If you have used both applications, you will immediately know that amaroK is definitely *not* iTunes. Superficially, they do appear similar. However, the way they act is not the same. amaroK... makes more sense. You have to use it to understand. (Heh... sorta like some illicit substances, I hear).
KDE does not ruin all that it touches, so you need not worry about wikipedia. As a matter of fact, there have been some wonderful things to come out of the KDE project. Most notably KHTML, amaroK, and k3b.
Sure. It's feature-laden. If you want, you can even call it bloated. And it's interface needs help. Remember though: if you don't like the way KDE does things, you always have the ability to join the project and fix it. The same goes for wikipedia. Bitching about it on/. helps noone.
It isn't. Wikipedia can pull up information such as artist biographies, song orgins, etc.
It also has uses outside of the song area. For instance, the KStars project wants to export/reference information from Wikipedia. There is an element table app that can do the same thing. There may even be an encyclopedia app that comes out of this. Something like encarta/etc, but on Linux.
If people want music then it is in their best interest to further the conditions that allow artists to make music. Boundless copying and not compensating artists is not going to achieve that, hence it is NOT in everyones best interest. Again, you have to look a little bit further, which in this case you did.. why not draw the obvious conclusion then?
If you look further down the road, however, it is not in society's best interests to grant perpetual monopolies to the creators of the music. It will eventually lead to the same state that the software/OS industry is in now, and the RR industry was in during the 19th century.
And yet again, you insist on arguing the semantics of a statement instead of appraching the argument itself. As long as the idea is communicated, the words used to communicate it don't matter. Granted, a common semantical ground should be established. However, that ground already exists, as the vernacular is as wide-spread as the internet.
But in essence, this is exactly the argument being made about copyrights - the artist is entitled to 100% market share once the cats out of the bag
Unfortunately for your argument, this is the case with copyright & patent law. Copyright grants the creator a monopoly for a limited time, in exchange for releasing his work to the world. In essence, the government says "You can get 100% of the profits for X years, but after that, anyone can use it".
Due to this oversight, your entire argument is invalid. Not to mention that you are comparing oranges to apples. One is speaking of intangible property (IP), and the other is speaking of something which cannot be owned.
A more apt example concerns the monopolies the government grants to utility companies. Once again, however, this is done to motivate an individual or company to contribute to the public welfare. Eg. I have access to the telephone on my farm because the government gave the TelCo a monopoly in the closest town.
Granted, this behavior by the government is dangerous when unchecked, but that is another argument, for another time.
That's what I was saying... (and I did say I was working on it;)
Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about
If you have to talk to them in that manner, you are taking the wrong approach. I agree that you may have to spend some time to find a common ground, but it should only take a while if it's something that takes a while regardless.
A good example: I once explained why mac programs didn't run on intel PCs (before the switch) to a freind of mine. E.g. I explained it to the instruction level. In detail. It took me about half an hour -- the same amount of time it took me to learn the difference -- to teach her. And I did it all through an analogy I knew she would understand: dog training. I won't go into the details, but it was a sight.
The thing is, it isn't power users who want to limit the number of browsers or window managers or office suites
Never said it was.
and now for something completely different
How does the last part have any relevency to my post? I was talking about how power users hold themselves on an insurmountable pedastal, and how that hurts their ability to be heard.
And please don't say that "the solution" is to do away with Learjets, motercycles, and anything that isn't a buick, for consistency
Uh... why not? You appear to want to do the same thing to the interface:
Simplify but throwing out options. Simplify by doing away with menu items. Simplify by presenting a GUI that is simple and intuitive to do the small subset of functionality that it presents, and do away with regular expressions.
To my untrained ear, it sounds like you want to make the Learjet into a Buick. Possibly not the same thing as removing it entirely, but it definitely has the same effect.
Here's a better option. Put grandma in a Leerjet, and present the controls similarly to her trusty buick. However, don't remove the other jet controls... just stick them in a place where they're less confusing. Or hide them inside of other controls. Or find a way to blend them in with the rest of the buick-style.
For instace: If she opens Konq as a file manager, grandma doen't have to know that you can type a URL into the location bar. Similarly, she doesn't need to know that you can type a file location in web mode. If she finds it out, she might be impressed, or she might not give a damn. She can still use it the same way she always has.
And do similarly for window managers. Provide a default, and then place a secret switch somewhere so you have access to everything else. (Somewhat like adding the Universal repo in Ubuntu).
If it is easier for a newbie to open a file by dragging it on top of an icon, why let it be opened any other way?
Huh... maybe because newbies arn't the only people who use the software.
If they have to look at a manual to use it, it is broke.
Huh... strange... I needed to look at a manual to learn how to properly moderate... I guess moderation is broke. (D'oh!);)
Most of his utopian reforms would seem quite practical today, such as freedom of religion and a generally cosmopolitan attitude toward individual difference
I laugh at that statement. In no way are individual differences tolerated, at least in the US. Differences such as sexual orientation and race are definitely not treated in a cosmopolitan manner. Sexual equality is becoming more accepted, but the glass wall still exists. Universal education? Well, college separates the "social elite" from the not-so-elite, and the public education system in this country is wildly unbalanced. Not even going to touch democratic government...
Note how marxist/socialist/communist/whatever-the-god-damn- term-is most of those reforms are. It requires a fundamental trait that humanity, as a whole, doesn't have. It requires selflessness. Humans, being as greedy as we are, can't ever aspire to such a trait. There will always be some bastard who wants the whole pie. And, he'll spit in it to get his way.
who double clicks on web sites? I have seen all sorts of stupid people and helped all sorts of idiots online, I have not ever come across someone who routinely double clicks on web sites.
When KDE was young, GNOME did not exist. It was created almost exclusively because KDE used Qt, and the GNU folk didn't like the QPL. The reason why GNOME has a UI like a Mac was (originally) because they needed to differentiate themselves from KDE. Considering the history of KDE, I would postulate that it copied the *nix way of things, and what windows did is irrelevent. However, the only way to really know is ask the dude who made it.
(Amazingly enough, some still critisize KDE for using Qt, because even though the library is GPL, it is still managed by TrollTech. To them I say STFU. Please find a real reason to dislike KDE. Don't change the argument just to fit in with the rest of the close-minded fools.)
I consider GNOME as the middle child of desktops. It was never really liked, and so made a mess of itself, just to get noticed. And that's not a flame. GNOME had some things going for it, but the developers decided to create a desktop almost exclusively for idiots. I used to highly enjoy GNOME... but sometime around the 1.x-2.x switch, they bastardized their HIG. I promptly converted to KDE. Not because I hate simplicity. More because they removed the bits I liked for the sake of it.
Luckily, KDE is now in a period of usability reform. And, instead of removing features for the sake of usability, they are finding ways to make their functionality usable. I can have my cake and eat it too.
There is no particular reason to consider either order better, though when in doubt, copying the Mac can't hurt
Food for thought: Copying the mac can only hurt as much as copying windows. Both have issues with usability. Both have issues with software patents. (Not that both are equally evil, though--at least Apple contributes something useful to OSS).
There's a very good reason for that -- Linux power users usually are rather zealotrous. (Possibly because they spend all their time power using, instead of communicating??;)
I consider myself a power user on Linux. I know my way around several distros (command-line style), and completely pwn kcontrol. I also used to come off as an uber-zealot. I was one l337 d00d. Know what I'm saying?
Anyway, recently I had an epiphany. For all of my knowledge, I couldn't actually communicate with anyone. I have always tried to spread the knowledge. Unfortunately, the way I was going about it was wrong. Instead of empathizing with the user, I would scorn them. After all, they were using a far inferior method, compared to the (obvious) One True Way (tm). Power users tend to have that very attitude. Hence, I am teaching myself how to communicate with "Joe User".
It also doesn't help that they tend to express themselves with highly technical language... Most don't realize that to most other people, they are talking gibberish. I noticed this very early. Unfortunately, I am not well versed at scaling down the gibberish. I either talk incomprehensibly, or dumb it down to children levels... neither of which are good.
There is not a bloody company called "The Linux community" which you can blame
That's it! I have it! That's what I'll call my company. It's perfect. 1: abbreviated, it's TLC. Damn straight. TLC gives you TLC. hah! 2nd, while I'll have to take the flak for all of the bad stuff, I can claim all the good stuff as my own as well!! The Linux Community released security advisories for apps X, Y, Z and A. The Linux Community has made a very stable operating system.::cue evil laugh::
On a more serious note, I am a member of the community that wants to increase the usability of the desktop, and I don't have a corporate agenda. I just want my desktop to be more usable. (Plus, it doesn't hurt to show off all the features KDE has that, say, Windows doesn't;)
Don't get me wrong... that's not attempting to convert. That's bragging. "See? with all the blood sweat and tears I put into compiling Gentoo from stage 1, I get spellchecking in all of my text boxes. What? No. Don't have movies working yet." 8-)
The problem with KDE is, even if its usability is fine, it's all thrown out the window as soon as you open non-KDE apps, because in their infinite wisdom, open source programmers decided to divide programs up into groups, each group having completely different interfaces and settings.
As other have already pointed out, other OS's have this problem as well. Take windows: First, Media Player is wholly different than any other app. There is no consistency within the system tray. How about Winamp? Same issue as WMP. And who created the travesty of the XP programs menu? It is abhorrent that some links are global and others are user-specific... (and on top of that, it doesn't tell you).
What genius decided that was a good idea?
I don't know whose exact idea it was, but that would be the genious of the GIMP team... and you can blame Gnome for proliferating that miserable excuse for a UI library. (Had to troll gnome at least once. please forgive me;)
Also KDE is cluttered and messy. Even simple dialog boxes seem to be over 1200 pixels wide.
I agree with you. KDE's dialog boxes are needlessly complicated, and incredably messy. Hwoever, there has been a vast amount of improvement during the 3.x series. Even more improvements are going into the 4.0 release, including a completely redesigned kicker & desktop (named Plasma).
Furthermore, one of my personal goals (once plasma discussion dies down somewhat) is to completely re-tool the KControl configuration screens. I want to make them less complcated, more intuitive, and a general joy to use. Hopefully, I'll be able to get something put out to make it into v4.0--4.1 at the latest.
There's no excuse for this at all, I dread to think what it would be like using KDE with 1024x768, half of the options would be off the screen. It seems that the KDE developers all have giant resolutions and think everyone else does as well.
I do have large resolutions. I run my desktop at 1280x1024. If I had a 23" monitor, I'd probably run at 1600x1200. However, I also have small ones... My ThinkPad runs at 1024x768, and I have yet to have an issue with it.
Concerning the K Menu, it is rather large. Yet another improvement that is working it's way into Plasma. If possible, we want to provide a way to access your apps without using the K-Menu. The categories do have close to identical apps, but the point is to provide the user with choice. E.g. If they like Kate better than KWrite, then they should have that option. For now, you can always pare down the menu. Also, If you use a package-managed distro, they usually sort the apps into the proper places.
The best thing Linux could do to improve the user experience is to stop having ten million toolkits and environments and have a STANDARD CONSISTENT INTERFACE!i>
Yes, and no. Linux has something going for it with it's many toolkits which Microsoft and OSX don't have much of. Competition. MS rules the market, so they don't have to worry about improving their interface. (Unless a truly innovative app comes out, that threatens their market share... Firefox is a good example. If/When KDE comes out for windows, that will be quite another).
Uhhh... you (both) seem to forget that we are not talking about "Desktop OS"... we are talking about desktop usability.
So, you shoudn't forget CDE, KDE, Enlightenment, NeXTStep, etc.
Not that it particularly matters, but I prefer the KDE way of doig things... [OK][Apply][Reset][Cancel]. The way MS does it (switch Apply & cancel around) makes no sense at all... Buttons that do (somewhat) like effects should be kept together.
(Note: in KDE not all options are always present... usually it's OK, Apply, Cancel for dialogs, and OK, Apply, Reset for (say) KControl Applets.
I apologize. My roomate is constantly babbling in my ear about epistimology, and thus I get them confused easily...
The digression is my personal take on More's Idea... but the reason he called it (effectively) "nowhere" is because the idea is implausible in a practical sense. Granted, he may not have said it right out... (Never read the book, just stuff based off of it).
Question: Why would reforms be needed in utopia? (Do you mean, by chance, the reforms necessary to fulfill utoian goals?)
Well then, Lucas has grown too full of himself.
(Also, the first movie was in theaters some 3 or more years before I was born... so no. Didn't get to see it;)
What about the match-up between Dooku and Yoda? Yoda was a veritable firefly on speed, jumping and flipping and swinging his sword all around. Where is the peace in that? Shouldn't he have been more concernec about keeping himself between Dooku and his friends, rather than showing off?
When one's mind is at peace, the body can accomplish great feats. E.g. That's the way yoda fights. If you had to fight with that body, you'd probably be zinging all over the place too. (Granted, I did think something was fucked up with most of the jedi in Ep3). (Also granted: Yoda fighintg was really ILM showing off).
Now what really disturbed me was how most of the fights in Ep 3 were completely unrealistic. Since when do epic Lightsaber fights involve so much bloody spinning?!?! That is a completely retarded way to fight. They were constantly exposing their backs to their opponents in that film... to tell the truth, it was the only thing I couldn't take in stride about that movie.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that he means unofficial. E.g. independent from the company that produces said building blocks.
Here's the real one: http://bugs.kde.org
I guess that's what I get for posting in haste.
You might want to think about submitting a request for it, then.
If you have used both applications, you will immediately know that amaroK is definitely *not* iTunes. Superficially, they do appear similar. However, the way they act is not the same. amaroK... makes more sense. You have to use it to understand. (Heh... sorta like some illicit substances, I hear).
Sure. It's feature-laden. If you want, you can even call it bloated. And it's interface needs help. Remember though: if you don't like the way KDE does things, you always have the ability to join the project and fix it. The same goes for wikipedia. Bitching about it on /. helps noone.
It also has uses outside of the song area. For instance, the KStars project wants to export/reference information from Wikipedia. There is an element table app that can do the same thing. There may even be an encyclopedia app that comes out of this. Something like encarta/etc, but on Linux.
If you look further down the road, however, it is not in society's best interests to grant perpetual monopolies to the creators of the music. It will eventually lead to the same state that the software/OS industry is in now, and the RR industry was in during the 19th century.
Besides. Semantics are moot.
Unfortunately for your argument, this is the case with copyright & patent law. Copyright grants the creator a monopoly for a limited time, in exchange for releasing his work to the world. In essence, the government says "You can get 100% of the profits for X years, but after that, anyone can use it".
Due to this oversight, your entire argument is invalid. Not to mention that you are comparing oranges to apples. One is speaking of intangible property (IP), and the other is speaking of something which cannot be owned.
A more apt example concerns the monopolies the government grants to utility companies. Once again, however, this is done to motivate an individual or company to contribute to the public welfare. Eg. I have access to the telephone on my farm because the government gave the TelCo a monopoly in the closest town.
Granted, this behavior by the government is dangerous when unchecked, but that is another argument, for another time.
doesn't matter.
You talk to people so that they understand.
That's what I was saying... (and I did say I was working on it ;)
Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about
If you have to talk to them in that manner, you are taking the wrong approach. I agree that you may have to spend some time to find a common ground, but it should only take a while if it's something that takes a while regardless.
A good example: I once explained why mac programs didn't run on intel PCs (before the switch) to a freind of mine. E.g. I explained it to the instruction level. In detail. It took me about half an hour -- the same amount of time it took me to learn the difference -- to teach her. And I did it all through an analogy I knew she would understand: dog training. I won't go into the details, but it was a sight.
The thing is, it isn't power users who want to limit the number of browsers or window managers or office suites
Never said it was.
and now for something completely different
How does the last part have any relevency to my post? I was talking about how power users hold themselves on an insurmountable pedastal, and how that hurts their ability to be heard.
And please don't say that "the solution" is to do away with Learjets, motercycles, and anything that isn't a buick, for consistency
Uh... why not? You appear to want to do the same thing to the interface:
Simplify but throwing out options. Simplify by doing away with menu items. Simplify by presenting a GUI that is simple and intuitive to do the small subset of functionality that it presents, and do away with regular expressions.
To my untrained ear, it sounds like you want to make the Learjet into a Buick. Possibly not the same thing as removing it entirely, but it definitely has the same effect.
Here's a better option. Put grandma in a Leerjet, and present the controls similarly to her trusty buick. However, don't remove the other jet controls... just stick them in a place where they're less confusing. Or hide them inside of other controls. Or find a way to blend them in with the rest of the buick-style.
For instace: If she opens Konq as a file manager, grandma doen't have to know that you can type a URL into the location bar. Similarly, she doesn't need to know that you can type a file location in web mode. If she finds it out, she might be impressed, or she might not give a damn. She can still use it the same way she always has.
And do similarly for window managers. Provide a default, and then place a secret switch somewhere so you have access to everything else. (Somewhat like adding the Universal repo in Ubuntu).
If it is easier for a newbie to open a file by dragging it on top of an icon, why let it be opened any other way?
Huh... maybe because newbies arn't the only people who use the software.
If they have to look at a manual to use it, it is broke.
Huh... strange... I needed to look at a manual to learn how to properly moderate... I guess moderation is broke. (D'oh!) ;)
I laugh at that statement. In no way are individual differences tolerated, at least in the US. Differences such as sexual orientation and race are definitely not treated in a cosmopolitan manner. Sexual equality is becoming more accepted, but the glass wall still exists. Universal education? Well, college separates the "social elite" from the not-so-elite, and the public education system in this country is wildly unbalanced. Not even going to touch democratic government...
Note how marxist/socialist/communist/whatever-the-god-damn- term-is most of those reforms are. It requires a fundamental trait that humanity, as a whole, doesn't have. It requires selflessness. Humans, being as greedy as we are, can't ever aspire to such a trait. There will always be some bastard who wants the whole pie. And, he'll spit in it to get his way.
/. won't let me be funny. Damn it.
Will remember that next time.
Me.
(Amazingly enough, some still critisize KDE for using Qt, because even though the library is GPL, it is still managed by TrollTech. To them I say STFU. Please find a real reason to dislike KDE. Don't change the argument just to fit in with the rest of the close-minded fools.)
I consider GNOME as the middle child of desktops. It was never really liked, and so made a mess of itself, just to get noticed. And that's not a flame. GNOME had some things going for it, but the developers decided to create a desktop almost exclusively for idiots. I used to highly enjoy GNOME... but sometime around the 1.x-2.x switch, they bastardized their HIG. I promptly converted to KDE. Not because I hate simplicity. More because they removed the bits I liked for the sake of it.
Luckily, KDE is now in a period of usability reform. And, instead of removing features for the sake of usability, they are finding ways to make their functionality usable. I can have my cake and eat it too.
There is no particular reason to consider either order better, though when in doubt, copying the Mac can't hurt
Food for thought: Copying the mac can only hurt as much as copying windows. Both have issues with usability. Both have issues with software patents. (Not that both are equally evil, though--at least Apple contributes something useful to OSS).
I consider myself a power user on Linux. I know my way around several distros (command-line style), and completely pwn kcontrol. I also used to come off as an uber-zealot. I was one l337 d00d. Know what I'm saying?
Anyway, recently I had an epiphany. For all of my knowledge, I couldn't actually communicate with anyone. I have always tried to spread the knowledge. Unfortunately, the way I was going about it was wrong. Instead of empathizing with the user, I would scorn them. After all, they were using a far inferior method, compared to the (obvious) One True Way (tm). Power users tend to have that very attitude. Hence, I am teaching myself how to communicate with "Joe User".
It also doesn't help that they tend to express themselves with highly technical language... Most don't realize that to most other people, they are talking gibberish. I noticed this very early. Unfortunately, I am not well versed at scaling down the gibberish. I either talk incomprehensibly, or dumb it down to children levels... neither of which are good.
That's it! I have it! That's what I'll call my company. It's perfect. 1: abbreviated, it's TLC. Damn straight. TLC gives you TLC. hah! 2nd, while I'll have to take the flak for all of the bad stuff, I can claim all the good stuff as my own as well!! The Linux Community released security advisories for apps X, Y, Z and A. The Linux Community has made a very stable operating system. ::cue evil laugh::
On a more serious note, I am a member of the community that wants to increase the usability of the desktop, and I don't have a corporate agenda. I just want my desktop to be more usable. (Plus, it doesn't hurt to show off all the features KDE has that, say, Windows doesn't ;)
Don't get me wrong... that's not attempting to convert. That's bragging. "See? with all the blood sweat and tears I put into compiling Gentoo from stage 1, I get spellchecking in all of my text boxes. What? No. Don't have movies working yet." 8-)
Me thinks thou art a cad??
The problem with KDE is, even if its usability is fine, it's all thrown out the window as soon as you open non-KDE apps, because in their infinite wisdom, open source programmers decided to divide programs up into groups, each group having completely different interfaces and settings.
As other have already pointed out, other OS's have this problem as well. Take windows: First, Media Player is wholly different than any other app. There is no consistency within the system tray. How about Winamp? Same issue as WMP. And who created the travesty of the XP programs menu? It is abhorrent that some links are global and others are user-specific... (and on top of that, it doesn't tell you).
What genius decided that was a good idea?
I don't know whose exact idea it was, but that would be the genious of the GIMP team... and you can blame Gnome for proliferating that miserable excuse for a UI library. (Had to troll gnome at least once. please forgive me ;)
Also KDE is cluttered and messy. Even simple dialog boxes seem to be over 1200 pixels wide.
I agree with you. KDE's dialog boxes are needlessly complicated, and incredably messy. Hwoever, there has been a vast amount of improvement during the 3.x series. Even more improvements are going into the 4.0 release, including a completely redesigned kicker & desktop (named Plasma).
Furthermore, one of my personal goals (once plasma discussion dies down somewhat) is to completely re-tool the KControl configuration screens. I want to make them less complcated, more intuitive, and a general joy to use. Hopefully, I'll be able to get something put out to make it into v4.0--4.1 at the latest.
There's no excuse for this at all, I dread to think what it would be like using KDE with 1024x768, half of the options would be off the screen. It seems that the KDE developers all have giant resolutions and think everyone else does as well.
I do have large resolutions. I run my desktop at 1280x1024. If I had a 23" monitor, I'd probably run at 1600x1200. However, I also have small ones... My ThinkPad runs at 1024x768, and I have yet to have an issue with it.
Concerning the K Menu, it is rather large. Yet another improvement that is working it's way into Plasma. If possible, we want to provide a way to access your apps without using the K-Menu. The categories do have close to identical apps, but the point is to provide the user with choice. E.g. If they like Kate better than KWrite, then they should have that option. For now, you can always pare down the menu. Also, If you use a package-managed distro, they usually sort the apps into the proper places.
The best thing Linux could do to improve the user experience is to stop having ten million toolkits and environments and have a STANDARD CONSISTENT INTERFACE!i>
Yes, and no. Linux has something going for it with it's many toolkits which Microsoft and OSX don't have much of. Competition. MS rules the market, so they don't have to worry about improving their interface. (Unless a truly innovative app comes out, that threatens their market share... Firefox is a good example. If/When KDE comes out for windows, that will be quite another).
Uhhh... you (both) seem to forget that we are not talking about "Desktop OS"... we are talking about desktop usability.
So, you shoudn't forget CDE, KDE, Enlightenment, NeXTStep, etc.
Not that it particularly matters, but I prefer the KDE way of doig things... [OK][Apply][Reset][Cancel]. The way MS does it (switch Apply & cancel around) makes no sense at all... Buttons that do (somewhat) like effects should be kept together.
(Note: in KDE not all options are always present... usually it's OK, Apply, Cancel for dialogs, and OK, Apply, Reset for (say) KControl Applets.
I apologize. My roomate is constantly babbling in my ear about epistimology, and thus I get them confused easily... The digression is my personal take on More's Idea... but the reason he called it (effectively) "nowhere" is because the idea is implausible in a practical sense. Granted, he may not have said it right out... (Never read the book, just stuff based off of it). Question: Why would reforms be needed in utopia? (Do you mean, by chance, the reforms necessary to fulfill utoian goals?)
Well then, Lucas has grown too full of himself. (Also, the first movie was in theaters some 3 or more years before I was born... so no. Didn't get to see it ;)
Georgie-boy. The reason why it was cute was because it wasn't used more than once or twice per movie. Jeezus.
When one's mind is at peace, the body can accomplish great feats. E.g. That's the way yoda fights. If you had to fight with that body, you'd probably be zinging all over the place too. (Granted, I did think something was fucked up with most of the jedi in Ep3). (Also granted: Yoda fighintg was really ILM showing off).
Now what really disturbed me was how most of the fights in Ep 3 were completely unrealistic. Since when do epic Lightsaber fights involve so much bloody spinning?!?! That is a completely retarded way to fight. They were constantly exposing their backs to their opponents in that film... to tell the truth, it was the only thing I couldn't take in stride about that movie.