Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Desktops (Apple) Media Software Apple

MplayerX Leaving Mac App Store 225

Posted by timothy
from the kicked-out-of-the-hothouse dept.
New submitter technonono writes "MplayerX, a popular and free video player app on Mac OSX, is now leaving Mac App Store 'after arguing with Apple for three months.' The developer claims that Apple's sandboxing policies would strip the app into 'another lame Quicktime X,' which is unacceptable. The app is releasing updates on its own site, where users who bought it from the App Store would most likely never notice them. The situation was 'foretold' by Marco Arment, at least for one app."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MplayerX Leaving Mac App Store

Comments Filter:
  • Procrastination (Score:2, Informative)

    by Fls'Zen (812215) on Friday August 17, 2012 @11:17PM (#41033011) Homepage
    They've had over a year to get this straightened out, not three months. If MplayerX won't sell in the app store, some other product will fill the void in that market. This is of course assuming people are going to the app store for such a media player.
    • by flimflammer (956759) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @01:06AM (#41033573)

      They said they were arguing back and forth for 3 months, not that they only had 3 months to attempt to implement changes.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Friday August 17, 2012 @11:17PM (#41033013)

    I have it installed, but never even thought to look for it there. Nothing to do with sandboxing requirements - I just would've figured their developers would object to the concept of the App Store on principle.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@lynx . b c.ca> on Friday August 17, 2012 @11:17PM (#41033017) Journal
    From one of the links in the summary:

    Apple's stance seems to be pretty typical of them: comply with the new rules or leave. This usually works for them, but this time, theyâ(TM)ve made a critical strategic error: leaving is often a better option...

    I would put forward that this conclusion is actually only true right now, but I expect over the coming years that is liable to change.

    As an increasing number of applications *DO* become available on the app store, I would suggest that a growing number of people are going to increasingly rely upon it. Eventually, I expect that a critical mass will be reached (I predict about 2 years from now), and Apple will shut the door to external sales on the Mac outside of jailbroken devices forever.

    This will probably be cause for a lot of people to abandon the mac platform, but I expect that the remaining userbase will be sufficiently large by that point in time that other developers will eventually be drawn to writing for the platform, attracted by the promise of what will seem to them, initially at least, to be a largely untapped market.

    And what happened with iOS is going to happen again with MacOSX.

    • by javacowboy (222023) on Friday August 17, 2012 @11:51PM (#41033225)

      Why would Apple alienate their professional customers, including developers? They're the ones who, along with graphic artists, movie editors, radiologists, etc, who pay top dollar for the most expensive Macs?

      If developers can't install Apps like Eclipse, Mac Ports, various command-line tools, etc, then they'll switch platforms. Apple can't afford to lose those sales.

      Besides, many game developers don't distribute on the Mac App Store, including EA and Blizzard (and Steam still runs separate from the App Store), not to mention Microsoft and Adobe. Just how can Apple afford to lose Office and Photoshop, among other high profile non-App Store apps?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:09AM (#41033321)

        Why don't you ask the professionals that use Final Cut Pro that question when Apple released Final Cut Pro X? It was a royal clusterfuck and goes to show that Apple does not care about its pro customers. Even its latest line of Mac Pro was criticized by people like Any Hertzfeld for being subpar. Apple only cares about making the latest toy not about professionals getting work done.

        • by macs4all (973270) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @04:20AM (#41034299)

          Why don't you ask the professionals that use Final Cut Pro that question when Apple released Final Cut Pro X? It was a royal clusterfuck and goes to show that Apple does not care about its pro customers. Even its latest line of Mac Pro was criticized by people like Any Hertzfeld for being subpar. Apple only cares about making the latest toy not about professionals getting work done.

          Um, some of those "Professionals" work for Apple. Do you really think they don't know what "Pros" need?

          • by narcc (412956) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @05:22AM (#41034501) Journal

            Apparently they don't.

            A quick google search will turn up article after article about the "royal clusterfuck" that was the release of Final Cut Pro X. Hell, I have no interest in the app at all and even I'm familiar with that mess of a release.

            Anyhow, the biggest complaint seems to be that Apple removed a shit-ton of essential features from the program, turning a once professional tool in to a play-toy. See for yourself. Apple, once again, fails to understand working professionals and their needs.

          • by paulatz (744216) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @09:31AM (#41035605) Homepage

            Um, some of those "Professionals" work for Apple. Do you really think they don't know what "Pros" need?

            The point is not that they do not know, but that they do not care.

      • by CritterNYC (190163) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:40AM (#41034005) Homepage
        Apple is making record profits ($35 billion last quarter) and only 14.2% of those profits ($1.287 billion) came from sales of Mac hardware last quarter (all desktops and laptops). (source [betanews.com]) The percentage of money Apple makes from desktops and laptops is getting progressively smaller each quarter. And the number of 'professionals' in those numbers is smaller still. The bottom line is that there is FAR more money to be made from consumers. To the point that professionals really don't matter to Apple's bottom line at all. Consumers, consumers, consumers. Consumers consuming music/video ($1.571 billion, up 29 percent from $1.571 billion a year earlier.) and apps ($891 million, up 28 percent from $696 million a year earlier.) on their iPads ($9.17 billion, up 52 percent from $6.046 billion a year earlier.), iPod Touches ($1.06 billion, down 20 percent from $1.325 billion a year earlier.) and iPhones ($16.425 billion, up 22 percent from $13.31 billion a year earlier.). That's where the money is. That's where nearly ALL the money is. Microsoft is seeing the same light. That's why Windows 8 is what it is. It is a 100% consumer operating system, corporations be damned. It's about setting up an ecosystem of apps, music and video across your desktop, laptop, tablet and phone. So, no, it doesn't matter if you can't install Eclipse, Mac Ports or various command-line tools on your Mac. The Mac App Store is about consumers, just like the iOS App Store. Not creators or 'professionals'. Even if you estimate that 10% of Mac's desktop/laptop hardware sales were 'professionals' (an extremely high estimate) and every single one of them abandoned Mac as a result of these changes (unlikely), that's still only $493 million. 1.4% of Apple's revenue. And that will be more than offset by another platform where Apple for all intents and purposes controls the keys to the kingdom (Mac App Store will be 95%+ of all Mac software sales in the next couple years) and makes a 30% cut of all software sales. They can ditch professionals and make a killing on consumers.
        • by arkhan_jg (618674) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @05:02AM (#41034429)

          he Mac App Store is about consumers, just like the iOS App Store. Not creators or 'professionals'. Even if you estimate that 10% of Mac's desktop/laptop hardware sales were 'professionals' (an extremely high estimate) and every single one of them abandoned Mac as a result of these changes (unlikely), that's still only $493 million. 1.4% of Apple's revenue

          There is one group of professionals they can't drive off though; the people that write those lovely profitable apps that go in the app stores.

          If people can't get their dev environment running, they won't dev apps, and without new and updated apps (to support the new versions of the OS), the platform would be in deep trouble. So I fully expect Gatekeeper to become mandatory at some point; you won't be able to turn it off. You'll still be able to install apps on OSX from outside the app store, but only if they're signed with a dev certificate.
          Which you need to be an apple dev, i.e. pay the annual $99, to get. And you'll still be able to run apps you compile yourself without a cert. But if you're paying for a dev cert, you might as well distribute though the app store, as you're paying to do so anyway...

          For commercial devs, not a major issue as they're already paying for it, and they'll be able to run test builds without signing each one. Open source or non-profit coders though? Crap out of luck. But then they don't make money for apple, so who cares about them? it's not like they write anything useful*... [/sarcasm]

          * apart from BSD. And KHTML.

          • by bogie (31020) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:18PM (#41037887) Journal

            "If people can't get their dev environment running, they won't dev apps"

            Why wouldn't they be able to get their dev environment running? I understand what you are trying to say but realistically Apple does supply Xcode and any other tools needed to make apps on it's platform. If you don't like it Apple will just tell you to piss off like they do on everything else. It's not fair but then again Apple has never been about fair.

        • by organgtool (966989) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:14PM (#41036817)
          And this is a particularly risky move for Apple. While shifting from a mix of professionals and consumers to just consumers is paying off very well right now, it could prove to be a horrible long-term decision. Consumers are much more fickle than professionals. Professionals need to have domain knowledge of their hardware and software which makes switching platforms for them much more difficult. However, with two years of no updates for the Mac Pro, the huge debacle over Final Cut Pro X, and the removal of pro features of the Macbook Pro (no 17" screen, no Firewire or DVD drive on the Retina model), Apple has given professionals plenty of reasons to make that switch. The professionals kept Apple alive when it was crumbling apart, but they might not be around the next time that it's no longer fashionable to be carrying an Apple product and then Apple could be in serious trouble. I wouldn't expect this to happen for quite some time, so there's still a good chance for Apple to turn this around, but all current indications point to continued abandonment of their most loyal customers.
    • by subreality (157447) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:11AM (#41033335)

      And what happened with iOS is going to happen again with MacOSX.

      ... Apple will continue making loads of money selling other people's software, and developers will mostly stay on board because the App Store is a much bigger market than you usually get to tap as an indie?

      You say it like it's something that Apple somehow should regret. I don't like it, but it seems to be working out pretty well for them.

    • by ToasterMonkey (467067) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:20AM (#41033377) Homepage

      As an increasing number of applications *DO* become available on the app store, I would suggest that a growing number of people are going to increasingly rely upon it. Eventually, I expect that a critical mass will be reached (I predict about 2 years from now), and Apple will shut the door to external sales on the Mac outside of jailbroken devices forever.

      This will probably be cause for a lot of people to abandon the mac platform, but I expect that the remaining userbase will be sufficiently large by that point in time that other developers will eventually be drawn to writing for the platform, attracted by the promise of what will seem to them, initially at least, to be a largely untapped market.

      And what happened with iOS is going to happen again with MacOSX.

      This is a steaming pile of bullcrap hyperbole topped with +1 We Like It When Someone Says They Will Do Bad Things and +1 If We Wish Hard Enough It Will Come True

      It amounts to "I think Apple will sandbox their entire desktop OS because iOS"

      • by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:32AM (#41033971)

        The Apple faithful said "Never going to Intel!" and it happened. So, hyperbole or not, Apple is closing off their once semi-open OS so they can maintain control over the "experience." If that's what people want when they buy a Mac or iPhone, that's fine. It's just not what some of the older converts (who started with 10.0 via a coupon in their Macs) want.

        It is what it is. Evil megacorp references aside... these things have been brewing in the applesphere for a while now. It's not a new plan. Apple's never been all that "open" with their Macintosh platform (a different track than the Apple 2 days, I suppose), and the fact that OS X started out with more freedom was just a transitional phase to the 'iOSification' of their entire product line.

        • by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @06:12AM (#41034701) Journal

          The Apple faithful said "Never going to Intel!" and it happened. So, hyperbole or not, Apple is closing off their once semi-open OS so they can maintain control over the "experience."

          Let me get this straight. By Apple faithful, I presume you're referring to users - not the company itself. If I'm wrong there, who was it who said this? With that presumption, I'd like to parse what you wrote.

          You claim that Apple is going to do x because their fans in the past said that Apple would not do y, yet Apple did do y. What?

          • by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @04:02PM (#41038751)

            The apple users, lovers, people who owned Powermacs... said on forums, in editorial print magazines, and just about everywhere else "No, Apple's not going to Intel"... and gave a myriad of practical reasons (they thought) why it wouldn't occur. What that means in context is everyone who says "OS X is never going to be iOS" and "OS X will always be what it is today..." etc... are more than likely incorrect in their predictions.

            Given Apple's past performance is it not unreasonable to assume that Apple won't just continue to do what some people speculate and turn OS X into iOS, and by that same token turn a Mac into an iPhone with a detached display (or in the case of a laptop, built in keyboard.)

            You cannot replace your own batteries on your Mac notebooks anymore. You used to be able to. (I have a first gen Macbook Pro) That's just one example of how the entire Apple lineup is becoming more closed and less like a traditional computer. If one comes into the Apple ecosystem now, they are buying a more closed product than they have had in the past decade or so.

            What we're seeing is the return to the original Mac... closed and not open to experimentation. Whether that is a bad thing depends on your perspective.

            • by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @06:38PM (#41040157) Journal

              The apple users, lovers, people who owned Powermacs... said on forums, in editorial print magazines, and just about everywhere else "No, Apple's not going to Intel"... and gave a myriad of practical reasons (they thought) why it wouldn't occur. What that means in context is everyone who says "OS X is never going to be iOS" and "OS X will always be what it is today..." etc... are more than likely incorrect in their predictions.

              Heh, a possible tl;dr coming your way.

              Ah, I get you. Still, it doesn't follow that they're probably incorrect, and this whole lock-down thing is pretty subjective. I agree that the battery thing could be a pain, and 12 years ago I'd have thought it crazy if my PowerBook G3 came that way. No way I'd be getting much work done if I had to rely on a single battery, but these days battery life is way better. Still, when this thing gets old, I'm going to have to send the entire thing off. That part could be pain. So far the locking-down works for me. I don't mind my iPhone being the way it is. I'd be jumping to a different system though if all apps had to come via the app store (which I doubt will ever happen on Mac), or if they decided to ditch the Unix command line (which I'm honestly surprised is still there). Not being able to upgrade the RAM in the Retina machines doesn't bother me too much, as I'd tend to max out RAM, or get pretty close. Being unable to monkey around the drive is a pain, but the form factor kind of makes that tricky anyway. Trade-offs.

              The OS X in to iOS thing you mentioned is possible, but I wouldn't go so far as to assume it'll happen. In the end, we'll vote with our feet if they take away something too important. As an old time, you'll probably remember the earlier transitions, and the concerns. m68k to PowerPC, and then PowerPC to Intel. OS 9 to OS X - that was a big shift, albeit sweetened by having a Unix that didn't require farting around with pdisk and tweaking to enjoy luxuries like audio CD playback and functional power management on portables. Ditching ADB, SCSI and serial ports - that left me replacing a few peripherals. New machines lacking optical drives.

              I don't believe OS X will become iOS. I do see more iOS features coming to OS X, which has generally been good for me. Notification centre is great, and the trackpad gestures have done a lot to improve my productivity - even the reverse scrolling, after so many years of working the other way around, seems just so intuitive.

              The way I see it now is that I can experiment far more than ever before. I have a decent IDE freely available (MPW was good in its day, but all but discarded once I picked-up Code Warrior). Automator is a great tool, particularly when you get in to writing services. I have a proper suit of Unix commands available to me, and plenty more via MacPorts/Fink. I run PostgreSQL and PHP on here for development, which is something I doubt would ever have come to classic Mac OS. Now with the move to Intel I have far more options for natively booting other operating systems, or virtualised in Fusion, Parallels and the open source options.

          • by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @04:04PM (#41038767)

            Oops.. I should've mentioned this in the previous post.. (sorry!) but you can see even in my posting history (I'll spare you the tedium) where I stated "if Apple goes Intel, I'll eat my hat." (I gave a bunch of now inconsequential reasons for the claim too... but at the time they seemed relevant)

            My hat tasted like shit. :)

    • by Osgeld (1900440) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @01:33AM (#41033711)

      I argue its already hit critical mass, and the masses are starting to wake up to the idea that one store does not have all that they may want

    • As an increasing number of applications *DO* become available on the app store, I would suggest that a growing number of people are going to increasingly rely upon it. Eventually, I expect that a critical mass will be reached (I predict about 2 years from now), and Apple will shut the door to external sales on the Mac outside of jailbroken devices forever.

      And how do developers develop apps then?

      Right now, gatekeeper only applies to apps downloaded from the Internet. If you acquire the app some other way (compile from source, off other media) it doesn't get in the way. In fact, it relies on the "downloaded from internet" extended attribute which is bypassable by editing the attribute.

      And back to the original question - iOS can be locked down because people cannot develop apps on it - it provides no native toolchain to do so. You have to develop on a Mac in order to write an iOS app.

      If the only way to get apps on OS X is via the Mac App Store, where are those apps going to be built from? Windows?

      Take this to its logical extreme in that developers need to upload a binary, get it signed by Apple and then run it off the Mac App Store - well, what's to keep end users from doing the same and writing their own apps, or better yet - using open-source apps?

      Hell, if that's the case, the FSF would be super happy because the only ways to get software onto OS X would be the Mac App Store, or via the developer program in order to compile from source. Which means the only way to distribute apps outside of the Mac App Store is via source code, making OS X one of the most "open" platforms around because you cannot distribute a binary - but only as source.

      And for the time being, gatekeeper's verified developer ID thing allows non-Mac App Store apps - it's just developers have to prove their identity. Firefox has two such keys and are using them for all their builds (one is for daily builds, the other for formal releases).

      Finally - there are classes of software not allowed by the Mac App Store - ones that cannot be self-contained (e.g., drivers, utility programs), demos (Microsoft Office Trial, anyone?).

      Oh yeah - limiting Mac App Store apps to $1000 max price, too. AutoCAD LE can work under that, but AutoCAD can't. Multi-thousand dollar software packages exist.

      And how to jailbreak a Mac - I dunno, you could well, take out the hard drive or SSD, put it in an appropriate adapter via USB (you can mount every mac's Disk - PATA, SATA, mSATA, MacBook Air/Retina MacBook Pro wierd-SATA), and access files that way.

      The lockdown isn't happening because it's a computer and computers are doing certain things. Locked down tablets and phones are nice and popular though because people realize they don't need a computer to do most of the things they actually do, and want to avoid the pain and trouble of having to maintain a computer. (After all, would you really want your mechanic to have to bill you for time spent futzing with the diagnostic computer because they had to recompile the Linux kernel to fix some issue? No, most of them expect them to just work and please-don't-bother-me-with-useless-computer-techy-things-just-let-me-do-my-job)

      • If the only way to get apps on OS X is via the Mac App Store, where are those apps going to be built from? Windows?

        They will be built on Mac, of course. The limitation hasn't hurt iOS development any.

        Take this to its logical extreme in that developers need to upload a binary, get it signed by Apple and then run it off the Mac App Store - well, what's to keep end users from doing the same and writing their own apps, or better yet - using open-source apps?

        Absolutely nothing is stopping them from writing their own apps or taking source code and compiling it for themselves to run it on their own machine. You can already do that with iOS apps without any help or approval from Apple. It's not very practical for distributing applications, however... except during test cycles of a specific (and fairly short) duration.

        Hell, if that's the case, the FSF would be super happy because the only ways to get software onto OS X would be the Mac App Store, or via the developer program in order to compile from source. Which means the only way to distribute apps outside of the Mac App Store is via source code, making OS X one of the most "open" platforms around because you cannot distribute a binary - but only as source.

        I actually hadn't considered that possibility. I suppose that it might happen that way. But I don't think it's likely.

        Finally - there are classes of software not allowed by the Mac App Store - ones that cannot be self-contained (e.g., drivers, utility programs), demos (Microsoft Office Trial, anyone?)

        Apple will simply turn a blind eye to such software, as it won't be of any practical use on a closed system.

        The lockdown isn't happening because it's a computer...

        No... the lockdown isn't happening because widespread use of the MacOSX app store as an exclusive means of installing software hasn't reached a critical mass yet. Give it a couple of years. As you yourself said, most people don't need a real computer anyways, so this isn't likely to matter to most people. Only to power users, who make up such a tiny percentage of computer users, that it is unlikely to matter to Apple.

        What will keep some power users sticking with Apple (and probably draw new ones),.however, is the size of its user base, and the attractiveness of what will, for a short time, appear to be a vast and largely untapped market.

    • by ClaraBow (212734) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @01:21PM (#41037411)
      You may need to join forces with John C. Dvorak, as he is brilliant at making predictions about all things Apple! He's yet to get one right, but hey, that's the nature of the game!
  • by cheesybagel (670288) on Friday August 17, 2012 @11:23PM (#41033053)

    For all their much vaunted backwards compatibility or large collection of apps the reality is that either the app developer keeps updating their app or it breaks. That was what happened with Stanza. It was probably a mere coincidence that it broke around the time iBooks was released.

    Or was it?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:00AM (#41033275)

    I got off of the Apple bandwagon a long time ago after I realised how much Apple's ecosystem is like a prison. I'd rather have my freedom. Microsoft and other companies are moving more and more in the direction of Apple (and Apple just keeps moving in the wrong directions). Even Canonical, Red Hat, System76, ZaReason, and quite a few others have really annoyed me in recent years. Not so much because they have taken drastic steps towards imprisoning you although more for their ignorance and complacency. Canonical and others are giving in to Microsoft's secure boot crap and moving away from GRUB. GRUB isn't the problem. Microsoft is. STOP GIVING IN.

    There is enough crap I have to go through to get from point A to point B when I travel because of societal complacency in the criminal (I'm using that word loosely) actions of our world's leaders and the systems they've implemented (authoritarians who love censorship and promote thuggish behaviour). I don't want that experience when I go online.

    The only company I've even got any respect for any more is ThinkPenguin. For those who don't know this company sells computers and accessories for GNU/Linux and they actually have a respectable set of values. The company doesn't sell hardware dependent on non-free software (drivers or firmware) and supports freedom like nobody else. They contribute a significant percentage of their profits to the Free Software Foundation and Trisquel project (one of the few strictly free distributions) amongst others. I believe 10% of certain distribution channels go to the Free Software Foundation and 25% of sales from libre.thinkpenguin.com (a version of the site tailored to free software users) go to the Trisquel project. And they are supporting a lot of other projects as well.

  • by bhcompy (1877290) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:23AM (#41033399)
    MPlayer leaving the app store? Guess I'll use TEN and Kali instead
  • The Real Deal (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rabtech (223758) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @01:18AM (#41033653) Homepage

    Some of this is just a learning curve on the part of developers. As has been pointed out, a lot of the issues surround access to the file system but as long as the user selects a folder (via the OS' built-in privileged process proxy that presents the selection UI for your app) or drags it to your app, you can store a link to it that is part of your sandbox, including across reboots.

    In this App's case, it would mean reworking his UI slightly to have users select folders with content in them, not individual movies. Then he can show a list of movies in that folder and let the user pick, all the while reading separate subtitle files or moving to the next movie with no issues.

    There does need to be a category of Developer Utilities / System Utilities that allow things like asking for Admin rights. This is one place Apple is totally wrong. Sure, make the review process extra detailed and don't allow apps to go into that category unless they are truly utilities, but it is definitely needed.

    The days of [app permissions] == [user permissions] are long over... We're just stuck with a broken security model that never anticipated people would be running so much code from so many sources, code that can't necessarily be trusted (or that itself loads data/code from untrusted sources). It's like the difference between traditional Unix permission bits and ACLs: once you use ACLs you realize how primitive user/group/owner is. Sandboxing is an attempt at limiting the permission of apps but it remains to be seen if that's the best way.

    • by vux984 (928602) on Sunday August 19, 2012 @02:29AM (#41043325)

      In this App's case, it would mean reworking his UI slightly to have users select folders with content in them, not individual movies.

      Except that I play movies by finding them in finder, and double clicking them. I can't remember the last time I opened a movie from -within- an application's user interface.

      So, no, reworking he UI would be pretty irrelevant.

  • by debilo (612116) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @03:38AM (#41034181)
    Unfortunately, MplayerX is unusable at its current state for a significant number of users because of this issue [google.com] that has been open and unaddressed for months. The lag is unbearable and keeps me from switching from VLC. I would like to do so because MplayerX' killer feature, remembering the play position, is missing from VLC even though it has been requested by its userbase for years.
  • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @05:55AM (#41034637) Homepage Journal

    Maybe there is à market for a non-Apple app store? If someone gets in the act now, and Apple pulls the rug, then it would be possible to apply anti-trust laws.

    With regards to sandboxing, I can understand why Apple is doing this, but have they gone too far with their sand boxing model? What needs to be improved and does a better model exist elsewhere?

  • by slashfoxi (610738) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @03:45PM (#41038617)
    I'm going back to Linux.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...