Some people like to pick apart the whole "Microsoft is evil" type rant showing how other operating systems do in fact share the same problems found in Windows and other Microsoft products.
The reality is that it's not 1 or 2 problems that make Microsoft evil but the whole pacage.

Microsoft as a monopoly isn't evil. It's undesirable. Os flaws aren't evil they are undesirable. Every complaint isn't evil they alone are undesirable.
Linux has a few undesirable trates so dose MacOs. The Commodore 64, Amiga, Atari ST. There isn't a single system that has ever been on the market that didn't have an undesirable trate.

The Farchild game console Channel F would burn out after so many hours. That is VERY undesirable. Then what? Buy a new Channel F? Not nessisary you could buy anything. No monpoly.

IBM had a near stranglehold on the mainframe industry. But IBM did make reasonably good systems. People had complaints but they did the job.

EA pulled that nifty stunt on the Atari ST buying up all the Atari titles and re-releasing them for the Amiga. But the Amiga was a nice machine and that did EA more damage to themselfs than anyone would like to admit. Also it sure didn't help Amiga any and Atari did themselfs in before EA could do any real damage to Atari.

Every stunt Microsoft pulled was done before. But that hardly makes it ok. I'll forgive Linux for not being user friendly not like it effects me and others will forgive MacOs for being bloated they want the power that results from it not the raw uncut CPU power that comes from streamlining.

Tradeoffs.

But Windows isn't trading off. It's just slapping stuff on and not doing any real work to fix the problems already in place.

Microsoft has an industry of excuses and this is one undesirable trate nobody forgives.

So the end it's not one mistake or one undesirable trate. We could pick and pick and pick. But the shear body of it all is the problem.
Microsoft Windows has a few desirable trates and has a few fans. We should respect that.

However I have one retort to the whole clame "If Linux was as populare as Windows it would have the same problems" There is no reacurence to show this. Windows is unqiue in it's problems where as other platforms had the majority spotlight only Windows had the problems.
No I have two... If Windows lost the spotlight it would die. Microsoft relys on the 90% markeshare to keep Windows alive.

Linux drivers are chipset driven Windows drivers are product driven. If 10% of the PC hardware produced today didn't have Windows drivers Microsoft would be in a world of hurt. Linux was alive and well at only 10% driver support. Maybe someday Linux will have full covrage with EVERY card manufacter making a Linux driver. But Windows couldn't survive with anything less than 100% support.

Fact is before Linux would reach a point where it would have clueless users, viruses or anything else that pleages only Windows users Linux would need at least 45% marketshare. Windows would never survive it and to be totally honnest I don't think Linux would ever make it.
The market will be fragmented between OSes. Linux is just one OS. I don't think anyone had 90% marketshare before and maybe they are right about the "popularity" thing.
Linux thrives on fragmentation. BSD users almost demand it. Unix needs it.

It's all about tradeoffs. Everyone has undesirable trates and so long as that is the case just make sure the product you use dosen't have the trates that are undesirable to you.
If you can.

Can you find the software tools you need on a platform that preforms the way you want?
Today the answer is no. Windows has the tools you need as dose Linux but nither preform the way YOU want.
Unless your not in need of a user friendly environment or willing to baby the computer.

Something I've known for a long time is that the user interface a person starts off with is the one he will try to stick with.
Once a user becomes experenced he dosen't need a user friendly system anymore. Most people who try Linux and switch back becouse it's "not user friendly" wouldn't know.
The real complaint they have is that the experence they have with Windows is worthless.

I however came to Linux from Dos.. Annother command line. While Dos was a CP/M clone Bill Gates looked to Unix for ideas to improve Dos when making MsDos 2.
Dos has quite a bit in commen with the Unix command line.
Switching from Dos to Unix is remarkably simple.

More recently I've been required to use Windows at work. I know what user friendly is like I've used user friendly operating systems. Windows is NOT user friendly.

Here is the trick. Grab new users and teach them to use Windows before they get a chance to even look at Linux. When those users then look at Linux what happends? "Oh my ghod it's so hard".
It's not any diffrent from what you experenced when you were a new user on Windows however now your an experenced user expecting to just slip into a new system and guess what? Not gona happen.

When you first started using Windows did you know how to point and click?
If Yes continue If no skip to end.
When you first started using Linux did you know how to type on the keyboard?
If Yes continue If no.. Your a lier.

Using the mouse and using the keyboard are both basic functionality of the computer. Eather both are obveous or you have to learn both.

A lot of people complained that keyboards were hard. Thies people are just being difficult.
There are also people who clame the single button mouse is too difficult.. I kid you not. Long usenet threads back when most people still used keyboards and command lines.

Obscure commands? Who here knew what the Windows icons were for?
To start a program in Linux type in the name of the program and hit enter. Oh my brain that is SOO HARD.
To start a program in Windows click the start icon. The one at the bottom of the screen. No bottom left.. Not my left your left. Got it? Now click it.
Now click programs. No the folder named programs. Ok your new so you have no idea what a folder is just click on the word "programs".
Now look for the program you want.
Umm most are in the other folders. Click on the topics and look around and maybe you'll find it.
Happy hunting.

Yes now THAT is user friendly.

(head hits table)

And as has been said 1,000 times by people who do NOT like Linux "users just want to run there programs".
Yep.. and it's braindead easy to do that in Linux.

If you don't like using the command line to manage your files use a file manager.

The only thing left is installing software.
I still download and compile but again I'm familure with the command line and it's just easier for me.
But if your GUI inclined you can use RPMs.. they suck eggs and I'm not exactly supprised users find them hard. They aren't hard they are stupid. When an RPM dosen't work there isn't more to know. They don't work. Thats normal. Hay you wanted the Windows experence didn't you? I've had the same with Windows often.
DEBs work better.

When I use Windows I download a Unix envrionment and I'm happy.
Becouse Unix got to me first. (Actually an AT&T 3B2-300).
In addition to not actually being user friendly Windows is programmer hostile. This has nothing to do with the GUI/Command line thing. Linux ships with a complete set of software dev tools Windows ships devoid of same.
My options are to install a Unix environment or pay large sums of money for the software dev tools.
The problem with installing a Unix environment is unless your like me (and came from Unix to start with) your totally disorented by having to use Unix to develup Windows software. It still disorents me to some degree.
Also Microsofts APIs don't work right so it takes a little bit of trial and error to make it all work.
Linux APIs are well documented and work correctly (as a rule).
When a Windows API is broken don't bother Microsoft they won't fix it.
When a Linux API is broken inform the develupers. If you can fix it yourself. If nessissary hunt down a diffrent set of libarys.

One of the often made clames is that Linux is hard to install. Of course Windows is easier.. anything is easy when you leave it to an expert.

The actual problem is newer versions of Windows (post 95) are easy to install but they make this easy by overwriting your hard disk.
If you have an operating system already installed and wish to preserve it your screwed once you install Windows 2000 or XP.
Linux however bends over backwards to preserve your Windows FS.
However the newer user friendly Linux destros permit you to just let the install replace everything and then they become pritty much no diffrent from the Windows counterpart except that your installing all your drivers and applications all at once where as with Windows installing the OS is just the first phase. Then you install all the drivers and HOPE they work. Then you install the applications. Then you restore your data.

I back up my data to CD rom but often I'm able to compleate an install with out actually having to restore my data as I'm able to get the vareous Installs to NOT format my home drive partition (where all my data is).
I don't recomend this but it is something an experenced Linux user can pull off.

What we need isn't to make Linux user friendly. We SHOULD make Linux user friendly that isn't even comming close to helping us compeate with Microsoft.
We NEED to catch the new users before they learn "The Microsoft way"

Nearly every debate on Slashdot falls for one of the traps discribed in this <a href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reasoning/critthink/classes/class11.htm">class on falsitys</a>.
I'm reluctent to post this as it kills most of my arguments and it will kill many more of my arguments.
However being aware is more important than being "right" (Or thought of as right even when dead wrong).

Ok I admit I'm a Zealot so I guess it's no biggy deal.

A fun game. I know we Zealots are known to fail to think it's part of the deffinition of the term... To act on emotions and not thought.
But I want you to spot how often trainned "experts" do exactly the same things we do and fall for the same traps.

What of the folowing is true and what is false?
Amiga is dead, Macs are for newbies, Linux is hard, Windows is useless.

The answer is: All are nither.

Amiga:
Amiga made a number of computers and when they hit hard times that company died and was bought out by Commodore who sold the latest creation under the name "Amiga 1000".
However Commodore was also facing hard times and puked.
The Amiga name has been passed from company to company and is now owned by a company who has desided to continue the Amiga legacy as software.

However the Amiga lives on supported by the users. The vareous companys that made Amigas have died.

Macintosh:
At the time Apple created the Macintosh most business people had no computer trainning.
The Macintosh was designed for this group of individuals.
Reporters, Secretarys, Accountents, Managers.. the vast majorty of whom knew nothing of computers.
In order for the Macintosh to be useful to thies people it needs to be easy AND preform all the complex tasks of powerful business systems of the day.
While most people run businesses from the PC they use software that was originally writen for the mac or based on existing Macintosh titles.
As a net result what your doing on Windows right now is not only doable on the Mac but is most likely a whole lot easier.

Linux:
Linux wasn't designed as the Mac was. In that I mean it was never made to be used by people who have no trainning in computers.
People familure with Windows have a hard time getting use to Linux.
However this happeds with no other platform. Users of MacOs, OS/2, AmigaOs and Dos have made a smooth transition to Linux but a growing number of Windows users haven't.

Eather there is a fundemental diffrence between Linux and Windows that can be found no where else or Windows users are at bulk assuming everything runs like Windows.

Windows:
Microsoft is pushing Windows into more and more market sectors than ever before.
However Windows itself has remained fundementally the same sense the beginning.
As a result Windows is being sold to do things it can not do or can't do very well.
This leaves a growing number of users the impression Windows is useless. In fact Windows is quite useful but no operating system is anywhere near as fuctional as Microsoft clames Windows is.

Windows for Warships?
Linux is the only "off the shelf" os vagely close to being able to do the job and that is becouse Linux can be rewriten and can run on any hardware but it is no better than using specalised operating systems or operating systems designed with automation in mind.

However Windows works quite well for a number of tasts. As a media/content client system (such as web browsing and video games) Windows has no match.

Pk you'd expect such a comment from a Slashdot user. I mean it's a no-brainner that a Linux Zelot like me would think this.
So how could this jernal entry be anything but redundent?

Simple: I have proof.
Remember that ohh so wonderful Microsoft "Get the facts about Linux" the second time Microsoft pulled this.

Well... I just saw the banner ads. ON SLASHDOT. After Slashdot ripped it to hell.
How stupid can you get?

I guess Microsoft has the money to blow.
So thanks for funding Slashdot...

We can debate to hell and back about the details of the two websites. The only point I'm making is Microsoft actually believes advertsing on Slashdot is going to earn them converts.

Eather you believe that Slashdot readers are hard headed SlashBot idiots who wouldn't know inovation if it slapped them accrost the skull
or you believe Microsoft is full of themselfs.

Most people seam to think both.. But thats annother deal.

But to think Microsoft could win over Slashdot users with it's "Facts" website is an act of total idiotcy.

While walking home from work I come to one of those crosswalks where the light says "walk" just long enough to step off the curve.
Halfway accrost this idiot steps up to the light and starts pointing in the air looking at me with this big grin on his face.
I'm like "What in hell" untill I realise he is pointing at the crosswalk light. Well he is trying to. Actually he is just pointing into the air kind of a side effect of the fact that he himself has no clue what he is doing.

As I walk past him he chirps "good morning" and I mumble "morning" but only becouse he seammed to be ready to get in the way if I didn't acknowladge him.

He reminds me of a brainwashed cultist.
Part of me wanted to punch him in the gutt, part wanted to ask what drugs he was on, part wanted to ask why he was pointing in the air like a moron part of me wanted to point to the light when he crossed.

Why do people feel compelled to tell other people what to do instead of pulling there head out of there butts and see the real world?

Meow BBS is back online. Named during a time when there wasn't much consensis as to what to call thies things.
Taco called em forums, later they got called blogs. A lot of people called em BBSes becouse most of them were just a move from the traditional BBS to a website.
I don't want to call it a blog and 'forum' sutes me for a general discription but in the long run it is was and always will be a BBS to me.

It's nice having a Slashdot jernal however...

You have heard it about as much as I have.
The consistant clame that open source and free software are communist ideas and that monopolists like Microsoft are capitalists.

Communism is simply the idea that everything is regulated by the state and there is no property.
Capitalism is the idea of regulation by free market and all things are property.

Open source and free software is the idea that software should be free and that laws and regulations that make software into property should be abolished.
Should anyone be able to control software or ideas in absence of such laws then he should be free to do so.

Monopolys such as Microsoft seek to use laws to restrict compeating companys.
They do not believe in the free market and desire laws to control information at the same time they break such laws to benifit themselfs.

Microsoft is as much communist as it is capitalist and the GPL community is as much capitalist as it is communist.

The fact is open source and free software is taking the issue from a compleatly diffrent angle and the classic lables are simply obsolete.

Open source is preticularly capitalistic much to the annoyence of the free software community but as we seek a commen goal it matters not.

This remains true of the commertal software community. There are monopolists such as Microsoft and the entruprenual such as Apple. Steve Woz and Bill Gates both seek to use the laws to control but act in totally diffrent behavures.
Steve Woz believes in the entriprenual aspect. Let inovation lead develupment then control your works. Woz would never object to a home computer with an Apple like design should it be devoid of apple compatability software such as Apples ROMs and DOS.
Bill Gates believes in the monopolistic aspect. Any way you can make people pay for your software is ok.

A better way to slice it is libertarianism vs corpratism.

The consept that we are better off with out laws or at least most laws. Legal minimalism.
Vs the consept of the government is there to protect all aspects of life. Or at least most aspects of life. Full legal involvment.

"Free Enterprise" "Free Speach" and "Free software" aren't multially exclusive. They are uniform. One falls they all fall.

"Free Enterprise" is not a garenty to proffits only the freedom to try.
"Free software" is not a shield against selling software only a protection that reguardless of how the software is distributed the software remains free to be distributed again.
"Free Speach" is not a protection against responsabilitys that come with speach but a garenty that you shall not be jailed for speaking your mind. You may lose your friends, job and respect but you won't go to jail for it.

In todays world you may not discuss how to build certan matereals or preform certan functions in sofware.
While it may be true that doing those things may be illegal for reasonable or obscure reasons the publishing of HOW should never be censored.

In a world that freely admits knowladge is power is not control over that knowladge automaticly a terrany over the masses?

All writings of certan historical figures may be clamed as the intelectual property of the famaly. As such that famaly has absolut control over history and how our kids will learn it. They alone shall deside how the deceased shall be seen.

At least once this frame of ownership over history has been used to sillence a public debate over a related issue.

On more than one occasion the famaly of an individal did not have that individuals best intrests in mind. A single famaly member (usually the child) can rebell in the most extream way beomming a living embodyment of everything the public figure is against.
Should this child come to control the legacy and works of the public figure the damage to history could be illreversable.

Annother example is when a populare public figure turns out to be the villen later in life the famaly may act to supress this fact and sillence historical travistys.

Someone posted a comment that struck me as obserd at the time but later on with reflection I understand where the idea came from.

There is a whole philosophy around Linux that is almost cult like in folowing.
Linux folows the philosophy of knowladge being the access key and ignorence being it's own restriction.
You can't drive unless you know how. You can read or write untell you learn to do so. That is the restriction. There are no others. The idea of keeping knowladge from wemen is obsolete and proven to be an artifical limitation by means of artifically induced ignorence.

If you can't drive you obveously can't get anywhere. If you can't code you can't write programs. If you don't know how to use a computer you can't.

Historicly this is a falty approch but it works.
Let us remember the green card spammers used Unix shell acounts. Not MacOs not Windows and not even Linux but an honnest to goddess Unix account. With code in perl to do the grunt work.

However we had more problems with "newbe" users when AoL provided Internet access with some AoL users thinking Usenet was all there was to the Internet and one AoL user actually clamming America Online created the Internet.

Microsoft has a diffrent approch.
With Microsoft ignorence is not a restriction and knowladge is not a liccens.
We are told time and time again if the kind of users that used Windows were using Linux there'd be a lot more problems in the Linux world.
An intresting charge... Solarus land would argue that Linux land has such users and they provide quite remarkable proof thow I hardly needed it myself as I can tell you for a fact such people do use Linux with out any problems at all.
Where is my proof? Me. I'm not some uber geek. I got kicked off my first Unix shell account in the week I signed up.
What makes me specal that rises me above the "avrage user" isn't my brains or some geek quest. I use Linux becouse I refuse to pay for software. If I were to use Windows I'd be pirating it and quite frankly Linux is the legal route for me rather than the cheaper route.

But I do use Linux and it challanges me to understand what I'm doing. I can't fling about in ignorence. I need to learn how to use my computer so that I may use my computer. It's just that simple.

The Microsoft philosophy is that of "trusted computing" the computer manufacter is in charge. They get to deside if you should have access to the Internet or not. They deside what software you should use they deside what websites you can visit they deside what e-mail you can have they deside what features are good and what are evil.

The computer manufacter is the ultimate judge of what you should have.
Becouse the avrage user is dumb. The avrage user dosen't have a certification or specal trainning.
The oversight philosophy. One large monolythic entity that can be sure all are good. Virus writers are individuals outside the loop and one way to stop them is to forbid them access to software develupment tools.
Annother way is to develup a secure operating system.

Then there is the Apple philosophy....
(Apple users always feel left out and in this case I think the Apple philosophy really matters to the topic)

Ignorence isn't a limitation...
But knowladge IS the liccens.

Apple provides the foundation. The computer the operating system etc. You can start up reasonably quick.
From there if you want to code you learn to code. If you want to do something you learn how.
But unlike the Linux philosophy it dosen't require the study of a bunch of unrelated things.

I'd liken Linux to a University with a bunch of BS courses to get to what you really want.
Windows to a toltalitarian government where the gatekeepers are in charge.
Apple to "real life" just do it.

But other anologs work...
Linux is the school of hard knocks.. Learnning the hard way.
Windows is the DMV pass a test get a liccens.
Apple is Nike.. Just do it..

Linux is the Internet download compile research and study.
Windows is the TV or radio "We deside what to will or won't know"
Apple is the libary and book store. Find a nice big fat book on the subject and if it's not enough find annother nice big fat book.

Linux is your car and the tools to repair it. How is something you must learn.
Windows is the macanic who fixes it for you.
Apple is the "how to fix your car" book.

Thies are not perfict anologs of course...

The eductaion system is Linux with all the BS courses.
The education system is Windows with "We will deside what you need to learn" adadtude.
The education system is Apple with "No child is left behind"
The education system is IBM a large monolythic entity who is beaten up and largly the target of much aggression.
The education system is BeOS sabotoged yet doing the best it can to survive and failing.
The education system is BSD a long tradition and history.
The edication system is Geoworks.. nobody believes in it anymore.

And that shows you how an anolog can go anywhere you want to take it...
I may be in love with anologs but I know the weakness. So use it as an oversimplication....

The Mac Os of examples....

Ouch.... Sorry Apple users.... Ouch...
Hay Don't blame me Apple for years sold Mac as "Newbe only"... at least your not like Amiga.. sold as a toy...

Every now and then I see a moderation I disagree with. Ok thats not a big deal it's going to happen from time to time.
But it's been happening with am amazing frequency as of late and I'm wondering of Darl McBride hasn't dumpped some of his stash into the drinks of some /. mods.

I'll give you three wonderful examples.

1. +5 Funny (We don't know why)
One of my posts was modded up +5 funny and I'm seeing this happen a lot. I'll ignore it for others. But I know for a fact that post of mine wasn't funny. I don't think it was deserving of any sort of moderation to be honnest.

Then someone replied to it saying basicly they didn't understand what I was saying. Well if anything that's an automatic mod DOWN.
There is nothing funny about incoherent ramblings and I'll say that even if the ramblings are my own.

2. It also appears someones modding his opinion. One post of mine was modded down 'Troll' and why? Apparently becouse the mod has a diffrent opinion. Gezz you don't get mod points to mod down people for having a diffrent opinion.

Now I put this all aside. It's not a big deal. So a few mods suffered temporary brain damage or something. Or maybe I'm just missing something I don't know.

3. I don't care what you think The "Overrated" and "Underrated" moderations are for correcting moderation. When something is modded up to much you get to nock down a point.

Now I've seen some articals were we get mod wars. I'd get +5 and a few mods would "-1 overrated" me down to +2 or +3 then more mods would bring me back up and so on. This tug of war is nothing more than obnoxous. No I don't aprove. If an artical gets enough attention to have a tug of war I've earnned that +5 in spades.

But that's just a disagreement. You must know I'm going to disagree with every mod down on me. Thats not fair to snipe at.

How about -1 overrated when I've not accepted my automatic +1 and nobody has moderated me up. Now I realise some people have some ideas as to what each moderation level means and thats why people mod -1 overrated but you shouldn't even be allowed to -1 overrated a post at 1.

If it's mod 1 and not a troll or off topic it's not overrated.

In summery...

I've been seeing a lot of strange mods. Not just on me but everywhere and a few recent mods that make Darl McBride look rational.

Edit:
And annother "-1 overated" moderation for no apparent reason.
I'm going to make a guess here that this a mod with a grudge against me.
What could that be? Dose it matter?

People who think abusing the Slashdot moderation system for revenge is effective aren't rational to start with.
I can think of a bunch of reasons someone might hate me. Many of them external to Slashdot. Not a one justifys vengence.

Ok so everyone makes a big fitt over using the same os you try to get everyone else to use.
Well makes sense really. I mean if SCO is trying to get everyone to use SCOs products shouldn't they use SCOs products themselfs?

Well in the same vain Microsoft has recently switched it's main website over to Linux.

I'd drop this on Slashdot but they just did it recently and may switch back.
I still find this slightly funny.

At work I've been working on a night vision camra for the last few days. The camra works the capture card in the computer works the software however. Still looking. Using Windows.

So while I'm setting up the camra someone desides to tell me how someone on the news clames the camra can be destroied by a laser pointer.
Just a quicky on that. The lens on a camra scatters the pointers beam so yes it will blind the camra so will a flashlight. But it won't damage it.

Instead of arguing the point* I point out the computer is programmed to record the persons picture.
*(After all I know how strongly he clings to his myths)

He insists it won't do anything at night untill I point out it's a night vision camra.
(I know better than to try and explain infer red to someone who believes obveous myths)
He then insists it won't work during the DAY. I point out I can turn night vision off.
(I know better than to try an explain how an infer red camra to someone who could think that night vision means 'dosen't work at day time)

Then he clames the night vision image can't be used for facal recognition becouse it's not photograph quality.

All I said at that point is "I've had no such problems" and he just repeates his clame.

It's pritty scarry when someone can say "facal recognition" and "phorograph quality" and not know what he is saying.

("Facal recognition" by means of software. The human eye can pick detail from the most burry of images hence the term has no meaning here.
Of course the camra dosn't produce photograph quality. Nither dose my digital camra. This has pritty much nothing to do with security camras. Unless of course someone invents a servalence camra that can record at photograph quality.)

He's basicly throwing around technical terms he heard and thinks he knows what they mean.

On a side note I didn't want to talk anymore becouse the camra had some sort of defect reguarding the range of it's infer red vision. I'm working on a hack to fix that. It involves a battery powered infer red flood lamp.

How perfictly Slashdot. Yet annother SCO analasis that really dosen't mean anything to the public at large. Do I care? Nope.

At the core of this is the clame that IBM put SCOs intelectual property into Linux and as a result violated SCOs liccens.
Some of that intelectual property turns out to in fact be IBMs property liccensed to SCO not the other way around.
At the same time SCO violates the GPL and it's own liccens with Novel to resell Unix.

Looks like SCO thinks only SCOs liccenses matter.

Thhht Oh boy do I feel dorkish right now.
The Linux destro project is on hold due to unexpected difficultys I'll eventually resolve.
You know what? I should keep this under my hat untill I have something becouse I may never get this off the ground and really do you need more vaperware?

I've switched to a new project for now. What is it? Vaperware.. ok so don't ask. I'll post it up on freshmeat if it ever reaches release stage and it probably won't so it's not something to even care about.

I'm working on my own Linux Destro. I've been discussing it back on MZDM but that is an inappropreate forum for the subject so I've taken to Slashdot to discuss it.

So far I've desided to call it Opti as it's a source destro. This means the system is installed entirely from source code optomised and costume fit for the end user.
It's also a user destro so it's not aimmed at servers (Like LFS and Rock) but for the avrage user.

I don't have a working version ready but it's also been desided that I'll be doing an open beta.
As for the source code. Well obveously I have to give you the source for it to work at all. The install CD is the source CD.

I also plan to have a live automatic update and I want to create an installation archive so you can add software that didn't make it to the CD using smart download/compile and again all from source.

I hope to have a beta CD soon.