Posts by Liam Proven 1831 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Jan 2008
> Fedora have since adopted the practice.
Er, no...
Fedora used to. It stopped years ago.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/name_history/
These are not version names, these are spin/remix/flavour names. Not the same thing.
Ubuntu has had names since its first release, 4.10 "Hoary Hedgehog", 20 years ago come October.
My point is that yes, there were hierarchical menus, sure, but the idea of using one of those as the main app-launching UI was new.
The Apple Menu wasn't for launching apps. It held the Control Panel, Chooser, and desk accessories, _not_ apps. Not even in MacOS 7.5.
There were textual task lists in OS/2 1.x but the idea of buttons for _windows_ was new. Two windows, 2 buttons. That was novel.
There were clocks, sure. Most GUIs had a clock. RISC OS won Acorn's support because it had a naughty app that could run lots of clocks at once and that made ARX collapse in disk thrashing.
But combining the clock with a defined area for notifications and status icons, that was new. Many MacOS applets ran in the menu bar and it could get very cluttered but it wasn't a defined standard thing.
Personally, I much preferred RISC OS's context menus, but hey, whatever. :-)
It was more than just a clever combination of existing ideas. It was a coherent overall UI and that's why there are about a dozen Linux desktops that copy it, plus BeOS and Haiku and Warp 4 and QNX Neutrino and so many others I lose count.
There is not a single knock-off or copy of OS/2 Workplace Shell. There is not a single complete working Classic MacOS desktop for Linux. There's no GEM desktop knockoff. There is only an Amiga-like window manager, no filer, no Workbench.
Before Win95 there were half a dozen distinct models for a WIMP desktop. The Lisa influenced the Mac, which visibly influenced GEM and AmigaOS. OS/2 was different. RISC OS was different. NeXTstep was different. CDE was different. OpenLook was different. Irix Magic was different. Psion EPOC16 and EPOC32 were different.
Lots of diversity, lots of ideas. Since then, there is Mac OS X and there are Win9x knock offs and everything else is basically dead and gone.
You just have to respect a design that so comprehensively demolished all the competition like that.
It wasn't just something improvised from a bunch of existing parts. In fact, TBH, GEM and AmigaOS and _especially_ OS/2 WPS felt much more like that to me.
> The concept of an application button and a taskbar area of some sort, or some sort of "program manager" for iconified application windows is just how a typical GUI works.
No, it is not.
This was new stuff in the mid-1990s, and just because it's a long time ago and most people forget the details does not make it untrue.
Apple invented a lot of stuff Xerox didn't, such as icons for data files and graphical views of folder contents rather than a console-style directory list in a window. Apple invented global menu bars and standardised dialog boxes and so on.
Then Microsoft invented a lot more, some in Windows 3 (mostly nicked from OS/2 1.x) and much more in Win95.
The whole concept of a graphical depiction of open windows and a mouse-oriented way to switch, as opposed to say a text task list you could summon, was radical. The concept of a hierarchical program launcher as a core OS UI element. The concept of a standardised place for status notifiers as a UI element in its own right.
Someone had to do this first, and most of the pioneering work was 2 companies: Apple in the 1980s and Microsoft in the 1990s.
> So... MS took the same approach and Windows took the Apple menu and upside-downed it (but you could drag it to the top again if you wanted) and smashed it together with the task bar from RISC OS?
Not really.
I have heard this claim before but the original Apple menu was not like that at all.
In the early versions of MacOS (N.B. *not* macOS, i.e. Mac OS X), the Apple menu was not hierarchical, it was not user-customisable, it was not used for launching apps, and it was not used for shutting down the system (that was the Special menu on the end of the menu bar for Finder.)
In 1991, MacOS 7 was a big rewrite, replacing a lot of the assembly-language and Pascal bits with C code, and adding Multifinder. It gained the customisable Apple menu, represented by a nested set of folders inside the System Folder. The Control Panel also became hierarchical, which it wasn't before. System 7 also introduced Aliases, which are something like Unix symbolic links for Classic MacOS, but which contained a machine name and so worked over network connections as well.
Suddenly it became possible to put folders in your Start Menu and fill those folders with aliases pointing to your apps... but I was actively supporting Macs every day back then, and this was _not_ a common thing to do. It was more common to put some aliases to often-used apps on your desktop.
MacOS 8 started to popularise and standardise the use of the Apple Menu to be an application launcher, but it still wasn't a standard feature. It had an automatically-managed "Recent Applications" folder as well as "Recent Documents" but if you wanted to put apps in there, you had to roll your own solution, and it would not be managed by the system.
MacOS 8 came out in 1997 so it post-dates both Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.
This was not something Microsoft copied from Apple. In fact it's closer to the other way round.
The idea of the "icon bar" at the bottom of the screen seems to be something original to Acorn in Arthur for the early Archimedes, but as a long time RISC OS user, I can tell that people calling it a taskbar are basing that on screenshots, not use.
(Comparison: "Windows 2 had a taskbar, it is the green strip at the bottom!" No. Don't judge from screenshots. Try it for yourself. That strip is just an area of desktop that windows do not cover.)
It is not an app launcher -- you use the filesystem, like on a Mac. It is not an app switcher. You use the icons in the icon bar to manage program state (like the App Name menu in OS X) and to open new windows.
It *doesn't* contain an app launcher menu. It does not have a notification area. It does not have buttons for windows.
But... It *does* contain drive icons, which Windows' Taskbar doesn't. It does contain folders, which Windows doesn't. It does have a global OS status icon, which Windows doesn't. It does have a clock but it's optional.
NeXT seems to have taken the idea from Acorn Arthur and invented the dock as an OS UI feature. (Apps already had toolbars, back to later Xerox products.)
The NeXT dock is closer to the Windows taskbar... but not very. It doesn't contain drives and most of the Acorn stuff. It does have a clock but it does not convey status info. It is an app launcher but only one-by-one (like Win98/XP's "quick launch toolbar" which is a separate thing, not a standard part of the taskbar). The Dock has no hierarchical launchers or anything. The Dock is also not a window switcher -- there's a separate area at bottom left where window icons stack up, and they only appear when minimised, a bit like Windows 1.x/2.x.
Yes, 100%, there was inspiration there, but they are all different and work differently and nothing in NeXT is directly copied from Arthur.
Arthur influenced a very different UI element in NeXTstep, which worked differently and looks different. That influenced Win95 but again not directly.
There was nothing like the Taskbar before MS invented it. I am not a fan of MS but the UI R&D and engineering in Windows 95 was world-class stuff. Credit where it's due.
[Author here]
> The "Windows 95 design" (taskbar on the bottom, maximized windows don't cover the taskbar) is actually the "Acorn RISC OS" design, from which it was copied.
No, it isn't.
Owner of an A310 in the 1980s here. That's bogus and totally false. It was an influence, sure. See my interview here:
https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/23/how_risc_os_happened/
I have gone into this in considerable depth in the past:
https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/
> How’s That Plan 9 Switch Going?
You did read the whole series, right?
https://www.theregister.com/Tag/One%20Way%20Forward/
You are very keen to keep telling me and other commenters to go ahead and write stuff. Go on then.
Once there's a Plan 9 that can run a modern web browser, I'll give it a go.
> I'm going to have to switch another distro if I can't re-install (X)Ubuntu WITHOUT snap. Any suggestions?
Asmi, the remix formerly known as Zinc.
Ubuntu 23.10 with Xfce and neither Snap nor Flatpak, but better .DEB management tools instead: Nala and deb-get.
The 24.04 release is in beta.
OK, disclaimer, I am not an expert in this stuff at all. I just wrote it. But...
> If you're red-green colour blind, won't it look monochrome anyway?
No. That's the problem.
My degree is in biology. I did some fieldwork. It was great. Among other things, if you want to study mammals, you have to go out at night. If you are on what Terry Pratchett called "the business end of the food chain" you sneak around in the dark, because you're small, juicy, tasty, and fairly defenseless.
We all evolved from small furry things that sneaked around in the dark trying not to get eaten by dinosaurs. In the dark, you need rod cells in your retina not cones. Rods pick up faint light. Our evolution favoured rods and we lost a lot of the cones, which pick up colour. Don't bother waving a red rag to a bull; he can't see red anyway. Any rag will do. Neither can your dog or cat. Mammalian predators don't need that much. But the things that evolved from the things that ate our ancestors -- birds -- see colour much better than us.
Small mammals tend to be nocturnal and they can't see colour well, so, you use a red flashlight, because they can't see red light so it just -- isn't a light to them. We can see it because we evolved more recently from small furry things that went up trees and ate fruit, so they re-evolved colour receptors so they could see which fruit was ripe... although the fruit colours evolved for birds, not mammals. (Also, binocular vision was for leaping from branch to branch, not predation.)
If you lack that minor recent mutation to give you colour vision then you can't see red light, like a mouse or vole or shrew. So things like glowing red letters on a black background _don't glow any more_. They fade into the background.
That's the theory, anyway. I am very myopic but I see colours fine, so I only know the theory, not the practise.
Decades ago WinWord started underlining misspelled words in red. Not so bad: folks with daltonism can still see the wiggly grey underline.
Then later it started underlining grammatical mistakes in green, and they can't tell the difference. Snag.
:-) Fair enough!
I want some new fresh exciting ones, actually, TBH.
I want a modernised 9front with the GUI of Inferno, with an built-in microVM so it can run Linux apps.
Actually, I want a modernised Inferno, with tooling that can accept stuff that targets WebASM and compiles it to Dis instead.
I want an updated 64-bit Minix 3 with working SMP and the whole NetBSD app catalogue.
I want a revived desktop-tweaked Symbian running on a Raspberry Pi 5.
I'd like to see someone, maybe the chap behind SerenityOS, revive Syllable.
I'd like some passing billionaire to pay the MorphOS team's bills, buy the Amiga rights and donate the whole shebang to AROS.
I'd like a modernised Parhelion HeliOS on a modern manycore CPU.
There's a lot of cool stuff that would be preferable to 50-year-old Unix code.
[Author here]
> The oldest 32 bit only hardware I have in the cupboard is a Thinkpad T42, which is a powerhouse compared to i486.
I have an X41 sitting here. It led a complicated little life for a while after I compared it with my now-colleague Dan Robinson's one at a press conference about 20 or 25 years ago, but now it is mine again, but sadly minus its PSU brick.
I must buy a new one and get it working again. I think its RAM is maxed out but I could bung an SSD in it for £peanuts.
Your point stands, though.
Saying that, there are new x86-32 SoC embedded PCs on sale today. Things like these:
https://www.vortex86.com/
[Author here]
> Yet, no POWER (ppc64le), no RISC-V, no LoongArch, no IBM Z (s390/s390x), no Elbrus2000, no Itanium
There are 5 different PowerPC ports:
ibmnws, macppc, prep, rs6000, ofppc
Risc-V is here:
http://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/riscv/
IA64 is here:
http://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/ia64/
Both are WIP.
Elbrus 2000? I have never laid eyes on one. Maybe the Russians don't care enough.
No S/390, true. Not terribly relevant to NetBSD's user base. I know of 2 people with IBM mainframes at home, but just those 2. (Guy Sotomayor and Connor Krukosky.) IO'm sure there are more. And there's Hercules. It's probably trivial using Linux code, though.
But as the presentation I specifically linked to says, on page 8:
«
A lot of the supported (Tier 2) architectures are kinda “retro”.
Dreamcast? Amiga? BeBox? SGI MIPS? VAX??
Real talk:
There is no modern hardware that runs NetBSD but not Linux.
»
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZzaW9eI4wmMRGOnJ1uo-kGk5b_UvIOuU9Zgur4au_8s/edit#slide=id.g6e14fde33a_0_7
[Author here]
> SOC executables
Er. I feel ignorant, but what is one of those?
System on a Chip I know. Binaries identical to discrete-chip devices, so not that.
Security Operations Center? Trendy among security wonks although they rarely bother to define it, which annoys me, as SoC has precedence. But not an executable type.
Separation of Concerns? Service-oriented computing or Service-oriented communications? Selectable Output Control? Self-organized criticality? Second order concern?
Damn these TLAs!
> "Hey, at least it's not worse" isn't the most compelling argument against something.
It wasn't meant to be. The general effect I was aiming for is "damning with faint praise".
I feel that there must be a happy medium here, somewhere, somehow, but we have all lost sight of it in the clouds of FUD.
> On the contrary, LXC lets you run up full userlands
Point missed error.
The question is not if you _can_. You can do that with Docker. You can do that with almost any container. It is possible. That is a given.
We know LXC can do it because LXC is the underlying container engine that LXD uses to do it.
It is not "is it possible?" The question is: how well it does it work and what extra tooling it provides for managing the results?
With another container system can you dedicate PCI devices on the host to particular containers? Can you migrate the containers between machines?
Well, yes. Arguably there should be, but there isn't.
LXD and Incus are quite clever, though.
While LXC is/was somewhat aimed at microservices-style app containers (no init: one binary, close on quit), LXD and Incus are aimed at system containers: a whole distro, minus the kernel, with its own init, multiple processes, etc.
They both add tools so you can dedicate network ports and other PCI hardware to containers and so on. They make containers work more like full Linux VMs, which is how many users actually use containers in production. Pure microservices are harder work and need a clean-sheet approach.
Since LXD 4, you can essentially tick a box and that instance starts in a true VM rather than on the shared kernel. It's the admin's choice if it's a fully isolated instance with its own kernel, or a container on the same system-wide shared kernel.
Bringing them together like this is ingenious, IMHO.
> It was a totally valid criticism for the author to make.
Thank you!
This is one part of the point here. I know it's cheap now, ridiculously cheap, but 16GB is a _lot of space_. OpenBSD is a relatively small, relatively simple, relatively lightweight OS. It supports quite a lot of platforms:
https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html
Including SH4, NewWorld PowerMacs, and i386. These are low-end late-20th-century kit. It is reasonable to expect a low-end OS whose download ISO is about 700MB and would fit on a *CD* -- not a DVD -- to easily fit and have room to spare in 16 _gigs_ of disk, some 20x bigger than the download.
But it doesn't. That is highly unexpected to me. And things which are highly unexpected are the very bread and butter of reviews.
[2]
There is a larger point here:
Yes, this complicated partitioning scheme brings benefits, but it also brings high costs. It is extremely space-*inefficient* and could leads to unexpected and unforeseen system failures due to the disk filling up.
That sort of issue is the sort of thing one needs to know about.
[3]
Then there is the question of what you do about it.
*Because* it is so complicated, *because* the installer does not explain much and is ultra-minimal, it's very hard to change. You can't just take a few gigs off one partition and add them to another.
That is richly needed but the installer doesn't do it.
When installing macOS onto a machine with a blank disk, when you tell it you want 2 partitions it automatically reassigns space. Add 3 and it balances the disk usage. That's good. That would help here but the installer doesn't do it.
You folks are focussing on the UI and it's not about that at all. I expect and need to be able to say "I will install 2 -- or 4 or 8 or 16 -- extra gigs of software. Ready yourself for that" -- and for it to just happen. It doesn't. You can't. That's bad.
The only way to deal with this are 2 bad solutions:
* by simply turning it off -- at the cost of reduced security.
* by simply giving it lots more disk space -- which is an unexpected penalty in a low-end system.
Improving security has a price, which is _reducing_ system stability and making it _more_ likely to fail due to a disk filling up. That's the opposite of hardening a system.
[4]
In other OSes you could work around this by using graphical partitioning tools such as Gparted, but you can't here. OpenBSD doesn't seem to support such things, and existing tools that can handle Linux and Windows and other OSes don't work on OpenBSD disk volumes, even if you mount the disks under an alien OS.
That's bad.
[5]
Complex disk partitioning like this was quite common in the bad old days of 1990s proprietary Unix. The vendors recognised it was problematic and they fixed it by inventing dynamic disk partitioning systems, Logical Volume Management and so on.
There are solutions to this kind of problem and they are _old_ solutions. They'd really help here. OpenBSD could adopt one of multiple FOSS LVM storage management tools and this issue would just _go away_ while at the same time retaining security, retaining its complex partitioning and the benefits thereof, and retaining simplicity of deployment...
... But it doesn't do that kind of thing because its developers and its admirers don't see the problem.
That's the sort of thing that it is a reviewer's job to bring to light.
[Author here]
> That’s not in any way a realistic platform to install ANY OS on.
That's why I do it. The whole point of a review is a challenge. A review that tells you that something works fine in the easiest case is no use, IMHO. You need to know if something can cope when the going gets rough. You need to know how it fails, and if it does so gracefully, or collapses in a heap.
It's the failures and the edge cases that are instructive.
I am not holding _Top Gear_ up as an exemplar here, but to test a car -- or a driver -- they drove it around a racetrack hard. You don't get in it and drive it very carefully in a straight line for 200 metres at 50kph and then go "it's great!" You try to break it. You see how it works at the very edge of its capabilities.
Almost all my kit dual-boots, yes. Linux is developing some reasonable firmware-updating tools now but it remains far behind and few ever even notice that these only work in UEFI boot mode. Some of my kit is too old to have UEFI at all, some has it but it's early and buggy, and some has nothing else -- and consequently can't run some of the OSes I've written about, such as FreeDOS and Arca OS. Firmware updates are important and Windows is better at them.
> Indeed. You can pretty much hold down the enter key without looking. You can't get more user-friendly!
This is patently untrue.
Here, try it on my test box. It has Win10, FreeBSD, and 6 Linux distros, spread across 2 SSDs, one shared global home partition and one shared global swap partition.
You show me OpenBSD installing successfully on that, including a bootloader.
Otherwise, I call BS.
It has zero, nothing whatsoever, to do with whether it has a GUI or not.
Allegedly much of the design was inspired by the Russian Elbrus project.
https://www.theregister.com/2002/05/24/elbrus_the_itanium_slayer_returns/
https://www.theregister.com/2004/05/24/intel_elbrus_deal/
I think there are still VLIW chips selling in Russia. It's also quite popular in the DSP market, I learned last time around.
But this one? No.
Yeah, no. To refute a few points:
> Remember, there are LTS versions with lifetimes measured in years.
Point missed error. "This is a single point release! We are now on 4.42.16777216." You still have to update it. Even if with some fugly livepatch hack.
> And nobody ever ran VMSclusters with uptimes measured in years
Citation: 10 year cluster uptime.
https://www.osnews.com/story/13245/openvms-cluster-achieves-10-year-uptime/
Citation: 16 year cluster uptime.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120203204940/http://uptimes-project.org/hosts/os_breakdown_list/OpenVMSClust
> Linux “clusters” scale to supercomputers with millions of interconnected nodes.
Point missed. Linux clusters are by definition extremely loosely clustered. VMSclusters are a tight/close cluster model where it can be non-obvious which node you are even attached to.
> Linus Torvalds used VMS for a while, and hated it
I find it tends to be what you're used to or enounter first.
I met VMS before Unix -- and very nearly before Windows existed at all -- and I preferred it. I still hate the terse little commands and the cryptic glob expansion and the regexes and all this cultural baggage.
I am not alone.
https://xkcd.com/1168/
> UNIX became popular because it did so many things so much more logically
I call BS. This is the same as the bogus "it's intuitive" claim. Intuitive means "what I got to know first." Douglas Adams nailed it.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39828-i-ve-come-up-with-a-set-of-rules-that-describe
> Thinks of why Windows nowadays is at an evolutionary dead end
Linux is a dead end too. Unix in general is. We should have gone with Plan 9, and we still should.
Personal view, so no [AH] tag or anything:
The Linux kernel is an extremely rapidly moving target. It has well over 450 and nearly 500 syscalls. It comprises some 20 million lines of code.
It needs constant updating and the problem is so severe that there are multiple implementations of live in-memory patching so you can do it between reboots.
Meanwhile, VMSclusters can have uptimes in _decades_ and you can cluster VAXen to Alphas to Itanium boxes and now to x86-64 boxes, move workloads from one to another using CPU emulation if needed, and shut down old nodes, and so you could in principle take a DECnet cluster of late-1980s VAXes and gradually migrate it to a rack of x86 boxes clustered over TCP/IP without a single moment of downtime.
Linux is just about the worst possible fit for this I can imagine.
It has no built-in clustering in the kernel and virtually no support for filesystem sharing in the kernel itself.
It is, pardon the phrase, as much use as a chocolate teapot for this stuff.
VMS is a newer and more capable OS than traditional UNIX. I know Unix folks like to imagine it's some eternal state of the art, but it's not. It's a late-1960s OS for standalone minicomputers. Linux is a modernised clone of a laughably outdated design.
VMS is a late 1970s OS for networked and clustered minicomputers. It's still old fashioned but it has strengths and extraordinary resilience and uptimes is one of them.
[Author here]
> Thats a great way of marketing "shite hardware support".
Well, kinda sorta, yeah.
A shockingly long time ago now I wrote this:
https://www.theregister.com/2013/02/11/guide_to_windows_server_2012_ebook/
At that time, MS said that it was surprised anyone ran on bare metal any more, and it expected the large majority of deployments to be in VMs. Ideally for them, Hyper-V ones, of course.
That was well over a decade ago. I think it is the rule now.
AIUI VMS 9 has some degree of understanding that it's in a VM and drives the hypervisor via VirtIO.
This seems pragmatic to me, as I wrote at the time it shipped:
https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/10/openvms_92/
Why try to support a million hardware variants in your ultra-niche OS when KVM, Hyper-V, VirtualBox and VMware between then can run on pretty much anything?
Consider it a universal hardware shim. Make driving the real kit SEP: Someone Else's Problem, that time-honoured way of making the difficult bits just go away...
> I don't know whether the kernel and userland was 16 or 32 bit.
Excellent point, well made.
(As an IMHO wonderful intersection of the historical and the personal, the same Richard Miller did the original port of Plan 9 to the Raspberry Pi!)
I did know of this but overlooked it.
I suspect that, as the machine had 192kB of RAM and 2 x 5MB disks or so, it was a straight 16-bit port, but I don't know that. I quickly reread the essays from the time about the port but they don't clarify.
> I was already long since resigned to never being able to run VMS on my Vaxes again
Far be it from me to advocate anything but I have successfully licensed OpenVMS 7 in a VAX SimH session. It can be done and it's not hard.
Next I have to work out how to cluster the 3 VAXstation 4000VLCs in my basement in Prague, and netboot them from SimH...
It could have been a game-changer.
Symbian's big problem was UI.
Externally, for users, there were multiple incompatible ones: S60, S90, UIQ, etc.
Internally, for developers, I'm told, it was even worse: there were multiple different programming models, some aimed at C++, some at Java, some using FOSS widgets, some using proprietary widgets, some using in-house widgets...
Palm could have imposed some UI sanity on this.
Meanwhile Palm would have got a native Arm kernel with excellent multitasking etc.
[Author here]
> What's that mean in plain English?
Oh come on. I linked to the project page, I linked to my own previous story about it, and in case that wasn't enough, I specifically called out that I had explained it before, saying:
«
as we covered in 2022, including a recap of the CHERI architecture
»
What more can I do?
[Author here]
> why does the kernel need to be updated continually?
Because the hardware won't sit still and keeps changing?
Over 50% of the changes each release are the thousands of embedded device drivers.
Now, one could certainly argue that a clean kernel shouldn't have any device drivers in it, and indeed not have dozens of filesystems and so on, but that is a different argument that the trolls usually are not smart enough to make.
[Author here]
> Isn't that rather the behavior you would want from a full disk encryption ?
It absolutely is... unless you want to dual boot. TBH this caught me by surprise: not being a habitual Windows user since the start of the century, I had no idea this was on by default. You never get asked, you never see a password prompt, you don't know what it is, but it's there.
Also, many Intel laptops, even if they only support a single SSD, ship with Intel Matrix RAID enabled. It's totally futile but it's on, and it stops Linux seeing the disk controller. If you turn it off, Windows won't boot, and even if you want to nuke and reload Linux as the single OS, for an easy life you want that EFI partition.
Being cynical and a little paranoid, I suspect these are 100% intentional anti-Linux measures from A Prominent North Western USA OS Vendor.
[Author here]
You are a regular commenter here, Dr S. Do you actually read the articles before you comment, though?
> Also, yet another project that can't explain what it's about without assuming the reader knows all about another project.
That is *why I wrote the story*.
I am not trying to excuse anyone or anything here, but this is not merely common in the industry, it is so common that I'd have to say it's the norm with rare exceptions.
It's why my job exists. It's why my previous job -- technical writer -- exists.
> So what I take from this is just a guess
Do that mean you did not in fact RTFA but looked at their website, saw nothing and took a wild guess?
> but it's a development system for a development and/or packaging system
No.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
