Memetics is a fun term. As a qualitative notion, it makes some intuitive sense. But what the article mentions is work that was quantitative (it compared functional vs. decorative features and their rate of change), and hence actually scientific.
With all respect, what in the hell are you talking about? To paraphrase the Wikipedia entry, Memetics is an approach to creating models for cultural information transfer. You know, just like natural selection is an approach to creating models for evolution. Of course it's not "quantitative"; it's a model for understanding the quantitative data.
The point is that memetics is not amenable to quantitative analysis. In other words, you can't derive hypotheses that you can test, unlike genetic evolution, which has been proven many times over. By studying cultural/mental content, memetics has a far more elusive target.
But it's not impossible. The research we are told about in TFA in fact does that, it (finally) does a serious quantitative study of cultural evolution, a field that until now has been almost entirely about qualitative claims, e.g., "religion is a virus". That might be true, but it isn't testable, hence it isn't scientific in the way that genetic evolution is. (If you believe I am wrong, please supply a reference to a rigorous scientific investigation of memetics, i.e., a quantitative one; thanks in advance.)
Isn't this just memetics in action? Memetics is a fun term. As a qualitative notion, it makes some intuitive sense. But what the article mentions is work that was quantitative (it compared functional vs. decorative features and their rate of change), and hence actually scientific. If you must talk using terms like 'memetics', then you might say that this research is important in that it finally brings some quantitative investigation into memetics instead of the usual 'just-so' stories.
That said, whether the researchers' results can support their wild speculation at the end of TFA (connecting their research to global warming, religious fundamentalism, and what have you) is another thing. Such speculation is silly.
The point is that during the period of uncertainly things at Yahoo! aren't running normally (and this period of uncertainly might last quite a while, while regulators make their decisions etc.). During this time, Yahoo! services might not be up to par, new features added more slowly, glitches, etc., who knows. Some people might be dissatisfied with the service at Yahoo! and seek other options. Most of those would have no idea about some "Microsoft deal to buy Yahoo!", so they wouldn't even consider waiting until the deal goes through (if it ever does). They'd just check out the other options, mainly Google and Microsoft.
Personally I suspected Microsoft's offer might be fake pretty early on. I don't know man -- a 44 billion dollar offer isn't something you treat like a game of poker. And MS hasn't backed down yet either. Well, why can't it be just like a game of poker? Perhaps Microsoft intends to decline the deal during the lengthy due diligence process, "oh, we didn't realize that [X,Y,Z facts about Yahoo]; never mind, we don't want it."
That's why some deals of this sort have a 'compensation' clause in which, if the buyer cancels the deal, some fixed sum is paid to the other side. Even a billion dollars for such a clause might be worth it for Microsoft, since it makes that amount (net) in a month.
See it's weird; I thought that the google proposed partnership was a spoiler and a non-serious offer just made to burn up more of Microsoft's warchest by giving Yahoo a plausible reason to drive the price up. And the goggle thing dissolved away very quickly, whereas the Microsoft offer is still on the table. The Google offer dissolved because it wasn't very realistic. But that doesn't prove the Microsoft offer is real.
Personally I suspected Microsoft's offer might be fake pretty early on. I mean, it can't be 100% fake, because if Yahoo! were to immediately agree, then Microsoft would have to go through with it, or lose face (and a lot of it). So there is some degree of truth in the offer. But Ballmer might think that the deal has a 95% chance of not succeeding (due to Yahoo! dismissing it, regulatory issues, etc.), and that in that 95% case he manages to screw Yahoo! up big time.
As for why Microsoft would want to screw with Yahoo!, my reasoning as I explained it to someone the other day is this. First, Microsoft would screw with Google if it could, but it can't use this trick there. So Yahoo! is the target, as follows (numbers are made up here, just to make a point): Say Google has 50% market share, Yahoo! has 30% and Microsoft has 10%. If Yahoo is screwed with, it might lose 10% to drop to 20%. In theory 5% might go to Google, 5% to Microsoft, giving us Google 55%, Yahoo! 20%, Microsoft 15%. Note that this helps Google at the same time as it helps Microsoft, but in simple terms, Microsoft has gained 50% market share (10% to 15%). From there Microsoft is at a better vantage point to challenge Google. Or, in other terms: First Microsoft fought with 80% of the market; now it fights with 75% of the market.
Another way to see it is that Microsoft wants to be #2 instead of #3. Any playing fairly always takes more time.
Ok, that's fine and well that if the journal allows it, Harvard makes a copy of the article freely available.
What about those journals (Nature and Science, maybe?) that do not allow this. Does this mean that Harvard faculty will not publish in Nature and Science? Somehow I doubt that. Does this mean that Harvard will break copyright agreements? Maybe?
The article doesn't quite say. Actually the article does say:
The new policy will allow faculty members to request a waiver, but otherwise they must provide an electronic form of each article to the provost's office, which will place it in an online repository. In other words, to publish in journals that do not allow open access, the authors will simply need to request a waiver. Presumably this will be a minor bureaucratic matter. But note that even if a journal isn't 'open access', many such journals let authors do what they will with "author's versions" of the article (or the journals just ignore the practice). Such a version lacks the journal's formatting and so forth. So there might not be a problem here at all.
Overall this is a very good move. The default will now be to publish articles openly, at least "author's versions". Yes, some authors might request the waiver to not do so, but this applies pressure on them and the journals. Very nice, Harvard, hopefully others will follow you soon.
High memory usage is different from memory leaks - every time you open a new tab it stores in ram some of the previous and next pages in ram. So if you do a lot of surfing on different tabs it very quickly goes up to 100MB in ram. You can disable that from the settings but you lose the ultra-quick back and forward capability. Yes, that's true, but it isn't the entire issue.
I'm running Firefox 3 (the previous beta, not the latest), and I set max_total_viewers to 1, which should in theory do what you said. Yet I routinely see ~200MB used by Firefox, and on my 512MB machine I need to restart Firefox once a day or so, since a web browser taking up half of my RAM doesn't make for good responsiveness of everything else.
One issue might be memory fragmentation in Firefox, or so I've been told. Perhaps someone who understands this stuff can clarify.
VMWare Server is probably the safest choice. It's stable, works, and is fairly convenient.
Parallels just came out with convenient installation for Ubuntu, I haven't checked it out yet. But it is supposedly very user-friendly on other platforms, so it might be worth a shot if VMWare isn't working out.
I believe the GP may be referring to the lack of a GUI. If not, then I am - VMWare, Parallels, VirtualBox and Xen all have various GUIs to manage them, some of which are very convenient. I am unaware of a convenient GUI for kvm (the Ubuntu wiki page to which you refer doesn't mention one), but perhaps I am just uninformed? If so, please correct me.
Also - again, not sure about this, correct me if I am wrong - but kvm requires hardware support, i.e., a fairly new CPU. Whereas some or most other virtualization offerings can work without that support. Of course, this is an issue that will become moot eventually, that's true.
2. Microsoft walks away. Shareholders revolt after stock drops big time. You know, the paranoid in me thought that this might be Microsoft's strategy all along.
Surely Ballmer knows many/most Yahoo! engineers aren't happy with the idea of being Microsoft employees (even if they do endure it, they won't do so happily, which affects productivity). Also most/all of Yahoo! is built using tools not easily integrated into Microsoft's (but this could be mitigated with a slow integration process). So the actual value of Yahoo! for Microsoft isn't all that great. Is this worth wiping out all of Microsoft's war chest and going into debt to boot? I doubt it.
Instead, imagine what would happen if Yahoo! vanished overnight. Yahoo! users would migrate either into Google services or Microsoft ones. Ballmer might believe that he can woo the majority of them; even if not, it still raises Microsoft's market share, even if while doing so it does the same for Google. And this might be achievable by doing exactly what Ballmer is doing: getting Yahoo! directors (and employees) to fight with Yahoo! stockholders. Yes, it might not wipe out Yahoo! overnight, but as a consequence the stock might topple downwards, and who knows what might happen then - the board might get replaced, internal turmoil, etc. etc. Even if it doesn't kill Yahoo!, it might make it less competitive, again, something that is good for Microsoft.
Well, I left Hotmail many years ago (using Gmail right now), so yes, this is the best solution. However, there is still something quite despicable about what Microsoft is doing, and it warrants protest. It isn't trivial to switch email provider if everyone you know has the old email, and Microsoft are abusing that IMO.
First, I was referring to the grandparent post of the one you quoted, I thought that's what we were talking about. There I said,
First, it might even be illegal as abuse of Microsoft's monopoly Second, please link me to something backing up your claim. If I am wrong here, I would like to get a good explanation so I fully understand my mistake, and learn something.
Third, kudos on the STFU and related comments, very classy.
Are you insinuating MS has a monopoly in email? No, in desktop OSes. Yes, this isn't the case of using a monopoly to enter and dominate new fields, it is in a sense the opposite: a monopoly is being further bolstered. Not being a lawyer, I don't know the legal specifics, hence I said before that this might be a legal issue.
Apple provides NO support for the iPod under Linux. Why aren't you mounting your soapbox against them? Because we are talking about Microsoft and Hotmail here. If we talk about Apple, I'll be glad to say exactly what you just suggested that I do. Why did you assume that I wouldn't?
Microsoft and Hotmail are worse, however, because of Microsoft's monopoly of Windows. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything.
yes, Hotmail 'works' on Linux, but it works better under Microsoft's OS
So does the Department of Justice need to declare Apple a monopoly within the online music and entertainment market in order for this same problem to apply to iTunes and QuickTime, both of which "work" on Windows, but work better on Mac OS X?
If Apple had a monopoly in OS X, then yes, certainly the DoJ would need to do precisely that.
Monopolies have different rules that apply to them.
The reporting could have been better, yes. But how is this not news? To me it was certainly news, and I tend to read a lot of tech news, so I presume it is news for quite a lot of other people as well.
This is a non-story [...] Hotmail works fine from Linux + FireFox - I too tried it last night. It's got some deprecated functionality, but that's pretty much par for the course with Microsoft-oriented webapps under Linux. Um, what? So you're saying that there is nothing wrong with Microsoft serving limited functionality to Linux users, "that's just how it is"?
This sort of thing is totally unacceptable. First, it might even be illegal as abuse of Microsoft's monopoly (yes, Hotmail 'works' on Linux, but it works better under Microsoft's OS). Second, there is no excuse for this. Last I checked, Gmail and Yahoo mail work perfectly fine, with all functionality, on Windows, OS X and Linux. As Microsoft has more money than both of these rivals, plainly it could support Firefox under Linux. But it prefers to leverage synergy with Windows (I almost choked on the marketspeak there, but you get what I mean).
So no, that this is 'par for the course' with Microsoft does not mean it is ok, and certainly does not mean it is not worthy of a Slashdot story. It is 100% worthy, word needs to get out about this sort of thing.
My guess is Islamic isolationists. Ummm, are these the same Islamofascists that we're told rely on the internet to get their message out and train their followers? Did they use one of their submarines? And what they hell does fundamentalist Islam have anything to do with corporatist fascism?
I don't know what 'Islamofascists' is. You use the term, explain it.
No, these are not the same groups that have cells worldwide and use the internet. These are isolationists, who only want to sever all connections between them and the West.
According to the press, a misplaced ship's anchor can do this sort of damage, so no need for a submarine.
I'd like to believe the US isn't behind it for any number of reasons. I'd like to believe that too, and I think your reasons are valid.
My guess is Islamic isolationists. That is, those people that, ever since Qutb, believe that that West is a corrupting influence on Islam. Internet access is a prime way for such influence to occur, so they would seem to have a very strong motivation to do this sort of thing.
Just a random theory, but none of the other ones make much sense to me.
According to the original poster, the company is developing new code to replace the same function. So it's like asking the company, "Would you like the code you paid for to be competing against your new product?"
You make a lot of assumptions there. Perhaps all of this code was meant only for internal consumption (like the vast majority of code written in the world), so competition is irrelevant? Or perhaps the reason for replacing the code is that requirements have changed, and the two projects are in fact substantially different?
Perhaps the original poster can clarify. Meanwhile I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
However, the more interesting question is what will happen now: if suddenly 90% of these forgeries vanish off the market, what will the people buying them do? Will other suppliers fill the gap, or will the buyers turn to casual piracy, or to alternate OSes?
It's not that interesting a question, methinks.
As these pirated copies were sold off as genuine, I'd guess that most of the users actually believed they were buying legitimate copies. Therefore, most of those people will be off buying legitimate copies
I'm not sure. If Windows cost them $10 before and now costs the full $150 or so, they won't just run to buy legitimate copies. I'm not saying they'll go off and run Linux - they might look until they find another pirated version, or get someone to help them download and burn one. Perhaps only a small minority might be motivated to seek alternate OSes, that is why I left this at the end of the list of options. But I seriously doubt the majority will just happily start paying full price.
The quote in the summary is more specific. It's the "production and distribution of more than 90 percent of the high-quality counterfeit Microsoft software products either seized by law enforcement or test-purchased around the world."
So they're only talking about the stuff they've confiscated and not claiming it's 90% of everything that exists. That's pretty much it. They're talking about 'high-quality piracy', not casual piracy as in downloading from the Pirate Bay or burning your friend a copy. High quality piracy in this context means that CDs are pressed, covers forged, everything in order for the product to look like it is authentic. It is then sold as if it were in fact authentic (as opposed to casual piracy, where no money trades hands).
It is very hard to know how much casual piracy there is. However, it is far easier to know how much high-quality piracy exists, because we are talking about actual physical products here, tangible evidence. They are also manufactured somewhere. Then, assuming that law enforcement captures such high-quality piracy in a random sampling manner (that is, all such forged products have the same chance to be caught - a working hypothesis, debatable of course), then this Taiwanese group was the source of 90% of that. So, presumably (by statistical inference) this group is responsible for 90% of high-quality piracy.
It's a little surprising that a single group is so dominant in this area, actually, I wouldn't have expected it. However, the more interesting question is what will happen now: if suddenly 90% of these forgeries vanish off the market, what will the people buying them do? Will other suppliers fill the gap, or will the buyers turn to casual piracy, or to alternate OSes?
Yeah, administrators of Zimbra based E-mail servers (like me) are starting to panic I think a Google bailout/business alliance could be, as one Zimbra developer described it, "manna from heaven". I think that, even if anti-trust authorities agree to this merger, they should make a requirement that Zimbra be spun off or sold. To let Microsoft own Zimbra is extremely anti-competitive, in fact, I can't think of anything more anti-competitive than that.
Yes, Zimbra is a tiny part of Yahoo and not the focus of this deal, but that just makes requiring Zimbra to be spun off a more reasonable requirement.
I think the misunderstanding is the use of 'disentangling'. I tried to clarify this in my previous post. If it still seems wrong to you, then ignore that word. My point was that GTK, in the past, wasn't logically separated into nice components, but that that has improved. I hope I am clearer now.
GTK is not going to be disentangled from glib, ever: the fact that you consider this realistic shows that you have no understanding of the issue. Perhaps we misunderstand each other. When I spoke of disentangling GTK from GLib, I meant to have a good and logical separation there. Once GTK had linked-list routines, for example; this was separated away into GLib. But of course GTK depends upon GLib; it is based upon it. If that is what you mean by 'disentangle', then yes, GTK relies on GLib, and this will remain so.
I would hope that we have no reason for insults in discussions like this.
Slashdot Mirror
With all respect, what in the hell are you talking about? To paraphrase the Wikipedia entry, Memetics is an approach to creating models for cultural information transfer. You know, just like natural selection is an approach to creating models for evolution. Of course it's not "quantitative"; it's a model for understanding the quantitative data.
The point is that memetics is not amenable to quantitative analysis. In other words, you can't derive hypotheses that you can test, unlike genetic evolution, which has been proven many times over. By studying cultural/mental content, memetics has a far more elusive target.But it's not impossible. The research we are told about in TFA in fact does that, it (finally) does a serious quantitative study of cultural evolution, a field that until now has been almost entirely about qualitative claims, e.g., "religion is a virus". That might be true, but it isn't testable, hence it isn't scientific in the way that genetic evolution is. (If you believe I am wrong, please supply a reference to a rigorous scientific investigation of memetics, i.e., a quantitative one; thanks in advance.)
I hope this helps.
That said, whether the researchers' results can support their wild speculation at the end of TFA (connecting their research to global warming, religious fundamentalism, and what have you) is another thing. Such speculation is silly.
The point is that during the period of uncertainly things at Yahoo! aren't running normally (and this period of uncertainly might last quite a while, while regulators make their decisions etc.). During this time, Yahoo! services might not be up to par, new features added more slowly, glitches, etc., who knows. Some people might be dissatisfied with the service at Yahoo! and seek other options. Most of those would have no idea about some "Microsoft deal to buy Yahoo!", so they wouldn't even consider waiting until the deal goes through (if it ever does). They'd just check out the other options, mainly Google and Microsoft.
That's why some deals of this sort have a 'compensation' clause in which, if the buyer cancels the deal, some fixed sum is paid to the other side. Even a billion dollars for such a clause might be worth it for Microsoft, since it makes that amount (net) in a month.
Personally I suspected Microsoft's offer might be fake pretty early on. I mean, it can't be 100% fake, because if Yahoo! were to immediately agree, then Microsoft would have to go through with it, or lose face (and a lot of it). So there is some degree of truth in the offer. But Ballmer might think that the deal has a 95% chance of not succeeding (due to Yahoo! dismissing it, regulatory issues, etc.), and that in that 95% case he manages to screw Yahoo! up big time.
As for why Microsoft would want to screw with Yahoo!, my reasoning as I explained it to someone the other day is this. First, Microsoft would screw with Google if it could, but it can't use this trick there. So Yahoo! is the target, as follows (numbers are made up here, just to make a point): Say Google has 50% market share, Yahoo! has 30% and Microsoft has 10%. If Yahoo is screwed with, it might lose 10% to drop to 20%. In theory 5% might go to Google, 5% to Microsoft, giving us Google 55%, Yahoo! 20%, Microsoft 15%. Note that this helps Google at the same time as it helps Microsoft, but in simple terms, Microsoft has gained 50% market share (10% to 15%). From there Microsoft is at a better vantage point to challenge Google. Or, in other terms: First Microsoft fought with 80% of the market; now it fights with 75% of the market.
Another way to see it is that Microsoft wants to be #2 instead of #3. Any playing fairly always takes more time.
Overall this is a very good move. The default will now be to publish articles openly, at least "author's versions". Yes, some authors might request the waiver to not do so, but this applies pressure on them and the journals. Very nice, Harvard, hopefully others will follow you soon.
I'm running Firefox 3 (the previous beta, not the latest), and I set max_total_viewers to 1, which should in theory do what you said. Yet I routinely see ~200MB used by Firefox, and on my 512MB machine I need to restart Firefox once a day or so, since a web browser taking up half of my RAM doesn't make for good responsiveness of everything else.
One issue might be memory fragmentation in Firefox, or so I've been told. Perhaps someone who understands this stuff can clarify.
VMWare Server is probably the safest choice. It's stable, works, and is fairly convenient.
Parallels just came out with convenient installation for Ubuntu, I haven't checked it out yet. But it is supposedly very user-friendly on other platforms, so it might be worth a shot if VMWare isn't working out.
I believe the GP may be referring to the lack of a GUI. If not, then I am - VMWare, Parallels, VirtualBox and Xen all have various GUIs to manage them, some of which are very convenient. I am unaware of a convenient GUI for kvm (the Ubuntu wiki page to which you refer doesn't mention one), but perhaps I am just uninformed? If so, please correct me.
Also - again, not sure about this, correct me if I am wrong - but kvm requires hardware support, i.e., a fairly new CPU. Whereas some or most other virtualization offerings can work without that support. Of course, this is an issue that will become moot eventually, that's true.
Surely Ballmer knows many/most Yahoo! engineers aren't happy with the idea of being Microsoft employees (even if they do endure it, they won't do so happily, which affects productivity). Also most/all of Yahoo! is built using tools not easily integrated into Microsoft's (but this could be mitigated with a slow integration process). So the actual value of Yahoo! for Microsoft isn't all that great. Is this worth wiping out all of Microsoft's war chest and going into debt to boot? I doubt it.
Instead, imagine what would happen if Yahoo! vanished overnight. Yahoo! users would migrate either into Google services or Microsoft ones. Ballmer might believe that he can woo the majority of them; even if not, it still raises Microsoft's market share, even if while doing so it does the same for Google. And this might be achievable by doing exactly what Ballmer is doing: getting Yahoo! directors (and employees) to fight with Yahoo! stockholders. Yes, it might not wipe out Yahoo! overnight, but as a consequence the stock might topple downwards, and who knows what might happen then - the board might get replaced, internal turmoil, etc. etc. Even if it doesn't kill Yahoo!, it might make it less competitive, again, something that is good for Microsoft.
Well, I left Hotmail many years ago (using Gmail right now), so yes, this is the best solution. However, there is still something quite despicable about what Microsoft is doing, and it warrants protest. It isn't trivial to switch email provider if everyone you know has the old email, and Microsoft are abusing that IMO.
Third, kudos on the STFU and related comments, very classy.
Microsoft and Hotmail are worse, however, because of Microsoft's monopoly of Windows. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything.
So does the Department of Justice need to declare Apple a monopoly within the online music and entertainment market in order for this same problem to apply to iTunes and QuickTime, both of which "work" on Windows, but work better on Mac OS X?
If Apple had a monopoly in OS X, then yes, certainly the DoJ would need to do precisely that.Monopolies have different rules that apply to them.
The reporting could have been better, yes. But how is this not news? To me it was certainly news, and I tend to read a lot of tech news, so I presume it is news for quite a lot of other people as well.
This sort of thing is totally unacceptable. First, it might even be illegal as abuse of Microsoft's monopoly (yes, Hotmail 'works' on Linux, but it works better under Microsoft's OS). Second, there is no excuse for this. Last I checked, Gmail and Yahoo mail work perfectly fine, with all functionality, on Windows, OS X and Linux. As Microsoft has more money than both of these rivals, plainly it could support Firefox under Linux. But it prefers to leverage synergy with Windows (I almost choked on the marketspeak there, but you get what I mean).
So no, that this is 'par for the course' with Microsoft does not mean it is ok, and certainly does not mean it is not worthy of a Slashdot story. It is 100% worthy, word needs to get out about this sort of thing.
I'd like to believe that too, and I think your reasons are valid.
My guess is Islamic isolationists. That is, those people that, ever since Qutb, believe that that West is a corrupting influence on Islam. Internet access is a prime way for such influence to occur, so they would seem to have a very strong motivation to do this sort of thing.
Just a random theory, but none of the other ones make much sense to me.
You make a lot of assumptions there. Perhaps all of this code was meant only for internal consumption (like the vast majority of code written in the world), so competition is irrelevant? Or perhaps the reason for replacing the code is that requirements have changed, and the two projects are in fact substantially different?
Perhaps the original poster can clarify. Meanwhile I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
It's not that interesting a question, methinks.
As these pirated copies were sold off as genuine, I'd guess that most of the users actually believed they were buying legitimate copies. Therefore, most of those people will be off buying legitimate copies
I'm not sure. If Windows cost them $10 before and now costs the full $150 or so, they won't just run to buy legitimate copies. I'm not saying they'll go off and run Linux - they might look until they find another pirated version, or get someone to help them download and burn one. Perhaps only a small minority might be motivated to seek alternate OSes, that is why I left this at the end of the list of options. But I seriously doubt the majority will just happily start paying full price.So they're only talking about the stuff they've confiscated and not claiming it's 90% of everything that exists. That's pretty much it. They're talking about 'high-quality piracy', not casual piracy as in downloading from the Pirate Bay or burning your friend a copy. High quality piracy in this context means that CDs are pressed, covers forged, everything in order for the product to look like it is authentic. It is then sold as if it were in fact authentic (as opposed to casual piracy, where no money trades hands).
It is very hard to know how much casual piracy there is. However, it is far easier to know how much high-quality piracy exists, because we are talking about actual physical products here, tangible evidence. They are also manufactured somewhere. Then, assuming that law enforcement captures such high-quality piracy in a random sampling manner (that is, all such forged products have the same chance to be caught - a working hypothesis, debatable of course), then this Taiwanese group was the source of 90% of that. So, presumably (by statistical inference) this group is responsible for 90% of high-quality piracy.
It's a little surprising that a single group is so dominant in this area, actually, I wouldn't have expected it. However, the more interesting question is what will happen now: if suddenly 90% of these forgeries vanish off the market, what will the people buying them do? Will other suppliers fill the gap, or will the buyers turn to casual piracy, or to alternate OSes?
Yes, Zimbra is a tiny part of Yahoo and not the focus of this deal, but that just makes requiring Zimbra to be spun off a more reasonable requirement.
I agree that the current situation is a good one.
I think the misunderstanding is the use of 'disentangling'. I tried to clarify this in my previous post. If it still seems wrong to you, then ignore that word. My point was that GTK, in the past, wasn't logically separated into nice components, but that that has improved. I hope I am clearer now.
I would hope that we have no reason for insults in discussions like this.