Fragmentation vs Fragmentation
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
vulnerable to “fragmentation”. Yet if you look at actual market figures
<http://www.thevarguy.com/2011/01/20/android-os-fragmentation-not-bad-but-hardware-issues-remain/>,
it’s interesting to compare them to, say, Microsoft Windows, where more than
half the market remains stuck on obsolete, outdated Windows XP.
In other words, if you really want to see a “fragmented” market, just look
at Windows.
Snit
9:37 PM:
There is, essentially, no market for XP. Few sell it. Few even support it.
the fact it has been around longer leads to people using older versions.
Oh no!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tom Shelton
Except that software written for one version will usually run on all
the others - even older ones. There are exceptions - if you use a
newer api or service - but, that is not the general case.
The area where this might be an issue is driver developement - but,
that's not a huge majority of windows dev's now is it?
--
Tom Shelton
Rex Ballard
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro used his keyboard to write :
> > It’s quite common for Android critics to claim that the platform is
> > vulnerable to “fragmentation”. Yet if you look at actual market figures
> > <http://www.thevarguy.com/2011/01/20/android-os-fragmentation-not-bad-...>,
> > it’s interesting to compare them to, say, Microsoft Windows, where more than
> > half the market remains stuck on obsolete, outdated Windows XP.
Android is an environment that runs on a Linux kernel, but typically,
there is quite a bit of standardization.
Google is being smart, encouraging cell phone makers and carriers to
offer their own "value-add". This encourages market differentiation
(higher profits for manufacturers and carriers) and still provides a
standard platform for users and application developers who want to
support all android devices.
> > In other words, if you really want to see a “fragmented” market, just look
> > at Windows.
Windows tends to be a bit schizophrenic. There is a strong push by
Microsoft to protect the monopoly, and to extend it to as many
applications as possible. At the same time, they want a handful of
high value software companies, who are partners or subsidiaries but
separate from Microsoft to avoid regulatory restrictions. When
Microsoft comes out with new versions of Windows, or Windows Mobile,
backward compatibility is actually a liability. Remember, Microsoft
wants to sell most of it's licenses to Manufacturers, yet maintain
strict control that blocks competitors from the OEM distribution
channel.
Google also wants to sell to manufacturers, but also wants to
encourage them to be able to put applications from lots of different
sources. Apple touted over 100,000 applications for the iPhone. Some
of these were trivial, or were essentially thin clients pointing to
web services.
Google has been winning the application race, and the activation race,
by making it possible for 3rd party applications to run on any phone.
At the same time, OEM and Carrier applications can be targeted.
There were a lot of bumps in the road from Android 1.x to Android 2.x
and some 1.x phones couldn't be upgraded. It seems like most of the
2.x releases are compatible with each other, and don't break backward
compatibility. There aren't that many Android 2.3 systems out there,
but those that do exist seem to be able to run most of the 2.1 and 2.2
applications. The Droid 2 ran 2.2, and can run most 2.1 applications.
As with any Open Source system, or system based on multiple open
source components, there are trade-offs. Putting up the very latest
version might give you the ability to run the very newest
applications, but sticking with a most stable and trusted version
means fewer support calls because things that normally would work on
the older version don't seem to work as well anymore.
> Except that software written for one version will usually run on all
> the others - even older ones. There are exceptions - if you use a
> newer api or service - but, that is not the general case.
Most developers look at Android levels much the same as Java levels.
You can write to Java 6, but if you write to Java 5 (aka 1.5.x) you
know your applications will run on older servers and older clients.
If you write to Java 6, or Java 1.7 as soon as it's out of Beta, there
is a good chance that you will have problems and will have to wait
until millions of users upgrade before you can run on their systems.
Android is like so many Linux components and libraries, with some very
stable components, and some new features that will eventually make
your life easier, when the market finally makes the upgrade industry
wide.
> The area where this might be an issue is driver developement - but,
> that's not a huge majority of windows dev's now is it?
Most cell phones and ARM devices have most of the peripheral chips
mastered onto the ARM chip die. It makes sense to compile a kernel
that supports both the ARM chips and the NVidia graphics chipset if
chip masks are part of the chip.
One of the advantages of MS-DOS, Windows, and Linux is that users can
put together lots of different component combinations, and the modular
design of Windows and Linux, combined with "plug-and-play" hardware
identification and detection, make it much more sensible to configure
the probes and load only the modules that are actually needed. This
keeps the kernel and library space down, and in the long run, gives
you better performance.
With ARM devices, which are often single-board computers, you can
compile in the on-chip hardware, but you might want to use modules for
things like bluetooth and USB interfaces.
> --
> Tom Shelton
Rex
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Except that software written for one version [of Windows] will usually run
> on all the others - even older ones. There are exceptions - if you use a
> newer api or service - but, that is not the general case.
One big exception was that example of Windows software that everybody likes
to quote—Photoshop. CS2, I think it was, would not install on Vista, but
Adobe never brought out a fix. Instead, they required customers to buy CS3
instead.
> The area where this might be an issue is driver developement - but,
> that's not a huge majority of windows dev's now is it?
Windows users have the same trouble with hardware—something that was working
perfectly fine is no longer usable after an OS upgrade, and hunting around
the vendor’s site delivers the clear message that they want you to buy the
new version instead.
Homer
> In message <ihj1er$kb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> Except that software written for one version [of Windows] will
>> usually run on all the others - even older ones. There are
>> exceptions - if you use a newer api or service - but, that is not the
>> general case.
>
> One big exception was that example of Windows software that everybody
> likes to quote—Photoshop. CS2, I think it was, would not install on
> Vista, but Adobe never brought out a fix. Instead, they required
> customers to buy CS3 instead.
In fact I think Tom's "general case" is a bit optimistic. The transition
from 95 to 98 may have caused few(er) compatibility problems, as with
2000 to XP, and presumably Vista to 7, but 3.1(1) to 95 was a nightmare,
along with 98 to XP, and (most recently) XP to Vista. There's a good
reason 60% of all Windows users are still using an 11 year-old OS.
--
K. | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ignorant twits who know nothing
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 31 days | about GNU/Linux."
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>> In message <ihj1er$kb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> Except that software written for one version [of Windows] will
>>> usually run on all the others - even older ones. There are
>>> exceptions - if you use a newer api or service - but, that is not the
>>> general case.
>>
>> One big exception was that example of Windows software that everybody
>> likes to quote—Photoshop. CS2, I think it was, would not install on
>> Vista, but Adobe never brought out a fix. Instead, they required
>> customers to buy CS3 instead.
>
> In fact I think Tom's "general case" is a bit optimistic. The transition
> from 95 to 98 may have caused few(er) compatibility problems, as with
> 2000 to XP, and presumably Vista to 7, but 3.1(1) to 95 was a nightmare,
> along with 98 to XP, and (most recently) XP to Vista. There's a good
> reason 60% of all Windows users are still using an 11 year-old OS.
You really do like to paint anythign ms or windows with a dark brush
don't you? You will do anything - including exageration to do so,
since none of those "transitions" you mentioned - save for maybe the xp
to vista transition - has been anymore then a mini speed bump. There
can always be found negative examples of software that "broke" on a new
version of windows, but the fact is the VAST majority of software
survives each and every new release. The only purposeful breakage,
lately has been the dropping of 16-bit support in 64-bit windows (and I
can even get a lot of that stuff to run inside of dosbox)...
And by the way, the number of xp users has dropped to around 56% last I
looked - and is dropping.
--
Tom Shelton
chrisv
>There
>can always be found negative examples of software that "broke" on a new
>version of windows, but the fact is the VAST majority of software
>survives each and every new release.
This is an important issue, with the old big-money shrink-wrapped
software market.
Far less so, with the more modern online-repository software market.
--
"Choice fucks it up once more." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
Homer
> Homer explained on 1/24/2011 :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>>> In message <ihj1er$kb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except that software written for one version [of Windows] will
>>>> usually run on all the others - even older ones. There are
>>>> exceptions - if you use a newer api or service - but, that is not
>>>> the general case.
>>>
>>> One big exception was that example of Windows software that
>>> everybody likes to quote—Photoshop. CS2, I think it was, would not
>>> install on Vista, but Adobe never brought out a fix. Instead, they
>>> required customers to buy CS3 instead.
>>
>> In fact I think Tom's "general case" is a bit optimistic. The
>> transition from 95 to 98 may have caused few(er) compatibility
>> problems, as with 2000 to XP, and presumably Vista to 7, but 3.1(1)
>> to 95 was a nightmare, along with 98 to XP, and (most recently) XP to
>> Vista. There's a good reason 60% of all Windows users are still using
>> an 11 year-old OS.
>
> You really do like to paint anythign ms or windows with a dark brush
> don't you?
Black is black, Tom. I don't need to paint Windows any other way.
> You will do anything - including exageration to do so, since none of
> those "transitions" you mentioned - save for maybe the xp to vista
> transition - has been anymore then a mini speed bump. There can
> always be found negative examples of software that "broke" on a new
> version of windows, but the fact is the VAST majority of software
> survives each and every new release.
Talk about exaggeration ... you seem to think I've never used Windows
before. Your characterisation of the transition from one version of
Windows to the next simply doesn't correlate with my experience. At all.
That's the polite way of saying you're talking utter bullshit.
If you think I have a dark view of Microsoft's/Windows' history, that's
nothing compared to your rose-tinted view.
> The only purposeful breakage
Purposeful, accidental ... whatever, the result is the same: software
that doesn't work properly if at all. It either won't install, or won't
launch, or crashes itself, or freezes/crashes the whole system -
sometimes with the added bonus of a BSOD. A spontaneous reboot or
power-off is not entirely unheard of either, nor is data loss or system
corruption, particularly the Registry.
I've seen it all, first hand. I'm not guessing. And this applies to the
/majority/ of third-party software I've used under Windows ... heck it
even applies to Microsoft's /own/ add-on software. The solution was
always the same ... wait for a Windows "X" compatible version, and even
then the results were often in a seemingly permanent alpha condition.
Take packet writing software for example, a monumental clusterfuck under
Windows, where third-party solutions like DirectCD caused fatal problems
if used on the wrong version of Windows - indeed it's destructive
effects were legendary. Games that required a specific version of
DirectX ... not just a minimum version, but one particular version, were
the cause of endless headaches. Then there's hardware that never got
drivers for the latest version of Windows, or just got "Microsoft
drivers" that provided no hardware acceleration or access to other
features. One was expected to throw away perfectly functional hardware,
and "upgrade" to compatible software (at cost, of course), assuming an
"upgrade" was ever released at all.
IOW the Windows platform, and indeed nearly all proprietary software, is
just one big scam called planned obsolescence, and I was sick to death
of being one of its victims. I refused to be roped into the upgrade
treadmill, kept my hardware ... and my money, switched to Linux, and
never looked back.
> lately has been the dropping of 16-bit support in 64-bit windows (and
> I can even get a lot of that stuff to run inside of dosbox)...
Yes, add that to the long litany of Windows compatibility issues.
> And by the way, the number of xp users has dropped to around 56% last
> I looked - and is dropping.
Depending on who you ask, it's anywhere between 51% and 57%, but even at
the lower end that's still the vast majority of Windows users (since the
remaining percentage is split), and that's despite the fact that nearly
every new PC shipped is preinstalled with Windows 7, it was released one
and a half years ago, and there was a whole 'nother version of Windows
between XP and 7.
That's quite a damning indictment.
chrisv
> Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>
>> And by the way, the number of xp users has dropped to around 56% last
>> I looked - and is dropping.
>
>Depending on who you ask, it's anywhere between 51% and 57%, but even at
>the lower end that's still the vast majority of Windows users (since the
>remaining percentage is split), and that's despite the fact that nearly
>every new PC shipped is preinstalled with Windows 7, it was released one
>and a half years ago, and there was a whole 'nother version of Windows
>between XP and 7.
>
>That's quite a damning indictment.
I buy a lot of Windows PC's to use as test stations, and I've been
buying refurbished XP machines and have no plans to change. I've
tried Win7, and it seems to offer nothing but more resource suckage,
giving even new PC's a rather ponderous feel.
An Old Friend
> Depending on who you ask, it's anywhere between 51% and 57%, but even at
> the lower end that's still the vast majority of Windows users (since the
> remaining percentage is split), and that's despite the fact that nearly
> every new PC shipped is preinstalled with Windows 7, it was released one
> and a half years ago, and there was a whole 'nother version of Windows
> between XP and 7.
>
> That's quite a damning indictment.
The college here removes any post-XP operating system and installs XP.
The exceptions are the Mac computers, which have whatever most recent Mac
OS X version the computers allow. In most cases, that's 10.6, but a few
have 10.5 and at least one still has 9.1 on it.
DFS
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>
>>> And by the way, the number of xp users has dropped to around 56% last
>>> I looked - and is dropping.
>>
>> Depending on who you ask, it's anywhere between 51% and 57%, but even at
>> the lower end that's still the vast majority of Windows users (since the
>> remaining percentage is split), and that's despite the fact that nearly
>> every new PC shipped is preinstalled with Windows 7, it was released one
>> and a half years ago, and there was a whole 'nother version of Windows
>> between XP and 7.
>>
>> That's quite a damning indictment.
>
> I buy a lot of Windows PC's to use as test stations,
To test what? proprietary code and/or products no doubt.
Such a good Linux/OSS "advocate".
> and I've been
> buying refurbished XP machines and have no plans to change. I've
> tried Win7, and it seems to offer nothing but more resource suckage,
> giving even new PC's a rather ponderous feel.
You're just wrong, turd. Win7 is fast and responsive. It makes
crapware like KDE and Gnome look and feel amateurish.
RonB
> Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>>There
>>can always be found negative examples of software that "broke" on a new
>>version of windows, but the fact is the VAST majority of software
>>survives each and every new release.
>
> This is an important issue, with the old big-money shrink-wrapped
> software market.
>
> Far less so, with the more modern online-repository software market.
It's simply not true that most Windows software survives from one Windows
release to the next. Especially not true when considering "homebrew"
software many corporations use. But even commercial software usually has
issues -- sometimes they are fixed with patches, sometimes the only
"solution" is to wait for a new release of the software (and pay for
another upgrade). This is one of the reasons corporations are reluctant to
move to Windows 7. They don't currently have the manpower (due to
"downsizing") needed to rewrite their homebrew software and it would have
to be done to run Windows 7.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
Hadron
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:27:49 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>>There
>>>can always be found negative examples of software that "broke" on a new
>>>version of windows, but the fact is the VAST majority of software
>>>survives each and every new release.
>>
>> This is an important issue, with the old big-money shrink-wrapped
>> software market.
>>
>> Far less so, with the more modern online-repository software market.
>
> It's simply not true that most Windows software survives from one Windows
> release to the next. Especially not true when considering "homebrew"
> software many corporations use. But even commercial software usually
Cite please.
> has
That is a total lie WronG.
Next thing you'll be claiming, like that fekwit Mark Kent, that there is
"zero binary compatability" between Windows versions.
Surely not even YOU can be this clueless.
> issues -- sometimes they are fixed with patches, sometimes the only
> "solution" is to wait for a new release of the software (and pay for
> another upgrade). This is one of the reasons corporations are reluctant to
> move to Windows 7. They don't currently have the manpower (due to
> "downsizing") needed to rewrite their homebrew software and it would have
> to be done to run Windows 7.
And yet they would have the time to rewrite their GPL homebrew?
WronG, stop talking about things you know nothing about.
Tom Shelton
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:27:49 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> There
>>> can always be found negative examples of software that "broke" on a new
>>> version of windows, but the fact is the VAST majority of software
>>> survives each and every new release.
>>
>> This is an important issue, with the old big-money shrink-wrapped
>> software market.
>>
>> Far less so, with the more modern online-repository software market.
>
> It's simply not true that most Windows software survives from one Windows
> release to the next.
It simply is true. I've been using and developing on windows for
years. Very rarely have I had software break going from one version to
another. My own or 3rd party.
Are there exceptions? Sure - when developers do really dumb stuff like
hardcode the path to the windows system directory or other special
folders... But, then they deserve to have stuff break.
> Especially not true when considering "homebrew"
> software many corporations use.
Exactly what I've been doing for the last 10 years. Your wrong.
> But even commercial software usually has
> issues -- sometimes they are fixed with patches, sometimes the only
> "solution" is to wait for a new release of the software (and pay for
> another upgrade). This is one of the reasons corporations are reluctant to
> move to Windows 7. They don't currently have the manpower (due to
> "downsizing") needed to rewrite their homebrew software and it would have
> to be done to run Windows 7.
The biggest problem is web based software - that was targeting IE6.
But, that's not "windows software".
The problems going to Vista/7 from say xp and below mostly have to do
with the security changes. Many of the changes were actual enforcement
of guidlines that MS set years ago.
--
Tom Shelton
RonB
> RonB wrote on 1/25/2011 :
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:27:49 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> There
>>>> can always be found negative examples of software that "broke" on a
>>>> new version of windows, but the fact is the VAST majority of software
>>>> survives each and every new release.
>>>
>>> This is an important issue, with the old big-money shrink-wrapped
>>> software market.
>>>
>>> Far less so, with the more modern online-repository software market.
>>
>> It's simply not true that most Windows software survives from one
>> Windows release to the next.
>
> It simply is true. I've been using and developing on windows for years.
> Very rarely have I had software break going from one version to
> another. My own or 3rd party.
>
> Are there exceptions? Sure - when developers do really dumb stuff like
> hardcode the path to the windows system directory or other special
> folders... But, then they deserve to have stuff break.
Sorry, my experience is the opposite, as is the experience of those I work
with. Vista and Windows 7 breaks most of the homebrewed applications we
use -- which is why there is currently no plan to upgrade from XP.
The commercial programs I use/used often had glitches. The version of
"Movie Magic Screenwriter" wasn't supported in XP -- it kind of worked but
it had odd hangups. It's little brother, "Hollywood Screenwriter" would
work in XP, but not the European version of XP. Lotus Word Pro will work
under Windows 7 32-bit version, but is not supported in the 64-bit version
(though some folks have managed to kludge around it). Even when software
seems to work, you can go to the publisher's website and find they don't
support it in the newer version of Windows and always they -- "suggest an
upgrade."
So, sorry, I'm not buying your contention.
>> Especially not true when considering "homebrew" software many
>> corporations use.
>
> Exactly what I've been doing for the last 10 years. Your wrong.
Obviously I'm not wrong because I have personal experience with programs
that won't run under Vista or Windows 7. I'm guessing you've continually
upgraded your homebrew applications, or they wouldn't have worked with
newer version of Windows. Just the facts.
>> But even commercial software usually has issues -- sometimes they are
>> fixed with patches, sometimes the only "solution" is to wait for a new
>> release of the software (and pay for another upgrade). This is one of
>> the reasons corporations are reluctant to move to Windows 7. They don't
>> currently have the manpower (due to "downsizing") needed to rewrite
>> their homebrew software and it would have to be done to run Windows 7.
>
> The biggest problem is web based software - that was targeting IE6. But,
> that's not "windows software".
Sure it is. Didn't Microsoft make the claim that Internet Explorer was an
integral part of the Windows Operating System and that's the reason they
*had* to bundle it?
> The problems going to Vista/7 from say xp and below mostly have to do
> with the security changes. Many of the changes were actual enforcement
> of guidlines that MS set years ago.
Which means absolutely nothing to the average Windows user when he or she
attempts to install their old software on to their new computer, which is
running a newer version of Windows. But I think you're oversimplifying the
problem. All's they know is that it "used to work" and now it doesn't.
Often their are patches, or work-arounds, but it's still a hassle.
Tom Shelton
LOL... your two or three applications do not make up the majority of
the software in the world. Sorry - Your still wrong.
--
Tom Shelton
Chris Ahlstrom
A programming group really does have to keep up with the versions of Windows
and the dev tools. We're in a pretty pickle right now because we foolishly
stuck with Visual C++ .NET 2002 all these years. It is incompatible with
Vista and Win 7, as well as a fully service-packed Win 2003 Server.
I don't really blame Microsoft... I blame ourselves for this one.
On the other hand, I'd be really happy if we dumped Microsoft compilers and
went with, say, Qt Creator, which uses mingw. That won't happen, though,
and not just for inertial reasons.
--
Best Mistakes In Films
In his "Filmgoer's Companion", Mr. Leslie Halliwell helpfully lists
four of the cinema's greatest moments which you should get to see if at all
possible.
In "Carmen Jones", the camera tracks with Dorothy Dandridge down a
street; and the entire film crew is reflected in the shop window.
In "The Wrong Box", the roofs of Victorian London are emblazoned
with television aerials.
In "Decameron Nights", Louis Jourdain stands on the deck of his
fourteenth century pirate ship; and a white lorry trundles down the hill
in the background.
In "Viking Queen", set in the times of Boadicea, a wrist watch is
clearly visible on one of the leading characters.
-- Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures"
Chris Ahlstrom
> LOL... your two or three applications do not make up the majority of
> the software in the world. Sorry - Your still wrong.
Tom, spell it "you're". Your driving me nuts! :-D
--
Some people pray for more than they are willing to work for.
DFS
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:27:49 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> There
>>> can always be found negative examples of software that "broke" on a new
>>> version of windows, but the fact is the VAST majority of software
>>> survives each and every new release.
>>
>> This is an important issue, with the old big-money shrink-wrapped
>> software market.
>>
>> Far less so, with the more modern online-repository software market.
>
> It's simply not true that most Windows software survives from one Windows
> release to the next.
It's simply true that you're an ignorant and/or lying piece of crap.
I'll let you prove it to yourself, say, by installing software from 1992
(for instance Microsoft Multimedia Beethoven) on Windows 7 and watching
it run *flawlessly*.
Or pretty much any Win95/98/2000/XP program you want to pick.
Idiot.
RonB
> LOL... your two or three applications do not make up the majority of the
> software in the world. Sorry - Your still wrong.
You know, you can actually engage in a decent debate -- then you drop into
the juvenile "LOL" crap. Is this your way of avoiding the subject. It's
kind of chickenshit.
JEDIDIAH
He never said they did. The catch with individual users is that they
have individual requirements. They might end up using all sorts of odd
software simply because they are using the platform that "has everything"
and they have taken that idea seriously.
--
Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
affairs, government and business.
chrisv
> Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>> Are there exceptions? Sure - when developers do really dumb stuff like
>> hardcode the path to the windows system directory or other special
>> folders... But, then they deserve to have stuff break.
>
>Sorry, my experience is the opposite, as is the experience of those I work
>with. Vista and Windows 7 breaks most of the homebrewed applications we
>use -- which is why there is currently no plan to upgrade from XP.
(snip)
>> The problems going to Vista/7 from say xp and below mostly have to do
>> with the security changes. Many of the changes were actual enforcement
>> of guidlines that MS set years ago.
>
>Which means absolutely nothing to the average Windows user when he or she
>attempts to install their old software on to their new computer, which is
>running a newer version of Windows. But I think you're oversimplifying the
>problem. All's they know is that it "used to work" and now it doesn't.
>Often their are patches, or work-arounds, but it's still a hassle.
I think that Tom has a point, though, in that much of the software
failing the transition was caused by not following M$ guidelines.
One-Shot, One-Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fkb0k6h0tafrp8afp...@4ax.com...
more documented lies from the fscking asshole named "chrisv."