This would trivially fail as even if the top 1000 sites were to agree to leave Google, each one would *individually* have interest in betraying the plot and staying.
I.e. the bribe price shall not be the *average* but the rational price of betrayal, which is much higher, and actually increases with the number of participants.
Technical impossibility is a non-argument. Strip out perhaps only the most visible things (like the executable).
Make it a free, largely advertised download. Just as Opera/Firefox/Chrome.
It *does* matter a lot because OEM/developpers/whoever will *not* assume that IE exists by default. However easy it is for it to be installed back.
The whole point is that the *user* has to *explicitely choose* MSIE over the competition.
That makes a whole lot of difference.
Obviously you should not let OEM choose - MS has too much leverage there, as the WMP fiasco has proven.
Creating a "Private Mode" guest account with $HOME in/tmpfs is the only possibly safe way. A few scripts can even make it icon-clickable for regular users (ssh -X, etc. ).
But that won't prevent your ISP/Corporate admin to see traffic. Unless you use a Tor plugin - and even then you need to trust Tor exit node.
Point being: it's easier to just not need a "Private Mode" to begin with. Sex is better in real life, anyway.
Much more importantly: in an unregulated, illiquid market most financial entities used "mark-to-model". ie. Use your own, in-house valuation technique to decide whether you made or lost money.
The funny thing is that now both sides of the very same trade can miraculously claim to have gained money comes year-end and bonus computation time. Pay bonus first, ask questions (and pay back) later.
Sure enough, the current crisis was mainly caused by overly lax monetary policy, dogmatic reluctane to regulate and exuberant account deficit causing a flood of sino/petro dollars looking for anything to be invested in, no question asked.
In this grand scheme CDS were just a catalytic corollary. But a particularly immoral (though legal) one. That market urgently needs to be regulated. Some prominent players have been asking for that even since that market took off - witness Ken Griffin, for example. He was spot on.
That's the most important point.
PC OEM are not necessarily happy that said Convicted Monopolist has that much market power. That it can dictate they sell only its products. Making the overall product more expensive.
It matters especially as Asus is really a "Linux Good Citizen", with Linux embedded into motherboard and mass-market Linux latops (eee).
Now Asus can say: we tried everything we could to do as you dictated us to do, but you see, it's just the law.
This is huge.
[i]Our discussions with you have led us to conclude that, in the interim, you would take steps that would make Yahoo! undesirable as an acquisition for Microsoft.[/i]Confirmation that throwing the G-word in front of Ballmer drives him out of any deal
[i]clearly a deal is not meant to be[/i] - that could well be Microsoft's sig.
Higher areal density means transfer speed increase. Even if you don't care about using 4TB - just only format the first 1TB and you got yourself a 75% transfer boost and, much more importantly, a 33% latency decrease (seek latency being divided by four, rotational latency unchanged).
This also means 40GB iPod minis... Seen how the hard drive market recentered to consumer electronics in the last few years?
Maglev is not "new" technology - it is more than 30 years old. It has inherent unsolvable disadvantages:
- extraordinarily expensive tracks (not because of high-tech but just basic concrete building costs)
- extraordinarily complex network (how do you fork again?)
- no integration at all with the existing network. This one is the real killer. TGVs can ride virtually the whole network - be it at reduced speed. Network effect is a key factor of railways economics.
- usually worse comfort level than with rail-road (that may eventually be overcome but I doubt it). It does not "fly" above the track, it suffers a very inelastic magnetic repulsion/attractin force.
- much less energy friendly (whenever a TGV slows down the synchronous engines converts cinetic energy back to electricity for other trains). Can't see how to do that with a Maglev.
Sure it's fun but I can't see how technology will ever overcome these.
Now if you want to build a short-distance, silent above-ground transport link and you have unlimited budget, then yes Maglev has a case. For anything else it has never had and will never have.
Samba will switch and is certainly used in many low-end NAS/multimedia-routers. That's for future revisions of Samba obviously - current code is and will stay GPL2 obviously.
Actions like this will most likely not deter music fans from mass pirating.
they will piss them off and deter them even further from buying DRM-enhanced CDs which don't play on their car's stereo.
Bears repeating: it is easy to configure your computer such that even if all your home is raided and even if xxAA knows bit-for-bit what file they want to prove you have - they can not provide any supporting evidence. It is called plausible deniability. See fool-proof software like TrueCrypt. Or just take one big FAT32 partition, put some vacation pictures + Linux iso on it, and make a dm-crypt mapping onto the free space. Have the default, hard-disk based boot os only mount the FAT32 and have some USB key / camera / SDCard / CDrom boot OS mount the encrypted partition. Even with law which force you to reveal secret keys: here you can not prove that there is encrypted data in the first place.
That's it, that's no rocket science, it's trivial, and there is nothing law enforcement will ever be able to do against it.
Once again the business case for creating artificial cash-cow monopolies is being eroded by technology - and there is nothing law can do against it.
Remember dvd-zoning. One manufacturer let the genie out of the bottle by allowing multi-zone reading through a "not obvious but not too complex" key combination. Increased sales. Now everybody does it.
The majors need to control each and every manufacturer on the planet. It suffice that one of them wants to follow the technological progress instead of the RIAA 10k fillings to defeat their strategy of bundling anti-consumers DRM with high definition. Only one.
They will most likely fail to do so - this announcement is one example of it. That's unless Congress enacts some xxAA-friendly law. But actually it would be more efficient for everybody that they call it what it is (a tax on the consumer) and levy it as such.
So once again Microsoft would have been out-innovated on their own platform and would now try to gain market share by product tying, aggressive dumping and squeezing competion through mandatory, free "extensions" to their Windows platform?
Well that's a proven business model so why would they change it?
Many virii integrate their gene DNA code into the cell DNA: that's what we call lysognic vrii.
The specificity of Hiv is that it targets T-lymphocyts (defense cells). Hence you eventually die from benign illnesses.
In theory finding a way of preventing [i]specifically[/i] Hiv to penetrate lymphocyt's membranes is indeed sufficient as a cure. All Hiv eventually die for lack of the ability to reproduce.
That they succedeed in doing so is questionable. At least they found a way to cure their stock price...
> "networks are very, very expensive". Let's put this into perspective.
Here France for $34/mo you get up to 20Mb/s, no traffic shaping, free unlimited phone on some destinations (national and even France -> US included), 100 free TV channels, on-demand TV, simultaneous streaming of different channels both on the TV and on your network, wireless route with NAT/iptables, etc. etc. And the ISP even pays the $15/mo for the land line for you. Shall I add that this provider is very profitable and has the largest growth in the market place?
I don't know if networks are "very, very expensive". But I know that monopolies are "evil". The current US administration (along with Wall Street and most Rep.) likes monopolies. Too bad for the US loosing their lead on Internet thingies...
A few differences though:
- Microsoft has never been capable or earning money apart from when they enjoy a monopoly. Microsoft has never been able to gain a dominant position without illegal abuse of another monopoly position. More countries all around the world attempt to free their national economies from the 83% monopolist tax - more trials are on their ways. All Microsoft attempts to grow into new markets have disappointed investors. Cable TV, XBox, etc. Microsoft has been fighting for more than two years to fix severe flaws of their cash-cows (security fixes) and have yet to come up with solutions living up to the expectations. Despite 6 billions R&D a year.
- Google has entered the market after it was already competitive and have won their #1 position on merit. They have pioneered quite a few expanding markets and been able to get #1 on existing ones without abusing a monopoly position. They have succeeded because they have shown that they make profitable use of their R&D.
The market value of a stock is all about its future cash flows. Considering the extremely poor track record of Microsoft, the expected commoditization of the software stack, compared with the solid successes of Google and shift of the revenue flaw into the web-related services: no, you can hardly be bullish on MSFT and bound to be bullish on Yahoo and GOGL.
1) TGV could just tomorrow enter operational service at more than 250 mph if you wanted to. The limiting factor is definetely not technical: it is economical. It is the cost of keeping a perfectly parallel railway which limits operationnal speeds. Each and every single slight deviation will tremendously worsen wheel after wheel as the train will "shock" into it and move the railway a bit further than the ideal parallel.
Only the aerodynamic brakes are new here, although I doubt there usefulness since they require the electric line be even higher than usual. And to my knowledge braking performance has never been a limiting factor. Besides in normal exploitation "braking" mostly means using the engines as power generator (à-la Prius) which is the most energy-friendly system (slowing down regenerates energy).
2) On the other hand I am glad that people eventually realize that plain old railways are a more suitable solution to fast ground transportations then extraordinarily expensive magnetic trains.
1) Microsoft is a convicted recividivist in monopoly abuse. Not a competitive company. Special rules apply to monopolies.
2) Microsoft's argument that they are obliged to turn over code is both false and beheaded by their insisting on excluding Samba and not Sun nor Novell.
3) This very matter is of prime importance as it will set a precedent. For the first time in history you had an anti-trust authority specifically recognizing that a monopolist erected artificial and anti-competitive barrier to entry to its competitors. This is very very great news. Think to all other protocols (Exchange, MSN, etc.) and file formats (WordML, WMA). If the ruling stands before the Court then the software patents is way weaker because anti-trust regulations have the very power to authorize competitors to violate a patent to enact inter-operability - even if this provision is not in itself added to the european software patent bill.
4) Microsoft understands this and will fight to hell against this very small portion of the proposed settlement.
5) There are very bright and educated people in charge of this case at the EC Merger Task Force. They have been able to understand the problem and to explain it to the highest hierarchical level. This is an extremly impressive achievements considering the complexity of the subject and the usual compter-illiterateness of those.
6) These very people will stand firm - so will Microsoft. The only remaining points IMHO are:
a) wether the Court of justice will buy the "they force use to divulgate valuable trade secrets" or "they shall not exclude their last remaining competitor from inter-operability".
b) wether the United States will make it a political matter of US vs Europe.
b) is unlikely IMHO given the strong competitors to Microsoft in the US and the current Boeing vs Airbus battle.
a) is possible but note that the EC was smart enough to include the wording "provided they are not specially innovative" in their mandate to provide specifications. This should let them the best luck in Court.
My point is: there are bright people in charge and Microsoft will most probably lose this one. My belief is that Microsoft basically underestimated the abilities of the EC and thought that the real battle was in the US. They were wrong.
I take the bet. Be sure that it won't. For one simple reason: there are smart and well-educated people at the EC MTF which definetely won't "forget" about it. Trust me on that one. You even have the Commissioner (head of anti-turst authorities all over Europe) specifically claiming it.
On the other hand the probability that the European Court buys the "trade secret/valuable intellectual property" argument and fails to get the "interoperability with the only remaining competitor" one is definetely positive. Hence the provision of only non-innovative parts being made public. I am still confident although a set-back is possible.
I hope this demonstrates the strong capabilities of the EC to understand the problems and stand firm on the really important issues.
Customer lock-in and competition lock-out due to the clubbing effect of non-interoperability let Microsoft charge a premium for Office. It would be foolish from a business and shareholder perspective to drop it.
Thus Microsoft has every interest not to allow better interoperability. Thus whatever the press release or the interview, unless there is a strong external force pushing for it (read: antitrust authorities or government) Microsoft wil not allow interoperability.
In the present case be sure that if the "royalty free" licensing was compatible with GPL or SCCL they would glorify themselves for it. And there still are server-side tie-in, DRM and patents application on the file format.
The Commission also instructed Microsoft to license confidential Windows code to competitors, allowing them to produce server software that works with Windows
Full of shit! The Commission never instructed Microsoft to produce a single line of "code". Juste communication protocols. The IHT is basically refurbishing Microsoft propaganda and spinning an anti-business view of the Commission. sad.
1) They are _not_ required. Patents are a market aberration that you tolerate in exchange of favoring innovation. If you already enjoy a high innovation rate, why throw patents in the game ?
Alternate view is: please show me one single software innovation that would not have been developped without patents existing.
2) They are extremely difficult to review because of the high technicity and the rapid pace of development of software. USPTO/EPO just have no idea of what they are rubber-stampering.
3) They are misused as a tool for big players to agglomerate "patents portfolii" as a strategical and anti-capitalism, anti-free-market weapon against competitors. Deems repeating: software patents are anti-capitalist and anti-liberal.
4) They interact badly with competition policy and antitrust regulation. Even if software patents were a good idea per se, since patenting file formats turns a de facto monopoly into a legal monopoly they should be outlawed since this would outweight any pro-innovation effect by immense anti-competition effects.
5) They are specifically pushed by at least one company to destroy FOSS, which is to date the only way Europe could try to fill its technological gap. So even if they were a good idea, even if there were no antitrust concern, they shall still be outlawed for political reasons.
The Honeywell-GE merger was forbidden by EC antitrust. How can you believe that they would let a convicted monopolist and abuser extend buy their most dangerous competitor ? Chances are absolutely zero and both Microsoft and RedHat know that.
Slashdot Mirror
This would trivially fail as even if the top 1000 sites were to agree to leave Google, each one would *individually* have interest in betraying the plot and staying. I.e. the bribe price shall not be the *average* but the rational price of betrayal, which is much higher, and actually increases with the number of participants.
Technical impossibility is a non-argument. Strip out perhaps only the most visible things (like the executable). Make it a free, largely advertised download. Just as Opera/Firefox/Chrome. It *does* matter a lot because OEM/developpers/whoever will *not* assume that IE exists by default. However easy it is for it to be installed back. The whole point is that the *user* has to *explicitely choose* MSIE over the competition. That makes a whole lot of difference. Obviously you should not let OEM choose - MS has too much leverage there, as the WMP fiasco has proven.
Plausibly deniable encryption tools are common place these days. E.g. Truecrypt, dm-crypt, etc.
Creating a "Private Mode" guest account with $HOME in /tmpfs is the only possibly safe way. A few scripts can even make it icon-clickable for regular users (ssh -X, etc. ).
But that won't prevent your ISP/Corporate admin to see traffic. Unless you use a Tor plugin - and even then you need to trust Tor exit node.
Point being: it's easier to just not need a "Private Mode" to begin with. Sex is better in real life, anyway.
The funny thing is that now both sides of the very same trade can miraculously claim to have gained money comes year-end and bonus computation time. Pay bonus first, ask questions (and pay back) later.
Sure enough, the current crisis was mainly caused by overly lax monetary policy, dogmatic reluctane to regulate and exuberant account deficit causing a flood of sino/petro dollars looking for anything to be invested in, no question asked.
In this grand scheme CDS were just a catalytic corollary. But a particularly immoral (though legal) one. That market urgently needs to be regulated. Some prominent players have been asking for that even since that market took off - witness Ken Griffin, for example. He was spot on.
That's the most important point. PC OEM are not necessarily happy that said Convicted Monopolist has that much market power. That it can dictate they sell only its products. Making the overall product more expensive. It matters especially as Asus is really a "Linux Good Citizen", with Linux embedded into motherboard and mass-market Linux latops (eee). Now Asus can say: we tried everything we could to do as you dictated us to do, but you see, it's just the law. This is huge.
[i]Our discussions with you have led us to conclude that, in the interim, you would take steps that would make Yahoo! undesirable as an acquisition for Microsoft.[/i]Confirmation that throwing the G-word in front of Ballmer drives him out of any deal [i]clearly a deal is not meant to be[/i] - that could well be Microsoft's sig.
This also means 40GB iPod minis... Seen how the hard drive market recentered to consumer electronics in the last few years?
... analysts upgraded Bombardier, Cessna and Dassault.
Flying commercial is sooo cumbersome. Ok, let's jet.
Maglev is not "new" technology - it is more than 30 years old. It has inherent unsolvable disadvantages:
- extraordinarily expensive tracks (not because of high-tech but just basic concrete building costs)
- extraordinarily complex network (how do you fork again?)
- no integration at all with the existing network. This one is the real killer. TGVs can ride virtually the whole network - be it at reduced speed. Network effect is a key factor of railways economics.
- usually worse comfort level than with rail-road (that may eventually be overcome but I doubt it). It does not "fly" above the track, it suffers a very inelastic magnetic repulsion/attractin force.
- much less energy friendly (whenever a TGV slows down the synchronous engines converts cinetic energy back to electricity for other trains). Can't see how to do that with a Maglev. Sure it's fun but I can't see how technology will ever overcome these. Now if you want to build a short-distance, silent above-ground transport link and you have unlimited budget, then yes Maglev has a case. For anything else it has never had and will never have.
Samba will switch and is certainly used in many low-end NAS/multimedia-routers. That's for future revisions of Samba obviously - current code is and will stay GPL2 obviously.
they will piss them off and deter them even further from buying DRM-enhanced CDs which don't play on their car's stereo.
Bears repeating: it is easy to configure your computer such that even if all your home is raided and even if xxAA knows bit-for-bit what file they want to prove you have - they can not provide any supporting evidence. It is called plausible deniability. See fool-proof software like TrueCrypt. Or just take one big FAT32 partition, put some vacation pictures + Linux iso on it, and make a dm-crypt mapping onto the free space. Have the default, hard-disk based boot os only mount the FAT32 and have some USB key / camera / SDCard / CDrom boot OS mount the encrypted partition. Even with law which force you to reveal secret keys: here you can not prove that there is encrypted data in the first place.
That's it, that's no rocket science, it's trivial, and there is nothing law enforcement will ever be able to do against it.
Once again the business case for creating artificial cash-cow monopolies is being eroded by technology - and there is nothing law can do against it.
This is tremendous news for the end-users.
Remember dvd-zoning. One manufacturer let the genie out of the bottle by allowing multi-zone reading through a "not obvious but not too complex" key combination. Increased sales. Now everybody does it.
The majors need to control each and every manufacturer on the planet. It suffice that one of them wants to follow the technological progress instead of the RIAA 10k fillings to defeat their strategy of bundling anti-consumers DRM with high definition. Only one.
They will most likely fail to do so - this announcement is one example of it. That's unless Congress enacts some xxAA-friendly law. But actually it would be more efficient for everybody that they call it what it is (a tax on the consumer) and levy it as such.
So once again Microsoft would have been out-innovated on their own platform and would now try to gain market share by product tying, aggressive dumping and squeezing competion through mandatory, free "extensions" to their Windows platform? Well that's a proven business model so why would they change it?
The specificity of Hiv is that it targets T-lymphocyts (defense cells). Hence you eventually die from benign illnesses.
In theory finding a way of preventing [i]specifically[/i] Hiv to penetrate lymphocyt's membranes is indeed sufficient as a cure. All Hiv eventually die for lack of the ability to reproduce.
That they succedeed in doing so is questionable. At least they found a way to cure their stock price...
> "networks are very, very expensive".
Let's put this into perspective.
Here France for $34/mo you get up to 20Mb/s, no traffic shaping, free unlimited phone on some destinations (national and even France -> US included), 100 free TV channels, on-demand TV, simultaneous streaming of different channels both on the TV and on your network, wireless route with NAT/iptables, etc. etc. And the ISP even pays the $15/mo for the land line for you. Shall I add that this provider is very profitable and has the largest growth in the market place?
I don't know if networks are "very, very expensive". But I know that monopolies are "evil". The current US administration (along with Wall Street and most Rep.) likes monopolies. Too bad for the US loosing their lead on Internet thingies...
You are completely missing the point. Real diamonds taste much better than synthetic ones...
A few differences though: - Microsoft has never been capable or earning money apart from when they enjoy a monopoly. Microsoft has never been able to gain a dominant position without illegal abuse of another monopoly position. More countries all around the world attempt to free their national economies from the 83% monopolist tax - more trials are on their ways. All Microsoft attempts to grow into new markets have disappointed investors. Cable TV, XBox, etc. Microsoft has been fighting for more than two years to fix severe flaws of their cash-cows (security fixes) and have yet to come up with solutions living up to the expectations. Despite 6 billions R&D a year. - Google has entered the market after it was already competitive and have won their #1 position on merit. They have pioneered quite a few expanding markets and been able to get #1 on existing ones without abusing a monopoly position. They have succeeded because they have shown that they make profitable use of their R&D. The market value of a stock is all about its future cash flows. Considering the extremely poor track record of Microsoft, the expected commoditization of the software stack, compared with the solid successes of Google and shift of the revenue flaw into the web-related services: no, you can hardly be bullish on MSFT and bound to be bullish on Yahoo and GOGL.
1) TGV could just tomorrow enter operational service at more than 250 mph if you wanted to. The limiting factor is definetely not technical: it is economical. It is the cost of keeping a perfectly parallel railway which limits operationnal speeds. Each and every single slight deviation will tremendously worsen wheel after wheel as the train will "shock" into it and move the railway a bit further than the ideal parallel. Only the aerodynamic brakes are new here, although I doubt there usefulness since they require the electric line be even higher than usual. And to my knowledge braking performance has never been a limiting factor. Besides in normal exploitation "braking" mostly means using the engines as power generator (à-la Prius) which is the most energy-friendly system (slowing down regenerates energy). 2) On the other hand I am glad that people eventually realize that plain old railways are a more suitable solution to fast ground transportations then extraordinarily expensive magnetic trains.
1) Microsoft is a convicted recividivist in monopoly abuse. Not a competitive company. Special rules apply to monopolies.
2) Microsoft's argument that they are obliged to turn over code is both false and beheaded by their insisting on excluding Samba and not Sun nor Novell.
3) This very matter is of prime importance as it will set a precedent. For the first time in history you had an anti-trust authority specifically recognizing that a monopolist erected artificial and anti-competitive barrier to entry to its competitors. This is very very great news. Think to all other protocols (Exchange, MSN, etc.) and file formats (WordML, WMA). If the ruling stands before the Court then the software patents is way weaker because anti-trust regulations have the very power to authorize competitors to violate a patent to enact inter-operability - even if this provision is not in itself added to the european software patent bill.
4) Microsoft understands this and will fight to hell against this very small portion of the proposed settlement.
5) There are very bright and educated people in charge of this case at the EC Merger Task Force. They have been able to understand the problem and to explain it to the highest hierarchical level. This is an extremly impressive achievements considering the complexity of the subject and the usual compter-illiterateness of those.
6) These very people will stand firm - so will Microsoft. The only remaining points IMHO are: a) wether the Court of justice will buy the "they force use to divulgate valuable trade secrets" or "they shall not exclude their last remaining competitor from inter-operability". b) wether the United States will make it a political matter of US vs Europe.
b) is unlikely IMHO given the strong competitors to Microsoft in the US and the current Boeing vs Airbus battle.
a) is possible but note that the EC was smart enough to include the wording "provided they are not specially innovative" in their mandate to provide specifications. This should let them the best luck in Court.
My point is: there are bright people in charge and Microsoft will most probably lose this one. My belief is that Microsoft basically underestimated the abilities of the EC and thought that the real battle was in the US. They were wrong.
On the other hand the probability that the European Court buys the "trade secret/valuable intellectual property" argument and fails to get the "interoperability with the only remaining competitor" one is definetely positive. Hence the provision of only non-innovative parts being made public. I am still confident although a set-back is possible.
I hope this demonstrates the strong capabilities of the EC to understand the problems and stand firm on the really important issues.
Customer lock-in and competition lock-out due to the clubbing effect of non-interoperability let Microsoft charge a premium for Office. It would be foolish from a business and shareholder perspective to drop it. Thus Microsoft has every interest not to allow better interoperability. Thus whatever the press release or the interview, unless there is a strong external force pushing for it (read: antitrust authorities or government) Microsoft wil not allow interoperability. In the present case be sure that if the "royalty free" licensing was compatible with GPL or SCCL they would glorify themselves for it. And there still are server-side tie-in, DRM and patents application on the file format.
The Commission also instructed Microsoft to license confidential Windows code to competitors, allowing them to produce server software that works with Windows Full of shit! The Commission never instructed Microsoft to produce a single line of "code". Juste communication protocols. The IHT is basically refurbishing Microsoft propaganda and spinning an anti-business view of the Commission. sad.
1) They are _not_ required. Patents are a market aberration that you tolerate in exchange of favoring innovation. If you already enjoy a high innovation rate, why throw patents in the game ? Alternate view is: please show me one single software innovation that would not have been developped without patents existing. 2) They are extremely difficult to review because of the high technicity and the rapid pace of development of software. USPTO/EPO just have no idea of what they are rubber-stampering. 3) They are misused as a tool for big players to agglomerate "patents portfolii" as a strategical and anti-capitalism, anti-free-market weapon against competitors. Deems repeating: software patents are anti-capitalist and anti-liberal. 4) They interact badly with competition policy and antitrust regulation. Even if software patents were a good idea per se, since patenting file formats turns a de facto monopoly into a legal monopoly they should be outlawed since this would outweight any pro-innovation effect by immense anti-competition effects. 5) They are specifically pushed by at least one company to destroy FOSS, which is to date the only way Europe could try to fill its technological gap. So even if they were a good idea, even if there were no antitrust concern, they shall still be outlawed for political reasons.
The Honeywell-GE merger was forbidden by EC antitrust. How can you believe that they would let a convicted monopolist and abuser extend buy their most dangerous competitor ? Chances are absolutely zero and both Microsoft and RedHat know that.