I concede that AIDS may kill more people than any deer thing and I am not claiming it is not a big issue. However AIDS is not exactly breaking news and the fact that people decide to name a day after it makes no difference to that fact. If slashdot kept in touch with all of the days we wouldn't have time for anything current as current issues have not been around for long enough to name a day after.
Until of cource there is a "Cronic deer wasting day" which of course would simply be a bunch or NRA rednecks with rifles charging around a forest cronically wasting deers for scientific research.
You are saying: 1. Why not? They want a better, simpler windowing environment. 2. Read the page. There are performance issues, resolution issues, and network issues. They also hope to add an X compatibilty layer at some point. 3. It's not done, not by a longshot.
And you don't realise your answers are flawed 1. Why not? I'll tell you why not, the average open source desktop is rough and burred around the edges, it is immature and majorly buggy. X is a small part of the desktop that is not quite as bad as gnome, kde etc. as it is older and therefore more refined. Fresco is unpolished and raw. That is exactly what we don't want. And we don't want to recode every single graphical app either. 2. You suggest reading the page. What I read on the page is that they concede that CORBA is slightly slower than X proticol and also they make no claim that it will perform any better with multiple windows open etc. They concede that X has real-world measurment support and make the feeble claim that it is simply being ignored. Instead they simply beleive that in their project measurements will not be ignored although in all probibility people will still use pixels and bitmaps and all the other evil unscalable nasty things. To me this assumption of theirs seems completly unfounded. The X compatibility will be discussed later. 3. It's not done indeed. And it wont be done for absolutely ages. Therefore in eight or nine years when it is usable the Open Source desktop community will have a couple of choices. 1 rewrite every graphical program ever done (which would number much heigher once fresco is finished). 2 use X compatibility and therefore entrust their graphical performance to a stopgap layer of twisted emulation and also invalidate pretty much every new inervation in the entire system. 3 port GTK+, QT, TCL and every other widget toolkit to fresco meaning that full native porting is easy but the entire notion of desktop consistancy goes streight out the window. or 4 forget about fresco and just keep on using X. To me 1 seems time consuming, counterproductive, 2 seems pointless, 3 seems to undermine half of the point of fresco and 4 seems to be the most likely option, sorry.
Frankly, a rival project is a good thing. Good luck to Fresco for doing something that no one else dares, writing what could turn in to an X substitue
Frankly rival projects are what got GNU/LINUX into trouble in the first place. Twice as much coding is needed for the same result or alternativly the same amount of coding half as much results. Rival projects is why the OSS desktop is inconsistant. Rival projects is why copy and paste are shoddy. Have you noticed that the gimp is unrivaled in its field and it happens to be one of the only graphical applications that is up to the standard of its commertial rivals.
This is not like CERN and Fermilab or Ford and GM or Pepsi and Coke, this is a break in methods of communication. This is isolation of projects and being such an integral part of the pc environment will effect communication throughout all graphical applications. This will mean that not only graphical server development will be split but every application too (unless you want to rely on shoddy emulation layer).
It makes me cringe with the irony that a project that seeks to make the desktop more consistant is makeing it even more inconsistant. Frankly though it just makes me sad.
There is an atmosphere on mars. Why the heck do you think they whacked parachutes onto viking? As a napkin? Come on!
Just because an atmosphere is not breathable doesn't mean it does not exist. Take a seedy nightclub or pub as an example. Just because the cigarette smoke, BO and other such cruft makes it absolutely unbarable to breath doesn't make it a vacume.
Mars' atmosphere is mainly CO2 with a little N2 floating around so it would just be like a paper bag that has been breathed into and from for a while but with a little more CO2.
I guess you are right that someone would die after landing on Mars because it has no breathable oxygen. However they would live longer than you thought because they would not pop like one would on a planet totally devoid of atmosphere (at least not as fast). The temperature would not be as extreme either. I guess if you packed George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Areial Sharon, Yasser Arafat and anyone who supports these people into the rocket with a few scuba sets, some warm angora sweaters and some strong Burbon (for staying warm on the cold martian nights) they could form nice friendly community until they either run out of burbon/oxygen or renounce violence and we can fly them back home.
Come to think about it that is a pretty cool idea.
Just take a look at the statistics in the places where people can choose to pay for Windows or get Linux free to get an idea of why the opportunity is so tasty to India.
Just take a look at past corruption allegations towards the Indian government and you will get an idea why the opportunity is so tasty to India.
Who has more money? The largest Microsoft stakeholder and richest man in the world or a MIT professor and volenteer coder?
Sorry to any Indian readers but from what horror stories my subcontinental friends have given me it just seems the most likely reason they have for going M$
Inovative? It seems to me that hurd is just a server layer built above the MACH microkernel. What is so original about that? I see hundreds of non-monolithic kernels (BeOS and Windows to name a couple) I see only one monolithic kernel, LINUX. Hurd advocates seem to claim the fact that their kernel is split into bits as it's major selling point, so do BeOS users. Hurd advocates rave on about their Object Orientated Design and extendability. But so do BeOS zealots. So the two main selling points have allready been done.
I think reaserecting the idea of a monolithic kernel in the nineties was more inovative then just following the general trends of woosy componant based kernels. I also find the fact that hurd is based on the frigging MACH microkernel (built by Carnegie Mellon University) as conclusive proof that it was not original. In fact the hurd kernel is really the MACH microkernel (the rest is just a layer of servers on top) and that in turn is just a recoding of someone else's kernel therefore it is not new, it is not original it is the same old thing that has been pumped out by NeXT and Apple and anyone else who has used the MACH kernel.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against MACH, it is just not original, that's all.
LINUX is original. Although LINUX was built to be a little like MINIX it was 1.Monolithic, 2. Heavily optimised and 3. Successful. all of those things do not apply to minix.
When Linus Torvalds wrote Linux he was critisised for making it monolithic because it was not the done thing of the day. It was seen as simple and antiquated. Now look where it is!
I think it is unfair for people to critisise LINUX in favor of HURD. Just because something is simple and monolithic does not mean it is bad.
If it's expensive to buy, it's usually expensive to mainain.
Have you noticed how those stupid owners of those inbread pedagree dogs seem to spend much more time and money combing preening and feeding their pathetic pooches than most owners of lovable mutts. The reason for that is they payed an exorbatant price for the "nance value" of their dog and they want to keep it as pampered as possible.
Microsoft windows is like a purebread afghan hound. It's huge in size, it's increadibly stupid and it's expensive because it is purebread. Linux is like my cute little mongrel. It's smaller, smarter, costs less to feed and was given away.
Plus my little mutt is adorable, just like a fluffy penguin.
The cable only streached through about half of the british empire.
the cable did not stretch through India or any of Britains african territories or members of the commonwealth (South Africa, Egypt, Zimbabwe (then Rhodisia) etc.) It also did not pass through Hong Kong which was leased from the chineese five years or so before nor the british islands in the Carribean.
Is is hardly then the _All_ red route rather a good chunk of red.
If windows became self aware I would assume that they may get a humanitarian attitude and shut itself down without request regually to save us the pain of using it
Hang on... My win98 box already does that! And to think, I critisise mircrosoft for shody coding!
Come to think of it... I wondered what that big rectangular prismatic monilith was doing next to my box, next thing I know it will become a star child.
O.k. So the content of the sites should be dictated by what is currently legal?
I am certainly not advocating the killing of anyone (hell the anti-abortion movement was about preserving life last time I checked) but disputing what is moral and what isn't possibly to the point of suggesting breaking laws is part of free speech.
I don't think there are many NAZI advocates here so I will use them as an example.Back when they were in control it was illegal to be a jew. Does that mean that anyone that broke that law and escaped the haulocaust alive was moraly corrupt?
By shutting down these sites one side of the debate is silenced and this must be considered a kick in the teeth to free speech.
By the way, in Ireland for example aborting fetus = bloody illegal, linching doctor that performs abortions = technically illegal but no one gives a damn (at least not as heavily punished as aborting a feotus). Does this mean it is right to linch abortionists? Should the anti-linching sites be banned?
Of course not, linching people is murder and just because the lincher does not think it is wrong doesn't make it right for them to do.
For a player to work it must decript that file at some point. This may happen in the actual DRM subsystem, the kernel or user space on the main computer or even on another layer of hardware working like a current-day MPEG decoder. The main thing is unincrypted data will need to be flying around sometime in the computation process. If this were not so the sound, image or program output would be still encoded and useless to humans. The human interface layers have to be unencrypted to facilitate human interaction.
This is a problem for DRM, this data theoretically can be used in any conseivable way given the right instructions are given to the layer. Therefore to restrict the usage of this data the instructions (i.e. the softwear) must also be limited. This leads to restrictions on softwear usage.But I fear I have only reiterated your last point...
The reason this contradicts the principles of OS and the FSF is that modification is almost imposible.
Modification is given as a right to consumers under section 2 of the GPL:
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
I find your most humourous statement to be:
Additionally you'd have to carefully compile it on OSS systems to ensure that the key binaries are an exact match to the middlemans approved list.
ARE YOU ON CRACK??? That completely undermines the entire perpose of compiling it yourself in the first place! I use GCC-3.2 on LINUX on an AMD Duron (i686) using certain versions of many libraries. My binaries are very different to someone that uses my exact configuration but with GCC-3.1 or uses HURD or has a SPARC or has an binary incompatible version of some dynamic library or links the thing statically. Hence every combination of hardwear, softwear, package configuration must be accounted for with a different checksum. And sometimes I make tiny modifictations to some of my programs, what then?
The fact is that it would be imposible to varefy. And without the right to change, recompile and port OSS what the hell is the point in having it.
In conclusion:
If unsecure softwear is on a computer DRM can be circumvented.
OSS cannot be varified without totatly undermining the whole consept and must then be insecure.
DRM and OSS cannot coexist
The best way to counteract OSS is security through obscurity. That is what must be done to do DRM properly.
Everyone knows that BSD is just a UNIX enhancement/rippoff. How about calling it UNIX/BSD/GNU/LINUX or maybe MULTICS/UNIX/BSD/GNU/LINUX or tracing its history right back to colossus by prefixing STATIONX at the start of the whole lot.
It would make everones life so much more annoying. Fancy attending a Harpsicord/Fortepiano/Pianoforte concert or tracing back your pet dogs entire evolutionary cycle into an immence darwinian nightmare where previously three letters would do.
And some day you might have to trace back your friend's geniology as far back as it goes every time you address them just so your stalmanesque ancestors don't feel like their work is going unnoticed.
don't you think Linux is concise and catchy? Why can't RMS be content. Plus the OS bar the kernel is pretty much done by GNU and nobody talks about Apple/MacOS or the like in a slash separated format why should the LINUX (-see that) community?
What I mean is Ceren is obviously dressed up because she enjoys a slightly obscure, open source O.S.The other girl I assume dresses like that to just look like a hoe. Maybe the girl I pointed to is more physically attractive. But no woman, however beautiful could get me a as hard as a unix.
Although costers may exert more force on their riders then most astranauts experience during takeoff the duration is shorter.
It takes a fraction of a second to go round a tight bancked courner in a roller coster. An astranout endures a rapid acceleration for many minutes.
The amount of deformation of an object (e.g. a human skull), as any high school physics student knows is dependant on the time period as well as simply the force. This is why one may survive a car crash at forty G's but one cannot survive having forty times their own body weight placed upon them.
I know that even 21 million is a fairly puny population, but five million. That's pathetic. maybe your talking about New Zealand?
Australia kicks Europes arse, but we are united in one respect. Neither of us likes those unstable, fuzzy pieces of potentially monopolistic sh** X-boxes, and in that respect I am proud of both our continants. And Japan, they hate them too
The difference between holding an X-Box and a play-station controller is the difference between picking up a cinder block and caressing the sencual curves of a beautiful woman
I chose open source because It lets me do what I want when I want! If I wanted some stinking softwhere that thinks it knows how to administer MY COMPUTER I would be running windows and taking my orders from a paperclip. If you want to have your computer to tell me when to upgrade I may as well pay attention to the warnings I get about non microsoft cirtified files being downloaded off the net.
p.s. I happen to like antiquated technology. Did anyone see that episode of red dwarf where kryton get's superseeded? It's a bit like that for me
Advanced Placement test for high-school students be given in Java instead of C ++, an older language supported by Microsoft
Poor m$!
Do you realise what us mean open *Xers are doin to them with our evil open virus. We are crippling them with biased standards like java.
Apparently arguably the most cross platform language in the world is not "supported" by microsoft (although clearly supported by the windows platform.)
I personally suggest we move to true open standards supported by everyone like.NET for example. With these standards everyone can enjoy portablility with.NET easily implementable on all O.S.s (as long as you havent seen the source code that is)
It's time we all played nice with the virgin rapeing monster and stoped exposing them to our source code so they will forever be contaminated. I swear gnu/linux users are so keen on this that barely a program may be obtained without also getting the evil infectous source.
Slashdot Mirror
I concede that AIDS may kill more people than any deer thing and I am not claiming it is not a big issue. However AIDS is not exactly breaking news and the fact that people decide to name a day after it makes no difference to that fact. If slashdot kept in touch with all of the days we wouldn't have time for anything current as current issues have not been around for long enough to name a day after.
Until of cource there is a "Cronic deer wasting day" which of course would simply be a bunch or NRA rednecks with rifles charging around a forest cronically wasting deers for scientific research.
Now that would be news
1. Why not? They want a better, simpler windowing environment.
2. Read the page. There are performance issues, resolution issues, and network issues. They also hope to add an X compatibilty layer at some point.
3. It's not done, not by a longshot.
And you don't realise your answers are flawed
1. Why not? I'll tell you why not, the average open source desktop is rough and burred around the edges, it is immature and majorly buggy. X is a small part of the desktop that is not quite as bad as gnome, kde etc. as it is older and therefore more refined. Fresco is unpolished and raw. That is exactly what we don't want. And we don't want to recode every single graphical app either.
2. You suggest reading the page. What I read on the page is that they concede that CORBA is slightly slower than X proticol and also they make no claim that it will perform any better with multiple windows open etc. They concede that X has real-world measurment support and make the feeble claim that it is simply being ignored. Instead they simply beleive that in their project measurements will not be ignored although in all probibility people will still use pixels and bitmaps and all the other evil unscalable nasty things. To me this assumption of theirs seems completly unfounded. The X compatibility will be discussed later.
3. It's not done indeed. And it wont be done for absolutely ages. Therefore in eight or nine years when it is usable the Open Source desktop community will have a couple of choices. 1 rewrite every graphical program ever done (which would number much heigher once fresco is finished). 2 use X compatibility and therefore entrust their graphical performance to a stopgap layer of twisted emulation and also invalidate pretty much every new inervation in the entire system. 3 port GTK+, QT, TCL and every other widget toolkit to fresco meaning that full native porting is easy but the entire notion of desktop consistancy goes streight out the window. or 4 forget about fresco and just keep on using X. To me 1 seems time consuming, counterproductive, 2 seems pointless, 3 seems to undermine half of the point of fresco and 4 seems to be the most likely option, sorry.
Frankly, a rival project is a good thing. Good luck to Fresco for doing something that no one else dares, writing what could turn in to an X substitue
Frankly rival projects are what got GNU/LINUX into trouble in the first place. Twice as much coding is needed for the same result or alternativly the same amount of coding half as much results. Rival projects is why the OSS desktop is inconsistant. Rival projects is why copy and paste are shoddy. Have you noticed that the gimp is unrivaled in its field and it happens to be one of the only graphical applications that is up to the standard of its commertial rivals.
This is not like CERN and Fermilab or Ford and GM or Pepsi and Coke, this is a break in methods of communication. This is isolation of projects and being such an integral part of the pc environment will effect communication throughout all graphical applications. This will mean that not only graphical server development will be split but every application too (unless you want to rely on shoddy emulation layer).
It makes me cringe with the irony that a project that seeks to make the desktop more consistant is makeing it even more inconsistant. Frankly though it just makes me sad.
Just because an atmosphere is not breathable doesn't mean it does not exist. Take a seedy nightclub or pub as an example. Just because the cigarette smoke, BO and other such cruft makes it absolutely unbarable to breath doesn't make it a vacume.
Mars' atmosphere is mainly CO2 with a little N2 floating around so it would just be like a paper bag that has been breathed into and from for a while but with a little more CO2.
I guess you are right that someone would die after landing on Mars because it has no breathable oxygen. However they would live longer than you thought because they would not pop like one would on a planet totally devoid of atmosphere (at least not as fast). The temperature would not be as extreme either. I guess if you packed George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Areial Sharon, Yasser Arafat and anyone who supports these people into the rocket with a few scuba sets, some warm angora sweaters and some strong Burbon (for staying warm on the cold martian nights) they could form nice friendly community until they either run out of burbon/oxygen or renounce violence and we can fly them back home.
Come to think about it that is a pretty cool idea.
Just take a look at past corruption allegations towards the Indian government and you will get an idea why the opportunity is so tasty to India.
Who has more money? The largest Microsoft stakeholder and richest man in the world or a MIT professor and volenteer coder?
Sorry to any Indian readers but from what horror stories my subcontinental friends have given me it just seems the most likely reason they have for going M$
I think reaserecting the idea of a monolithic kernel in the nineties was more inovative then just following the general trends of woosy componant based kernels. I also find the fact that hurd is based on the frigging MACH microkernel (built by Carnegie Mellon University) as conclusive proof that it was not original. In fact the hurd kernel is really the MACH microkernel (the rest is just a layer of servers on top) and that in turn is just a recoding of someone else's kernel therefore it is not new, it is not original it is the same old thing that has been pumped out by NeXT and Apple and anyone else who has used the MACH kernel.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against MACH, it is just not original, that's all.
LINUX is original. Although LINUX was built to be a little like MINIX it was 1.Monolithic, 2. Heavily optimised and 3. Successful. all of those things do not apply to minix.
When Linus Torvalds wrote Linux he was critisised for making it monolithic because it was not the done thing of the day. It was seen as simple and antiquated. Now look where it is!
I think it is unfair for people to critisise LINUX in favor of HURD. Just because something is simple and monolithic does not mean it is bad.
Have you noticed how those stupid owners of those inbread pedagree dogs seem to spend much more time and money combing preening and feeding their pathetic pooches than most owners of lovable mutts. The reason for that is they payed an exorbatant price for the "nance value" of their dog and they want to keep it as pampered as possible.
Microsoft windows is like a purebread afghan hound. It's huge in size, it's increadibly stupid and it's expensive because it is purebread. Linux is like my cute little mongrel. It's smaller, smarter, costs less to feed and was given away.
Plus my little mutt is adorable, just like a fluffy penguin.
the cable did not stretch through India or any of Britains african territories or members of the commonwealth (South Africa, Egypt, Zimbabwe (then Rhodisia) etc.) It also did not pass through Hong Kong which was leased from the chineese five years or so before nor the british islands in the Carribean.
Is is hardly then the _All_ red route rather a good chunk of red.
Hang on... My win98 box already does that! And to think, I critisise mircrosoft for shody coding!
Come to think of it... I wondered what that big rectangular prismatic monilith was doing next to my box, next thing I know it will become a star child.
I am certainly not advocating the killing of anyone (hell the anti-abortion movement was about preserving life last time I checked) but disputing what is moral and what isn't possibly to the point of suggesting breaking laws is part of free speech.
I don't think there are many NAZI advocates here so I will use them as an example.Back when they were in control it was illegal to be a jew. Does that mean that anyone that broke that law and escaped the haulocaust alive was moraly corrupt?
By shutting down these sites one side of the debate is silenced and this must be considered a kick in the teeth to free speech.
By the way, in Ireland for example aborting fetus = bloody illegal, linching doctor that performs abortions = technically illegal but no one gives a damn (at least not as heavily punished as aborting a feotus). Does this mean it is right to linch abortionists? Should the anti-linching sites be banned?
Of course not, linching people is murder and just because the lincher does not think it is wrong doesn't make it right for them to do.
For a player to work it must decript that file at some point. This may happen in the actual DRM subsystem, the kernel or user space on the main computer or even on another layer of hardware working like a current-day MPEG decoder. The main thing is unincrypted data will need to be flying around sometime in the computation process. If this were not so the sound, image or program output would be still encoded and useless to humans. The human interface layers have to be unencrypted to facilitate human interaction.
This is a problem for DRM, this data theoretically can be used in any conseivable way given the right instructions are given to the layer. Therefore to restrict the usage of this data the instructions (i.e. the softwear) must also be limited. This leads to restrictions on softwear usage.But I fear I have only reiterated your last point...
The reason this contradicts the principles of OS and the FSF is that modification is almost imposible.
Modification is given as a right to consumers under section 2 of the GPL:
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
I find your most humourous statement to be:
Additionally you'd have to carefully compile it on OSS systems to ensure that the key binaries are an exact match to the middlemans approved list.
ARE YOU ON CRACK??? That completely undermines the entire perpose of compiling it yourself in the first place! I use GCC-3.2 on LINUX on an AMD Duron (i686) using certain versions of many libraries. My binaries are very different to someone that uses my exact configuration but with GCC-3.1 or uses HURD or has a SPARC or has an binary incompatible version of some dynamic library or links the thing statically. Hence every combination of hardwear, softwear, package configuration must be accounted for with a different checksum. And sometimes I make tiny modifictations to some of my programs, what then? The fact is that it would be imposible to varefy. And without the right to change, recompile and port OSS what the hell is the point in having it.
In conclusion:
If unsecure softwear is on a computer DRM can be circumvented.
OSS cannot be varified without totatly undermining the whole consept and must then be insecure.
DRM and OSS cannot coexist
The best way to counteract OSS is security through obscurity. That is what must be done to do DRM properly.
It would make everones life so much more annoying. Fancy attending a Harpsicord/Fortepiano/Pianoforte concert or tracing back your pet dogs entire evolutionary cycle into an immence darwinian nightmare where previously three letters would do.
And some day you might have to trace back your friend's geniology as far back as it goes every time you address them just so your stalmanesque ancestors don't feel like their work is going unnoticed.
don't you think Linux is concise and catchy? Why can't RMS be content. Plus the OS bar the kernel is pretty much done by GNU and nobody talks about Apple/MacOS or the like in a slash separated format why should the LINUX (-see that) community?
What, you yanks don't have trackless hovertrains?
That's one of the reasons why Europe is better (besides the Food Art and Culture)
Claw hammer, slegde hammer. What's next, Jack hammer?
or maybe warhammer, I bags a chaos chip
What I mean is Ceren is obviously dressed up because she enjoys a slightly obscure, open source O.S.The other girl I assume dresses like that to just look like a hoe. Maybe the girl I pointed to is more physically attractive. But no woman, however beautiful could get me a as hard as a unix.
Although costers may exert more force on their riders then most astranauts experience during takeoff the duration is shorter.
It takes a fraction of a second to go round a tight bancked courner in a roller coster. An astranout endures a rapid acceleration for many minutes.
The amount of deformation of an object (e.g. a human skull), as any high school physics student knows is dependant on the time period as well as simply the force. This is why one may survive a car crash at forty G's but one cannot survive having forty times their own body weight placed upon them.
Five million!!!
There are more then that in sydney alone.
I know that even 21 million is a fairly puny population, but five million. That's pathetic. maybe your talking about New Zealand?
Australia kicks Europes arse, but we are united in one respect. Neither of us likes those unstable, fuzzy pieces of potentially monopolistic sh** X-boxes, and in that respect I am proud of both our continants. And Japan, they hate them too
The difference between holding an X-Box and a play-station controller is the difference between picking up a cinder block and caressing the sencual curves of a beautiful woman
I chose open source because It lets me do what I want when I want! If I wanted some stinking softwhere that thinks it knows how to administer MY COMPUTER I would be running windows and taking my orders from a paperclip. If you want to have your computer to tell me when to upgrade I may as well pay attention to the warnings I get about non microsoft cirtified files being downloaded off the net.
p.s. I happen to like antiquated technology. Did anyone see that episode of red dwarf where kryton get's superseeded? It's a bit like that for me
Advanced Placement test for high-school students be given in Java instead of C ++, an older language supported by Microsoft
Poor m$!
Do you realise what us mean open *Xers are doin to them with our evil open virus. We are crippling them with biased standards like java.
Apparently arguably the most cross platform language in the world is not "supported" by microsoft (although clearly supported by the windows platform.)
I personally suggest we move to true open standards supported by everyone like .NET for example. With these standards everyone can enjoy portablility with .NET easily implementable on all O.S.s (as long as you havent seen the source code that is)
It's time we all played nice with the virgin rapeing monster and stoped exposing them to our source code so they will forever be contaminated. I swear gnu/linux users are so keen on this that barely a program may be obtained without also getting the evil infectous source.
Leave the nice gorgon alone!!