Windows of opportunity
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Formal Metadata
| Title |
| |
| Subtitle |
| |
| Title of Series | ||
| Part Number | 1 | |
| Number of Parts | 33 | |
| Author | ||
| License | CC Attribution 3.0 Unported: You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor. | |
| Identifiers | 10.5446/30804 (DOI) | |
| Publisher | ||
| Release Date | ||
| Language | ||
| Production Place | Cork, Ireland |
Content Metadata
| Subject Area | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
|
1
2
4
7
8
12
17
18
19
20
24
28
30
00:00
Different (Kate Ryan album)1 (number)Sound effectInterface (computing)Computer fontElectronic mailing listMathematicsQuicksortEmailMultiplication signMereologyWeb pageComputer programmingVirtual machineAmerican Mathematical SocietyRoundness (object)SummierbarkeitFile formatGraph coloringCodeTheoremBitSoftware developerComputer simulationComplete metric spaceStandard deviationFormal languageSoftware maintenanceDot productSpeech synthesisExtension (kinesiology)Point (geometry)Lie groupSemiconductor memoryVector potentialRevision controlFreezingBinary fileSlide ruleMulti-core processorWeightSet (mathematics)Form (programming)Term (mathematics)Event horizonComputer animation
08:29
Linear regressionLevel (video gaming)Multiplication signQuicksortResultantoutputRegular graphNumbering schemeWordInterface (computing)Formal languageStandard deviationOrder (biology)AbstractionExtension (kinesiology)Sound effectComputer programmingPhase transitionMassSystem callComputer fontRight angleMetric systemElement (mathematics)Distribution (mathematics)Codierung <Programmierung>Test-driven developmentBitSelectivity (electronic)NumberProduct (business)Mathematical analysisMereologySelf-organizationStudent's t-testSoftware developerWeb pageForm (programming)Integrated development environmentProgramming languageSoftware maintenanceGraphical user interfaceSign (mathematics)Decision theoryMathematicsSuite (music)Computer configurationSoftware testingEndliche ModelltheorieAxiom of choiceFrame problemTerm (mathematics)Remote procedure callNormal (geometry)ConsistencyGoodness of fitServer (computing)American Mathematical SocietyComputer animation
16:58
Decision theoryRevision controlForm (programming)QuicksortDistribution (mathematics)Kernel (computing)UsabilityFunctional (mathematics)WebsiteState of matterExtension (kinesiology)Slide ruleIncidence algebraMereologyMultiplication signSoftware maintenanceEmailComplex numberLimit (category theory)PreprocessorArithmetic meanBitEndliche ModelltheorieTerm (mathematics)Figurate numberSoftwareComplex (psychology)ResultantSystem callGeometryPoint (geometry)Interface (computing)Touch typingFunction (mathematics)CoroutineNeuroinformatikHacker (term)Web pageProjective planeFormal languageStandard deviationNumberGroup actionRight angleBasis <Mathematik>Stability theoryImplementationMetric systemFreewareComputer fontoutputExpert systemTuring testFile formatSoftware developer2 (number)ConsistencyComputer animation
25:27
QuicksortSocial classPreprocessorProof theoryFormal languagePoint (geometry)Software maintenanceDirection (geometry)Normal distributionTerm (mathematics)Theory of relativityMereologyCompilerSystem call2 (number)Source codeMultiplication signComputer programmingMathematicsCodeWage labourWeb pagePhysical systemCommunications protocolLevel (video gaming)Core dumpMilitary baseStaff (military)CollaborationismBasis <Mathematik>Probability density functionStudent's t-testSoftware developerProfil (magazine)Scaling (geometry)Network topologyPrisoner's dilemmaNumberExterior algebraOffice suiteEndliche ModelltheorieWritingGene clusterSubsetPredictabilityRevision controlTouch typingProduct (business)XML
33:56
MathematicsDecision theoryLevel (video gaming)Point (geometry)CASE <Informatik>Similarity (geometry)Formal languageGroup actionMechanism designQuicksortTranslation (relic)Network topologyMultiplication signSpeech synthesisSurgeryDegree (graph theory)Different (Kate Ryan album)Numbering schemeEndliche ModelltheorieOverhead (computing)PlanningFrequencyExtension (kinesiology)Exception handlingConstraint (mathematics)Macro (computer science)Right angleBitComputer animationLecture/Conference
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
00:00
Okay. Peter just suggested I should do my own introduction, but that's something I really didn't want to do. So either Anita comes back, or she does it afterwards, or we just skip that part. Thirty years of Tuck. It's a long time, and I've been around for most part of it, actually.
00:25
So what I was trying to do, and doing now, is giving a personal kind of history, a part of it, LaTeX development. And so what I'm running you through is kind of a retrospective of what I think has been important over the years, two decades, and then we will see.
00:55
So, we don't have much time, but I just learned we have a little bit more, but probably not that much.
01:03
Here's a kind of legend of what I marked on the slides. Milestones that I think have been important, that sums up, and if they were really sort of long-lasting events, I also marked them yellow.
01:20
So that's all biased, obviously, and afterwards you can't beat me for it. Then there are things which I also think are really, really important, but they had no effect whatsoever. Different reasons, wrong time, wrong way to present them, maybe misconception on my part, I don't know.
01:41
Those are the ones with sums down. And then I have downhill slide, that's kind of when things went bad in one way or the other. And that's what I'm going to in the round from the late 80s to now.
02:03
Okay, so, late 80s. I got in contact with TEC through the TECbook and AMS TEC on a Multics machine. A page was about this size because we didn't have the right printers, so essentially I saw the program but I couldn't use it.
02:22
And then some time later I got a PCTEC version with the LaTeX manual, LaTeX 208, and I thought, great, this is kind of the way things should go. This has sort of potential. And I fired it up and it died. And it died because
02:44
memory was 512k and LaTeX sort of in the middle of a loading article said, okay, goodbye. That's it. So I had this manual, we couldn't use it, and what I did was I wrote my own first TEC, big TEC program, which was kind of a mini LaTeX.
03:04
And one of the things that I learned there is to program very, very concise. And that was something that was fairly useful in the years after. And now sort of the first, I think, very important thing that happened was I picked up the
03:25
literate programming ideas from Don and thought that should be something I should use for my own programs. My own TEC packages. And developed a doc for that. It's not really perfect, it's rather bad actually, but it wasn't sort of the best I could do.
03:43
And the important bit about it is nowadays we actually have about 85% of all the LaTeX code that is on C-term. It's actually in that format. So we have a very firm standard these days. And also in the 80s I started to build the first array, multi-call theorem and other packages.
04:09
And published first time in Tuckboat. And the most important part about that was for multi-call I got the Donald Knuth scholarship.
04:22
I don't think it was really sort of the best thing around at that point in time, but it was a really, really big chance for me, because that was the only way for me to actually talk to the big guys personally. I mean I had buggered Leslie with emails over time, but that was the chance to come to Stanford on a very, very important day.
04:44
Namely when Don was deciding or about to decide what to do with TEC. And I could go there and stay in front of the crowd and actually gave a talk about, well LaTeX is all rubbish. It was kind of a bold thing to do then. But I mean late 80s I was young.
05:03
So I came up and said oh this is not working and this is not good and I gave a long list. I mean this is basically, TEC was good for math, LaTeX was bad for math. It just had rubbish interfaces and couldn't do anything. You could use any font as long as it was computer model.
05:22
In two sizes at least, or three. So that was better than plain TEC. Graphics, color, no interfaces. If you use color or graphics then definitely the thing wouldn't work on next door. And if you were European, or at least not English speaking, and you had this
05:44
little problem of these dots and other fancy character bits, it just didn't work quite well. I mean you couldn't hyphenate and all these kind of things. And yeah there are a couple of others, we'll come to that later.
06:05
The other very important part was that we were, that's interesting, I still have 29 minutes, that's probably a lie. Let's keep it up from here. That's a good way, isn't it?
06:24
Okay so, the other very very important point on the Stanford conference was that we worked together with Don. There was an open session where we discussed stuff, there was discussion before and after, where we tried to talk him into various bits of changes.
06:45
And the good thing about the TEC3 was that it actually provided an extension to TEC that enabled it to be used outside the English speaking world. And the bad part of it, it actually I would say didn't went far enough in many respects.
07:07
And basically since then there was a freeze completely. I mean there are a couple of things that happened on the Indian side, but the reason that, the way Don announced that's the end of the story made a big impact there.
07:26
I should make that red actually, but it's not on LaTeX, so that's why it isn't red. Okay and the other thing was that after the conference we had more discussions with Leslie and I spoke with him over a couple of sessions in private.
07:44
And by the end of it he basically signed over LaTeX development and maintenance to me and Chris and Rainer. And that was kind of a very big change for how it went further. I mean it would have
08:04
been gone completely different if it wouldn't be sort of our fault to shape the history from there on. So then we come to the 90s basically, running full speed you could say. There's Babel development, Johannes is here. I mean he's instrumental in getting sort of all the various western languages into the realm of LaTeX.
08:32
Rainer and I did the new font selection scheme development and then in 1990 I have the first one down in my opinion.
08:44
I gave a talk in Texas I think on guidelines for future tech extension and I think it was actually quite a good one. Or maybe not the talk, but the paper. And what I got for it was basically a lot of heat.
09:04
Something like, you shall not doubt that tech is the best program in the world. And yes, it was kind of really religious at that time. Which wasn't what I was doubting anyway.
09:23
So it didn't have an impact other than being translated in a couple of languages and sitting around for a long time. Then we came, I mean this all happened in the same kind of small timeframe.
09:43
We came to this place 18 years ago, I don't know how many of you have been here, a couple. And we met in some remote hall, I can't remember where, I'm not sure I would find it. There was this guy from Canada coming by bicycle, he was very instrumental. Remember that?
10:04
Yes. And what we came up with was the cork font encoding. So that was an attempt, and I would say a fairly successful one, to actually go away from 7-bit fonts to 8-bit fonts. Which was a huge step forward, because it enabled to use tech with a lot of languages.
10:27
Even though that tech 3 had the languages, hyphenation and everything was still a problem because we didn't have those sort of standards in the fonts. And coming up with the standard was really, really important.
10:41
Actually it was this and this, because we went overboard. We tried to squeeze too much into it, and that made up for a large number of our largest problems. Some bad design decisions, which then afterwards haunted us. Like Don did with making the dollar sign and the pound sign being the same slot.
11:03
And if you change fonts, your bills got up or down in value, depending on the economy and depending on something else. But it was not a good choice by him, and we made similar mistakes. But anyway, it was a very big step forward, and the 8-bit fonts have been instrumental for tech for a long time.
11:27
Now we are sort of on the rise of making that less important, but it's still there and it's still important. But using fonts was not just done by new font selection scheme that gave us a model and the font encodings.
11:45
We also had to have a way of getting PostScript fonts and stuff like this into the tech metrics. And there an important step was Alan's font-ins program that more or less did this automatically within tech program, as a tech program.
12:08
Another thing also in the 90s, Reiner and I got the commission from the AMS to take AMS tech and turn it into something that could be used with LaTeX. And then about 1993, we released LaTeX 2e as a better version, and then a little later in June 1994, it got officially released.
12:38
So what we did between 1993 and 1994 was fixing a number of things, input encodings were added at that time, and I think some other stuff.
12:51
So what's the status now? Actually LaTeX 2e resolved a lot of the problems that I sort of boldly said were all wrong.
13:03
We had mass support, we had language support, we had a different font model, we had I think quite a decent graphics interface that abstracted from the underlying stuff as best as we could. We had for some extension interface for packages, so they weren't competing arbitrarily with
13:25
each other in order, I mean they still do and it's still a hassle. But the option model and use packages and so on, that actually gave a sort of step forward. And what is remaining? That's the hard bits, I would say. No consistent internal
13:44
programming language, no really high-level interfaces, and a fairly simple-minded page model.
14:00
Yes, but everything else was there, and so we struggled on looking for the other bits. What also happened in the early 90s was we were trying to do mass font encoding, similar to what we did with Korg. Gutenberg organization sponsored a student for three months to work with the LaTeX project, and he
14:28
came up with I think a very good sort of analysis and proposal, and that's it. And I think Barbara now, with the Styx fonts, I don't know, ten years later or even later, finally could use a little bit of it.
14:45
So in other words, it was the wrong time, nobody was really really interested in that work. So, yeah, that brings me to the first consolidation phase, and I marked this doggy book yellow as a very long-lasting effect on myself.
15:07
But not so much because it sold well and got translated in a couple of languages, but by chance it became, or it made, a big impact in terms of standardization for the LaTeX environment.
15:26
It wasn't intended this way, I mean it was, the original idea I think was, let's document what is available in CERN, and have this nicely packaged so that LaTeX users could use it.
15:41
But what it turned out to be in the end was, more or less, this is what should be available in a LaTeX distribution. Unfortunately, most of the stuff we documented from CERN was not too bad, so it was actually having the right kind of effect, but it was really by chance.
16:03
Okay, graphics companion as a sideshow, also a lot of work, but not so much impact. And that brings us to the second half of the 90s, and the second half was what I would call sort of mainstream. We were trying to run the show sort of as a product, because that's important if you want to have a large user base served.
16:27
So we had regular maintenance, so that everybody sort of could stay on the same level. We developed, actually that was early 90s I think already, sort of a regression test suite that automatically was taking
16:42
changes and checking them against defined outputs so that we knew something would break if we change here, it breaks there. That happened often enough. I mean nowadays it's all normal, agile programming, test-driven development, whatever. But we did it in the early 90s, and then in the late 90s we actually sort of automated a lot of that.
17:04
The first downhill slide, because we had to work with EMTAC distributions and all this kind of stuff that were running on very small computers, we did a lot of hacks to get things small, and that was now sort of starting to haunt.
17:25
Well that's the way it is. I mean, otherwise we couldn't have reached those users. We even had a LaTeX version, I don't know if anybody remembers, you could compile the LaTeX format into versions, and one would largely take a lot of the code out of the kernel, and only load it if you ever needed it, so the kernel would be even smaller for it.
17:47
We finally, I think around 2000, decided we are not going to support that any longer, but I'm sure there are still EMTAC distributions out there somewhere. Anyway, trying to tackle the remaining problems was something we did as well.
18:06
Already in 1992 we wrote a complete kernel in what we later called the EXPL3 language, but we never published it, and we only published EXPL3 or part of it around 1995 or 1996, and that was really sort of
18:24
wrong time, and not very well done, and the result was basically we missed that opportunity to actually make an impact there. Also it wasn't that stable at the time, it was more like, look at here, let's discuss this, and okay.
18:43
Same with the development of the design interface. I think it came out very well, but because it was based on the stuff that wasn't going to be used, at this point in time it wasn't going to be used either. We didn't have a critical mass of users trying around with it, but one more important bit I would say, we were trying
19:08
to sort of solve some of the license issues around the tech world by coming up with our own sort of standard license, LPPL. Well this brings us into 2000. Project decline, yeah. I worked on a new output
19:31
model, got it I think fairly wide, well down the road, but it wasn't finished.
19:42
And it wasn't finished, and then I basically sort of stopped working on LaTeX and anything for a number of years for personal reasons. So that all sort of hang in the air. I came back when the fight about LaTeX is not free software started, Debian.
20:08
It took me about 1600 email messages to get it, and you remember that right? To get people convinced that LaTeX might be free software, even though it predates free software in some sense. It's older than a lot of those terms.
20:29
Some interesting figures actually. Nowadays we have about 50% of the licenses on Zetang being LPPL, and given that not everything is LaTeX, that's not too bad.
20:43
And the important bit is that LPPL is trying to solve the maintenance problem. People go away and nobody could use it if you use a strict kind of tech idea, don't touch me unless it's me, or rename it.
21:02
Anyway, another downhill slide. Maintenance got more and more rigid. Here's a bug, oh thank you, we put it in the next release. Half a year, year, one and a half years, two years. Didn't really work for something like there's a typo in Babel. You did earlier releases, but something like value ref was badly affected from this.
21:36
Okay, second interlude. Peter Gordon asked me, could you redo the LaTeX companion
21:47
together with Michael, well Michelle, sorry. And yeah, we foolishly tried to do that.
22:01
And so I was to some extent surprised, coming back more to the LaTeX world, to see how much actually evolved in the last years, and it was an enormous amount of effort to sort of try to capture the state of art, if you like.
22:21
Basically that was a complete new book, 90% of the old rewritten, about 100% added on top. And the important bit is again that I think it fairly sort of broadly covers what is currently sort of around. I mean obviously biased decisions of what we describe and what we leave out, because there are many packages in parallel that would be equally good.
22:46
But the important bit is it gave sort of a nice, concise picture of what is there at this point. And that brings me to now. What's the status? Remaining lady shortcomings. Well,
23:08
I had listed three before. To some extent the situation has slightly changed. This expert language is now really sort of stable and usable, thanks to largely Morton. We have those
23:26
high-level interfaces, and they could serve as a basis to actually produce sort of a consistent designer interface. And people also within the 2E world have built interfaces like geometry, talk handling and so on and so forth, which could be leveraged and standard.
23:50
The thing that isn't so good is a complex page model. The extended output routine is I think a very fascinating beast, but it's still not production ready and would take more time.
24:06
But anyway, but first of all, a large part of the problems in the output routine and other parts is really due to the underlying engine.
24:21
I mean it's a Turing model, fine, but not everything you can program doesn't mean you can program it in the way that it is production usable. So we have these limitations that make the problem for some of these problems. And then the other question is do we can reach a critical mass of users to switch to something new?
24:44
Because if you have a problem and you want me to solve it and you have a problem, but those problems don't sort of overlap, then solving those problems may say for you, I don't want this rubbish over there, it's changing my input or it's changing something, so I'm not going to change.
25:04
We had the same problem with LaTeX 2E really, because in the Americas people were thinking why all this font shit? Sorry, we don't have those characters, why do I need to install all these new fonts and metrics? I'm not going to change and effectively there are still two or nine implementations out there in the Americas largely.
25:30
Anyway, so, is it dead? I have three answers for you. Yes, no, maybe. Picture's not very good, sorry for that. But actually it's a very small riff shark and he would not kill me.
25:49
So probably this is not true. Alternative answer? It's fairly fragile. That's more like it actually, and I have a third one.
26:09
That's a nice tree, really. I think largely it's between two and three, and the question is how do you go from there?
26:24
So, how many seconds do I have left? Not according to my watch on the left, I'm sorry for that. Big points. What really happened over those two decades was we had really big issues impressing our problems and those got largely solved.
26:47
There were a lot of consolidation efforts and those were important to make Leslie's prediction wrong. Because he said to Chris, by 2000 I think, LaTeX and TAC and everything is gone.
27:04
But actually it was thriving, I mean it was actually getting more people because it was a usable product and basically standard distribution. That's an important part I didn't mention. I mean I could talk probably the whole day about this kind of history if I would start in all the other strands.
27:23
This is really focused on one part. Anyway, and then for good or worse, people like Chris and me were responsible for being fairly conservative and telling you, sorry, we're not going to change the LaTeX article style even if it's probably horrible as a design.
27:47
But there are millions of documents out there that expect to look the way they look. And there's no point, the wrong solution to sort of change that and improve that, make a new class, make a new article for whatever journal you want to do.
28:06
Okay, so that's sort of the big points there. I could have come up with more, some conclusions. Team size. Well, you can challenge that but basically everything that I've seen work well
28:22
in the tech world was an effort of one person, two, three people, very small teams. Any kind of committee approach that was tried failed.
28:40
Typical developer profile, yeah, largely students, academics, and then a couple of dinosaurs like me still hanging around and doing stuff. But the problem is this is good if you want to develop something. It's rather bad if you want to maintain it for a large community. And we have seen that with packages hanging around in C-TECH, nobody was able to change them because the license said don't change me.
29:10
And nobody was around to actually do this. One of the reasons why we came up with this maintenance idea in LPPL. And then there's this big dilemma, what I would say the big dilemma of tech or LaTeX.
29:23
LaTeX is not just a typesetting system. It's an exchange protocol. People expect that if I write an article and send it to you, it will look at your end exactly like the one that I've written. And if I submit a paper to a journal, I don't want to have it come out a page longer than the journal accepts.
29:45
When I made it eight pages long, it should be eight pages at their end. And this kind of collaboration basis is sort of against rapid development.
30:02
And you have to solve this kind of conflict. I mean, it would be like if a C compiler would not just be improved to make faster C code. But every once in a while, the people will start changing the language in the compiler and expecting this kind of being distributable.
30:26
The reason that you can do this is because the C language essentially is stable. Oh, KC is not a very good example for that. You had to add those preprocessors and everything to make it then sort of look like.
30:41
But what I'm trying to get at is the language itself was stable. In LaTeX terms, everybody thinks it can change or a lot of people think they can change and twiddle the packages directly on their installation. That's fine for themselves, but if they want to run on a large scale with collaboration, it wouldn't work.
31:04
OK, another conclusion. Whenever you try to do this with change, there's always the question, is this sexy enough for your users? Because if you don't get those users to change quickly and with a large enough proportion, then you will fail.
31:21
And as I said, with 2e it was touch and go. Even though I think we had a lot of sexy features in it, it wasn't really sexy enough for everybody. Another, I think, important part, clusters of activity.
31:42
Late tech development peak was around early 90s. If I sort of looked around, there have been, over time, a number of failed attempts to work on the underlying core engine.
32:01
I mean, some improvements, some changes. Nowadays we use e-tech or PDF e-tech as a basis. So there has been some work. But sort of the real big stuff, actually going after the original model and maybe coming up with something completely different, really didn't take off.
32:21
Maybe that's the time now. I don't know. Yeah, and coming back to late tech, for late tech to evolve. As I said, there are these big open problems, but are they big enough for the user base? That's really the question, whether you could identify that.
32:44
The other question is, some of those big problems, can they be solved? It brings me back to the question that the underlying tech engine has restrictions. And assuming you can and you come up with a new program with everything around it, then you have to get the existing base,
33:05
which is, I would define something like the amount of packages that are in the late tech companion these days. Not necessarily the packages themselves, but sort of the topics. And you have to provide that day one to actually get people, potentially, to go over.
33:26
And that would mean a lot of work, manual labor, and probably money to make so. And you're not even sure that it will work. Yeah, and then there's this one last thing.
33:44
Late tech did that in the end of the 80s. Perhaps it's time for me to do that as well. And with that, I would like to thank you. Sorry?
34:05
Some time for some questions. Yeah, and your introduction, of course. I know. I'm so sorry, I'm low. Oh, Tai Chi, actually.
34:34
John, with Gradual Stuff extensions, yes.
34:56
If you really go for a kind of different model that would involve the underlying macro language to such a degree that I was saying no.
35:06
On the top level, to some extent maybe, but I think you would need to find a new user base. You wouldn't take old timers to change. So if you would be able to attract a new user base, then yes.
35:26
It could look sort of similar on the top level, but there will be too many changes internally that I would think you wouldn't get people that are using late tech for years to change.
35:47
This is what I meant with this last picture of the tree. It is fairly robust right now. It has a certain amount of decline because we get more people getting older not using it
36:05
and less people younger coming to use it. But if you would radically change, you might kill it faster. You might not. It would mean very, very careful planning. So it's not something that I would believe could happen spontaneously at this stage.
36:25
You wanted to ask something? Yeah, Boris. First question, how much bad design decision in late tech 2E was forced by the compatibility with 2.09?
36:41
And the related question, how much bad design decision is going to be forced on you by the compatibility with 2E on late tech 3? Can you repeat the question? The question was how many bad design decisions have been introduced or being forced on us because of compatibility requirements in 2E
37:04
and how many sort of the following question would be introduced on trying to do compatibility in a follow-up. What I said for the follow-up is that I don't believe you can get further. We solved a lot of problems and the remaining hard problems would require so much surgery
37:21
that compatibility in the way we tried it with 2E would not be possible when you go further. So yes, we made design decisions and we kept things working the way they worked just for compatibility
37:41
and some of that would have been better scrapped at the time. But I don't think as far as the problems we tried to resolve, this wasn't really so much an issue because we really worked on the sort of more localized bits and changing the grand scheme was just not possible.
38:05
So if you say it was a bad design decision not to go and scratch it all and start fresh. But Chris, you want to say something different? There are so much bigger things than any compatibility constraints.
38:28
Yes, but this is what I meant. If you want to go over those constraints you would need to change the underlying whole model and then once you have changed that, compatibility could be only by introducing some external translation mechanism
38:45
that takes all documents, but not something like we tried in 2E that two or nine documents except for very specific cases would actually still run. Any other questions? Okay, then I thank you.
39:05
One question. Barbara, I think that's my oldest t-shirt. Do you know how old that is? Speaking of tuck, boat and stuff. Do you know that? Anybody knows?
39:22
It's the old tuck boat that was on the front after a certain period of time. No, early on and then later came the press, right? So this is younger, but I think that was the most exotic one that we ever had, didn't we?