For me, the big one is texture resolution.. on the 360/ps3, they use a ton of post processing effects to cover up the low polycount models and low resolution textures. They give a 'wow' component the way those tvs at bestbuy do when theyr'e all set to 'vivid' mode.
Sure, but if you're even remotely into gaming, you're not going to want a superthin machine because you can't get decent performance from them. There's also an issue of driver breakage. I won't even touch radeons for that reason, and Intel's drivers are even more broken. Intel gpus are 'ok' in a pinch, if the game is flexible enough (ie a quick impromptu deathmatch at the office after work), but I would never consider them viable for gaming, CAD, or other 3D graphics design work.
The whole premise of the comment I replied to was that intel was eyeballing linux as a gaming platform. They don't even target windows as a gaming platform. Their focus has always been 'just enough to run a composited desktop without too much lag.' They appear to compete better because, until recently, games have been held back by the 2005 era gpu technology in the consoles.
That said I am glad their drivers are reaching parity. This is good news for all those people who do use these gpus..and a lot of people do use them.
Yes, because intel's gpus have always been at the forefront of graphics performance, starting with the no-buffer, AGP constrained i740 in 1998 through to today's 5000 series, right? Of course, I don't mind more competition in the market, but I wouldn't get excited. Their gpus are only good enough for office work and the occasional 3D screensaver.. The very best variants can play some semi-recent titles acceptably at ~1280x720, but that's about it. (acceptably = ~40fps, low to medium details, possibly some shader breakage) They've only appeared to have gotten better because the games were held back to 2005 era gpu performance. That is not so anymore.. Expect current intel designs to be about as much use for upcoming games as the "Intel Media Decelerator" 9xx series was 10 years ago.
This has little to do with the architecture and mostly to do with vendor support. This has always been a problem for non-windows OSes. Even apple's opengl isn't exactly the best in terms of performance. Linux easily outperforms it when using nvidia's driver.
Yeah I know they do. That hasn't stopped anyone from exploiting things, has it? They said the same thing about java in the 90s, then the same about.NET, and now the browser sandboxes. They've all had exploits in the past, and the safe thing to do is to assume they'll have more exposed in the future.
ASLR and DEP are hardware features that windows xp supported with sp2. My point stands: The best defenses are prudent operating procedures, not big 'update now' buttons that make people feel safe when it is not an automatic given..or worse, forced updates that may or may not protect them but also remove features that are in conflict with current business models of the vendor. How many times have you heard "But I have all the latest system updates, how could it be a virus?" or "where did that feature go?"
The rest is just ad hominem. My statements are not motivated by fear. I am sure windows 8 is more robust than XP, but they've been saying this about the newer version of windows since windows 95, and they've all been thoroughly compromised along the way. I no longer fret about it quite so much. It's just not worth it. Use what works for your workflow, operate sanely (frequent backups, regular restore of OS from known clean image), and you'll be fine. If the user's the kind of dumbass that clicks on shit without thinking first, well then he gets what he deserves regardless of which OS he runs. There is no helping him.
Service Pack 2, a.k.a. when XP really became stable, was way back in 2004. SP3 was back in 2008, still 5 years ago. If you think about XP being NT2000 with a nicer GUI, then the design was set way back in 1997 or so, back when dialup was king and an AOL disk was not yet a running joke.
Argument from antiquity fallacy. Older designs are not necessarily inferior. Using your logic, I could make the same claims about bsd and linux, since their design tenets date back even earlier than windows NT. You also conflate GUI design with security. AOL was a joke from the beginning.. Where have you been?
To those that say "well my computer works fine".. umm, no it doesn't. Your OS was designed in 1997-2001, in a relatively much safer Internet environment, and is not designed for always on persistent attacks with billions of dollars available by hacking. As much as I think Microsoft keeps people out to dry, at some point you need to update.
So as of the last patch tuesday, do you think you're now secure? You'd be a fool to think so. The proof is in the next batch of patches due out next tuesday. It's your behavior and process that has the greatest impact on your security and not whether you're running $LATEST_VERSION. Assume you're compromised from the start, and you're more apt to back up your data regularly, and simply reimage every month or so. It sure beats depending on snake oil AV, which, like vendor patches, may or may not protect you.
The threats just manifested differently back then. It's still the same concept of a payloader and a drop. The only difference is that now payloaders are also written in javascript. If anything, it's today's up to date scriptable browsers that have caused security to get worse. If you care about security, you'll vouch for the death of javascript and similar technologies. This will do a lot more for security than making users think they're safer just because they've got the latest version of something.
The most irrational bullshit ever. If the equipment works fine, leave it be. Changing software around just to bump the OS revision on high uptime equipment is a fool's game. THAT is idiocy.
..or they built a business around natural scarcity, such as network presence that requires things like bandwidth, server maintenance, and support. Nothing wrong with that.
Scarcity of access really doesn't work that well with media, software, or ideas...even with a police state.
1. No it doesn't. It says that users of binaries with gpl code in them have a right to the source upon request. The vendor has the right to ask a small distribution fee for this.
2. Well, yes, it is viral. So are many closed source licenses. This virility protects the freedom inherent in any original code remaining in the program after the changes. You would say this to anyone wanting source access to closed applications, right? For those, you charge money, for GPL the cost is your code, which then keeps the application and its evolution free for others to use and modify. The point is to maintain this freedom of access and use to everyone. If you don't want to distribute your changes to a GPL program, don't distribute your binaries. You could also ask the author for an alternative license as he still holds the copyright.
3. No, it doesn't. You can GPL software and charge money for access.. What you can't do is limit what the user does with it afterwards other than demand he respect the GPL (thus you get access to your user's changes). Obviously this won't work if your goal is to drive value by artificial scarcity of access. If so, that's fine, but then the GPL isn't for you. It's not a danger. Just don't use it. As far as other assets go, the author can choose what parts are licensed in any way he chooses. The GPL does not prevent this, nor can it. For example, the quake3 source code was released under GPL by id software, but the data files were not. Years before this happened, id software distributed quake3 binary only on linux and was in full compliance. There are plenty of binary only applications that run natively and legally on linux/gnu userland.
4. If so, then the only 'license' that works for you is public domain/no license at all. You're welcome to do that with your own code.
The rest of your statement is based on your broken presuppositions. It also sounds like you're demanding that OSS developers release under a BSD like license just so you can take their code, use it to compete against them, and give nothing back. Well, again, it's up to the authors to decide, but obviously a bunch of them want to be paid for their work in 'code' rather than in cash in order to keep the project's evolution open. If you're an end user who has not distributed changed binaries, you are not under any obligation to anyone.
Btw, there is also the LGPL, which allows dynamic linking to GPL libraries without having to comply with the GPL for your application's source. This has been around for decades now, so I am surprised you haven't heard about it. Many GPL libraries are licensed under this. The GPL does not demand that code compiled with GPL tools be GPL'd. Where do you get this bullshit misinformation?
As far as anti-cheat/gold mining goes, closed source binaries don't seem to do much for that either, since 100% of that has been done on closed source games, and 100% of it has been defeated. Blaming the GPL for this is mind numbingly stupid.
I see nothing wrong with kickstarter projects. I think it's great. The community gets an open product that will last through many generations of hardware/platforms as long as there is interest, and the developers get paid for their work. Sure beats paying over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for SaaS crapola that basically has no value as it could disappear at any time.
I'm supposedly the mental patient, yet all you have is ad hominem? I didn't say it was that way, now. I'm saying it is very likely it will be that way in the future. The money will have to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't, which is likely, costs must be cut.. This will result in legislation. It is NOT an unreasonable assumption.
That's ok. Keep your head in the ground, ostrich. If it's not happening to you RIGHT NOW, it must never happen, or ever will happen. Also, since I don't know anything about your life, I have no idea if, indeed, you have been living that way or not.
It depends doesn't it? In the case of places paying over 50% tax, maybe they haven't needed to yet, as they have the money. It's when funds get tight that they'll push for behavior modification. Even before obamacare passed, here in NYC, bloomberg already pushed for that stupid soda ban. Down the road, the left WILL demand it in order to save obamacare money when that shitpile inevitably goes into the red.
I'm sure it is.. It's a well known fact that living 'correctly' results in longer lifespans but at sharply reduced enjoyment, so the only way to get there is to restrict liberties. No thanks. If you're interested in facts surrounding controversial topics, you'll probably have to go collect them yourself as media outlets like the guardian are notorious for not giving the full picture. All you're really doing is picking your favorite bandwagon to side with.
I don't buy into any of the given excuses for crazy wealth redistribution. In fact, I'd probably want to die sooner, having more than half my life's work siphoned off, while only eating what the state tells me to eat so that it can save money on my health to spend on other stupid shit. I do not want to be one of its cogs. Freedom is as important to health and wellbeing as diet and exercise.
I suppose it's not difficult to provide 'ok', cue-based care when the population's income is taxed over 50%, but I wouldn't call that a success story. Unfortunately, here in the states we tax almost as much (income+sales) and manage to have the money siphoned off into other bullshit, making it obvious that the last people we want spending our money are the current crop of politicians.
Yes.. Bush and his crew created it, and Obama's extended it. He also voted for PATRIOT as a senator. Bush and Obama really are two faces of the same coin. In fact, Obama ran on the promise of shutting down secret prisons and killing off PATRIOT. What did he do? Extend the bill and move the secret prisons here, giving precedent to expand them on american soil, later. Also, do not forget about the expansion secret courts and the denial of proper due process for the sake of 'national security.'
I agree that the US has become less civilized, but you can't say your own (I'm assuming western european) country(ies) are any better. For one, many are quite happy being the lapdogs of the US fed and the fortune 100 (eg copyright cartel), and secondly, like the US, their own, current policies routinely clobber freedom for the sake of mob rule and the coddling of its collective, kneejerk feelings. Unlike the US, however, they don't even have free speech, self defense rights, and protection from unwarranted search, codified into their laws, which leads to even more abuse than the average US citizen gets in the US. What's more 'civilized' about that? I think the western world needs to reevaluate its priorities lest it become the harbinger of the next dark age.
Just a bit disingenuous, no? The countries with the socialist bias are almost always about to run out of money, even with crazy tax rates (eg sweden). While I'm sure the world bank brats would love never to have to pay any tax, they do have a point. Take it too far either way causes too much power to be focused on too few people, with little oversight.
It boils down to who has control of the money, right? Whether it's the world bank, or the state, both are rife with corruption.
It will go right into the coffers of the corrupt politicians running those countries. Just like here in the states..except we can hide it better through multiple layers of bureaucracy. Those countries have it bad because we helped them move beyond their self sufficiency point. Giving them more resources just causes them to pump out more thugspawn. Enough already.
Private evil this private evil that.. look, insurance companies are manipulative and profit seeking, but having the state manage it is no better. They have the power to dictate your behavior the moment you receive care. You can bet they will, once obamacare takes off. Fuck that.
Pay less? I doubt it, especially over the long term. It doesn't matter if we overpay the insurance companies or the state..both are experts at wasting other people's money.
Which apparently requires many intrusions on freedom and liberty, rapidly driving down the quality of life to the point of not worth living status. For what? To pay of the crazy debt the government has accrued over the last 5 decades? Fuck them. I didn't ask for this nor did I vote for it.
The last thing I want is the state telling me what I may eat, how much, when and where I must exercise, how much I must work, and when and where I may travel. Of course, all of this is required in order to 'live longer, work longer, and pay more tax.' Fuck that.
The reason they changed the name from metro was that it implied 'metrosexual', or 'gay', which is what the critics were saying already. The irony was galvanic enough to break through the thick skulls at microsoft marketing...
um.. windows has always been a malware gangbang.. Think about it, if you patch on tuesday, and there's more patches to be had next tuesday, were you ever truly secure up to that point? No. If you assume you're compromised or compromisable from the beginning, it doesn't really matter whether ms issues patches for it or not because your operating procedures will reflect this reality and minimize the risk. Does that risk go up a little as time goes by with no new updates? Maybe.. but it's unlikely you'll run into them unless you deliberately expose your system.
Assumed compromise is the best SOP to have these days regardless of OS. Back up often and just wipe the disk and restore from an image every month or so. Fuck it. It's easier than playing with snake oil AV software that may or may not get rid of infections (ie if (vendor->id="NSA") return 0;).
There was a time when the majority of slashdot readers WOULD know how to get an in-development project like wayland up and running on their boxes, regardless of distro..
Slashdot Mirror
For me, the big one is texture resolution.. on the 360/ps3, they use a ton of post processing effects to cover up the low polycount models and low resolution textures. They give a 'wow' component the way those tvs at bestbuy do when theyr'e all set to 'vivid' mode.
Sure, but if you're even remotely into gaming, you're not going to want a superthin machine because you can't get decent performance from them. There's also an issue of driver breakage. I won't even touch radeons for that reason, and Intel's drivers are even more broken. Intel gpus are 'ok' in a pinch, if the game is flexible enough (ie a quick impromptu deathmatch at the office after work), but I would never consider them viable for gaming, CAD, or other 3D graphics design work.
The whole premise of the comment I replied to was that intel was eyeballing linux as a gaming platform. They don't even target windows as a gaming platform. Their focus has always been 'just enough to run a composited desktop without too much lag.' They appear to compete better because, until recently, games have been held back by the 2005 era gpu technology in the consoles.
That said I am glad their drivers are reaching parity. This is good news for all those people who do use these gpus..and a lot of people do use them.
Yes, because intel's gpus have always been at the forefront of graphics performance, starting with the no-buffer, AGP constrained i740 in 1998 through to today's 5000 series, right? Of course, I don't mind more competition in the market, but I wouldn't get excited. Their gpus are only good enough for office work and the occasional 3D screensaver.. The very best variants can play some semi-recent titles acceptably at ~1280x720, but that's about it. (acceptably = ~40fps, low to medium details, possibly some shader breakage) They've only appeared to have gotten better because the games were held back to 2005 era gpu performance. That is not so anymore.. Expect current intel designs to be about as much use for upcoming games as the "Intel Media Decelerator" 9xx series was 10 years ago.
This has little to do with the architecture and mostly to do with vendor support. This has always been a problem for non-windows OSes. Even apple's opengl isn't exactly the best in terms of performance. Linux easily outperforms it when using nvidia's driver.
Yeah I know they do. That hasn't stopped anyone from exploiting things, has it? They said the same thing about java in the 90s, then the same about .NET, and now the browser sandboxes. They've all had exploits in the past, and the safe thing to do is to assume they'll have more exposed in the future.
ASLR and DEP are hardware features that windows xp supported with sp2. My point stands: The best defenses are prudent operating procedures, not big 'update now' buttons that make people feel safe when it is not an automatic given..or worse, forced updates that may or may not protect them but also remove features that are in conflict with current business models of the vendor. How many times have you heard "But I have all the latest system updates, how could it be a virus?" or "where did that feature go?"
The rest is just ad hominem. My statements are not motivated by fear. I am sure windows 8 is more robust than XP, but they've been saying this about the newer version of windows since windows 95, and they've all been thoroughly compromised along the way. I no longer fret about it quite so much. It's just not worth it. Use what works for your workflow, operate sanely (frequent backups, regular restore of OS from known clean image), and you'll be fine. If the user's the kind of dumbass that clicks on shit without thinking first, well then he gets what he deserves regardless of which OS he runs. There is no helping him.
Service Pack 2, a.k.a. when XP really became stable, was way back in 2004. SP3 was back in 2008, still 5 years ago. If you think about XP being NT2000 with a nicer GUI, then the design was set way back in 1997 or so, back when dialup was king and an AOL disk was not yet a running joke.
Argument from antiquity fallacy. Older designs are not necessarily inferior. Using your logic, I could make the same claims about bsd and linux, since their design tenets date back even earlier than windows NT. You also conflate GUI design with security. AOL was a joke from the beginning.. Where have you been?
To those that say "well my computer works fine".. umm, no it doesn't. Your OS was designed in 1997-2001, in a relatively much safer Internet environment, and is not designed for always on persistent attacks with billions of dollars available by hacking. As much as I think Microsoft keeps people out to dry, at some point you need to update.
So as of the last patch tuesday, do you think you're now secure? You'd be a fool to think so. The proof is in the next batch of patches due out next tuesday. It's your behavior and process that has the greatest impact on your security and not whether you're running $LATEST_VERSION. Assume you're compromised from the start, and you're more apt to back up your data regularly, and simply reimage every month or so. It sure beats depending on snake oil AV, which, like vendor patches, may or may not protect you.
The threats just manifested differently back then. It's still the same concept of a payloader and a drop. The only difference is that now payloaders are also written in javascript. If anything, it's today's up to date scriptable browsers that have caused security to get worse. If you care about security, you'll vouch for the death of javascript and similar technologies. This will do a lot more for security than making users think they're safer just because they've got the latest version of something.
Deprecation is not always an indicator of progress, especially when 'progress' is defined subjectively.
The most irrational bullshit ever. If the equipment works fine, leave it be. Changing software around just to bump the OS revision on high uptime equipment is a fool's game. THAT is idiocy.
..or they built a business around natural scarcity, such as network presence that requires things like bandwidth, server maintenance, and support. Nothing wrong with that.
Scarcity of access really doesn't work that well with media, software, or ideas...even with a police state.
yup.
1. No it doesn't. It says that users of binaries with gpl code in them have a right to the source upon request. The vendor has the right to ask a small distribution fee for this.
2. Well, yes, it is viral. So are many closed source licenses. This virility protects the freedom inherent in any original code remaining in the program after the changes. You would say this to anyone wanting source access to closed applications, right? For those, you charge money, for GPL the cost is your code, which then keeps the application and its evolution free for others to use and modify. The point is to maintain this freedom of access and use to everyone. If you don't want to distribute your changes to a GPL program, don't distribute your binaries. You could also ask the author for an alternative license as he still holds the copyright.
3. No, it doesn't. You can GPL software and charge money for access.. What you can't do is limit what the user does with it afterwards other than demand he respect the GPL (thus you get access to your user's changes). Obviously this won't work if your goal is to drive value by artificial scarcity of access. If so, that's fine, but then the GPL isn't for you. It's not a danger. Just don't use it. As far as other assets go, the author can choose what parts are licensed in any way he chooses. The GPL does not prevent this, nor can it. For example, the quake3 source code was released under GPL by id software, but the data files were not. Years before this happened, id software distributed quake3 binary only on linux and was in full compliance. There are plenty of binary only applications that run natively and legally on linux/gnu userland.
4. If so, then the only 'license' that works for you is public domain/no license at all. You're welcome to do that with your own code.
The rest of your statement is based on your broken presuppositions. It also sounds like you're demanding that OSS developers release under a BSD like license just so you can take their code, use it to compete against them, and give nothing back. Well, again, it's up to the authors to decide, but obviously a bunch of them want to be paid for their work in 'code' rather than in cash in order to keep the project's evolution open. If you're an end user who has not distributed changed binaries, you are not under any obligation to anyone.
Btw, there is also the LGPL, which allows dynamic linking to GPL libraries without having to comply with the GPL for your application's source. This has been around for decades now, so I am surprised you haven't heard about it. Many GPL libraries are licensed under this. The GPL does not demand that code compiled with GPL tools be GPL'd. Where do you get this bullshit misinformation?
As far as anti-cheat/gold mining goes, closed source binaries don't seem to do much for that either, since 100% of that has been done on closed source games, and 100% of it has been defeated. Blaming the GPL for this is mind numbingly stupid.
I see nothing wrong with kickstarter projects. I think it's great. The community gets an open product that will last through many generations of hardware/platforms as long as there is interest, and the developers get paid for their work. Sure beats paying over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for SaaS crapola that basically has no value as it could disappear at any time.
It's not even about just getting the software, it's about preempting lawsuits. Better to just go GPL/BSD/PD since they are easier to comply with.
I'm supposedly the mental patient, yet all you have is ad hominem? I didn't say it was that way, now. I'm saying it is very likely it will be that way in the future. The money will have to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't, which is likely, costs must be cut.. This will result in legislation. It is NOT an unreasonable assumption.
That's ok. Keep your head in the ground, ostrich. If it's not happening to you RIGHT NOW, it must never happen, or ever will happen. Also, since I don't know anything about your life, I have no idea if, indeed, you have been living that way or not.
It depends doesn't it? In the case of places paying over 50% tax, maybe they haven't needed to yet, as they have the money. It's when funds get tight that they'll push for behavior modification. Even before obamacare passed, here in NYC, bloomberg already pushed for that stupid soda ban. Down the road, the left WILL demand it in order to save obamacare money when that shitpile inevitably goes into the red.
I'm sure it is.. It's a well known fact that living 'correctly' results in longer lifespans but at sharply reduced enjoyment, so the only way to get there is to restrict liberties. No thanks. If you're interested in facts surrounding controversial topics, you'll probably have to go collect them yourself as media outlets like the guardian are notorious for not giving the full picture. All you're really doing is picking your favorite bandwagon to side with.
I don't buy into any of the given excuses for crazy wealth redistribution. In fact, I'd probably want to die sooner, having more than half my life's work siphoned off, while only eating what the state tells me to eat so that it can save money on my health to spend on other stupid shit. I do not want to be one of its cogs. Freedom is as important to health and wellbeing as diet and exercise.
I suppose it's not difficult to provide 'ok', cue-based care when the population's income is taxed over 50%, but I wouldn't call that a success story. Unfortunately, here in the states we tax almost as much (income+sales) and manage to have the money siphoned off into other bullshit, making it obvious that the last people we want spending our money are the current crop of politicians.
Yes.. Bush and his crew created it, and Obama's extended it. He also voted for PATRIOT as a senator. Bush and Obama really are two faces of the same coin. In fact, Obama ran on the promise of shutting down secret prisons and killing off PATRIOT. What did he do? Extend the bill and move the secret prisons here, giving precedent to expand them on american soil, later. Also, do not forget about the expansion secret courts and the denial of proper due process for the sake of 'national security.'
The democrats and republicans need to go..
I agree that the US has become less civilized, but you can't say your own (I'm assuming western european) country(ies) are any better. For one, many are quite happy being the lapdogs of the US fed and the fortune 100 (eg copyright cartel), and secondly, like the US, their own, current policies routinely clobber freedom for the sake of mob rule and the coddling of its collective, kneejerk feelings. Unlike the US, however, they don't even have free speech, self defense rights, and protection from unwarranted search, codified into their laws, which leads to even more abuse than the average US citizen gets in the US. What's more 'civilized' about that? I think the western world needs to reevaluate its priorities lest it become the harbinger of the next dark age.
Just a bit disingenuous, no? The countries with the socialist bias are almost always about to run out of money, even with crazy tax rates (eg sweden). While I'm sure the world bank brats would love never to have to pay any tax, they do have a point. Take it too far either way causes too much power to be focused on too few people, with little oversight.
It boils down to who has control of the money, right? Whether it's the world bank, or the state, both are rife with corruption.
It will go right into the coffers of the corrupt politicians running those countries. Just like here in the states..except we can hide it better through multiple layers of bureaucracy. Those countries have it bad because we helped them move beyond their self sufficiency point. Giving them more resources just causes them to pump out more thugspawn. Enough already.
Private evil this private evil that.. look, insurance companies are manipulative and profit seeking, but having the state manage it is no better. They have the power to dictate your behavior the moment you receive care. You can bet they will, once obamacare takes off. Fuck that.
Pay less? I doubt it, especially over the long term. It doesn't matter if we overpay the insurance companies or the state..both are experts at wasting other people's money.
Which apparently requires many intrusions on freedom and liberty, rapidly driving down the quality of life to the point of not worth living status. For what? To pay of the crazy debt the government has accrued over the last 5 decades? Fuck them. I didn't ask for this nor did I vote for it.
The last thing I want is the state telling me what I may eat, how much, when and where I must exercise, how much I must work, and when and where I may travel. Of course, all of this is required in order to 'live longer, work longer, and pay more tax.' Fuck that.
The reason they changed the name from metro was that it implied 'metrosexual', or 'gay', which is what the critics were saying already. The irony was galvanic enough to break through the thick skulls at microsoft marketing...
um.. windows has always been a malware gangbang.. Think about it, if you patch on tuesday, and there's more patches to be had next tuesday, were you ever truly secure up to that point? No. If you assume you're compromised or compromisable from the beginning, it doesn't really matter whether ms issues patches for it or not because your operating procedures will reflect this reality and minimize the risk. Does that risk go up a little as time goes by with no new updates? Maybe.. but it's unlikely you'll run into them unless you deliberately expose your system.
Assumed compromise is the best SOP to have these days regardless of OS. Back up often and just wipe the disk and restore from an image every month or so. Fuck it. It's easier than playing with snake oil AV software that may or may not get rid of infections (ie if (vendor->id="NSA") return 0;).
There was a time when the majority of slashdot readers WOULD know how to get an in-development project like wayland up and running on their boxes, regardless of distro..
all the more reason not to get involved with modern marriage 2.0.