VB doesn't do real compilation. It may seem that way, but that's not what it's doing. It simply has all the instructions for the interpreter in the.exe file. Without the interpreter.dll you can't run the program.
Basically, if it's a huge app, you don't want to use VB for the sake of speed and stability. VB is slower than many languages since it's interpreted - which may not matter for small apps but for big ones it often does. And it seems to me that it hogs more resources too.
In general, you're right - open-source games usually don't look very pretty. They're mainly a "programmer's playground" and they don't care about looking pretty.
However, there are quite a few that are at least decent, and even some that are pretty high-quality (look at Glest and Tremulous, they've got pretty good graphics).
Some artists DO, in fact, take part in these projects. Maybe just for fun, but other times to build up their resume and show people what they can do and how good they are.
Yeah, not like movie sales are down, or all the movies this year sucked, or anything like that. No rip-offs or copy-offs or anything like that. King Kong was a great movie, and GTA San Andreas was TOTALLY different from Vice City.
We never learned an IDE in my Java classes, and I'm quite thankful for it. Why? Simple. I'm a Linux guy. They had Windows computers. If we had used J++ or something, I'd be clueless when it comes to Linux programming. But since we used Notepad, I had no problem switching over. And I'll probably have no problem if I want to use MacOS either.
It may not have been an "intro" class but I only took one Java class (and actually I didn't think it was going to be Java - that's not what it was called, it was called "Computer Science".
An IDE does a lot to hinder the learning process. It points out a good portion of your errors, which means you won't learn to find them yourself. It forces you to learn to use the IDE which keeps you from learning the language for a while (want an example? Walk into any "intro" Visual BASIC class - the first week or so will be learning the IDE and maybe minimal amounts of coding). It tells you how to interface with different classes and objects, preventing you from taking the initiative to learn them for your own. And on top of all this, it's often wrong - I've tried out J++ and it points things out for no reason - for example, "undeclared variable" warnings when the line it's complaining about is a function declaration.
And if pointers aren't being discussed, there's something wrong - Java uses pointers quite a bit.
"think you should maximize the time spent learning the language and minimize the time spent on learning semantics of something like vi, emacs, or other not-so-user-friendly environments."
Who said anything about vi or emacs? They could use Notepad or Word. Or is that not "user-friendly" enough for you?
People aren't born with the knowledge of how to use an IDE. I'd say there's a better chance they'll walk into the class knowing how to use Notepad or Word than being familiar with J++ or Eclipse - only programmers would be familiar with these tools, and if they're already programmers what're they doing in an "intro" class?
First off, you don't need an IDE for color coding.
Second off, it WILL help them in the real world. It'll teach them to debug programs without a debugger (believe it or not, debugger programs quite obviously don't catch all bugs. A human can catch more, if properly trained.), and it'll allow them the advantage of not knowing an IDE - they can learn any IDE they want later on.
If you teach them without an IDE then they won't be dependent on one particular IDE.
I learned Java with only Notepad, and I think it helped a lot - it forced me to really make sure I know what I'm doing, and to try and understand why the compiler was giving me certain errors. It also forced me to kind of learn to debug things on my own, either by working through routines on paper or by iterating through them in my head.
It's also good not having to learn to use an IDE - all you learn is pure coding. Which makes things a little more straight-forward.
Actually, I still don't use an IDE. Maybe if I'd try one I'd learn to like it. But I'm content with just using a text editor like KWrite that highlights certain keywords and understands certain Java commands, and can do things like collapsing subroutines to make things easier to read.
Slackware 10.2 works on my laptop (which, BTW, has quite a bit of fancy hardware - GeForce Go 7500, 2 100GB SATA drives, 17" widescreen) *PERFECTLY* straight out of the box. Haven't tried the wireless yet but everything else works just fine.
And MS can't even install Vista on a laptop? And they're claiming to be better than Linux?
"Well then, why not just reformat and reinstall Windows? About as fast, and solves the problem just as much."
I don't know about Windows, but in Linux when you restore a backup, you basically just copy all your files from your backup to wherever you're restoring to. Just drag-and-drop. (There's other ways to do it, too, but that should do the trick. The only difference is if you use a backup program it might compress it somehow - but if you want that you can just tar it or something.)
And if you reformat, you'll have to reinstall all your programs too. So you save time there, too.
Well if you had restored a backup like I said, you wouldn't need to worry about that so much.
Anything important enough for you to worry about losing it, should be backed up somewhere.
And of course, there are other options - such as downloading a virus scanner and having it scan and clean all your files - in the rare event that you do get a virus and you don't have a backup.
No. I think what he meant is that the virus wouldn't affect the whole system - you could just delete the user, set another one up, and keep going off of a backup.
How would it know it's a browser? Programs all look the same to the OS - it doesn't know whether it's an IM app, a browser, an e-mail program. . . whatever.
Making a program that can correctly guess what other programs are trying to do would be pretty hard to make.
The problem is, there's little motivation to do this in Linux. In Windows it's easy to just write a VBScript to bring down the system. In Linux, it's not that easy.
It would a lot more time and determination to write a Linux virus. Every day, Linux has people who could possibly write a Linux virus looking for security holes - some may be trying to write a virus, most are trying to improve Linux's security. The ones trying to improve security have just as much of a chance finding a hole as those trying to write a virus, and they also are just as likely to know how to write code. So, they'll go ahead and patch any security holes they happen to find.
Yeah, it might be relatively easy to make a virus that runs in user space, but that user (and his files) can be easily deleted by root.
"Yes I am glad. The point was that the people who are causing the GPL turmoil are the elite gpl programmers who are pushing distros to become LESS user friendly and more difficult to accept."
Well maybe you didn't read my post then.
This doesn't affect the "user-friendliness" *AT ALL*.
It is 100% possible that after they (the Kororaa programmers) make the change to make it GPL-compatible, you won't know the difference.
Why? Because the difference will be small - rather than coming with the drivers preinstalled, it will autoinstall them for you.
"It might be easy for you as a member of the cerebral elite"
I'm no member of the "cerebral elite" - I'm just a normal person. I have emotions, I can make decisions, and perhaps best of all, I can learn.
It doesn't matter, though, because there will be nothing for me (or anyone else) to relearn after this change is made.
My point is this - the change doesn't affect you. It'll autoinstall the driver and you won't even know the difference.
Nothing's changed. Just that different people on/. are commenting.
I won't play the game (not into RPGs, plus I don't like the idea of this game - it's creepy), but I'm not against it either. I think it's about time we start having some real dialogue on the subject.
What makes it OK for us to have a movie about people getting massacred on 9/11 but not OK to have a game about Columbine?
If the game is done right, it might actually give us some sort of insight as to why it happened. Or, more correctly, make us care about why it happened - everyone knows these kids were the "losers" of the school, and many just think "well everyone's been made fun of before", but maybe they'll really realize the extent when they see what series of events took them over the edge.
"But don't you think your statement quoted above implies that usability of Linux, for any but the most seasoned user, will always be a "moving target"?"
No. Most of the Linux programs that aren't trying to go for ease-of-use use the command line interface. The programmer most likely won't change how to interface with the program once it's all programmed. When he adds a new feature, in order to use that feature you just add that command line switch if you want to use it. You won't need to change how you use the rest of the program.
So it's really not a "moving target". It's usually only what's inside that you don't have to worry about that's changing. It's only moving in the sense that a horse is moving - yes, it may be moving but it doesn't affect the rider at all - he doesn't need to re-learn anything. Maybe it's got a new saddle that he's not used to but it's not totally different.
This makes things fairly easy on people trying to make GUIs to make things easier. You might understand this easier if you were a programmer, but when you're interfacing with another program, you use a certain set of functions in that program. Other functions are only for that program itself, and you don't need to worry about them and you actually won't even know what they're doing if you don't look at the code.
So as long as those "accessor methods" stay the same, changing the program shouldn't cause any trouble for the person writing the GUI.
"I mean, it's kind of like throwing a big party at your house with a great band & awesome food, and then not telling anybody what your address is, isn't it?"
That's something important to realize about Linux. The people who write the programs do it for themselves - for an ego boost and/or because they actually need/want such a program.
So I guess it's more like building an RC airplane and showing it off. You don't worry about if others don't know how to work the radio controls because it's your plane and you know how to fly it.
"Things like "Linux was not put together for your convenience" insult the people who put hours of their time into making it convenient just as much as someone saying "this program isn't what I want, it sucks" insults the people who made it."
You're partially right, but Linux wasn't made to be easy to use/learn. Functionality over user-friendliness. The ability for the program to do what it needs to do is considered more important than how easily the user can use the program - that can always be improved later, after the functionality is all there.
So there are people trying to make things easier, but most of the programs weren't made to be easy to use, they were just made to get the job done. Linux really WASN'T built for convenience. Some people are trying to make it more convenient, and I commend them for that. But functionality still comes before convenience.
"when you compare Linux to legos you are comparing it to a toy."
That depends on how you look at it. Hackers (AKA Linux programmers) often use/hack a computer for fun. In fact, plenty of people use computers for fun - gamers, kids talking on IM/using MySpace. . .
Legos are just as much a tool as they are toys. In fact, they're more like tools disguised as toys. Yes, kids have fun using them, but they also teach kids about design and physics, as well as programming. A kid can use a Lego Technic kit and build a car with a spring-loaded ejection seat. He might be having fun, but he's also learning.
Likewise, a computer is also a toy. Yes, it can do lots of things like spreadsheets, e-mail, and different analytical stuff, but it can also be used to have fun.
What I was getting at with the whole Lego analogy, though, is that we (well, a lot of us, anyways) like to "reconstruct" Linux different ways. I recompile the kernel one way specifically for the server downstairs, and I recompile it another way to get a little more speed out of my desktop.
"Listen if the elitest jerks are the ones who wrote the OS then I don't want anything to do with it. I could care less how technically "superior" it is, but if I can't find a decent distro that includes everything I want then i say 'screw it'."
Who said anything about it being technically superior? As far as I'm concerned, only you did.
And weren't you just saying how cool you thought Kororaa is? Kororaa is Linux too, you know. So, you want Kororaa but you don't want anything to do with Kororaa?
"This distro gave me everything I needed to enjoy XGL. I didn't have to rebuild X, mesa, and a slew of other shit in order to try it."
SuSE would've done the same. And it would've installed the nVidia driver for you.
"Linux will lose out to MOSX because of this shit."
Linux will never lose to OSX. Did you even read my previous posts? Linux != Windows.
STOP! I know you want to reply, but before you do, consider this:
THIS HARDLY EVEN AFFECTS KORORAA AT ALL! All the Kororaa devs will have to do now is HAVE THE INSTALLER ASK YOU if you want to install the nVidia drivers.
Now aren't you glad you yelled and screamed at me so much? It won't affect you or your precious distro, except that now you'll have to click a checkbox saying you want to install the nVidia drivers. Whoop de frickin' do.
"Those elitist jerks are why I don't use Linux. Yeah, they did a wonderful job, but I simply find Windows (yes, Windows!) more convinient to use. I think Linux is in trouble because I am a CS grad student and >50% of my fellow grad students feel the same way. I'd rather not waste my time setting up video drivers and other crap like that - I could be doing something useful."
I didn't waste any time setting things up. . . why would you?
I wasted more time setting Windows up - it had to reboot every 10 minutes, if not due to a crash or installing drivers, because of its stupid updates. Why Windows Update can't download all its updates at once is beyond me.
"And just so you know, plenty of Linux's developers aren't elitist jerks. Unforuntely, a large number are. Believe it or not, you can program an OS without being one."
I didn't say they were elitist jerks (in fact, I know they're not). GP did.
Believe it or not, none of them are elitist. They're just annoyed that so many people expect them to change their program and OS to be more like something they consider to be inferior, and to make these changes without payment, especially when the person wanting these changes could make them him/herself using the author's code.
People often forget that we receive no payment whatsoever for our code, so if we don't like your suggestions we might not implement them, and if you really want them you're free to either find another programmer to implement it or implement it yourself.
"I don't like your lego analogy because most people use computers as tools"
Most people don't know how to use a computer. They get all kinds of virii and spyware.
Just leave. Turn off your computer, unplug your Internet connection, and walk away. Legos are tools just as much as they are toys. In fact, they're often used to help kids learn about computers and programming. Being a CS major, you probably should've at least HEARD of Mindstorms and Lego Technic.
Sure, they could be considered toys, but they could just as easily be considered learning tools. They teach kids about mechanics and physics, and Mindstorms teaches them about computer programming.
"but good luck playing games on Linux!"
Thanks but no thanks. I don't need luck to play games on Linux. I could do it before, and I can do it now. DOOM3 runs great, as does America's Army, Quake 4, and quite a few other games - both proprietary and open-source.
I'm more than a little surprised that someone as big as Microsoft is worried about money enough to hire people in India for tech support. I don't know what took longer - actually getting a representative, or understanding the 25-character alphanumeric MS Office XP Product Key that guy was giving me.
Then again, I'm not that surprised. They don't care about their customers. I'm sure MS was just delighted when I switched to OpenOffice.org, and after that encounter installing Office on my sister's PC, so was I.
umm. . . why don't you set it up so that/. automatically appends your signature, like everyone else? You look like an idiot having to copy and paste it into your replies (at least that's what it seems like you're doing).
Slashdot Mirror
VB doesn't do real compilation. It may seem that way, but that's not what it's doing. It simply has all the instructions for the interpreter in the .exe file. Without the interpreter .dll you can't run the program.
Basically, if it's a huge app, you don't want to use VB for the sake of speed and stability. VB is slower than many languages since it's interpreted - which may not matter for small apps but for big ones it often does. And it seems to me that it hogs more resources too.
In general, you're right - open-source games usually don't look very pretty. They're mainly a "programmer's playground" and they don't care about looking pretty.
However, there are quite a few that are at least decent, and even some that are pretty high-quality (look at Glest and Tremulous, they've got pretty good graphics).
Some artists DO, in fact, take part in these projects. Maybe just for fun, but other times to build up their resume and show people what they can do and how good they are.
Yeah, not like movie sales are down, or all the movies this year sucked, or anything like that. No rip-offs or copy-offs or anything like that. King Kong was a great movie, and GTA San Andreas was TOTALLY different from Vice City.
Large numbers meaning who? You and "Leeroy Jenkins"?
All kidding aside. . . that still won't do it. People won't pay more for a game they already own.
It may not have been an "intro" class but I only took one Java class (and actually I didn't think it was going to be Java - that's not what it was called, it was called "Computer Science".
An IDE does a lot to hinder the learning process. It points out a good portion of your errors, which means you won't learn to find them yourself. It forces you to learn to use the IDE which keeps you from learning the language for a while (want an example? Walk into any "intro" Visual BASIC class - the first week or so will be learning the IDE and maybe minimal amounts of coding). It tells you how to interface with different classes and objects, preventing you from taking the initiative to learn them for your own. And on top of all this, it's often wrong - I've tried out J++ and it points things out for no reason - for example, "undeclared variable" warnings when the line it's complaining about is a function declaration.
And if pointers aren't being discussed, there's something wrong - Java uses pointers quite a bit.
"think you should maximize the time spent learning the language and minimize the time spent on learning semantics of something like vi, emacs, or other not-so-user-friendly environments."
Who said anything about vi or emacs? They could use Notepad or Word. Or is that not "user-friendly" enough for you?
People aren't born with the knowledge of how to use an IDE. I'd say there's a better chance they'll walk into the class knowing how to use Notepad or Word than being familiar with J++ or Eclipse - only programmers would be familiar with these tools, and if they're already programmers what're they doing in an "intro" class?
Second off, it WILL help them in the real world. It'll teach them to debug programs without a debugger (believe it or not, debugger programs quite obviously don't catch all bugs. A human can catch more, if properly trained.), and it'll allow them the advantage of not knowing an IDE - they can learn any IDE they want later on.
I learned Java with only Notepad, and I think it helped a lot - it forced me to really make sure I know what I'm doing, and to try and understand why the compiler was giving me certain errors. It also forced me to kind of learn to debug things on my own, either by working through routines on paper or by iterating through them in my head.
It's also good not having to learn to use an IDE - all you learn is pure coding. Which makes things a little more straight-forward.
Actually, I still don't use an IDE. Maybe if I'd try one I'd learn to like it. But I'm content with just using a text editor like KWrite that highlights certain keywords and understands certain Java commands, and can do things like collapsing subroutines to make things easier to read.
You don't suppose maybe he could do that trick again and be a heavy figure in MS' North American operations during its Xbox 360 era?
Watch, my friends, as MS, just like Sega, disappears into nothingness!
I don't know know who Peter Moore is either but apparently he doesn't have a Wii, whoever he is.
How old is Linux?
Windows has a good 5-10 years experience as an advantage over Linux. I'd think it'd be able to handle a laptop. . .
Slackware 10.2 works on my laptop (which, BTW, has quite a bit of fancy hardware - GeForce Go 7500, 2 100GB SATA drives, 17" widescreen) *PERFECTLY* straight out of the box. Haven't tried the wireless yet but everything else works just fine.
And MS can't even install Vista on a laptop? And they're claiming to be better than Linux?
I don't know about Windows, but in Linux when you restore a backup, you basically just copy all your files from your backup to wherever you're restoring to. Just drag-and-drop. (There's other ways to do it, too, but that should do the trick. The only difference is if you use a backup program it might compress it somehow - but if you want that you can just tar it or something.)
And if you reformat, you'll have to reinstall all your programs too. So you save time there, too.
Anything important enough for you to worry about losing it, should be backed up somewhere.
And of course, there are other options - such as downloading a virus scanner and having it scan and clean all your files - in the rare event that you do get a virus and you don't have a backup.
No. I think what he meant is that the virus wouldn't affect the whole system - you could just delete the user, set another one up, and keep going off of a backup.
Making a program that can correctly guess what other programs are trying to do would be pretty hard to make.
It would a lot more time and determination to write a Linux virus. Every day, Linux has people who could possibly write a Linux virus looking for security holes - some may be trying to write a virus, most are trying to improve Linux's security. The ones trying to improve security have just as much of a chance finding a hole as those trying to write a virus, and they also are just as likely to know how to write code. So, they'll go ahead and patch any security holes they happen to find.
Yeah, it might be relatively easy to make a virus that runs in user space, but that user (and his files) can be easily deleted by root.
Well maybe you didn't read my post then.
This doesn't affect the "user-friendliness" *AT ALL*.
It is 100% possible that after they (the Kororaa programmers) make the change to make it GPL-compatible, you won't know the difference.
Why? Because the difference will be small - rather than coming with the drivers preinstalled, it will autoinstall them for you.
"It might be easy for you as a member of the cerebral elite"
I'm no member of the "cerebral elite" - I'm just a normal person. I have emotions, I can make decisions, and perhaps best of all, I can learn.
It doesn't matter, though, because there will be nothing for me (or anyone else) to relearn after this change is made.
My point is this - the change doesn't affect you. It'll autoinstall the driver and you won't even know the difference.
I won't play the game (not into RPGs, plus I don't like the idea of this game - it's creepy), but I'm not against it either. I think it's about time we start having some real dialogue on the subject.
What makes it OK for us to have a movie about people getting massacred on 9/11 but not OK to have a game about Columbine?
If the game is done right, it might actually give us some sort of insight as to why it happened. Or, more correctly, make us care about why it happened - everyone knows these kids were the "losers" of the school, and many just think "well everyone's been made fun of before", but maybe they'll really realize the extent when they see what series of events took them over the edge.
No. Most of the Linux programs that aren't trying to go for ease-of-use use the command line interface. The programmer most likely won't change how to interface with the program once it's all programmed. When he adds a new feature, in order to use that feature you just add that command line switch if you want to use it. You won't need to change how you use the rest of the program.
So it's really not a "moving target". It's usually only what's inside that you don't have to worry about that's changing. It's only moving in the sense that a horse is moving - yes, it may be moving but it doesn't affect the rider at all - he doesn't need to re-learn anything. Maybe it's got a new saddle that he's not used to but it's not totally different.
This makes things fairly easy on people trying to make GUIs to make things easier. You might understand this easier if you were a programmer, but when you're interfacing with another program, you use a certain set of functions in that program. Other functions are only for that program itself, and you don't need to worry about them and you actually won't even know what they're doing if you don't look at the code.
So as long as those "accessor methods" stay the same, changing the program shouldn't cause any trouble for the person writing the GUI.
"I mean, it's kind of like throwing a big party at your house with a great band & awesome food, and then not telling anybody what your address is, isn't it?"
That's something important to realize about Linux. The people who write the programs do it for themselves - for an ego boost and/or because they actually need/want such a program.
So I guess it's more like building an RC airplane and showing it off. You don't worry about if others don't know how to work the radio controls because it's your plane and you know how to fly it.
You're partially right, but Linux wasn't made to be easy to use/learn. Functionality over user-friendliness. The ability for the program to do what it needs to do is considered more important than how easily the user can use the program - that can always be improved later, after the functionality is all there.
So there are people trying to make things easier, but most of the programs weren't made to be easy to use, they were just made to get the job done. Linux really WASN'T built for convenience. Some people are trying to make it more convenient, and I commend them for that. But functionality still comes before convenience.
"when you compare Linux to legos you are comparing it to a toy."
That depends on how you look at it. Hackers (AKA Linux programmers) often use/hack a computer for fun. In fact, plenty of people use computers for fun - gamers, kids talking on IM/using MySpace. . .
Legos are just as much a tool as they are toys. In fact, they're more like tools disguised as toys. Yes, kids have fun using them, but they also teach kids about design and physics, as well as programming. A kid can use a Lego Technic kit and build a car with a spring-loaded ejection seat. He might be having fun, but he's also learning.
Likewise, a computer is also a toy. Yes, it can do lots of things like spreadsheets, e-mail, and different analytical stuff, but it can also be used to have fun.
What I was getting at with the whole Lego analogy, though, is that we (well, a lot of us, anyways) like to "reconstruct" Linux different ways. I recompile the kernel one way specifically for the server downstairs, and I recompile it another way to get a little more speed out of my desktop.
Who said anything about it being technically superior? As far as I'm concerned, only you did.
And weren't you just saying how cool you thought Kororaa is? Kororaa is Linux too, you know. So, you want Kororaa but you don't want anything to do with Kororaa?
"This distro gave me everything I needed to enjoy XGL. I didn't have to rebuild X, mesa, and a slew of other shit in order to try it."
SuSE would've done the same. And it would've installed the nVidia driver for you.
"Linux will lose out to MOSX because of this shit."
Linux will never lose to OSX. Did you even read my previous posts? Linux != Windows.
STOP! I know you want to reply, but before you do, consider this:
THIS HARDLY EVEN AFFECTS KORORAA AT ALL! All the Kororaa devs will have to do now is HAVE THE INSTALLER ASK YOU if you want to install the nVidia drivers.
Now aren't you glad you yelled and screamed at me so much? It won't affect you or your precious distro, except that now you'll have to click a checkbox saying you want to install the nVidia drivers. Whoop de frickin' do.
I didn't waste any time setting things up. . . why would you?
I wasted more time setting Windows up - it had to reboot every 10 minutes, if not due to a crash or installing drivers, because of its stupid updates. Why Windows Update can't download all its updates at once is beyond me.
"And just so you know, plenty of Linux's developers aren't elitist jerks. Unforuntely, a large number are. Believe it or not, you can program an OS without being one."
I didn't say they were elitist jerks (in fact, I know they're not). GP did.
Believe it or not, none of them are elitist. They're just annoyed that so many people expect them to change their program and OS to be more like something they consider to be inferior, and to make these changes without payment, especially when the person wanting these changes could make them him/herself using the author's code.
People often forget that we receive no payment whatsoever for our code, so if we don't like your suggestions we might not implement them, and if you really want them you're free to either find another programmer to implement it or implement it yourself.
"I don't like your lego analogy because most people use computers as tools"
Most people don't know how to use a computer. They get all kinds of virii and spyware.
Just leave. Turn off your computer, unplug your Internet connection, and walk away. Legos are tools just as much as they are toys. In fact, they're often used to help kids learn about computers and programming. Being a CS major, you probably should've at least HEARD of Mindstorms and Lego Technic.
Sure, they could be considered toys, but they could just as easily be considered learning tools. They teach kids about mechanics and physics, and Mindstorms teaches them about computer programming.
"but good luck playing games on Linux!"
Thanks but no thanks. I don't need luck to play games on Linux. I could do it before, and I can do it now. DOOM3 runs great, as does America's Army, Quake 4, and quite a few other games - both proprietary and open-source.
I'm more than a little surprised that someone as big as Microsoft is worried about money enough to hire people in India for tech support. I don't know what took longer - actually getting a representative, or understanding the 25-character alphanumeric MS Office XP Product Key that guy was giving me.
Then again, I'm not that surprised. They don't care about their customers. I'm sure MS was just delighted when I switched to OpenOffice.org, and after that encounter installing Office on my sister's PC, so was I.
umm. . . why don't you set it up so that /. automatically appends your signature, like everyone else? You look like an idiot having to copy and paste it into your replies (at least that's what it seems like you're doing).