exit_success Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Mono and Wine have come a long way since they began, but not enough to change the fact that Windows is the best platform to learn programming on when one has such plans. The fact is exact opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 The fact is exact opposite. So you are saying that Windows is the *worst* platform on which to learn programming when one plans to use .NET technology and specifically Visual Studio products ( for whatever reasons one may wish to focus on Visual Studio)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit_success Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) So you are saying that Windows is the *worst* platform ... Certainly. And also Windows is the ONLY platform ... (rest of your post here) If you decided to do build career on .NET and Visual Studio whatever that's your only way. EDIT: I was replying mainly to this: ... but not enough to change the fact that Windows is the best platform to learn programming on when one has such plans Edited July 21, 2011 by exit_success Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Well : It is quite possible to develop programs which heavily leverage .NET using ONLY Linux ( though obviously it is hard to test reliably on Windows without using ..well Windows ) and software such as MonoDevelop. The latter is a very good [somewhat] VS like IDE which enables the development of entire applications in .NET, with reasonable efficency. Here is a list of *companies* that use Mono to some extent to create software, some of which is very successful and capable software : http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono Now granted, you seem to be saying that if you want ot use Mono *and* VS, Windows is your only option. If so, then yeah, VS itself will not work so well using Wine ( not too surprising really, not until .NET is a bit better integratede into Wine itself perhaps). So yeah, strictly speaking I suppose that may well be true. But, fortunately it is not necceasirly a big issue unless one has to use VS for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit_success Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 The point is not that LINUX actually contained someone else's code. The point is that the API and commands he coded had already been made popular by government regulation. Who the f*ck cares? What are you trying to point out? If MS releases MSKernel2011 which will be 99% copy of Linux code but will be better in 1% I'll grab it and enjoy it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit_success Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Ok. I'll post it again and I'll avoid words like "moron". SoftwareNerd the fact is you don't know nothing about free software or "intellectual property". Everything you said is based either on your political view or on your interests. What do you think about software patents which are part of the thing you call "intellectual property". Share you opinion please and don't delete my posts again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 There is no such thing as open source movement. There is Free Software movement which was funded by RMS. And it is not anti-profit nor anti-capitalists. It's about freedom you moron. Learn before you post. Firstly, even *I* think that you are being just a tad HARSH there , exit_success ( and is from someone that is viewed as pretty blunt). You may or may not disagre with what you quoted, but it does not justify that sort of abuse. I would expect that will be getting a warning about this, especially as you openly insulted an admin there. Good job! Secondly, lets examine how Stallman defines freedom shall we? I have one of his recent interviews here where he talks about this. In his view, "freedom" ( at least in the context of software) is the "right" to do whatever one wishes with "their" software and the "right" to source code, basically whatever is required to give the user the "freedom" to do what they wish, regardless of the producers *actual* right to choose how their software shall be used and to control the access to source code etc. Freedom huh? Apparently only users are to benefit from this "freedom", the producers apparently should lack basic freedoms it would seem, *including the right to demand that users of their software do not undercut the businesses profits by giving away the software for nothing to whoever they choose*. Stallman literally claims exactly this, that "freedom" includes the right to distrubute the software to anyone that the user chooses. And this *isnt* antiprofit or anticapitalism? Gee, had me fooled for a second there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Ok. I'll post it again and I'll avoid words like "moron". SoftwareNerd the fact is you don't know nothing about free software or "intellectual property". Everything you said is based either on your political view or on your interests. What do you think about software patents which are part of the thing you call "intellectual property". Share you opinion please and don't delete my posts again. I deleted your post and warned you, not sNerd, and posts which violate the forum rules will continue to be deleted. If this is not to your liking, then this is not the forum for you. Edited July 21, 2011 by Dante Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit_success Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Secondly, lets examine how Stallman defines freedom shall we? I have one of his recent interviews here where he talks about this. In his view, "freedom" ( at least in the context of software) is the "right" to do whatever one wishes with "their" software and the "right" to source code, basically whatever is required to give the user the "freedom" to do what they wish, regardless of the producers *actual* right to choose how their software shall be used and to control the access to source code etc. Almost true except "regardless of the producers *actual* right to choose how their software shall be used and to control the access to source code etc.". Remember RMS knows he can't break the law and he don't urge anyone to do it. He only says it's bad if you don't have those 4 elemental rights that GPL gives to you. And it's true. He says you should choose Free Software not break the laws. Do you realize that it's not possible to prevent reverse engineering by technology? Only way to fight it is punishment by law and whisperer. The same apply for copying. You can say "then don't do it". But why? It's not like stealing someones car. It's in MY memory. It's not anti-profit (and never was meant to be). And by saying that something is "anticapitalism" ... I don't know what are you trying say by this. In what is FSF anti-capitalists and is it bad or good? To be honest I don't care ... So next time learn before you post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Almost true except "regardless of the producers *actual* right to choose how their software shall be used and to control the access to source code etc.". Remember RMS knows he can't break the law and he don't urge anyone to do it. He only says it's bad if you don't have those 4 elemental rights that GPL gives to you. And it's true. He says you should choose Free Software not break the laws. Do you realize that it's not possible to prevent reverse engineering by technology? Only way to fight it is punishment by law and whisperer. The same apply for copying. You can say "then don't do it". But why? It's not like stealing someones car. It's in MY memory. It's not anti-profit (and never was meant to be). And by saying that something is "anticapitalism" ... I don't know what are you trying say by this. In what is FSF anti-capitalists and is it bad or good? To be honest I don't care ... So next time learn before you post. No, entirely true. Just because he *does not openly say that he is anti-profit or anti-capitalist* does not change the fact that the logical conclusion to be drawn from the ideas that he expresses is that he *is* both things. If one expresses ideas which if followed to their logical conclusion would make commercial software enterprises virtually impossible to exist ( this is exactly what his ideas would result in, even *if* he does not state this openly or admit it to himself), then sure, I will conclude that most likely the man has the views I ascribed to him, especially as I infer that software is not the only thing that he thinks this applies to ( sure, it is the thing he is well known for crusading for and which he thinks is the most important personally). I beleive he even has even said that software is not the only thing these "freedoms " should apply to. If *I* create software, I have *every* right to attempt to protect my source code if I do not wish to share it and to take whatever measures I wish to attempt to do so. The fact that it is possible to violate my wishes or to get around any measures I may take does not change this reality. The fact that some people can and will choose to violate my rights does not make them nonexistent. Do not accuse me of not learning before I post, when there is no reason to assume that I am ignorant of key facts. The truth is that you are apparently ignorant of basic moral principles epoused by Objectivism, or at least do not know how to properly apply them in such cases. That and you seem unable to identify the implications of Stallmans statements. Edited July 21, 2011 by Prometheus98876 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit_success Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) No, entirely true. Just because he *does not openly say that he is anti-profit or anti-capitalist* does not change the fact that the logical conclusion to be drawn from the ideas that he expresses is that he *is* both things. If one expresses ideas which if followed to their logical conclusion would make commercial software enterprises virtually impossible to exist ( this is exactly what his ideas would result in, even *if* he does not state this openly or admit it to himself), then sure, I will conclude that most likely the man has the views I ascribed to him, especially as I infer that software is not the only thing that he thinks this applies to ( sure, it is the thing he is well known for crusading for and which he thinks is the most important personally). I beleive he even has even said that software is not the only thing these "freedoms " should apply to. Please stop with this crap. I'm interested in information technology not in any of your political or economic views. As I said I don't really care if something is "anti-capitalist" if it's GOOD. He's trying to make better world not good capitalism. And as I said it isn't anti-profit. Do you realize that vast majority of software that lives on internet runs free software (or at least BSD)? There is a lot of companies that invest in free software (Intel, IBM, Oracle, ...). There are companies that profit from free software (RedHat, Google). Regarding political views, I think I'm socialists (the middle) so don't try this "pure capitalist" crap at me. I hope you capitalists in USA enjoy your software patents courts. What a great thing. And yeah he devote himself in copyright law as a general. Some of his views apply to art, scientific research, ... Of course the views are a bit different (but all are probably "anti-capitalists"). The thing is copyright law was created in past. Thanks to Internet the situation is now different. So copyright law must be reformed... Watch some of his presentation and go to fsf.org to learn more. If *I* create software, I have *every* right to attempt to protect my source code if I do not wish to share it and to take whatever measures I wish to attempt to do so. The fact that it is possible to violate my wishes or to get around any measures I may take does not change this reality. The fact that some people can and will choose to violate my rights does not make them nonexistent. Sure you can. But only way to enforce these rights is to cut other rights (like privacy). Do not accuse me of not learning before I post, when there is no reason to assume that I am ignorant of key facts. The truth is that you are apparently ignorant of basic moral principles epoused by Objectivism, or at least do not know how to properly apply them in such cases. That and you seem unable to identify the implications of Stallmans statements. Well, I heard something about Objectivism but I don't know your rules yet. If you don't know much about some subject you should learn before you post Edited July 21, 2011 by exit_success Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Huh huh, so even though you claim to not be interested in my non-technical points, you are the one that bothered to take the time to try to raise a rather ineffectual objection to them. Good and "anti-capitalist" are obviously mutually exclusive, if you understood Objectivist ethics/political/economic principles, you would know this. *If* you do not know them and refuse to learn them [properly], then I really have to wonder if this is the place for you or if there is much point bothering. It is STALLMAN which I am accusing of being anti-profit, according to the ideas which he states explicitly. NOT anyone else in particular, and certainly not those companies which might claim to support at least some of his ideas or derived ideas. Sure you can. But only way to enforce these rights is to cut other rights (like privacy). Sorry, but rights (if you define the concept of "rights" rationally) cannot and do not conflict. I have the right to protect my source code, nobody has the right to violate it and nothing will magically give them this right. The right to gain the source code against my wish ( or at least to use it in some of the ways Stallman thinks one has the right to use it in ) does not necceasirly exist, though of course obviously in some cases some producers may explicitly infer this right. If you don't know much about some subject you should learn before you pos I do not suppose that you intend to stick to your own advice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthatis Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Huh huh, so even though you claim to not be interested in my non-technical points, you are the one that bothered to take the time to try to raise a rather ineffectual objection to them. Good and "anti-capitalist" are obviously mutually exclusive, if you understood Objectivist ethics/political/economic principles, you would know this. *If* you do not know them and refuse to learn them [properly], then I really have to wonder if this is the place for you or if there is much point bothering. It is STALLMAN which I am accusing of being anti-profit, according to the ideas which he states explicitly. NOT anyone else in particular, and certainly not those companies which might claim to support at least some of his ideas or derived ideas. Stallman isn't anti-profit. He once sold GNU software for profit himself to enable himself to fund GNU development. IIRC, he is opposed to copyright being used for software as it a functional work (he is okay with copyright applying to a short time for entertainment works). That in itself is not anti-profit. It would not support the same levels of profit as companies like Microsoft and Apple are currently getting, but being opposed to profits being inflated by the artificial government monopolies of patents and copyright is not anti-profit or anti-capitalism, and I don't think an informed hard-line capitalist could really support either institution. Stallman considers himself an advocate of FREE software, taking attention to point out that he means libre software instead of gratis software. This is the same sense in which we speak of the FREE market. Sorry, but rights (if you define the concept of "rights" rationally) cannot and do not conflict. I have the right to protect my source code, nobody has the right to violate it and nothing will magically give them this right. The right to gain the source code against my wish ( or at least to use it in some of the ways Stallman thinks one has the right to use it in ) does not necceasirly exist, though of course obviously in some cases some producers may explicitly infer this right. I don't think that Stallman intends to take that right from you. At worst, he thinks you're a jerk or rude for not sharing your source code, and he very well may be right on that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 You misunderstand. It is not that I mistake his usuage of "free" to mean "do not charge" , I know quite well what he means by the word "free", as I have read interviews with very detailed explanations of what he means by the word. Sure, he may not CLAIM to be anti-capitalist or anti-profit, and his actions may even be inconsistent with being either. However that does not change the fact that as far as can be determined by his incoherent and silly ethical views, that it would seem that he does hold such ideas/principles. The fact that he may have profited from software can easily be dismissed as the sort of inconsistency often demonstrated by irrational people, or as a "pragmatic" acceptance that profit helps him further his cause or something. Of course he intends to take that right from me. It is quite clear to me from his interviews that he does not think anyone has the right to stop me doing that and that if he had his way he would make sure that never happened. Fortunately, he currently lacks the power to get his way and I am sure he knows this, so this is probably why he does not talk about actually enforcing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthatis Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 You misunderstand. It is not that I mistake his usuage of "free" to mean "do not charge" , I know quite well what he means by the word "free", as I have read interviews with very detailed explanations of what he means by the word. Sure, he may not CLAIM to be anti-capitalist or anti-profit, and his actions may even be inconsistent with being either. However that does not change the fact that as far as can be determined by his incoherent and silly ethical views, that it would seem that he does hold such ideas/principles. The fact that he may have profited from software can easily be dismissed as the sort of inconsistency often demonstrated by irrational people, or as a "pragmatic" acceptance that profit helps him further his cause or something. I would ask that you present something you perceive about him as being anti-capitalist or anti-profit. The only evidence you've presented is that his views would mean that "commercial software enterprises virtually impossible to exist." That's assuming a free market would support "commercial software enterprises" in the form we currently know them. You are right that we probably wouldn't have a Microsoft or equivalent. That's not inherently a bad thing, and would appear to me to be a good thing. Of course he intends to take that right from me. It is quite clear to me from his interviews that he does not think anyone has the right to stop me doing that and that if he had his way he would make sure that never happened. Fortunately, he currently lacks the power to get his way and I am sure he knows this, so this is probably why he does not talk about actually enforcing it. I've seen and read a lot of his interviews and writings, and I've seen no indication that he intends to invade your right to privacy. He is almost certainly far more obsessed with privacy rights than you are, unless you are using a wget-like daemon that emails you to access and post on this webpage. In fact, the GNU project considers licenses that DON'T allow private changes to remain private to be non-free, such as the 'Reciprocal Public License', and thus advises against their usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Alright, fair enough, I shall attempt to track down some good examples and get back to this hopefully relatively soon, though I shall focus more on anti-capitalist views rather than anti-profit. I will concede that *perhaps* he is not against this as one might think, or at least I shall not focus on this right now. I dont really consider the other thing a privacy issue per se. More to do with , well I guess you could say the producers right to attempt to control access to the source-code for their software, and the use of said source code when it is acquired ( at least in a manner contrary to their policies). I know Stallman is against this sort of control, but I think that is quite irrational and evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Alright, fair enough, I shall attempt to track down some good examples and get back to this hopefully relatively soon, though I shall focus more on anti-capitalist views rather than anti-profit. I will concede that *perhaps* he is not against this as one might think, or at least I shall not focus on this right now. I dont really consider the other thing a privacy issue per se. More to do with , well I guess you could say the producers right to attempt to control access to the source-code for their software, and the use of said source code when it is acquired ( at least in a manner contrary to their policies). I know Stallman is against this sort of control, but I think that is quite irrational and evil. One interesting question is whether he is against copyrights altogether, or whether he simply thinks that using them for certain kinds of software is a misapplication of them (as indicated in iamthatis's post above), and why he thinks that. Questions of what kinds of objects deserve intellectual property rights can be much more complicated than simply the broad question of whether IP as a whole is valid or invalid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) That is indeed an interesting question. I am unsure about his views on copyrights off the top of my head, as lot of what he talks about has more to do with patents or software copyright in particular (and of course the law is a bit muddled when it comes to either in relation to software, or at least it seems to to my understanding). I might have to look that up as well, while I am looking into that other thing. I would speculate that he would not take too much issue with say copyright as it applies to books. I mean, he probably thinks the "user", the reader can easily "modify" it and share it around anyway. Though, copyright law might have a thing or two to say about that, and he might take issue with *that*. Edited July 21, 2011 by Prometheus98876 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit_success Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 One interesting question is whether he is against copyrights altogether, or whether he simply thinks that using them for certain kinds of software is a misapplication of them (as indicated in iamthatis's post above), and why he thinks that. Questions of what kinds of objects deserve intellectual property rights can be much more complicated than simply the broad question of whether IP as a whole is valid or invalid. He's not against copyright. He explains it in his talks. In his ideal world: 1. Software should be free (as in freedom) 2. Research should remain copyrighted 3. Music/Video should be free (as in beer) sponsored by fans I'm not sure about 3 (for example books, photos, ...). He says that by people should be taught to donate to their favorite artists instead of not to download them illegally. While it makes sense I'm afraid it's highly unlikely. Also he says that copyright today is granted for too long (Mickey Mouse). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit_success Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 This is really good talk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthatis Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 One interesting question is whether he is against copyrights altogether, or whether he simply thinks that using them for certain kinds of software is a misapplication of them (as indicated in iamthatis's post above), and why he thinks that. Questions of what kinds of objects deserve intellectual property rights can be much more complicated than simply the broad question of whether IP as a whole is valid or invalid. I'm not sure if this is currently his exact stance, but I'll try to summarize what I recall (although I may accidentally throw a bit of Eben Moglen's views in). He sees copyright as something acceptable, but only under the criteria where it meets the purpose outlined in the US Constitution (promoting public progress). He thinks that software shouldn't have a copyright as it is a functional work, but that entertainment works could have a term fine tuned to what produces the best results for the public in terms of their two relevant interests (enjoying works and having works to enjoy), suggesting 10 years as a place to start, and making the term longer or shorter depending on the results. He also sees the proper role of copyright as an industrial regulation, meaning that individuals should not be bound by it for their personal usage. He's suggested a possible system in which all usage of p2p technology is legalized, with royalties going to the artists by the cube root of popularity. Of course, that needs to be taken into the context of the conclusion that we actually do need to subsidize creative industries. He's also proposed something like online tip jars, which doesn't involve any coercion except perhaps social pressure. My apologies to you all and to rms for any errors I've made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 One problem is that even if he *claims* to *not* be against copyright, it would seem that if one extended his ideas of freedom to other things besides software, that logically he *would* likely oppose copyright as they apply to some of these things. At least if he was being entirely consistent, which I dont really expect somebody as irrational as him to be. Perhaps he really beleives copyrights are not an issue, even though the logical conclusion of his beleifs are that they should be viewed as problematic in general (even though he is wrong). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthatis Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 He is without a doubt opposed to the current copyright regime, but he sees freedom as less important for non-functional works, so he puts a bit of faith in the mechanism of the public sacrificing a bit of liberty for greater output in relevant fields. Even if he was a copyright abolitionist, I don't see how that would make him anti-capitalist or anti-profit. In the US legal tradition, copyright and patents exist, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." Such a system doesn't sound awfully capitalistic to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Well , the copyright thing is really more of another issue with Dante raised and which I choose to respond to. But here are some quotes which I have found which I think are good reasons to conclude (even though he might not openly admit to such things and may claim the reverse) that he is either anti-capitalist and or is not all that happy with the idea of profit motive as a primary business concern ( ok, maybe he is not against profit altogether, at least if one is willing to divert it to social projects?) : "So I recommend that people stop listening to the mainstream media. Don't watch television news. Don't listen the news on radio. Don't read news from ordinary newspapers. Get it from variety of web sites which are not operated under the power of business money and you'll have better change of not being fooled by the systematic lies that they all tell, because they're all paid by the same people to tell the same lies or 9/10 lies. " alright, so the fact that money is involved is a reason to suspect ones motives? Oh dear... "I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life making the world a worse place. " I am not entirely sure what this implies ( I dont really have a lot of context for this quote sadly), but it would seem to imply that setting out to make profit somehow divides people or makes one unhappy? I am not sure what he is trying to say here. "I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, basically. And I like that because it means that money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all of the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans ... because, if you do that, then the people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you. " money tells people what to do? Its some sort of controlling influence? Er..no? "Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction." so charging people money for software is somehow wrong? Well, logically he would have to be against the idea of profit from software wouldnt he ( though I suppose one might find other ways to profit from software, at least in his view). I am not so sure he would apply this *only* to software. "...Bill Gates's idea of charity is to get school students hooked on Windows, so that they can make more money. Thats not charity I think". This in response to being asked what the biggest threat to "free"/"libre" software is in 2011. Seems to imply that he thinks profit-motive is a threat to software freedom for some reason. These are just the ones I found with a little bit of searching this afternoon. All these and others I have seen lead me to be sure that actually, it *is* capitalism and the profit-motive that he is against. Especially when you consider that his idea of ethics is some sort of insane program of social justice or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Even if he was a copyright abolitionist, I don't see how that would make him anti-capitalist or anti-profit. In the US legal tradition, copyright and patents exist, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." Such a system doesn't sound awfully capitalistic to me. I'm not sure about fundamentally anti-capitalist or anti-profit, but Objectivism maintains that intellectual property is a valid form of property, and therefore a truly capitalist system will provide for the protection of the creator's rights to it, in the same manner as it would for the creator of a physical object. In other words, patents and copyrights in Objectivism are justified, not by the benefit that they provide society, but precisely by natural right. However, that's tangential to this thread, and has been explored more thoroughly in other threads if you are interested in discussing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.