The thing is, the only Palm Source customer (serious customer) is Palm,
the HW people. Second problem is, embedded linux is already out there
for the taking. There is no need for any compatibility layers. Sharp has
been making Linux devices in Japan for years, and they have thousands of
applications for them. So it's not like Palm Source has something unique
product. I was really happy about Palm Linux thing because when they
first started talking about this a year ago, I was hoping that finally
there would be a major US company making Linux PDAs! That WILL NOT be
the case, at least not in US. The Treo 700W (emphases on W) is yet
another proof that Palm (HW Company) is thinking about switching to Win.
That means that Palm OS really is dead, because, Who's going to buy it?
It's really sad, but is true. In the long run, I think Palm HW will die
too, because it will not survive in direct competition with HP and other
PPC players.

- Bogdan

In article <7rmcv1psfresoc16rts4vrufkqerv75e50@4ax.com>,
Martin T wrote:

> Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:36:47 GMT received comm from
> Guy
> Bannis on channel comp.sys.palmtops:
>
> : In article <1140162453_2006@pnews.internode.on.net>,
> : Fa la la wrote:
> :
> : > On 2006-02-17 07:27:51 +1100, Guy Bannis said:
> : >
> : > > In article <1140068584_109@pnews.internode.on.net>,
> : > > Fa la la wrote:
> : > >
> : > >> http://www.access.co.jp/english/press/060214.html
> : > >
> : > > Why do you say "RIP"? All the Palm functionality will still be there,
> : > > and more, and it runs on Linux.
> : > >
> : > > It's just an evolution, not an extinction.
> : >
> : > That's sort of like saying that OS X didn't mean the death of OS 9 -
> : > after all, all the OS 9 functionality remained (and more), and it runs
> : > on BSD Unix. Sure, OS X is evolutionary, but it rendered OS 9 extinct,
> : > as evolutions have a way of doing.
> :
> : No. It means that OS X didn't mean the death of the Mac OS. It's still a
> : Mac OS.
>
> No.
>
> Yes, it has (partly) the same market name (today, used to be NextStep before
> Apple bougth the OS from Next).
>
> Mac OS 1-9 is a *completely* different OS from Mac OS X.
>
> It's the same with Windows 1.0 - ME who is a *completely* different OS from
> Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista, and both those *completely* different to
> Windows
> CE/HPC/Pocket PC/Mobile.

So you're saying that the Mac OS is dead and so is the Windows OS.

In article ,
Martin T wrote:

> Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:34:39 GMT received comm from
> Guy
> Bannis on channel comp.sys.palmtops:
>
> : In article ,
> : Martin T wrote:
> :
> : > Captain's log. On StarDate Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:43:07 +1100 received comm
> : > from
> : > Fa
> : > la la on channel comp.sys.palmtops:
> : >
> : > : http://www.access.co.jp/english/press/060214.html
> : >
> : > Yes, it happened finally, but at the same time also very expected!
> : >
> : > I don't buy the "compatibility layer" makes Linux into PalmOS -- there is
> : > a
> : > good
> : > technical reason why the PalmOS market is fading away -- it's simply not
> : > a
> : > very
> : > good or modern OS.
> : >
> : > PalmOS is dead (or almost as some other point out), but I absolutely
> : > think
> : > it's
> : > only a GOOD thing that Access corp is tossing it in the bin, and instead
> : > migrate
> : > customers and applications to a Linux base instead.
> :
> : If the OS is still made by Palm, it's a Palm OS ... Doesn't matter what
> : it consists of.
> :
> : Now, the Palm name can only be used by www.palm.com, the hardware maker.
> : They bought the exclusive rights to the name last year from PalmSource.
> :
> : So the OS can no longer be called the Palm OS. Hence Access Linux
> : Platform, or whatever.
>
> 1. You say it's just the (market) *name* who tells you if it's the same OS or
> not (and not the actual product behind the market name).
>
> 2. You say that it doesn't have the same market name (because they sold the
> rights), but yet define it as being the same OS.
>
> Both completely wrong, but even totally in error according to your own logic!

Let's see if you can follow this: the name of "Palm OS" is dead.

In article <1b7j7tooyc.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu>,
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> Guy Bannis writes:
>
> > If the OS is still made by Palm, it's a Palm OS ... Doesn't matter what
> > it consists of.
> >
> > Now, the Palm name can only be used by www.palm.com, the hardware maker.
> > They bought the exclusive rights to the name last year from PalmSource.
> >
> > So the OS can no longer be called the Palm OS. Hence Access Linux
> > Platform, or whatever.
>
> While true, this isn't really relevant to the discussion. When I talk
> about the PalmOS, I mean the API and user interface I'm used to
> calling the PalmOS. I don't much care whether it's called PalmOS or
> Fred; likewise, if Palm were to decide to use the term to describe
> Microsoft PPC running on a Palm device it wouldn't be what I mean when
> I say PalmOS. This description leaves me open to charges of being
> idiosyncratic ('When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather
> scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more
> nor less'), but I rather expect this is the most common usage of the
> terms, and what most people in this thread have in mind.
>
> It remains that the Access Linux Platform appears to be the first hope
> of a graceful migration path away from PalmOS that I've seen...

So you're saying that whenever the API (actually there would be many
APIs, no?) and user interface changes on an operating system, that
operating system is dead?

So when Windows changes its API and interface, Windows is dead?

Garnet killed Palm OS 3.x and its predecessors so Garnet was no longer a
Palm OS?

Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:47:45 GMT received comm from Guy
Bannis on channel comp.sys.palmtops:

: In article <7rmcv1psfresoc16rts4vrufkqerv75e50@4ax.com>,
: Martin T wrote:
:
: > Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:36:47 GMT received comm from
: > Guy
: > Bannis on channel comp.sys.palmtops:
: >
: > : In article <1140162453_2006@pnews.internode.on.net>,
: > : Fa la la wrote:
: > :
: > : > On 2006-02-17 07:27:51 +1100, Guy Bannis said:
: > : >
: > : > > In article <1140068584_109@pnews.internode.on.net>,
: > : > > Fa la la wrote:
: > : > >
: > : > >> http://www.access.co.jp/english/press/060214.html
: > : > >
: > : > > Why do you say "RIP"? All the Palm functionality will still be there,
: > : > > and more, and it runs on Linux.
: > : > >
: > : > > It's just an evolution, not an extinction.
: > : >
: > : > That's sort of like saying that OS X didn't mean the death of OS 9 -
: > : > after all, all the OS 9 functionality remained (and more), and it runs
: > : > on BSD Unix. Sure, OS X is evolutionary, but it rendered OS 9 extinct,
: > : > as evolutions have a way of doing.
: > :
: > : No. It means that OS X didn't mean the death of the Mac OS. It's still a
: > : Mac OS.
: >
: > No.
: >
: > Yes, it has (partly) the same market name (today, used to be NextStep before
: > Apple bougth the OS from Next).
: >
: > Mac OS 1-9 is a *completely* different OS from Mac OS X.
: >
: > It's the same with Windows 1.0 - ME who is a *completely* different OS from
: > Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista, and both those *completely* different to
: > Windows
: > CE/HPC/Pocket PC/Mobile.
:
: So you're saying that the Mac OS is dead and so is the Windows OS.

No.

I would however say that Mac OS 1-9 (non X) and that Windows 1.0 - ME are all
practically dead (technically it won't be dead as long as some is using it).

martin

--
Martin Törnsten - http://martin.tornsten.com/

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:48:20 GMT received comm from Guy
Bannis on channel comp.sys.palmtops:


: > : If the OS is still made by Palm, it's a Palm OS ... Doesn't matter what
: > : it consists of.
: > :
: > : Now, the Palm name can only be used by www.palm.com, the hardware maker.
: > : They bought the exclusive rights to the name last year from PalmSource.
: > :
: > : So the OS can no longer be called the Palm OS. Hence Access Linux
: > : Platform, or whatever.

: > 1. You say it's just the (market) *name* who tells you if it's the same OS or
: > not (and not the actual product behind the market name).
: >
: > 2. You say that it doesn't have the same market name (because they sold the
: > rights), but yet define it as being the same OS.
: >
: > Both completely wrong, but even totally in error according to your own logic!

: Let's see if you can follow this: the name of "Palm OS" is dead.

???

No, please explain your (at least to me) rather strange and illogical comment.

Thanks.

martin

--
Martin Törnsten - http://martin.tornsten.com/



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Martin T wrote:
>
>
>
> I would however say that Mac OS 1-9 (non X) and that Windows 1.0 - ME are all
> practically dead (technically it won't be dead as long as some is using it).
>
>

Windows ME?

In medical terms, we refer to that particular OS as "stillborn."

Notan

Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:06:02 -0700 received comm from
Notan on channel comp.sys.palmtops:

: Martin T wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: > I would however say that Mac OS 1-9 (non X) and that Windows 1.0 - ME are all
: > practically dead (technically it won't be dead as long as some is using it).
: >
: >
:
: Windows ME?
:
: In medical terms, we refer to that particular OS as "stillborn."

*LOL*

I would agree that it was almost dead before it even was released.

Totally useless product and really clueless of Microsoft to release it.

martin

--
Martin Törnsten - http://martin.tornsten.com/


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Quoth x0054 :
> I was hoping that finally there would be a major US company making
> Linux PDAs!

Others have done this (albeit not anyone as big as Palm) and it has
never turned out meaningfully well in any manner relevant to "Linux."

There were several MIPS-based PDAs running Linux; the fact that "Linux
is free/open" didn't lead to them being meaningfully "open." They
were only able to interoperate with Windows desktop software, and the
vendors weren't keen on releasing enough info for anyone to build
Linux-based desktop software (akin to JPilot/KPilot/the Gnome stuff).

It never turned out well.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','cbbrowne.com').
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/pims.html
"Seriously, I think you really need to find out who took your sense of
humor, beat the crap out of him, and take it back. It's getting old."
-- Michael J Ash , on comp.lang.objective-c

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Guy Bannis wrote:
> In article <1140162453_2006@pnews.internode.on.net>,
> Fa la la wrote:
>
>> On 2006-02-17 07:27:51 +1100, Guy Bannis said:
>>
>> > In article <1140068584_109@pnews.internode.on.net>,
>> > Fa la la wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.access.co.jp/english/press/060214.html
>> >
>> > Why do you say "RIP"? All the Palm functionality will still be there,
>> > and more, and it runs on Linux.
>> >
>> > It's just an evolution, not an extinction.
>>
>> That's sort of like saying that OS X didn't mean the death of OS 9 -
>> after all, all the OS 9 functionality remained (and more), and it runs
>> on BSD Unix. Sure, OS X is evolutionary, but it rendered OS 9 extinct,
>> as evolutions have a way of doing.
>
> No. It means that OS X didn't mean the death of the Mac OS. It's still a
> Mac OS.

I think that's actually a comparatively similar sort of scenario.

OS-X is, underneath, a *very, very* different kettle of fish from any
of the predecessor operating systems called "MacOS."

To my view, Apple did get rid of the old thing, and replace it with
something completely new where the similarities come in having a
similar name (which means relatively little) and in having some
graphical elements (which are the bits added on at the end of any
project) that are vaguely similar. Having Mach underneath is
completely different from what earlier MacOS versions had.

> Palm Garnet made Palm OS 3 and earlier obsolete, but no one said the
> Palm OS "died."

As far as I can tell, the underpinnings of PalmOS didn't fundamentally
change. They had to recompile for a new CPU architecture, but I don't
see that they replaced Kadak AMX with something entirely different.
It looks like a port to a new architecture, not something
rearchitected from scratch (the way that OS-X is rather like NeXTStep
redone using a sort of "Display PDF," which is entirely unlike
versions 9 and earlier...)

A redone PalmOS with Linux underneath is likely to be as different
from AMX-based stuff as OS-X was from MacOS9. If it is as similar,
then there's hope that "legacy" applications will run on
"PalmOS-on-Linux."

If they don't, I could easily see it dying on the vine. The fact of
"Linux" being listed doesn't imply any kind of compatibility with much
of anything.

It is worth observing that there have been numerous PDAs released
running Linux. Most of the "commercial" such systems (there were a
number of MIPS-based ones a couple or three years ago) failed
incredibly badly, because there wasn't any third party software for
them, and because they *didn't* magically attract "Linux support" just
because they had Linux somewhere in the specs list. The vendors never
made any attempts to make it possible (let alone easy) for Linux
enthusiasts to sync calendars and address books with their devices,
and it all added to failure.

Palm has been "sufficiently friendly" to the Linux community,
historically, that there is pretty heavy support for Palm hardware
there.

If the new generation of "PalmOS" is essentially completely
incompatible with what is sold now, they'll have to start from scratch
in building a market up, and it is *not* obvious that the other
players around (Microsoft, Symbian, and I'd not rule out Apple, as the
iPods now do contain *some* PIM capabilities) will leave the opening
for that to grow up OK...
--
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/pims.html
"In the case of CAPP, an EAL4 evaluation tells you everything you need
to know. It tells you that Microsoft spent millions of dollars
producing documentation that shows that Windows 2000 meets an
inadequate set of requirements, and that you can have reasonably
strong confidence that this is the case." -- Jonathan S. Shapiro

In article ,
Martin T wrote:

> Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:48:20 GMT received comm from
> Guy
> Bannis on channel comp.sys.palmtops:
>
>
> : > : If the OS is still made by Palm, it's a Palm OS ... Doesn't matter what
> : > : it consists of.
> : > :
> : > : Now, the Palm name can only be used by www.palm.com, the hardware
> : > : maker.
> : > : They bought the exclusive rights to the name last year from PalmSource.
> : > :
> : > : So the OS can no longer be called the Palm OS. Hence Access Linux
> : > : Platform, or whatever.
>
> : > 1. You say it's just the (market) *name* who tells you if it's the same
> : > OS or
> : > not (and not the actual product behind the market name).
> : >
> : > 2. You say that it doesn't have the same market name (because they sold
> : > the
> : > rights), but yet define it as being the same OS.
> : >
> : > Both completely wrong, but even totally in error according to your own
> : > logic!
>
> : Let's see if you can follow this: the name of "Palm OS" is dead.
>
> ???
>
> No, please explain your (at least to me) rather strange and illogical
> comment.

OK, Martin. The name "Palm" used to be shared by PalmSource, which made
the OS, and PalmOne, which licensed the OS for its hardware.

Last year, PalmOne bought from PalmSource the exclusive rights to the
name "Palm."

Since PalmOne doesn't make an OS, it won't be naming any OS a "Palm OS."

PalmSource no longer had the right to use the name Palm, so it could no
longer call its OS a "Palm OS," or a Palm anything.

When PalmSource then sold itself to Access, Access gave the next OS from
what was once PalmSource a new name, Access Linux Platform.

Guy Bannis writes:

> So you're saying that whenever the API (actually there would be many
> APIs, no?) and user interface changes on an operating system, that
> operating system is dead?

When it changes enough, and particularly when former compatible
products don't work anymore, yes. How much is "enough" is a matter of
judgement.

> So when Windows changes its API and interface, Windows is dead?

Do the old 16-bit binaries still run?

> Garnet killed Palm OS 3.x and its predecessors so Garnet was no longer a
> Palm OS?

Do the pre-Garnet binaries run?
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

Guy Bannis wrote:
> In article <1b7j7tooyc.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu>,
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> Guy Bannis writes:
>>
>>> If the OS is still made by Palm, it's a Palm OS ... Doesn't matter what
>>> it consists of.
>>>
>>> Now, the Palm name can only be used by www.palm.com, the hardware maker.
>>> They bought the exclusive rights to the name last year from PalmSource.
>>>
>>> So the OS can no longer be called the Palm OS. Hence Access Linux
>>> Platform, or whatever.
>> While true, this isn't really relevant to the discussion. When I talk
>> about the PalmOS, I mean the API and user interface I'm used to
>> calling the PalmOS. I don't much care whether it's called PalmOS or
>> Fred; likewise, if Palm were to decide to use the term to describe
>> Microsoft PPC running on a Palm device it wouldn't be what I mean when
>> I say PalmOS. This description leaves me open to charges of being
>> idiosyncratic ('When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather
>> scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more
>> nor less'), but I rather expect this is the most common usage of the
>> terms, and what most people in this thread have in mind.
>>
>> It remains that the Access Linux Platform appears to be the first hope
>> of a graceful migration path away from PalmOS that I've seen...
>
> So you're saying that whenever the API (actually there would be many
> APIs, no?) and user interface changes on an operating system, that
> operating system is dead?
If it changes without any backward compatibility, and no further
development on the old, then it is dead. In this sense even MSDOS is not
dead, because for the most part WinXP is still backward compatible
enough to run many DOS apps. Although the underlying software
architecture has significantly changed, the API is still the same. Or
rather, that portion of the API is still the same. Software written to
the API will still generally run, however software written to take
advantage of specific hardware features or undocumented OS features
often won't run. We see this with DOS compatibility on WinXP, and also
see it with PalmOS 3.x apps on 5.x (and sometimes even on 4.x).
>
> So when Windows changes its API and interface, Windows is dead?
>
> Garnet killed Palm OS 3.x and its predecessors so Garnet was no longer a
> Palm OS?
While Garnet obsoleted 3.x it still maintained compatibility by having
pretty much the same API and interface. Basically 4.x was 3.x plus a few
bits, 5.x is 4.x plus a few bits and redesigned to run on different
hardware. 5.x still maintains the same API as 3.x, it just has a lot
more added as well. This is what makes it still PalmOS. When Access
Linux Platform or whatever they call it is released, at this stage it is
anticipated that it will still present the same API to apps. Assuming it
does this, irrespective of what name they give it, we can think of it in
terms of PalmOS 7.x, just the same as Windows 95 was DOS 7.

Notan wrote:
> Martin T wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I would however say that Mac OS 1-9 (non X) and that Windows 1.0 -
>> ME are all practically dead (technically it won't be dead as long as
>> some is using it).
>>
>>
>
> Windows ME?
>
> In medical terms, we refer to that particular OS as "stillborn."
>

And on the street we call it an "abortion."


--
Mike

Christopher Browne wrote in
news:87y809s509.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com:

> Quoth x0054 :
>> I was hoping that finally there would be a major US company making
>> Linux PDAs!
>
> Others have done this (albeit not anyone as big as Palm) and it has
> never turned out meaningfully well in any manner relevant to "Linux."
>
> There were several MIPS-based PDAs running Linux; the fact that "Linux
> is free/open" didn't lead to them being meaningfully "open." They
> were only able to interoperate with Windows desktop software, and the
> vendors weren't keen on releasing enough info for anyone to build
> Linux-based desktop software (akin to JPilot/KPilot/the Gnome stuff).
>
> It never turned out well.

Yeah, well, that's what I mean, I was hoping that there would be a PDA
manufacturer big enough to actual develop linux as well as windows and
mac desktop applications and stick with linux. Sharp, as I pointed out,
is doing well in Japan, but the did pull out from the US market because
of the competition with M$ and rather steep prices of their devices. I
think linux would be a grate move for Palm OS, I am just think that by
the time it's ready later in 2006 there will not be any manufacturers
willing to use it, Just like no one used Palm 6.

I think if Palm HW chooses to go with Palm OS 7 (or what ever they will
call it) it will be a very good move on their part. However, I am afraid
that in the coming months we are going to here that palm chose to go with
Win instead.

- Bogdan

"Tom Lake" wrote:
>
> Yes but I can still run most PalmOS 3.x programs on
> my PalmOS 5.4 machine. If the new OS won't run
> a majority of the existing apps then by all common
> usage of the term, "dead", the old PalmOS is dead.


Quote from the article...

"ALP has been designed to ensure that properly written
Palm OS 68K applications will run unchanged. We believe
that this compatibility will enable PalmSource's robust
community of over 420,000 registered developers to
potentially reach new customers and markets."

The obvious goal is to expand a marketplace, not kill off an
Operating System. Indeed, if successful, this plan will much more
likely strengthen the Palm OS - by potentially increasing the number
of apps for it.

Stewart

Martin T wrote:

> Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:06:02 -0700 received comm
> from Notan on channel comp.sys.palmtops:
>
> : Martin T wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > I would however say that Mac OS 1-9 (non X) and that Windows 1.0 - ME
> : > are all practically dead (technically it won't be dead as long as some
> : > is using it).
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Windows ME?
> :
> : In medical terms, we refer to that particular OS as "stillborn."
>
> *LOL*
>
> I would agree that it was almost dead before it even was released.
>
> Totally useless product and really clueless of Microsoft to release it.

Part of their strategy to push developers to write code that would run on
NT. The fact that it didn't sell was a good indicator that Microsoft no
longer needed to keep the Windows 9x track going.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Regan Lear wrote:

> RonB wrote:
>>
>>Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> Notan writes:
>>>
>>>>Ya gotta wonder... If the death of PalmOS is imminent, why are phones,
>>>>such as the Treo 700, currently being released?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Imminent" does not mean "already dead." While new phones I'd want to
>>> replace mine with have been conspicuously absent lately (I don't want
>>> a thumb keyboard... I like Graffiti), what seemed to me to be the
>>> sign I should be looking for another platform was when the Treo 700W
>>> was announced. If palm.com is going to Windows, I don't see much
>>> future in PalmOS.
>>
>>I think the jury is still out on the success of the Windows Treo.
>>Meanwhile, unless all the rumours are wrong, there are three Palm OS
>>Treos on their way this year. I sure hope the Palm OS will be around for
>>awhile.
>>
> Windows is dead with every new release of Mac, and if we all would only
> chuck our pcs the "prediction" would prove out. Same principle here - if
> MS tells the lie enough, we'll all believe it.

What "lie" are you talking about? I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> Guy Bannis writes:
>
>> So you're saying that whenever the API (actually there would be many
>> APIs, no?) and user interface changes on an operating system, that
>> operating system is dead?
>
> When it changes enough, and particularly when former compatible
> products don't work anymore, yes. How much is "enough" is a matter of
> judgement.
>
>> So when Windows changes its API and interface, Windows is dead?
>
> Do the old 16-bit binaries still run?

You don't use XP, do you?

>> Garnet killed Palm OS 3.x and its predecessors so Garnet was no longer a
>> Palm OS?
>
> Do the pre-Garnet binaries run?

You don't use a Palm, do you?

The answer to both questions is "yes", and quite frankly by having to ask
you make yourself look a bit ignorant.

On 32-bit Windows XP most 16-bit code runs fine--there are a few
applications that want low-level hardware access that the OS will block,
but they are rare.

On 64-bit Windows the 16 bit subsystem has been removed, however it is still
possible to run 16-bit apps, you just have to use a virtual machine.

On Palms the 68K binaries still run for the most part.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)