PDA

View Full Version : Desktop Linux vs. Windows


ASsman
04-07-2005, 09:35 AM
Heh, great example of capitalism and the comsumer always winning.... not.

------------------

By Ashlee Vance in Chicago
Published Thursday 7th April 2005 07:28 GMT

Reg Reader Studies You've seen the raw figures behind Quocirca's look at why companies choose Windows over Linux or vice versa. Now, you're ready for the rationale - the real decision-making meat and potatoes that push a company toward or away from Linux.

Quocirca, working off responses from thousands of Register readers, discovered a couple things you might already suspect. Companies often consider moving away from Microsoft's Windows operating systems because of security concerns, issues with Windows stability and complex licensing agreements.

Thanks to a free response section in the survey, customers were able to be very candid about these troubles.

“Windows works great, as long as it isn’t connected to the Internet," wrote one reader.

"Anti-virus, firewall, and spyware programs, each needing separate licensing and yearly upgrades/purchases, make maintaining Microsoft powered systems a neverending drain on IT labour and cash," wrote another.

"Microsoft licensing is a nightmare! We use MS partner versions of XP on all systems, and it gets really complicated," wrote another.

Despite all these well-publicized objections to Windows, Quocirca discovered something not all that surprising - many customers are still loath to leave Microsoft. These customers said they're scared to move because of what they see as a lack of compatible open source software, user resistance to change, high training costs, high costs of porting bespoke applications and a dependence on Microsoft's Active Directory. Microsoft is the obvious standard on the desktop. This makes any obstacle a reason to cancel an open source move.

Where does this leave us?

"Perhaps the first and most important tip is to recognise that the question of Windows versus Desktop Linux does not necessarily have to be an 'all or nothing' one," Quocirca urged.

The move to Linux should not be an emotional one. Business executives don't respond to the "Microsoft is evil" approach with the same vigor college kids reading Slashdot while having their morning coffee.

IT staffers need to present a strong business case as to how a move to the Linux desktop can save money. This doesn't need to be a huge, sweeping shift at the company. It could be for a single group or department that can benefit from Linux from both a technology and cost standpoint. This means making sure the department's applications are available in the open source world, and it means a lot of compatibility testing ahead of the move.

"Make sure that all important components sourced externally are fully supported and acquired under a robust maintenance and support agreement," Quocirca said. "This will typically mean sourcing Linux and other Open Source components from a recognised supplier rather than working with free distributions downloaded from the Web."

The upshot of all this is that there isn't a simple answer. In the full study, Quocirca presents a few scenarios where readers said moving to Linux makes sense and many where it doesn't. The 20-page document has some solid balance for one of the IT world's more controversial subjects. ®
Bootnote

Thanks to all the readers who participated in this survey. You can sign up as a permanent member of our Reg Reader Panel whereby your brains are occasionally picked on a range of important topics. ®

http://www.theregister.com/2005/04/07/linux_windows_quocirca/

Qdrop
04-07-2005, 09:53 AM
microsoft IS a fucking monopoly.....or perhaps oligoploy, depending on your definition.

what really sucks is it happend out shear dumb luck and near-sighted haste years ago.....and Gates got a strangle hold.


i still think that, with the help of anti-trust suits and some ballsy corporate owners, the PC Revolution is coming.

all it takes is a few major corporations making a switch (linux, unix, ect)....AND BEING VERY PUBLIC ABOUT IT (MEDIA)....and eventually industries will follow.

the barriers right now are just as much psychological and social as they are economic or business-political.

like i said before....i don't contribute....i've been on the Mac wagon since I touched a keyboard.
i have the ONLY MAC in the building (and one of like 6 in the company), and made a stink about it when they wanted to replace it last year....
i made them get me a G5 and run OSX.....

racer5.0stang
04-07-2005, 10:08 AM
Hopefully the next OS will be better than Windows and Mac.

Schmeltz
04-07-2005, 10:21 AM
What?! Psycho-social barriers in the market? How the hell did those get there? It's almost as if there's people running this show, instead of the almighty invisible hand of untainted market forces!

Ace42
04-07-2005, 10:27 AM
What?! Psycho-social barriers in the market? How the hell did those get there? It's almost as if there's people running this show, instead of the almighty invisible hand of untainted market forces!

See, I was going to say that, but Schmeltz once again saved me the hassle of doing so, and getting branded as a commie pinko as per usual.

Qdrop
04-07-2005, 10:41 AM
What?! Psycho-social barriers in the market? How the hell did those get there? It's almost as if there's people running this show, instead of the almighty invisible hand of untainted market forces!

prosecute, regulate, cap.....and EDUCATE!!

EN[i]GMA
04-07-2005, 02:10 PM
So...the benefits of using the Windows OS outweigh the costs in these people's eyes, and that's somehow a problem?

The states problems were: lack of compatible open source software, user resistance to change, high training costs, high costs of porting bespoke applications and a dependence on Microsoft's Active Directory


The only one of those that is directly related to Microsoft's supposed Monopoly is the last. The rest are just facts of life. Linux isn't compatible with a lot of things and the OS movement has yet to catch up, users don't like learning a new OS when they can barely work the one they use now, there are high training costs involved and huge costs for porting applications.

But I honestly believe that the Open Source movement will eventually crush Microsoft and everyone else. No company can compete with something that is free for very long, without doing some significant thing right. It's 'monopoly' means nothing when Linux is freely available.

As a matter of fact, the term monopoly doesn't even fit Microsoft:

Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman)

Since Microsoft is not the only producer of OS's out there, it isn't a monopoly. And since Linux is free, there is no way Microsoft can ever possibly be a monopoly without eradicating Linux. Good luck with that Bill.

Furthermore, the term oligopily does not fit either, as there is no collusion between Microsoft and any other OS company other than Apple.

Microsoft commands a large percentage of the market, true, but it is not a monopoly in any way.

EN[i]GMA
04-07-2005, 02:13 PM
prosecute, regulate, cap.....and EDUCATE!!

If only it were that simple.

For this to work, people would have to exist that I fully entrust with my interests.

Do you trust your elected officials enough to allow them to run your economy?

Of course not.

For your plan to work, politicans would have to get better and, by proxy, people in general would have to get better.

You're just saying that if people were better, people would be better.

It's a nonsensical point.

I trust government less than big business and government plus big business less than either, so how is colluding them going to solve our problems?

Historically, caps and regulation have served only to protect companies from competition and hurt the consumer. Why is this likely to change?

ASsman
04-07-2005, 03:01 PM
Heh, not reading your posts is actually better than reading them. Wow.

Qdrop
04-07-2005, 03:22 PM
GMA']So...the benefits of using the Windows OS outweigh the costs in these people's eyes, and that's somehow a problem?
see, don't completely buy that.

the average office worker has NO say in what OS they use....
it's not up to them.
it's up the management WAAAAAYYYY high up, much higher than IT even.
people who are less involved with the systems themselves, and more concerned with bottom line costs.

once they wake up and smell the advantage, the dominos will start to fall.

someone has to start.
someone big.


The states problems were: lack of compatible open source software,

and microsoft has nothing to do with that?

user resistance to change,

oh pish posh. they'd get over it in an instant once they see the advantages.
and I personally don't think most people really have such a strong aversion to it as is reported.

high training costs, high costs of porting bespoke applications

pays for itself

and a dependence on Microsoft's Active Directory

anti-trust: ATTACK!


But I honestly believe that the Open Source movement will eventually crush Microsoft and everyone else.

that would be nice. let us hope.


No company can compete with something that is free for very long, without doing some significant thing right. It's 'monopoly' means nothing when Linux is freely available.

well, i'll meet you halfway....
a big part of the monopoly is the pschology of the masses.
people are pussies.

EN[i]GMA
04-07-2005, 03:53 PM
Heh, not reading your posts is actually better than reading them. Wow.

But obviously responding to them trumps both.

EN[i]GMA
04-07-2005, 03:57 PM
see, don't completely buy that.

the average office worker has NO say in what OS they use....
it's not up to them.
it's up the management WAAAAAYYYY high up, much higher than IT even.
people who are less involved with the systems themselves, and more concerned with bottom line costs.

once they wake up and smell the advantage, the dominos will start to fall.

someone has to start.
someone big.

Someone do something of their own volition in a market? Some sort of 'free'-market?

Interesting concept.


and microsoft has nothing to do with that?

Partly. It wouldn't be very smart to allow a free OS to act like your product.


oh pish posh. they'd get over it in an instant once they see the advantages.
and I personally don't think most people really have such a strong aversion to it as is reported.

You think Joe Solitareplayer knows the advantages of the Linux OS?


pays for itself

I would think so as well, but apparently the number-cruchers disagree.


anti-trust: ATTACK!

That isn't a 'trust' so using 'anti-trust' laws to fight it wouldn't be very smart.


that would be nice. let us hope.

Yes.


well, i'll meet you halfway....
a big part of the monopoly is the pschology of the masses.
people are pussies.

I'll agree that people don't often know what's best for themselves, but I'll disagree wen someone says people should be TOLD what's best for them.

ASsman
04-07-2005, 04:56 PM
GMA']But obviously responding to them trumps both.
Eh, not really a response, more like a remark.

Funkaloyd
04-07-2005, 06:06 PM
once they wake up and smell the advantage, the dominos will start to fall.

someone has to start.
someone big.
Then are the antitrust lawsuits really needed?

EN[i]GMA
04-07-2005, 06:08 PM
Eh, not really a response, more like a remark.

Nice try, but in your effort to label your remark a response, you responded to my post.

The plot thickens!

Dun-dun-dun!

Qdrop
04-08-2005, 06:36 AM
Then are the antitrust lawsuits really needed?

well sure.

even if people wake up on thier own.....they need to have options and choices to pick from.

Qdrop
04-08-2005, 07:34 AM
okay, i kinda ran through my replies yesterday on my way out the door....
so i'll reiterate and concede some points....

GMA']Someone do something of their own volition in a market? Some sort of 'free'-market?

Interesting concept.


as long as the market alows it (which it doesn't always)....hence anti-trust laws, ect.


Partly. It wouldn't be very smart to allow a free OS to act like your product.

yes, and this is very true.
i don't want to come off as anti-business or anti-profit.
i value patents and copywrites, and think they are vital to business.

microsoft should not be made to give up thier coding....that's just cruel.

proponents of Linux will have to create their own programs, ect....

i guess the real war will be HOW SIMILAR can those programs be to "popular" (read as: widely used) microsoft programs....



You think Joe Solitareplayer knows the advantages of the Linux OS?

i think they know they hate microsofts systems....
and i think they will like (ideally) having more in thier paycheck if companies get their OS systems for free, and get programs for free in a P2P environment.....
and will like having the freedom to have IT techs customize programing to suit companies or even individuals.....



I would think so as well, but apparently the number-cruchers disagree.

pussies.



That isn't a 'trust' so using 'anti-trust' laws to fight it wouldn't be very smart.

you're right.
that comment was made in haste.
see above comments.



I'll agree that people don't often know what's best for themselves, but I'll disagree wen someone says people should be TOLD what's best for them.
just give them the option and educate about it's abilities.
this would really be best for EVERYONE.

yeah, microsoft would suffer....but it forces them to stay on their toes....to make huge strides in programing in efforts to compete....
likely they would not survive...or would have to change what they do entirely.
perhaps they too, would have to become free programming...and instead would have to make thier money as in-house IT techs/consultants, ect.

Qdrop
04-08-2005, 07:53 AM
GMA']
For this to work, people would have to exist that I fully entrust with my interests.

Do you trust your elected officials enough to allow them to run your economy?

Of course not.

For your plan to work, politicans would have to get better and, by proxy, people in general would have to get better.

[...]

I trust government less than big business and government plus big business less than either, so how is colluding them going to solve our problems?


granted, polititions are far from the most trustworthy.

the best solution would need to be 2 part:

take the power back.
crooked politions like Delay must be prosecuted to the fullest.
the same with crooked CEO's, ect.
a constant purging of the system. and make an example of all of them.

but the real weapon we need....is the TAKE THE MEDIA BACK!
the media can once again TRULY be the people's watchdogs....
as they once were...
before they were boughten up by corporations.

that will have to be flipped....perhaps found unconstitutional?

media will have to be set apart as an entity unto itself...practically a 4th branch of gov't .....
but with no ties to any one....or anyones money.

we have to look back at what once made the media great and responsible...and look to reclaim that.
we need to force (somehow) corporate greed OUT of the media.


From here, we could at least trust the powers that be to set up and enforce a capped, regulated capitalistic system....that does not allow buy-outs, does not allow growth past a certain limit- forcing industries into constant competion.


Historically, caps and regulation have served only to protect companies from competition and hurt the consumer. Why is this likely to change?
you'll have to explain what you mean....
and i'll have to further explain what i mean....

if companies cannot grow past a certain limit in capital...they cannot buy out competition, they cannot engage in brief price wars to drive one another out of business (don't have deep enough pockets)....and they will be regulated to prevent price fixing.
they will have to compete on INNOVATION AND QUALITY.
the system will force their hand.

the market will still dictate price.

no more conglomerates....rather many many smaller companies within an industry...competeing for your business...and your employment.

ASsman
04-08-2005, 11:58 AM
Thanks for totally gaying up my thread.

Qdrop
04-08-2005, 12:37 PM
Thanks for totally gaying up my thread.

what?
the fuck is your problem? where did you want this thread to go?

EN[i]GMA
04-08-2005, 02:06 PM
okay, i kinda ran through my replies yesterday on my way out the door....
so i'll reiterate and concede some points....

No problems.


as long as the market alows it (which it doesn't always)....hence anti-trust laws, ect.

But there is nothing preventinganyone from using Linux, there are no natural barriers to entry in the market at all. This isn't something that can be controlled commodity-wise, so the entire concept of a 'monopoly' in the computer industry is absurd.

When anyone can code their own word processor, how can Microsoft hold a monopoly on them?


yes, and this is very true.
i don't want to come off as anti-business or anti-profit.
i value patents and copywrites, and think they are vital to business.

microsoft should not be made to give up thier coding....that's just cruel.

proponents of Linux will have to create their own programs, ect....

i guess the real war will be HOW SIMILAR can those programs be to "popular" (read as: widely used) microsoft programs....

I agree that copyright and patent laws need to be revised.


i think they know they hate microsofts systems....
and i think they will like (ideally) having more in thier paycheck if companies get their OS systems for free, and get programs for free in a P2P environment.....
and will like having the freedom to have IT techs customize programing to suit companies or even individuals.....

You think Joe PCUser knows how to use Winzip, let alone compile a program from a tarball?

Linux isn't very friendly, even now.


just give them the option and educate about it's abilities.
this would really be best for EVERYONE.

yeah, microsoft would suffer....but it forces them to stay on their toes....to make huge strides in programing in efforts to compete....
likely they would not survive...or would have to change what they do entirely.
perhaps they too, would have to become free programming...and instead would have to make thier money as in-house IT techs/consultants, ect.

But what if the market stayed the same after all your changes, what if Microsoft still ruled the roost and nothing changed?

Qdrop
04-08-2005, 02:14 PM
GMA']
But there is nothing preventinganyone from using Linux, there are no natural barriers to entry in the market at all. This isn't something that can be controlled commodity-wise, so the entire concept of a 'monopoly' in the computer industry is absurd.
joe schmoe office worker cannot just come into work and upload Linux onto there computer.
they would be fired.

it's not their decision.
you'll understand more when you are in an office environment.


When anyone can code their own word processor, how can Microsoft hold a monopoly on them?

they won't.


You think Joe PCUser knows how to use Winzip, let alone compile a program from a tarball?

Linux isn't very friendly, even now.
now...
give it just a little time....



But what if the market stayed the same after all your changes, what if Microsoft still ruled the roost and nothing changed?
than god bless microsoft....my hats off to thee....

EN[i]GMA
04-08-2005, 02:27 PM
granted, polititions are far from the most trustworthy.

the best solution would need to be 2 part:

take the power back.
crooked politions like Delay must be prosecuted to the fullest.
the same with crooked CEO's, ect.
a constant purging of the system. and make an example of all of them.

but the real weapon we need....is the TAKE THE MEDIA BACK!
the media can once again TRULY be the people's watchdogs....
as they once were...
before they were boughten up by corporations.

that will have to be flipped....perhaps found unconstitutional?

A free media? Welcome to the internet.

But you see how well that works out. People free of all restraints are often just as untrustworthy as corporations. They often show flagrant biases, without regard to consequences and serve as nothing more than parrots.

Can you really say media was ever demonstrably better than it is now, or you appealing to nostalgia?

Today's media is the pinnacle of human knowledge. Like the Economist Magazine for instance. No finer news weekly exists and it's undoubtably only gotten better since it's inception.

You're clamoring for a media hey-dey that never existed. The only time there was no corporate control of the media was when there was no media.



media will have to be set apart as an entity unto itself...practically a 4th branch of gov't .....
but with no ties to any one....or anyones money.

we have to look back at what once made the media great and responsible...and look to reclaim that.
we need to force (somehow) corporate greed OUT of the media.


You want money kept out of the media but want it handed over to the government? The government that's running a multi-trillion dollar deficit?

That doesn't add up.

We can't force corporate greed out of the media without that vacuum being filled with something else, like government greed which is infinetely worse.

Government controlled media is a horrible proposition.


From here, we could at least trust the powers that be to set up and enforce a capped, regulated capitalistic system....that does not allow buy-outs, does not allow growth past a certain limit- forcing industries into constant competion.

So stopping growth fosters competition? But you do understand that companies get more competitive and efficient as they grow, correct? Through buying in bulk, vertical integration and fixed costs, the bigger a company is, the more cheaply it can do business, allowing it to compete at an ever higher level.

What you're missing is that many companies can grow simultaniously, and that many industries have shifting balances of power.

All this legislation seeks to do is prop up LESS competitive business and DESTROY competition. What's remotely competitive about not letting company A run company B out of business when company B isn't even in the same ballpark in terms of production, efficiency, quality or care?

The only way company B is still 'competing' is via government coercion, to EVERYONE'S malignance.

How does allowing inept businesses to stay afloat somehow improve things for the consumer? Won't these inept businesses take advantage of their security and produce poor products, at high prices with little or no innovation? What incentive is there to succeed when you can't. Why prevent yourself from failing when you can't?

Don't allow buy-outs? Why not? Couldn't a good car company do more good with the use of a bad car companies facilities than is currently being done?

Not allow growth? Why invest in R&D when you know that the government won't let you grow and recoup your investment. Why take risks when there is little or no reward?

How can you force people to compete? Competition is an act of volition, not of coercion. Forced competition is slavery, like gladatorial combat.


you'll have to explain what you mean....
and i'll have to further explain what i mean....

if companies cannot grow past a certain limit in capital...they cannot buy out competition, they cannot engage in brief price wars to drive one another out of business (don't have deep enough pockets)....and they will be regulated to prevent price fixing.
they will have to compete on INNOVATION AND QUALITY.
the system will force their hand.

the market will still dictate price.

no more conglomerates....rather many many smaller companies within an industry...competeing for your business...and your employment.

What government intervention has historically done is pad the pockets of the best lobbyists. Government cartelizes an industry, it stagnates, and the Suits are guranteed certain things, via locked prices that benefit them and lock out competition, limited production that removes the benefits of growth and government assurances of certain profits that encourage innefective and wasteful practices.

When the government payed companies to lay rail for a railroad, was that railroad layed out in straight, cheap line or in a curvy, expensive line?

Why would things change?

And how will the system force them to compete when it encourages them to maintain the status quo?

Name one industry where many smaller companies are better than larger ones. What makes smaller companies inherently better than larger ones? Anything?

How is buying out of competition a bad thing? If a company is doing poorly enough that it needs to be bought out, it will doubtlessly collapse in a few years via normal competition, and it's remanents will just be bought up by the same people at a fraction of the cost. Buy-outs are good things, for everyone.

When has predatory pricing done what you said? When has that ever been a bad thing, if indeed it has occured?

EN[i]GMA
04-08-2005, 02:34 PM
joe schmoe office worker cannot just come into work and upload Linux onto there computer.
they would be fired.

it's not their decision.
you'll understand more when you are in an office environment.

Said company sucks, then.

If I can work better on Linux, it shouldn't matter.

But I take your word for it.

they won't.


now...
give it just a little time....

RPMs are a step forward but there's still a long way to go.


than god bless microsoft....my hats off to thee....

Why don't you do that now?

Didn't they beat all comers to get into their current position?

Why would that victory legitimize their position but not their past victory? You seem to be quite arbitrary with your tests, praising them for overcoming market adversity once but bemoaning them for doing the same at other times.

Qdrop
04-08-2005, 03:01 PM
GMA']A free media? Welcome to the internet.

But you see how well that works out. People free of all restraints are often just as untrustworthy as corporations. They often show flagrant biases, without regard to consequences and serve as nothing more than parrots.

well that will never go away....that's human nature.


Can you really say media was ever demonstrably better than it is now, or you appealing to nostalgia?

well, i admit i speak of times since before my birth...so am kind of parroting.
but i am parroting from notable figures, whom i have alot of respect for.


Today's media is the pinnacle of human knowledge.

todays media is almost completely corporate owned.
24 hour news stations are killing the industries credability....
they need massive $$ from advertisers and their parent companies....thus need to kowtow to thier demands.
ratings are the biggest killer.
the media concentrates on outlandish court cases and celebrity BS....just to rake in $$ ratings.

the news media doesn't look to educate and protect the masses, just make money off them.

it switched.


You're clamoring for a media hey-dey that never existed. The only time there was no corporate control of the media was when there was no media.

not true though. i mean, do some research....read some articles by notable news figures talking on the subject.

there were times when the media had dignity...when it really looked to to expose....focused on news that mattered....no what sold.
before the corporate buy-outs....who required their new little "toys" to produce some profit, or get dumped.



You want money kept out of the media but want it handed over to the government? The government that's running a multi-trillion dollar deficit?

That doesn't add up.

We can't force corporate greed out of the media without that vacuum being filled with something else, like government greed which is infinetely worse.

Government controlled media is a horrible proposition.

i'm not really saying that.
i don't want the gov't to control it.....no.

my 4th branch analogy was a bad one.



So stopping growth fosters competition? But you do understand that companies get more competitive and efficient as they grow, correct? Through buying in bulk, vertical integration and fixed costs, the bigger a company is, the more cheaply it can do business, allowing it to compete at an ever higher level.
and buy out other competition, decreasing choice, allowing prices to be controlled, and quality and R&D to stagnate.
that's what lack of competition does.



What you're missing is that many companies can grow simultaniously, and that many industries have shifting balances of power.

caps can be universally raised over time.


All this legislation seeks to do is prop up LESS competitive business and DESTROY competition. What's remotely competitive about not letting company A run company B out of business when company B isn't even in the same ballpark in terms of production, efficiency, quality or care?

The only way company B is still 'competing' is via government coercion, to EVERYONE'S malignance.

How does allowing inept businesses to stay afloat somehow improve things for the consumer? Won't these inept businesses take advantage of their security and produce poor products, at high prices with little or no innovation? What incentive is there to succeed when you can't. Why prevent yourself from failing when you can't?

i'm not saying anything about propping up faltering businesses.
let em' fail.


Don't allow buy-outs? Why not? Couldn't a good car company do more good with the use of a bad car companies facilities than is currently being done?

let em' fail...and then another new start up company buys off the capital and starts a new company.
fresh blood.

Not allow growth? Why invest in R&D when you know that the government won't let you grow and recoup your investment. Why take risks when there is little or no reward?
R&D to survive in the market place....not just growth.
if you are capped....you must use R&D all the more to gain an edge on competitors. rather than just drop prices or buy them out.



And how will the system force them to compete when it encourages them to maintain the status quo?

you must compete to sustain....not just to grow and get fat.
re-invent constantly...improve quality constantly...or die.


Name one industry where many smaller companies are better than larger ones. What makes smaller companies inherently better than larger ones? Anything?
what's "better" to you?



When has predatory pricing done what you said? When has that ever been a bad thing, if indeed it has occured?
dropping prices to kill of competition?
are you serious?
corporate killing off ma and pa shops is a good thing to you?

Qdrop
04-08-2005, 03:07 PM
GMA']
Why don't you do that now?

Didn't they beat all comers to get into their current position?

come on, you know the story.
gates and microsoft stumbled into this.
he was a very smart guy...who saw an old system....and marketed it to to huge investors who happened to be looking for something new....and took a chance....
others followed like lemmings (pure psychology) to keep up with the jones's....by the time others tried to jump in....microsoft had already got in...and the companies had already settled and got comfortable...entire industries had settled....no matter if other competitors WERE better....
microsoft became a giant due to circumstance.

ASsman
04-09-2005, 06:06 PM
what?
the fuck is your problem? where did you want this thread to go?
Not the way of the Starbucks one.

And it wasn't directed towards you.

Qdrop
04-11-2005, 06:57 AM
k