary video codec that was donated to the Xiph project. I'm not sure how it measures up to existing video codecs.
Alpha-3 is, I think, pretty self-explanatory to a developer. It's an alpha release, so the developers are leaving open the possibility that they will make large changes (unlike beta software, where the software should be considered ready, and only lacks feedback from a broad base of people). It is the third alpha release.
Oh, yes. I love the Far Side strip about Ginger. Remember, though, that saying "awk", "sed", or "grep", which sound quite reasonable to people on Slashdot, sounds absolutely bizarre to most folks.
DivX doesn't stream, and has a bit of a dicey reputation. I haven't seen much corporate use -- QuickTime, RealMedia, and WMV seem to be what companies go for.
Frankly, I'd just as soon that everyone uses DivX for everything, but they just don't today.
No, you just modify the .bashrc to alias su to be a command that echos "Password:", reads the password, cats it to a file (and starts doing its evil work in the background using said password), removes the alias and unmodifies the .bashrc, prints "su: incorrect password", then runs su.
I'm curious as to how much of the development cost actually comes from writing code, as opposed to producing art and music.
I agree that running with elevated privilege is a real problem with many Microsoft products (IIS, filesharing), but I don't think this is all that bad relative to how you make it out.
Two cases:
* Corporate user. The corporate user is not running as Administrator any more than he is running as root.
* Home user. The home user may have Administrator privileges. However, it's a good bet that most home UNIX/Linux users really don't follow stringent enough security procedures to avoid being rooted quickly once their account is compromised. Do you always log in as root when you need to do something important, or do you ever use sudo or su? All it takes is trojaning the interface, making "su" and "sudo" actually run some kind of evil code that calls the real "su" or "sudo", and having appropriated the root password, takes over the system.
I've heard that the minimum noticable improvement is generally somewhere around 30% in an article on the classic Mac OS running on faster hardware.
What's sad is that performance wasn't a priority from day one.
See, this is a funny thing to say. The first thing I though of when I read your post is that "this guy has never written software before". Then I discovered that you had, indeed, written software, which makes this an even odder thing to say.
Nobody sits down and optimizes software from day 1. The goal at Day 1 is to get the thing working. Oh, performace isn't something that you completely ignore -- you don't want to have to do something where you *know* that you're going to have to rewrite the codebase to get acceptable performace -- but it just isn't all that important. The point of Moz up to somewhere around 1.0 was to get something out and working properly. People have been optimizing and bug-fixing ever since.
Keep in mind that my writeup was done based on something like thirty seconds of actual use and staying only on the main page. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of problems with the site, just a set of examples why using a similar approach on a website is not a good idea.
The problem is that the "in theory Flash could be useful" argument is used to justify a huge range of websites that, frankly, are a pain in the ass to use, load slowly, are uncomfortable for users of older computers, and exclude the disabled and users of alternate browsers or people that disable plugins for security reasons.
In my entire life, I have seen *one* website that used Flash in what I could consider a significantly beneficial manner, and I have seen many, many websites in my life. The website was for an MP3 player, and one could try out the interface in an embedded Flash object. The rest of the site did not use Flash. There was no equally effective way to reproduce this functionality without Flash, the functionality was clearly important to the product (the product was partly being sold based on having a good interface), and a user without Flash still had the ability to work with the rest of the website.
On the whole, I have seen so little effective use of Flash, and taking into consideration the significant drawbacks of it, that if someone asked me whether to use Flash on their site, I would feel comfortable simply saying "no". The odds of it being a good idea are so phenomenally low that it's just not worth trying.
Do you use the embedded xpdf or embedded acroread to view PDFs?
Acroread, a year or two ago, was incredibly full of leaks, perhaps the worst piece of software I've ever used WRT leaks.