@ChrisH

I want to tread carefully for a number of reasons.

I assumed in the beginning AI saw OS4 as a goodwill gift product, a sweetie thrown to the community. Hence the contracts were flimsy, and the improvements asked for were small, though AI did want its IP back.

I also assume that the problem with TAO was not that it didn't work well, but that it was designed too well as a hosted device - drivers would have been a monumental task, and would have effectively meant more LINUX kernel type approaches (YUK!!).

Then as it turns out OS4 becomes better, the abstraction layers, the small foot print, the speed, and the real bonus of quick booting and powering-off. Roadshow and any number of small and big features, make OS4 as a full desktop substantial, but as a cut down underlying OS, something else again.

Now AI wants it back big time, I would guess almost by accident it becomes exactly what they need. This would also make sense of Amiga India.

Hyperion, wants more for their work, and we get a Mexican stand-off.

I might be reading the whole situation wrongly, clearly there is a lot of history and past frictions.

I believe a lot could be fixed with a good licensing arrangement.

If I am right and Amiga Inc is looking at a stripped down easily ported OS4 "kernel" to host OS-Anywhere, then it makes sense that they want all the source code.

What I would suggest sounds strange.

OS-Anywhere licences for SAM but not for OS4. It becomes the embedded/ server version.

OS4 Licenses for ACK, it becomes the desktop version.

Hyperion-Acube become world wide distributors of OS4 and continues development - especially for the PS3.

OS5-Anywhere, also hosts on OS4, but as a third party add-on sold through Amiga Inc.

AI holds the complete IP for OS4, but the development and distribution of only OS5-Anywhere. enabling it to concentrate on small devices, embedded, and domestic servers, while Hyperion-Acube concentrate on full desktop systems re ACK/TRIOKA.

The cross interests of SAM and ACK compliment each other.

It will probably never happen, but Mexican stand-offs are usually cured by finding another approach rather than trying to win the unwinable and both going down.

@DonF

I understand your sentiments all too well. OS4 is a real spoiler, so much so, I have not used it on purpose for a while now.

If I have to go for another OS (I have had it with MS), I don't want to be thinking "but with OS4 all I need do..."

I hate people talking about OS4 as a hobby OS it is not, it is even with some missing features, it is a joy to use. I am far more productive on it than on anything else.

OS4 can be stripped down to bare bones, it is an ideal platform for hosting (OS5/ AmigaAnywhere), and should be (stripped down to bare essentials) an easy port.

I keep saying that there is a window of opportunity for Hyperion and Amiga Inc, but that it will close soon.

Other people out there are going to see the potential of PS3, domestic servers and a small OS that carries a application environment that is mostly cross platform (see REBOL).

In fact if REBOL makes a cross platform, host OS, even if it is a LINUX kernel (with hopefully not much else) I will go that direction, unless this mess is cleared up soon.

Ideally, a cut down AOS4, hosting REBOL, with minimal porting of compiled code would do me. Running a full OS4 on a desktop and PS3, and a minimal host on small devices.

Hyperion could maintain and distribute the OS4 full, and Amiga Inc the application environment and the cut-down ported version.

I believe this may be the major reason why AI is desperate to get it hands on the sources for OS4.

Hosting REBOL or TAO would be ideal OS5/AmigaAnywhere. OS4 cut down and adapted to different Hardware could be very small indeed (I am thinking five megs or less). Perhaps there is a new solution that is neither REBOL or TAO.

But I agree, this is a very frustrating time and the first time I have considered dumping it personally and going in another direction - if REBOL comes up with its own solution I am afraid at this moment I would follow their lead.

@lazi

what was the cost?

A cheap Bar code reader, printer support would be very useful for many things, not the least keeping track of printed documents.

@Mitch

For what it is worth, your "assertions" pretty well fit the picture as I have guessed. Of course you seem to be in a position to know more of things. Assertions which make logical sense, have to be respected, proving them is needless, they seem to fit things rather well and that is enough.

I am praying for arbitration that will force these companies to work together in a structured way.

The reason I liked AOS4 is because of its user friendliness. And OS5 because in general it is the way to go. Uniting the two makes very good sense.

I believe good arbitration would actually be good for all concerned, however, legal arbitration is not always that insightful.

To continue the legal battle would be pointless, by the time it had ended the window of opportunity will be well and truly closed.

This year is the critical one. If all this lo some workable solution good, but if it gets drawn out, well for my money I will be looking elsewhere for solutions again.

To be brutal, I don't care much about the community, what I care about is having the computer solution for our times, and despite the naysayers the AOS4 response was a very good one.

@Billsey

Too right!

The bar code readers are the problem. If we could find a good one that was cheap and robust and supported that with drivers. Amiga would be putting in some of the infrastructure for the future.

@GregS

PS I should also mention PSP as a really handy domestic device, which with wifi would make an excellent hand held controller (for TVs as well as waking up PS3 and access to domestic server files (like booking recordings etc).

If Sony was on side, OS4 available and OS5/AmigaAnywhere then the possibilities would be enormous, especially if REBOL was brought into the mix.

With the hovering court case, I hope at least this is the darkness before the dawn.

I make no bones about the fact that OS5 developments and hence getting their hands on OS4 code is personally very important to me.

But OS4 is a great OS, with X11 support, in a good position. If OS5 came out, especially if it was based on OS4, that would be my ideal computer (if of course it lives up to expectations).

However, OS4 is not doomed because there is an OS5 available, especially if the latter is directly based on OS4. I assume OS4 essentials would become the basis of ports to lots of different HW while OS4 would be tied to PPC.

I would also assume even where there is direct competition (ie on PPC based designs like the PS3, ACK and SAM) that OS5 effectively would become an add-on. In which case my perfect computer would be effectively OS4 with OS5 (perhaps renamed, or rather should be renamed - AmigaAnywhere).

Obviously all speculation.

ACK specs seem to be for a really good desktop machine (something I have a need). SAM could be a great little mini-desktop top (read slower, but more robust because of its passive cooling).

SAM would make also a superb domestic server (24/7 access), ACK would be severe overkill.

SAM has inbuilt graphics, ACK does not. SAM as a server, with a cheep screen is an ideal domestic server, especially if it was packed via PCI slots and on-board SATA with HDs

PS3 has now server lookup, as well as SONY OtherOS, getting AOS4 onto SONY OtherOS with good SONY gameOS underlying communications would rally bring PS3 into a new area, but for that a good easy to run and setup reliable domestic server is needed (ie SAM).

I hope people can see a complete picture or immense versatility without the Linux and MS overheads and hot burning CPUs.

Businesses, especially small ones, do not need giant servers. The PS3 offers an off the shelf processing hub, the ACK a desktop easily transformed for more demanding and diverse tasks.

Getting Hyperion, AI, and Acube together packs a powerful punch.

It is not a case of competing HW and OSes, but complimentary ones, if OS5 produces the small device runability it has promised, we are looking at something really interesting, small efficient and immensely useful.

Who knows we could give the big boys a real run for their money.

@Mitch

Just read the pdf and many thanks for supplying the reference.

As the transcript is quite readable as it is presented, and I suspect by the nature of the presentation, both sides are at this early stage keeping their powder dry on certain important aspects, I thought to present a reading that makes arbitration rather than litigation a likely successful outcome.

---------------------------------------------
THE INSOLVENCY ISSUE
First, I believe the fundamental aspect that needs to be clarified is the one that appears to be Hyperion's strongest claim - the insolvency issue.

Insolvent means liabilities exceeding assets (or the ability to pay) and is the condition which leads to bankruptcy procedures, unless something is done to resolve it.

That IP rights transfer to Hyperion on insolvency, is a protection of Hyperion's rights in the IP. In this way the OS IP becomes a reserved asset, if a company is liquidated the rights are not put up for sale, but are instead transferred.

There is a formal legal claim of insolvency which is the beginning of a bankruptcy action. An action where the company states legally that it is beyond their capacity to remedy matters with their creditors (in this Hyperion stands as a creditor with special privileges).

However, insolvency is a condition as well as potential legal remedy. That is it is the same as claiming that a company is or was insolvent and made or is making remedies outside bankruptcy actions.

It does not really matter what has been stated in contract - ie if the company becomes insolvent, or if the company is bankrupted - in effect as legal states (rather than general statements) both only have meaning when triggered legally (ie by audit, by third party legal action - ie by creditors, by engaging in legal procedures to place the resolution in the hands of others).

Hyperion's claim that they have or should have the IP because the original AI reached a point of insolvency, is countered by AIs actions in preserving the rights of creditors in transferring to ITEC -KMOS and the new AI.

Hyperion on this issue has not been harmed and hence cannot rely on this clause - their interests have been preserved intact (ie nothing has really changed except the names, and asset basis - the deals being private - rather than publicly sold).

---------------------------------------------
THE $2 MILLION OFFER
It is very clear from the transcript (the reality may be different) that AI's offer was to buy back (not to be confused with a clause referred to by the same name elsewhere) all rights from Hyperion.

I would suggest that Hyperion, on the expectation of future profits from distribution, would view this as inadequate, and thus it was reasonable for them to refuse.

The cost of $1.1 million to Hyperion seems reasonable and not inflated. This is important in terms of future arbitration if this path is allowed.

Hyperion is not claiming outlandish costs.

AI has shown a willingness to pay, a recognition of costs, but with caveats to its own interest (dissolving the previous relationship).

---------------------------------------------
WHAT REALLY APPEARS AT ISSUE
Obviously this battle has been going on for a long time, behind the scenes.

Two hostages are involved. One the source code - the very IP of the OS. The other licensing of HW, which has to happen before Hyperion can get anything for its efforts, or AI for its royalities.

The trigger for the case, was obviously Acube's SAM board.

This is hardball negotiation, Hyperion attempting to squeeze AI and AI forced to seek court relief.

This is not a claim of who is good and who is bad, but a logical result of the position of both companies and what they possess and can do.

HW, appears to be at issue but is not. The pity is that it would not be at issue if both companies went for an immediate PS3 port (I hope they see the point of this) and some actual cash flow was generated.

However, HW has become the pointy end of the stick. Clearly ACK (which has been in the process for sometime now - how close to production is another question, but legally irrelevant) has to exist so that AI can claim that Hyperion could have had a market under the conditions of the original agreements.

Likewise the SAM deal, can be seen as a reasonable attempt to provide a market by its own actions. Carefully, though strongly implied, there has been no claim by SAM to be a licensed Amiga board, but the inference is there and that matters legally.

---------------------------------------------
AN ARBITRATED RESOLUTION
First some distinctions in view of HW.

AI has some right to claim that SAM/Acube directly harms it.

Hyperion by like reason can claim that the lack of HW forced them to seek an avenue outside of direct licensing.

Since Eyetech has left the scene (re the MIA's collapse), the meaning of having the rights to distribute and OS have been overtaken by events.

Luckily, for us. The SAM and ACK boards are not direct competitors (there may be a need to legally ensure this for the future).

This is the important bit. SAM is a passively cooled "slow board", while ACK series are high performance desktop boards.

In my view we need both along with a PS3 port.

There is a possibility in this of resolution, that is AI licenses both, but that Hyperion has to either hand over all the code, or have some legal arrangement (like exchanging title deeds) so that both things happen simultaneously.

Amiga's $2,000,000 may or may not be in the picture, as surety, or an immediate payment tied to the above.

The other alternative is simpler, especially if Hyperion cannot provide the cash to pay its contractors for their work and for their rights over the code.

As Hyperion engaged these contractors and has in the original distribution rights a percentage of sales, then Hyperion may have to come to an arrangement where the contracts rights in the code are exchanged for percentages of their distribution.

I believe this would protect the developers and keep them in the mix, which I think is essential.

AI's royalties do not come into this. But if the $2million was placed in trust, as a loan against Hyperion percentages, that would give the capital, to buy out some developers, or offer them a fair percentage of the distribution profits.

An arbitrated settlement, might include any of the above.

Clearly AI wants the source codes, Hyperion wants to distribute for boards that actually exist (why the hell they could not have worked out something for the PS3 is beyond me, probably because everything else is in such a mess).

Luckily, there seems enough in the mix to get a real resolution fast if a third party genuinely would arbitrate - and this is the good news story within the current court case.

There are a lot of other details, which I do not believe effect such an arbitration/resolution to any great degree.

Whatever the arrangements between Hyperion and the contractors, there has to be fair settlement made with the latter and Hyperion has to be in a position to make good on the sources for the IP owner. Here the $2 million is important as a loan perhaps secured against a percentage of distribution profits.

In Hyperion shoes I would argue the Acube agreement was made out of necessity (in order to realise profits), From AIs perspective they want the source code, yesterday. From the contractors perspective, they need to have their interests, looked after (a percentage of the distribution rights would be a very good offer, IMHO, but a cash payout from the $2 million for residue rights is the other option).

Arbitration to work would have to legally cement together effectively a new contract.

The means to resolve this are available, if the will to get on with things is there, and people come to the table taking responsibility for fair licensing on one hand, source code on the other and the contractors as meat in the middle of this sandwich.

Perhaps the court case, and this is what I hope, is the means for bringing about a resolution.

PS it would be helpful for the community to refer to SAM as a small server/embedded board, and to ACK as a high performance desktop board. It would be helpful to clarify the room for complimentary development.

@Mitch

But Mitch this neglects that Hyperion arguments on the day brought forward the argument that AI's had technically failed to transfer IP rights to Iteck and KMOS.

The argument recognises the existence of these rights, it is proposing however that they have been abandoned in transfer.

Having been through one court case, I am not in the position to thoroughly study the documents, hence I am confining myself to the generalities as they are reported from the court itself.

As for saying it is black and white, I am saying the opposite, to sort this thing out legally, without arbitration or settlement, would be very very messy. All I am saying is that the big issue of general IP over the OS resides with AI. Hyperion gaining the IP is there, based on the liquidation of AI, in effect being a reserved asset precontracted to be sold to Hyperion (based on Bills public statements when this question came up long before).

I am sorry I misread your "fine" reference in the strict sense. Compensation is the normal Commercial Law tort.

Now, AI's offer of $2 million, also recognises Hyperion's rights for fair payment for their efforts (I am not saying the amount is a fair payment - just that the offer recognises this).

The real issue is one of money and control over the trademark. Settlement would require compromise by both parties. The IP issue is a red herring, I do not believe it is really at issue - but rather the legal platform from which settlement needs to establish in order to sort itself out.

Personally I would prefer swift arbitration of the dispute and the quickest means of resolving things, mediation in a sense has been done by the long prior negotiation that led to this.

A full court case and ruling would seem a silly option. But who knows what may eventuate.

@Mitch

If it was fought out to the last, with infinite funds and for no particular practical purpose AI has the IP for the OS and all of the developments of that system.

It does not matter if it is a handshake, the IP for the OS extends over all its parts and developments of those parts.

IP rights does not mean ownership of source code, but it can restrict and licence works based on that IP whether its original source code has been seen or unseen.

If the work is commissioned by the IP owner, unless specifically exempted all that work belongs to the IP owner - provided of course they can pay for it.

At best, people can keep their sources, but they cannot market them, they can only deny them, presumably because they have not been paid for them.

IP law has since the 1980s been consolidated with reciprocal rights across most of the world. Since the 1990s look and feel rather than the actual digital composition of code has been the accepted test of IP identity.

I am not saying anything about the contracts, licenses, breeches, deals, money or anything. I am just saying, as I have said elsewhere, that there is no question about IP and how it is applied.

I am also not saying what is just, or right. I am saying with legal funds, prepared to pay a fair price for everything that belongs to OS4, it would end up in their hands. But this is no simple thing, it would be very very messy and by the time it was done, we would be having holidays on the moon.

Fines don't come into it unless someone decides to ignore a court order.

The court case is about a restraining order, and possibly a return of property (from what I can make out from reports of the case).

I do agree this is all about negotiation and brinkmanship by both parties. The IP cannot be questioned, and Hyperion cannot be cut out of things with out paying up.

@Atheist

My view, and not having read the documents, is that they fight it out in court, AI's IP would win out - but the mess would be immense, re what parts, who gets paid what, whether there is enough to pay for the vital bits and what is deemed not essential.

From what I can work out this is a preliminary of a preliminary, that is a hearing for a restraining order, as a lead in for other things to be fought out.

Out-of-court settlement would be ideal. Arbitration should be a good way to get things resolved with the least disruption.

BTW I was not doubting your eyesight or honesty, but I always try when referring to someone else's report, that there is always some fallibility that must be logically allowed.

The accuracy over some facts of the purported first report, and the clear slant in interpretation, actually seems more like the result of communications from court than first-hand observation. Some of the interpretations just did not make a lot of sense.

Your report, was clearly first hand, and very well written (people should not underestimate how difficult it is to work out what is happening in a court case).

Thanks Atheist for a readable and reliable report.

@goody

A Linux host would be a very obvious choice, but the amount of HW specific dependencies etc, is an uncontrollable aspect. AOS4 offers a very lean and predictable host environment.

Amiga India, has the IO for small and diverse HW options.

REBOL IOS offers some benefits re small server options.

A version of OS4 whittled down to a few megabytes, with REBOL taking up some of the functional front-ends, would produce a good deal of OS control at the Application level (where it should be IMHO).

The Hyperion team has done a lot of abstraction work for the OS to make porting easier.

But the thing I really like, is the REBOL plug-ins, if these work the way I think they might in REBOL 3.0. That as compiled generalized code addressable by scripts.

If these plugins are well designed, as general as they should be, porting them could be done very easily. That is my hope.

There was mention on the REBOL site of going over to openGL for graphics, they currently use AGG that I like very well, but openGL has many advantages, not the least cross platform GPU compatibilities (if I understand this correctly).

If Amiga and REBOL go in this direction, a big "IF", we would have something truly remarkable. A huge shift from off-the-shelf software, a major transition from professional coders to experienced users control of application implementation and evolution.

Most importantly, a shift towards task orientated applications and an application environment that departs from the OS desktop prison of individual exe environments.

@AJS

My feeling is that the first report, is also very close to Atheist's which is clearly first hand. But Atheist seems pretty clear that there was nobody else (there could have been, just that he didn't notice anyone else would be my summation).

Hyperion is the defence, they have to turn up and put arguments of defence. The abandoned-ware argument is a natural defence, but hopefully this will not go on as a full court case as such a defence is not a strong one, and IP issue can only be resolved one way in the end.

It is as you say all in the hands of others and we can do precious little about it.

My hope is some swift mediation, or arbitration, or just out-of-court settlement.

@ALL

The latest PS3 update on includes domestic server loading. It took a few minutes to get my PC laptop filesharing and it works well even for video.

This is an area AmigaOS needs to get into and soon.

SAM as a passively cooled board would be ideal as a domestic server.

AOS on the otherOS as well, please.

@Billsey

There seems there is a false IRC going around.

Atheist's report sounds eye witness, and he states that no-one else was there.

From moobunny:
http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/ ... age.pl/amiga/146861.shtml

This appears to be a genuine report, and makes more sense as such than another that recently circulated.

I have not read the court documents and do not intend to.

I am biased towards AI for the simple reason I was first attracted to the OS4 project because of the OS5 plans.

I don't have anything whatsoever against Hyperion.

Hopefully mediation or arbitration may intervene, rather than a long and expensive, and I believe rather pointless court case.

This hearing appears to be the initial defence (Hyperion) to the plaintiff's case (AI). It is a proceeding common all over the world, to establish that there is in fact a case, and not just a "plaintiff" is submitting a case that could be solved by other means.

From Athiest's report, it is very clear what the defence is trying to argue.

That in transferring assets from AI to Itek and KMOS, the status of the OS4 contracts, IP rights etc.,. may not have properly been done. An argument that the IP rights had in a sense been left on the street for anyone to pick up.

It is a possession argument, but it depends on an inferred discarding of contracts by AI in the transfer of assets. The problem is IP rights do not become public domain simply because a signed agreement might not have been properly made - that is the business of AI and those other companies.

Likewise, Hyperion might also be arguing that monies owed have not been paid, that the IP rights are being exercised in order to recover costs. This would hold if AI, or whoever, was unable or unwilling to pay, which does not seem to be the case at this time.

Make of it what you will, but if this thing plays out then AI will get the source code (including that of contractors) and Hyperion will need to sort the rest out with the contractors. Whatever the relationship between AI iteck and KMOS, the IP has not just been given away to Hyperion - that is why going through with the court case is so pointless.

I am hoping sense, and good legal advice, will win out and a mediated solution is worked out soon. Obviously Hyperion's best hope is to get a bigger slice of the OS4 cherry, and some concession is made re SAM and continued distribution, just to make things work (full legal entitlement is an abstract question).

Clearly AI wants the source code quickly for its OS5 plans.

There is an element of legal brinkmanship in all this, which is a pity.

@ChrisH

As this is a general thread on AOS and its evolution, could you say a little bit more about "dynamic compilation"?

I presume it means that a generalised assembler like language, TAO's VP, is compiled to the particular processor on the fly, but that it is compiled for a particular configuration?

For a number of reasons I see scripting taking a central place. However, specifically compiled generalised code is a necessity (whether statically or dynamically - TAOs efforts have convinced me that the loss of speed in doing this is real, but practically negligible).

I would break things down into a number of connected but essentially independent aspects.

1) Hardware agnosticism, whether dealt with by "easy" porting or dynamic compilations. This translates into forms of software permanency as well as widespread application.

2) Software bloat, not just in terms of size, but overburdened functionality, needless code duplication, an intractable barrier for efficient usage.

3) Off the shelf do everything applications (related to point two), which effectively means adapting work to fit the the program, rather than evolve the apps to fit the needs of real world tasks.

4) Making the user into a mere appendage to software design (the cultural aspect of point two and three), the user needs the tools to dissemble and reassemble software components to fit tasks.

Obviously this last point will take time to evolve, but it begins by separating out the elements common to all software - the processing engine, from the form of presentation (GUI), the flow of data from pre-designed engines. Data handling and general flow control needs to be something that the experienced user can adapt and change.

I am against using scripting as a cure-all, it is not. Rather I want it to be the glue between high performance engines that can be harnessed together practically. There, if things are done properly, the processing overheads of the interpreted language, the simple flow control involved, is no deficit to speed at all - ideally, despite the interpretation, the processing is done within the manual mouse click (it is slower than compiled code but placed where this does not matter).

The design trick is in making truly generalised compiled processing "engines", cut down to their most efficient form.

A scripting language that is easy to learn (and remember) flexible, syntactically consistent (no specials), unbloated: Like LAU or REBOL, but not like Python, which has become overburdened by special extensions.

The last two bits:

5) A minimalist OS, to run all this.

6) A file system which "tames" and organises all the multitude of "bits and pieces" being shared.

@ssolie

Back to the tea leafs for me.

REBOL does have the potential for an OS5 type solution.

TAO was also a good approach.

A mix of the two would also work.

Using a severely cut down version of OS4, ported, is an ideal low overhead platform.

I do think this last one is within the ambit of AI plans for OS5 (or whatever it ends up being called).

Static ports of an OS and then all and every program written for the OS, is a possibility, but not one without inherent problems. If it is distributed, that is user compiled apps, it could be done, but not without encryption protection of the app code. Centralised porting could produce bottlenecks as well as a distribution nightmare.

Are there other alternatives, for cross platform performance?

The REBOL approach I like for a number of reasons besides portability. Scripting can really reduce bloat to a major degree, it also lends itself to adaption, application evolution, task oriented program use, more user control of application behaviour and better generalised compiled plugin/engines that can be more easily and quickly be ported.

The waiting is getting on my nerves, especially this court case which can only really end in one way, besides which given PS3 and the VISTA disaster this is the year to really move. Anyone got a time machine? I would love to jump ahead a few months.

@Billsey

WUIDs are not for humans, but for absolute identity of files where-ever they may be found.

The bit that humans have to remember is the title and what it is associated with.

@ChrisH

Neither JIT nor JAVA are a good solution, the former because of the reasons you outlined, and JAVA is just too unreliably and demanding for serious apps running on small and diverse HW.

OS4 stripped down to the bare bones, gives a real platform rather than a VM, and that means a robust base once it is ported. The REBOL base, plus whatever compiled plugins make another small headache (relatively speaking) port.

The exciting thing, is that if this is put together in this way, and the plugins are well designed and generalised, the number of small apps that can be produced quickly could be huge, and space occupied by them trivial (unlike anything done in JAVA).

The only other thing I would suggest, if this is anywhere near the truth of what is being planned, and if anyone involved is reading this, is the FILE SYSTEM.

Get rid of filenames + Location, and use IDs, and World-wide Unique IDs (WUIDs - I have a system up and running, plus a useful directory system).

A File System that uses Titles for people, like header data from REBOL scripts, but uses WUIDs for file identification, surrendering REBOL blocks for file selection and reference would be a very good step to take (plus class information of course).

An XML wrapper (that converts to REBOL blocks) and can contain binary with one simple extension of XML, would make an ideal filesystem file container (like IFF) for all files on the system.

But whatever happens let it happen quickly.