http://geyer.lcs.mit.edu/~jchapin/6853/Papers/waldo-distributed.ps
We note also that the notetaker below commits the previous FoRKly sin of
misspelling the word "millennium" -- remember that "millennium" has been
spelled "millennium" for over a millennium:
http://xent.ics.uci.edu/FoRK-archive/may97/0823.html
(Hey, Rohit, have you learned how to spell "minuscule" yet? How about
supersede, occurrence, accommodate, embarrass, and perseverance? :)
The URL for the "Rethinking OS Directions" notes is
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/hotos/scribes/notes/rethinking-discussion.html
but I simply just don't trust content to stay at a URL for very long, so
I'm including it below for the FoRK scrapbook. I will, however, point
you to the URL above if you're interested in seeing any of the
panelists' slides firsthand.
I like Bob's position:
> Bob also pointed out that the only reason that the web works is that the
> internet is unreliable. If the internet were as reliable as a LAN,
> applications (such as the web) that were built on top of it would become
> too brittle, and a single failure would bring the whole thing crashing
> down. But because everyone expects failure in the internet, there are
> very few real dependencies. Different pages may point to each other, but
> they are, in fact, independent of each other.
because it gets to something fundamental about Internet-scale
application and protocol development; however, I do not agree that this
is the *only* reason that the Web works. There are definite synergy
arguments and network effect arguments, but perhaps the most compelling
reason I think the Web works is that its technologies as designed were
very well-suited to evolvability. Start with something small as the
minimum common interoperability layer and keep adding functionality as
the system grows. Free extensibility seems really important to that end
as well.
Bob had some other interesting statements:
> There is no perfection, just trade-offs.
> Applications drive everything.
> The operating system only matters if it makes my life easier:
> DOS succeeded because it didn't get in the way.
> OS/2 made me understand that I did not want Multics on my desk.
Oh, and I'll give ten kudos to anyone who can point me to a copy of Jim
Waldo's PhD thesis:
> Jim stated that he doesn't care where operating system research goes. He
> presented the assembled crowd with a choice. The first choice is to
> continue on their current path, and hope that people from Microsoft show
> up at their conferences, and pay attention. Jim said that he can relate
> to the satisfaction of working on hard intellectual exercises, after
> all, he has a PhD in philosophy, and in his view, trying to make IPC as
> fast as possible is like trying to figure out how many angels can dance
> on the head of a pin.
I'm not convinced that Jim's conclusions are mutually exclusive:
> Jim suggested that there are two possible conclusions from this. Either
> "it's all over and we should all go and work for Microsoft," or we need
> to find some other features that application developers might actually
> care about.
Why can't we all work for Microsoft AND find some other features that
application developers might actually care about? (I smell a troll. :)
> Jim went on to outline some areas of research that might fit
> the bill:
>
> Portability. This is just another way for application developers to get
> more volume. It will let them reach the other 3% of the market.
Hey Rohit, Jim Waldo cited the number 3%! Nevermind that this
corresponded roughly to MacOS's market share at the time...
> Distribution. How to distribute computation in a more reasonable way.
>
> Being able to test for correctness so that we can improve on the current
> situation which is "satisfaction guaranteed or we won't be surprised."
>
> Plug and play instead of plug and pray.
>
> System administration---the ugly back corner. It's dull, boring---and
> hard. "You've got to be a 14 year old male covered with Clearasil to
> understand windows administration."
That's fine, it's not like those guys have anything better to do.
> How about a security model that everyone understands.
Hey, how secure could the model possibly be if everyone understands it?
Okay, enough comments. The HotOS VI page, where I snagged these bits from
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/hotos/scribes/scribe.html
has some other gems, too, such as the "outrageous opinions" :)
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/hotos/scribes/sessions/outrageous.html
and darn it, Rohit, Mark Day was there, too. How could this have been
off my radar until a year after the fact? In fact, why have there been
zero references to HotOS on FoRK since its inception in December 1995?
Speaking of which, joebar, I'm looking forward to reading
ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tech-reports/Spring95/TR-95-16.ps
otherwise known as:
> Michael B. Jones, Paul J. Leach, Richard P. Draves, and Joseph S.
> Barrera, III. Modular Real-Time Resource Management in the Rialto
> Operating System. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Hot Topics in
> Operating Systems, pages 12-17. IEEE Computer Society, Orcas Island, WA,
> May 1995.
The next HotOS -- the Seventh Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems
(HotOS-VII) -- is gonna be in Rio Rico, Arizona, March 29-30, 1999:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/HotOS/
and darn, they're offering five hundred bucks to the best student paper:
> The IEEE Computer Society's TCOS is sponsoring a $500 award for the
> best student contributor to the workshop. To be considered for this
> award, please indicate that you are a student when submitting your
> position paper. For multi-author papers, you should be the primary
> author and the presenter at the workshop.
But shucks if the deadline for paper submissions isn't December 1, 1998,
a week within the November 23, 1998 deadline as you-know-what...
Do conference steering committees LIKE to ruin my Thanksgiving on an
annual basis, or is this just a coincidence? No, wait, we've been over
this, there are no coincidences...
:) Adam
PS - Okay, I'm including the outrageous positions below after the
"rethinking" notes... enjoy.
> Rethinking - Extended Discussion
>
> The theme of this session was a re-examination of the current trends in
> operating system research, with an emphasis on useful directions for
> future investigation. The session was moderated by Mary Baker and
> featured a paper presentation by Rich Draves and short presentations by
> each of the panelists (Bob Frankston, Alan Nemeth, Dave Presotto, and
> Jim Waldo). The presentations were followed by a general discussion.
>
> In his presentation, Rich Draves of Microsoft Research said that it is
> time to rethink the operating system design in light of the huge
> distributed system (a.k.a. the internet) that everyone is now connect
> to. In contrast to extensible systems, which allow bright people to do
> cool things, the goal of Rich and his colleagues is to allow average
> programmers to get involved in distributed systems. Their ultimate goal
> is to create a seamless system that will provide transparent
> distribution. A user of such a system would by a computer, and plug it
> into the network. The operating system would automatically be
> downloaded, would figure out what hardware resources were available to
> it, and would configure itself accordingly.
>
> The other panelists provided a variety of visions of where operating
> system research is (or should be) going. Bob Frankston of Microsoft said
> that large software systems should not be created, but rather should
> evolve incrementally over time. Alan Nemeth of DEC observed that all
> software rots, and that it si vital that we focus on ways of slowing
> this rot by providing better "hygiene." Dave Presotto of Lucent Bell
> Labs questioned some of the tradeoffs that systems such as Java and
> Inferno have been making when they rely on software to provide
> protection between applications, and incur large performance penalties
> for something that existing memory management hardware can do much
> faster. The final panelist, Jim Waldo of Java Soft, pointed out that the
> real "consumers" of operating systems are application developers, and
> provided a variety of suggestions for areas of research that would be
> relevant to their concerns.
>
> The ensuing discussion covered a variety of topics, focusing primarily
> on system administration and the ease of use (or lack of it) in existing
> systems.
>
> The Rethinking session was chaired by Mary Baker of Stanford University.
> It consisted of presentations by each of the five panelists, one of
> which was a paper presentation, followed by general discussion of the
> issues raised by the panelists.
>
> Extended Discussion
>
> The first speaker was Rich Draves of Microsoft Research, who presented a
> paper titled, "Operating System Directions for the Next Millenium." Rich
> and his colleagues are looking at ways to make it easier to build
> distributed systems. By way of motivation, Rich described extensible
> systems as systems that allow bright people to do cool things. In
> contrast, Rich's goal is to allow average programmers to get involved in
> distributed systems.
>
> In describing what his group hopes to do, Rich drew analogies to
> previous technologies trends, which have removed programmer control over
> low-level decisions, sacrificing some performance and application
> functionality for a decrease in the amount of effort require to design
> and build the resulting systems. This can be seen in the move from
> assembly language programming, to higher level program languages, and in
> the elimination of details such as register allocation, page placement,
> and instruction scheduling from programmer control. Rich posited that we
> are ready for a similar increase in the level of abstraction in
> distributed computing.
>
> To this end, Rich presented several research goals. The first goal is
> seamless distribution. Rich suggested that the system should determine
> where in the network computation executes and where data lives. The
> system would move them dynamically as needed, allowing users to
> productively use any computing device as easily as their home machine.
>
> A second goal is self-configuration, allowing new machines, network
> links, and other resources to automatically be assimilated into the
> system without user intervention.
>
> Another goal is for the system to be self-tuning. The system should be
> able to reason about computations and resources. The system might
> automatically move computations around, or reallocate resource, or it
> might make suggestions to the user about how to reconfigure specific
> components of the system. (A person sitting near me suggested that every
> system would endlessly suggest that the user buy more memory!)
>
> Rich and his colleagues are currently considering these issues in the
> context of small scale distribution with the ultimate goal of scaling it
> up to the internet.
>
> The ultimate vision is that a user will buy some hardware, and plug it
> together, then the system will install itself over the network, figure
> out what resources are available, and integrate them into the larger
> system. Without further configuration or other intervention, the user
> would now be able to use the system.
>
> Discussion:
>
> Dan Duchamp (AT&T Labs) pointed out that there is a wide range of
> hardware, and asked whether a single operating system would be expected
> to span the entire thing. Rich's response was, "Yes, it's Windows!" Rich
> replied more seriously that yes, their ultimate goals include a single
> system that will support the entire range of hardware platforms.
>
> John Chapin (MIT) expressed skepticism, pointing out that Sun's Spring
> system had been designed around the idea of seamless distribution and
> that that system has been a failure. He also suggested that the authors
> should read "A Note on Distributed Computing" by Jim Waldo et al. for a
> good explanation of why transparent distributed computing doesn't work.
>
> Noah Mendelsohn (Lotus Development) observed that some of these same
> goals had turned out to be very hard in LOCUS because the interfaces and
> user/programmer expectations (from the non-distributed world) didn't
> match the needs of the distributed system. Rich responded that his group
> was not being influenced by the interfaces of current systems. Although
> they work for Microsoft, they are not currently thinking about how to
> support existing APIs. They have a free hand and by starting with a
> clean slate are pursuing whatever avenues seem promising.
>
> The next speaker was Bob Frankston (also of Microsoft).
>
> In the sessions leader's words we got rid of all of the Microsoft people
> right away.
>
> Bob (picture to the left) provided a variety of observations and
> insights into the construction of large, complex software systems. he
> started with several caveats; he didn't claim that they were actually
> implementing anything, and he wasn't sure what the relationship will be
> between what he described and what will actually get built. Bob
> observed that operating systems (like databases) were developed as
> solutions to specific problems. People discovered that they were doing
> the same thing over and over, solving the same problems and coding up
> similar solutions to them. The result was a body of code that dealt with
> these common cases.
>
> Bob also pointed out that the only reason that the web works is that the
> internet is unreliable. If the internet were as reliable as a LAN,
> applications (such as the web) that were built on top of it would become
> too brittle, and a single failure would bring the whole thing crashing
> down. But because everyone expects failure in the internet, there are
> very few real dependencies. Different pages may point to each other, but
> they are, in fact, independent of each other.
>
> Moving on the the construction of large systems, Bob posited that
> programs, especially large ones, shouldn't be written. Instead, the
> should evolve. As a metaphor for this process, he described the process
> of adding small bits of code to a system as being like throwing small
> balls at a larger collection of similar balls the represent the system
> being modified. Ideally, we would like these balls to be covered with
> velcro, so that they stick together easily. Unfortunately, with most
> current software, the balls are like oranges. Throwing one orange at a
> pile of oranges is likely to send oranges flying all over the room.
>
> Bob claimed that object-oriented programming is the not the silver
> bullet that will solve this problem. The problem with OOPS is that once
> an interface is designed it becomes very difficult to change it. This
> makes it difficult to evolve large systems.
>
> On the subject of rethinking, Bob had a variety of observations:
>
> There is no perfection, just trade-offs.
> Applications drive everything.
> The operating system only matters if it makes my life easier:
> DOS succeeded because it didn't get in the way.
> OS/2 made me understand that I did not want Multics on my desk.
>
> Alan Nemeth from DEC was the next speaker. He started his presentation
> by observing that, "software rots; operating systems are no exception."
> Extending the metaphor, he suggested that the natural course of action
> is to apply deodorant, and to add scaffolding to prop them up.
>
> Alan said that the central problem for operating system implementation
> is to maintain current operating systems as viable offerings when we
> have to keep up with new ideas and new hardware. Unfortunately, in
> reality we tend to underinvest in current operating systems, as we are
> inclined to say that they are old and cruddy and should be scrapped in
> favor of some new system. Economically, this is abysmal.
>
> Thus, Alan proposed that we need to focus on technology and business
> models that will let us put existing operating systems on "diets" and
> "exercise regimens" that will keep them healthy. Furthermore, we
> shouldn't always be going back to a clean slate whenever we are
> dissatisfied with currently available systems. [This advice was received
> with remarkable calm by an audience that included representatives of at
> least four current "clean slate" operating systems.]
>
> The next panelist was Dave Presotto of Bell Labs. Dave expressed an
> interested in seeing all of the people currently exploring issues of
> extensibility move more in the direction that the Java and Inferno
> crowds have been exploring. He observed that these are the technologies
> that are currently driving extensibility; the masses are now extending
> their operating systems because everything is interpreted and safe.
>
> Dave observed that in the past, we have relied on hardware protection to
> provide safety between different applications or between applications
> and the operating systems. The trend now, as exhibited by Java and Limbo
> (or "Lava and Jimbo") is to rely on code to provide the same safety
> guarantees as the MMU. Dave questioned whether this code can be as
> reliable as hardware, and whether it is worthwhile in light of the fact
> that we are now taking a 10x performance hit because we are using a lot
> of code, and interpreting our executables to provide the same safety
> guarantees that the MMU already gives us.
>
> The final panelist was Jim Waldo of Java Soft. Although he didn't have
> slides, Jim chose to give his talk standing up and walking around
> because he figured would make him a tougher target....
>
> In response to John Chapin's earlier comments Jim started by
> recommending that the Microsoft folks *not* read his paper on the
> impossibility of transparent distributed computing, as that might give
> his own company a competitive advantage. In fact, Jim declined.
>
> Jim stated that he doesn't care where operating system research goes. He
> presented the assembled crowd with a choice. The first choice is to
> continue on their current path, and hope that people from Microsoft show
> up at their conferences, and pay attention. Jim said that he can relate
> to the satisfaction of working on hard intellectual exercises, after
> all, he has a PhD in philosophy, and in his view, trying to make IPC as
> fast as possible is like trying to figure out how many angels can dance
> on the head of a pin.
>
> The second option that Jim presented is to try to work on things that
> lots of people will care about. Since this was a workshop on operating
> systems research, this begged the question, "Who cares about operating
> systems research?"
>
> Jim's opinion is that users don't care about operating systems. As
> evidence, he pointed to the operating system that most of the choose. He
> also noted that in one operating system that users do get excited
> about---MacOS---what they like is the user interface, not the operating
> system! Finally, he observed that many of the topics that had been
> repeatedly discussed earlier in HotOS, performance, flexibility, and
> extensibility, just don't matter except at the high end, and that high
> end applications, such as Oracle, frequently do their best to ignore the
> underlying operating system.
>
> So, if users don't care about operating systems, what do they care
> about, Jim asked. His answer was, "Three things, applications,
> applications, applications."
>
> Jim therefore hypothesized that the real market for operating systems is
> application developers, since they are the ones who actually have to get
> intimate with the operating system.
>
> Taking this line of thought one step further, Jim asked, "What do
> developers actually care about?" His answer was, "Three things, volume,
> volume, volume." Thus developers choose the operating system that has
> the most users.
>
> Jim suggested that there are two possible conclusions from this. Either
> "it's all over and we should all go and work for Microsoft," or we need
> to find some other features that application developers might actually
> care about. Jim went on to outline some areas of research that might fit
> the bill:
>
> Portability. This is just another way for application developers to get
> more volume. It will let them reach the other 3% of the market.
>
> Distribution. How to distributed computation in a more reasonable way.
>
> Being able to test for correctness so that we can improve on the current
> situation which is "satisfaction guaranteed or we won't be surprised."
>
> System administration---the ugly back corner. It's dull, boring---and
> hard. "You've got to be a 14 year old male covered with Clearasil to
> understand windows administration."
>
> How about a security model that everyone understands.
>
> Plug and play instead of plug and pray.
>
>
> Panel Discussion:
>
> Margo Seltzer (Harvard), playing curmudgeon, pointed out that we all
> drive cars, and that car mechanics are sort of like developers. There
> are far fewer mechanics than cars. If we rethink the world, she asked,
> is there any reason to think that there will be that many more
> developers?
>
> Bob Frankston replied using a different analogy, that we are all
> telephone operators, even though none of us think of ourselves that way.
> Years ago, you needed the assistance of a specially trained operator to
> complete every phone call. Now, we've made the interface so simple that
> anyone can do it. Bob suggested that the problem with computers is that
> we haven't figured out how to make them simple enough.
>
> Mike Jones (Microsoft Research) responded to Jim Waldo's suggestion that
> improving system administration was a good area for research by pointing
> out that if you assume that Rich Draves and his other colleagues at
> Microsoft get the Millenium system to work, then most people's need for
> system administration will go away because it will happen automatically.
>
> Jim Waldo agreed with the goal of making system administration happen
> automatically, but pointed out that it is already a hard job to do on a
> single machine, and that believing we can solve the problem on the the
> scale of the internet is "replacing a mystery with a miracle."
>
> Dave Presotto (Lucent Bell Labs) followed up by pointing out that Plug
> and play is a nice idea, but that the only system where it actually
> works is that Mac, and that the reason it works there is that one vendor
> controls the whole system. Dave concluded that we won't get real plug
> and play until Microsoft controls everything.
>
> Alan Nemeth suggested a different way to think about system
> administration. Imagine that there are a bunch of switches that you use
> to administer some machine. There are only two possible ways that such a
> system might work. Either nothing changes when you fiddle with the
> switches, or there is only one setting where the system works. Either
> way, the correct thing to do is to remove all of the switches.
>
> Jeff Mogul (DEC WRL) was critical of all of the analogies that he had
> heard in this discussion, because they all described systems that are
> much simpler than computer systems. Jeff argued that what we have to do
> in system administration is more like management and politics. He
> described politics as the art of "muddling through," and not letting the
> system collapse, and suggested that this is what system administration
> is about.
>
> Jay Lepreau (University of Utah) returned to the issue of seamless
> distribution, observing that in many areas, people like local control
> and that global control frequently doesn't work well. He suggested that
> this might be a concern for the Millenium groups goal of transparent
> system configuration and administration.
>
> Rich Draves agreed that this might be a concern, but pointed out that
> lots of people aren't into endless customization; they just want the
> system to work.
>
> ----
>
>
> Outrageous Opinions
>
> In keeping with HotOS tradition, the outrageous opinions session was
> held in Joe Boykin's suite (picture to the right), accompanied by vast
> quantities of wine, beer, and munchies. As the evening go started,
> fellow scribe Costa Sapuntzakis observed that this would be a perfect
> setting for drinking games. "Every time someone mentions `extensible
> operating systems,' everyone drinks!"
>
>
> Opinions:
>
>
> Jon Howell (Dartmouth College)
>
> Jon suggested that networks shouldn't be treated as devices, and
> shouldn't need to be explicitly programmed. In other words, they should
> transparently move data from place to place similarly to the computer's
> backplane.
>
>
> Geoff Kuenning (UCLA)
>
> Reacting to the comments of Margo Seltzer (and others) earlier in the
> day, Geoff (left) argued that "databases should not drive operating
> systems. Databases are a single very specialized application. If we
> start bending over backwards to support databases we're going to forget
> the fact that we're not writing special purpose operating systems."
>
>
> John Chapin (MIT)
>
> John observed that lots of people at the workshop were using Pilot
> pen-based computers. He commented that carrying them around, and pulling
> them out all the time is a pain in the neck. If people want personal
> computers that they can carry around with them, we should find a better
> place to carry them around. "Where is a better place?" John asked. "The
> answer is, give up an eye! Think about it, you get a direct connection
> to the optical nerve. The natural question then is, are you willing to
> give up an eye for 100 megabits?"
>
> An unknown attendee responded, "Why not? We've already given up two
> carpal tunnels for emacs!"
>
> Margo Seltzer wanted to know if this is would be called "optical
> computing".
>
>
> Brian Bershad (UW) and Jeff Mogul (DEC WRL)
>
> Brian read the text of a bet that they made at the 1993 HotOS:
>
> "Bet: Brian says -
>
> By Dec. 31, 1996, Sun Microsystems will no longer be doing new
> development on a UNIX-like operating system.
>
> Loser gives winner 1 bottle of Stag's Leap Vineyards most recent release
> of Cabernet Sauvignon (best available quality)."
>
> At this point, Brian handed Jeff the aforementioned bottle.
>
> "Now here's the really stupid part," Brian continued as he finished
> reading. "Bet is void if Sun goes out of business."
>
> Undetered by his loss, Brian agreed to a new bet with Jeff, that by Dec.
> 31, 2001, Digital Equipment Corportation will no longer be in business.
>
> Margo Seltzer, eager to win her own bottle of wine, asked Brian if he'd
> also like to bet that Harvard University will be out of business by
> 2001.
>
>
> Sape Mullender (University of Twente)
>
> "By the year 2001," Sape(left) inquired, "will we be terribly ashamed
> because we are not working for Microsoft, because everyone will believe
> that we are not good enough?"
>
> Jeff Mogul responded by proposing that the attendees form a tontine, to
> be paid to the last person to go work for Microsoft.
>
> Geoff Keunning observed that this was exactly the *opposite* of what had
> been happening so far.
>
>
>
> Fred Douglis (AT and T Research)
>
> Fred presented a list of the top ten themes he anticipates for
> HotOS-VII:
> 10: JavaOS
> 9: Randomized Operating Systems
> 8: WebOS
> 7: Why JavaOS failed
> 6: The electron is the computer
> 5: Zero cost IPC
> 4: Spinning drunkenly in a pool of processors,
> an existential tale of flux.
> 3: Foreign access fees for ATM
> 2: MS-DOS ("and we all know who the MS stands for...
> Martha Stewart!)
> 1: The rise of monolithic kernels.
>
>
> David Steere (Oregon Graduate Institute)
>
> David was introduced by David Cohen of Notre Dame who pointed out the
> historical significance of the first two papers of the workshop. "It was
> the last time any of us will hear a paper about a full operating system
> designed by anybody but Microsoft."
>
> David (Steere) also presented a top ten list. His was the top ten
> careers for ex-operating systems researchers:
> 10: Start an ISP
> 9: Off-shore electronic money laundering
> 8: Assistant to Martha Stewart
> 7: Join Apple for their lucrative severance package
> 6: Stoop to teaching
> 5: (with credit to Jeff) Collect the tontine.
> 4: Exploit security holes in Active X
> 3: Sell out to Microsoft, such as by becoming Rick
> Rashid's personal assistant.
> 2: Crash test dummy for ethernet collisions
> 1: COBOL hacking for the year 2000
>
>
> Mark Day (Lotus)
>
> Mark's opinion was motivated by the fact that on several occasions that
> day he had heard people say of their systems that it was a "perfectly
> reasonable think for programmers to use." Mark was willing to bet that
> nobody had actually sat real programmers in front of their systems and
> asked them to use it. "All I want is for people to test their
> supposed-to-be-easy-to-use things on real people in order to verify that
> they are easy to use," Mark said.
>
>
> John Carter (University of Utah)
>
> John noted that there is a big push in industry toward "client-server"
> computing. "I think this is basically bullshit because the servers are
> overpriced," John said. He claimed that the hardware manufacturers are
> taking advantage of massive markups on their servers, basically selling
> clients at cost and making all of their profits on servers. John argued
> that this situation "will turn around and bite anybody who expects to be
> making all of their money on servers, because just like the PCs ate the
> workstations, the clients will eat the servers."
>
> Jay Lepreau called this, "the demise of little iron and the rise of
> tin."
>
>
> Anil Somayaji (University of New Mexico)
>
> Warning that his opinion might seem like "obvious flame bait," Anil
> claimed that Linux is the future of operating system research and
> development. His argument went as follows. In three or four years,
> Microsoft will have NT running on everyone's desktops. After that, NT
> will never leave people's machines, and desktop operating systems (i.e.,
> NT) won't change much, except for bug fixes. This will give Linux time
> to adapt and develop its WIN32 API. Then Linux will co-opt NT because
> it will run all of the same applications, only better.
----
adam@cs.caltech.edu
You're a spineless, pale, pathetic lot,
and you haven't got a clue.
Somehow I'll make a man out of you.
-- Mulan (Rohit, you *really* need to see this movie)