text:
Heartbreaker (Mariah Carey song)

"Heartbreaker" is a song by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey featuring American rapper Jay-Z for her seventh studio album Rainbow (1999). It was released on August 23, 1999, by Columbia Records as the lead single from Rainbow. The song was written by the artists and produced by Carey and DJ Clue, with additional writers being credited for the hook being built around a sample from "Attack of the Name Game" by Stacy Lattisaw. "Heartbreaker" pushed Carey even further into the R&B and hip hop market, becoming her second commercial single to feature a rapper. Lyrically, the song describes lovesickness towards an unfaithful partner.

"Heartbreaker" received mixed reviews from music critics, many of whom felt it was not original or innovative in terms of a creative step forward. Additionally, it was compared heavily to Carey's 1995 hit single "Fantasy", which also built its hook from a sampled beat. "Heartbreaker" topped the Canadian Singles Chart and the US Billboard Hot 100, becoming Carey's 14th US chart-topper. The single topped the New Zealand Singles Chart and was a top-five single in Croatia, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Carey performed "Heartbreaker" live on several international television and award shows, as well as on her concert tours. The accompanying music video for "Heartbreaker", directed by Brett Ratner, is one of the most expensive ever made, costing over US$2.5 million. The video features Carey and her friends visiting a film theater and catching her boyfriend (played by Jerry O'Connell) on a date with another woman. Carey played herself and a brunette villainess named Bianca Storm, during a physical altercation scene between the two women. Due to contractual agreements at the time of its filming, Jay-Z was unable to make an appearance in the original music video, though he would appear in a recut version soon after. The video was inspired by several other films, including Grease, Scarface and Enter the Dragon.

Background
With her sixth studio effort, Butterfly (1997), Carey started infusing hip hop elements in her songs, working with different, and younger, producers and songwriters. After the album's success and the release of her first compilation album #1's (1998), Carey began to work on her seventh album, Rainbow (1999). Her main focus on the album was to continue on the same path she began with on Butterfly, producing a subtle combination between inspirational ballads and hip hop beats. "Heartbreaker" marked the first time in Carey's career that a rapper was included on a lead single, following Ol' Dirty Bastard, who was featured on the Bad Boy remix of "Fantasy" in 1995. While recording the album in Capri, Italy, Carey claimed to have spent most of the time developing what she felt to be a strong lead single.

Originally, "Heartbreaker" was intended to be part of Carey's debut film soundtrack, Glitter, however, after the film's delay, it was included on her album Rainbow. Prior to the song's radio release, Carey spoke of it in an interview: "It's pretty much [in] the classic style of my up-tempo classics like 'Fantasy' or 'Dreamlover,' [...] But it's kind of fun and has a new edge to it, I think, and definitely having Jay-Z takes it to a whole 'nother level. And [DJ] Clue makes it really fun and stuff."

Recording and lyrics
While developing Rainbow, Carey had different ideas for the lead single. After writing the song's core lyrics and producing the main idea and melody, DJ Clue, one of the earlier producers in the project, suggested to Carey the use and incorporation of the hook from "Attack of the Name Game" by Stacy Lattisaw. After agreeing to it, they incorporated Carey's lyrics and melody to the hook, and began recording the song. However, after completing "Heartbreaker", Carey felt it needed a strong male verse, hoping for a rising hip hop artist. She chose to work with Jay-Z and began re-arranging the song as he wrote out his verse. Jay-Z wrote his entire verse and helped produce some of the song's core instrumentals. In an interview with Fred Bronson, Carey spoke of her experience working with Jay-Z: "It's fun when you can find someone that you can relate to and that you respect. Jay-Z is someone I admire as a writer and as an artist. We could be sitting in the studio, and he can freestyle a rhyme that would be incredible just off the top of his head. He doesn't need a pen and paper. I equate that to a singer who can pick up the mike and riff and ad-lib over a song and take you to a totally new place." Aside from her work with Clue and Jay-Z, Carey's longtime friend and background singer Trey Lorenz also took part in the song's production. He provided the back-up vocals in the song, and took part in several small areas of the development of Rainbow. When interviewed by Bronson, Carey spoke highly of Lorenz, "He's an amazing writer and singer, he's so influenced by the old school stuff, yet he's so current. He's known me since before my first album, and he's a great, loyal friend." Aside from the use of the sample and Jay-Z's verses, "Heartbreaker" contains strong female-empowering lyrics, which Carey wrote as a sort of anthem, especially because she felt that she personally has been in a similar predicament in the past.

Composition
"Heartbreaker" is a moderately slow, mid-tempo pop, hip hop/R&B track. According to the music sheet published at Musicnotes.com, the song is written in the key of D♭ major, while the beat is set in common time which moves at a moderate pace of 100 beats per minute. It has a sequence of D♭–B♭m–D♭ as its chord progression. Carey's vocals in the song span from the note of D3 to the high note of C7. The song has a "percolating beat" over which Carey sings with nasal, silken and declarative vocals. The verses feature Carey's signature melismatic style, combined with rapid yet seamless transitions; for example, Carey starts the second verse already in mid-belt "It's a shame to be" while then going off into a whispering coo for "so euphoric and weak."

Aside from background vocal stylings from Lorenz and other women, Carey added her own lowered vocals into the song, giving the impression of a "doubled voice." "Heartbreaker" samples the 1982 song "Attack of the Name Game" by Stacy Lattisaw. The song's hook and loop were taken and incorporated into the melody of "Heartbreaker", as well as being used as its main instrumental components. The lyrics are constructed in the verse-pre-chorus-chorus form. Carey starts with the hook "Gimme your love, gimme your love," repeated eight times. Carey repeats the chorus four times, ending the song with a final "Gimme your love, gimme your love." Chuck Taylor from Billboard described its instrumentation as a "persistent guitar lick" and wrote "There's an identifiable chorus here, and some semblance of verses, but more than anything, this song comes across as a blur of jumbled in the background, including Carey's own repetitive harmonies, which in this case sound more like a competition than a compliment."

Remixes
The song's main remix, titled Desert Storm Remix, features female rappers Da Brat and Missy Elliott. It is the first of Carey's remixes that was produced by Desert Storm Records producer and rapper DJ Clue, who makes an introduction on the remix. The remix contains lyrical interpolations and an instrumental sample from "Ain't No Fun (If the Homies Can't Have None)" by Snoop Dogg. In an interview with MTV News, Carey spoke of the song's remix before its official release in August 1999: "And then the remix. I'm so excited about the remix. It's also gonna go on the album, and it features Missy Elliott and Da Brat, and it's kinda like a girl-power answer record, and it's to the loop of Snoop [Dogg]'s 'Ain't No Fun.' They're not ready for that one!". A separate music video was filmed for the remix, shot in black and white and featuring a cameo appearance by Dogg. The Desert Storm Remix received mixed reviews from music critics. Stephen Thomas Erlewine chose the song as one of the top three cuts on Rainbow, alongside the original. Danyel Smith from Entertainment Weekly called it "[an] overblown [...] miscalculation" and wrote "Missy Elliott's and Da Brat's bad sexual politics sink the tired 'Heartbreaker [Remix].' Larry Flick from Billboard, called the remix "muscular" and "street-savvy" and wrote "Missy Elliott and Da Brat lace rhymes into the track, which is enhanced by the sample from Snoop Dogg's 'Ain't No Fun (If The Homies Can't Have None)'."

Additional remixes of "Heartbreaker" include a remix produced by Junior Vasquez that interpolates "If You Should Ever Be Lonely" by singer Val Young, as well as a live mashup of "Heartbreaker" and "Love Hangover" by Diana Ross, performed for VH1 Divas 2000: A Tribute to Diana Ross tribute for Ross. The latter remix was released for digital download and streaming in October 2020, when Carey released the "Heartbreaker" EP as part of her #MC30 EP series.

Critical reception
"Heartbreaker" received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics, some of whom compared it heavily to Carey's previous lead singles. Dara Cook from MTV called the song an "airy ditty" and wrote "[On the song] Mariah exudes as much sentiment as hollowed-out driftwood." Cook continued onto the song's production, writing "By texturing it into the song, producers Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis have finally found productive use (other than song closing spectacle) for Mariah's high octave shriek." AllMusic editor Stephen Thomas Erlewine named "Heartbreaker" as one of his top three choices from the album. Danyel Smith from Entertainment Weekly called the song a "delectable confection" and wrote "she smartly uses Jay-Z's droll rap about a bratty girlfriend as tart counterpoint to her creamy tones," however calling it a recycled version of Carey's previous songs "Dreamlover" (1993) and "Fantasy" (1995). Elysa Gardner from the Los Angeles Times called the song "breezy" and noted how Carey "brings a similarly light, sensuous touch" to "Heartbreaker". Additionally, Gardner complimented Jay-Z's rap verses, calling them "sly." Editor from Rolling Stone Arion Berger, called it "nasal, silken and declarative" while "riding the percolating beat." Additionally, Berger also compared it to Carey's "Fantasy", for its similar usage of a sampled hook. Tom Sinclair from Entertainment Weekly reviewed the song individually, giving it an F. He called it a "rehash" of "Fantasy" and wrote "What self-respecting artist would have the gall to recycle the Tom Tom Club's 'Genius of Love' (the source of 'Fantasy') for a second time in four years? It's a given that pop will eat itself, but this sort of self-cannibalization should be illegal." However, the sample used in "Heartbreaker (feat. Jay Z)" was not the same sample as the one used in "Fantasy". Chuck Taylor from Billboard gave the song a mixed review, writing "Yes it's a hit, and her voice is in fine form, but 'Heartbreaker' is a disappointment in terms of what we know she's capable of writing."

Chart performance
In the United States, "Heartbreaker" was released commercially on September 21, 1999. "Heartbreaker" entered the chart at number sixty. The song became Carey's fourteenth chart-topper in the US, spending two weeks atop the Billboard Hot 100. It extended Carey's lead as the female artist with the most number one singles in the country. The only acts still ahead of Carey were Elvis Presley with seventeen (a record she surpassed in 2008 with "Touch My Body" becoming her eighteenth number one single) and the Beatles with twenty. The song was certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Additionally, "Heartbreaker" finished at number thirty-five on the Billboard Year-End of 1999. In Canada, the song peaked at number one on the Canadian Singles Chart, becoming Carey's tenth chart-topper in the country. In Australia, it entered the Australian Singles Chart at number eleven, on the issue dated October 10, 1999. The next week, the song ascended to its peak of number ten, where it stayed for one week, before fluctuating inside the chart for a total of seventeen weeks. "Heartbreaker" was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), denoting shipments of over 70,000 units within the country. In New Zealand, "Heartbreaker" was met with strong success, debuting at number four on October 10, 1999, and topping the singles chart the following week. It spent a total of eleven weeks fluctuating in the singles chart, and was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ), denoting shipments of over 15,000 units.

In Europe, the song charted throughout several markets. In Austria, it debuted at number thirty-seven on the singles chart, eventually peaking at number seventeen. In total, "Heartbreaker" spent twelve weeks on the Austrian chart. In the two Belgium territories, Wallonia and Flanders, the song peaked at numbers nine and twenty-seven, and spent nineteen and sixteen weeks on the chart, respectively. In France, the song entered the singles chart at number seventy-seven on October 9, 1999. Eventually, it peaked at number four, becoming Carey's highest-charting single there since "Without You" (1993), which peaked at number two. The song charted for twenty-five weeks, and was certified gold by the Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique (SNEP), denoting shipments of over 400,000 units. In Germany, "Heartbreaker" peaked at number nine, spending twenty weeks inside the singles chart. On October 2, 1999, it entered the Dutch Single Top 100 at number sixteen, eventually peaking at number seven, and spending a total of eighteen weeks in the chart. In Norway, the song's success was limited, only peaking at number fourteen and spending only four weeks charting in the countries chart. "Heartbreaker" entered the Swedish Singles Chart at number thirty, on the issue dated October 7, 1999. It charted for a total of fourteen weeks, and attained a peak of number eighteen. In Switzerland, it spent twenty-three consecutive weeks in the singles chart, attaining a peak position of number seven, where it stayed for two weeks. On the UK Singles Chart, "Heartbreaker" debuted at its peak position of number five, during the week of November 6, 1999. It spent a total of thirteen weeks charting inside the chart, exiting on January 9, 2000.

Music video
The music video for "Heartbreaker" was filmed at the Los Angeles Theatre in Downtown Los Angeles on July 30–August 1, 1999. Directed by Brett Ratner, the music video began airing on MTV on August 16, 1999, following its premiere on the network's Making the Video series. According to Carey, the goal for the video was to mirror the lyrical content of the song, as well as showing it from a female perspective. Additionally, the video was filmed in a comedic fashion, intended to remain something "fun and exciting." The video became one of the most expensive ever made, costing over $2.5 million. Due to its strong female empowering message and nature, the video remains "a fan favorite", according to MTV News. Carey claimed that two films were used as inspirations, Grease and Enter the Dragon. Prior to filming the video, it became clear that Jay-Z would be unable to appear in the video, due to a contractual agreement not allowing him to appear in a video for two weeks after he shot for "Girl's Best Friend", his track off the soundtrack to the film Blue Streak. Jay-Z and Carey managed to film a scene for the video, which was briefly documented on Making the Video, although the documentary edited Jay-Z out of the footage to focus on Carey in order to not violate the contractual agreement. Carey then thought of creating the animated section in the video, which was quickly drawn and animated by Ratner's team.

The video begins with Carey driving up to a large film theater, the Los Angeles Theatre in downtown Los Angeles, with several of her female friends. As they pull up to the front doors, they tell Carey that her boyfriend is inside with another woman, leading her to try to convince them to abort the plan of confrontation. After convincing her, they enter the theater and begin a series of small dance routines alongside some of the theater employees. As the music begins, scenes of them dancing and Carey entering the film projection room inter-cut. Carey sits behind her boyfriend (played by Jerry O'Connell) and the woman he is cheating with, Bianca Storm, who appears to be Carey sporting a short brown wig and red seductive clothing, and spies on them in a comedic way with her female lackeys. Soon after, Storm leaves her seat and walks toward the bathroom, prompting Carey to follow her during a short interlude in the video. Upon running into each other by the restroom, Carey pokes Storm, starting a large brawl between the two women. Afterward, Carey appears to have defeated Storm, and heads back toward the film room. During this scene, Jay-Z's rap verse is played, while an animated clip of Jay-Z and Carey is projected onto the screen, with an announcement that Jay-Z would appear in the video two weeks from the premiere date. This is followed by a scene where Carey and her friends, wearing oversized bob wigs, dance around in a bedroom. Later, a version of the video was released where Jay-Z raps his verse in a Jacuzzi while Carey and a security guard appear behind, followed by segments of the animated film. During the verse, Carey's friends begin throwing popcorn and other candies at O'Connell, prompting a small food fight in between them. As they halt their attack on him, Carey walks toward O'Connell's seat and acts as though she is Storm. After she sits next to him and he notices who it is, Carey spills a large soda on his lap and bids him farewell, leaving the theater with her friends smiling.

The animated section in the middle of the video adds a different twist to the relationship. Jay Z's voice (presumably her ex-boyfriend's internal dialogue, as it refers to the relationship in first person) explains that when they were a couple she was a very exploitative and controlling girlfriend, frequently demanding money and sex, using him to support her female cohorts and seeing him as some kind of trophy boyfriend. She also frequently got into fights with other women if she believed he was being adulterous (oddly in concert with the video's live-action segments) and answering his phone to ensure he was not somehow cheating. When she decided to get a tattoo of his name, he broke up with her, and she continued trying to follow him and talking about him, while also seemingly still in love with him. Which, again, is basically what is shown in the live-action segments.

Live performances
In order to promote "Heartbreaker", Carey performed the song live on several television and award show appearances, as well as recorded her own Fox Broadcasting Company special. Titled The Mariah Carey Homecoming Special, it was a mini-concert filmed at Carey's old high school in Huntington, New York. The special aired on Fox on December 21, 1999, and featured Jay-Z live on stage for his verses. Carey performed "Heartbreaker" and its accompanying remix at the MTV European Music Awards, held on November 11, 1999, in Dublin, Ireland. For the performance, Da Brat and Missy Elliott both joined Carey on-stage. Additionally, the song was performed on The Oprah Winfrey Show, which again featured the female duo live on stage, British music chart program Top of the Pops, French program Vivement Dimanche, and The Today Show.

For Rainbow, Carey embarked on her fourth and third worldwide tour, titled the Rainbow World Tour (2000). Throughout it, Carey performed the song live during every show. The synopsis behind each performance was a wrestling match in between Carey and Storm, where Carey would sing the remix and original versions of the song throughout each small interlude of the fight. Carey was brought out with boxing gloves to the stage, performing the remix version of the song. After she began wrestling and boxing with Storm, she defeated her, prompting her to begin the original version of the song. "Heartbreaker" featured a very different set up for Carey's Charmbracelet World Tour: An Intimate Evening with Mariah Carey (2002–03). During the tour, Carey wore a sparkling, Swarovski bikini number, and performed both the remix and original versions back-to-back. Several male and female dancers were on stage during the performances, as well as different musicians and back-up vocalists. During Carey's following tour, The Adventures of Mimi Tour, "Heartbreaker" was once again performed at each of the shows. For the song's recital, Carey's donned a black bikini and matching silk cape, as well as Christian Louboutin platform pumps. Several male dancers were present on stage, wearing black overalls and jackets while performing heavy dance routines. For the show at Madison Square Garden in New York City, Carey was joined by both Da Brat and Jay-Z for the remix and original versions, respectively. During the Angels Advocate Tour, the song was paired with Love Hangover by Diana Ross, and performed in a mash-up, the same as she did in VH1 Divas in 2000. For the Caution World Tour, Carey performed both the remix and original versions of the song, albeit briefly interrupted by Storm attempting to pick a fight until being knocked out by Carey; with the backup dancers dragging her offstage.

Track listings
US 7-inch vinyl single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (album version) – 4:48
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:37

US 12-inch vinyl single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (album version) – 4:48
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:37
 * 3) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Mix) – 10:18
 * 4) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Dub) – 10:12
 * 5) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Hard Mix) – 10:19

US & Benulux 2-track CD single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (radio edit) – 4:18
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:37

US & South African CD maxi-single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (radio edit) – 4:18
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:37
 * 3) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Mix) – 10:18
 * 4) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Dub) – 10:11
 * 5) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Hard Mix) – 10:20

European 12-inch vinyl single
 * A1. "Heartbreaker" (radio edit) – 4:18
 * A2. "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:36
 * B1. "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Mix) – 10:18
 * B2. "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Dub) – 10:11

Australian CD & European CD1 maxi-single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (album version) – 4:48
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:36
 * 3) "Heartbreaker" (no rap version) – 3:20
 * 4) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior Heartbreaker Club Mix) – 10:14

European CD2 maxi-single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:36
 * 2) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Dub) – 10:12
 * 3) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Hard Mix) – 10:19

UK Enhanced CD1 maxi-single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (radio edit) – 4:18
 * 2) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Mix) – 10:18
 * 3) "Sweetheart" (Lil Jon Remix) – 3:55
 * 4) "Heartbreaker" (video)

UK Limited CD2 maxi-single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (no rap version) – 3:20
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:36
 * 3) "The Roof" (Mobb Deep Mix) - 5:29

French CD maxi-single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (album version) – 4:48
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:36
 * 3) "Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To?)" (Diana Ross cover) - 3:47

Japanese CD maxi-single
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (album version) – 4:48
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (no rap version) – 3:20
 * 3) "Heartbreaker" (remix) – 4:36

Digital EP (Remixes)
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (album version)- 4:48
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (Remix) – 4:37
 * 3) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Heartbreaker Club Mix) – 10:18
 * 4) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Heartbreaker Club Dub) – 10:10
 * 5) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Heartbreaker Hard Mix) – 10:19

MC30 digital EP
 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (Remix) – 4:37
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (No Rap Version) – 3:20
 * 3) "Love Hangover / Heartbreaker" (Live) – 5:15
 * 4) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Heartbreaker Club Mix) – 10:19
 * 5) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Heartbreaker Club Dub) – 10:11
 * 6) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Heartbreaker Hard Mix) – 10:19

2023 12-inch vinyl single
 * A1. "Heartbreaker" (album version) – 4:46
 * B1. "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Heartbreaker Club Mix) – 10:19

The Junior Vasquez Mixes

 * 1) "Heartbreaker" (Junior's Single Mix) – 4:15
 * 2) "Heartbreaker" (Junior's Mixshow Mix) – 6:50
 * 3) "Heartbreaker" (Junior's Vocal Club Mix) – 7:38
 * 4) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Mix Edit) – 6:57
 * 5) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Mix) – 10:19
 * 6) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Club Dub) – 10:13
 * 7) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Vocal Anthem) – 14:31
 * 8) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Hard Mix) – 10:20
 * 9) "Heartbreaker / If You Should Ever Be Lonely" (Junior's Hard Dub) – 9:33

Credits and personnel
Credits are adapted from the Rainbow liner notes.
 * Mariah Carey – co-production, songwriting, vocals
 * Shawn Carter – songwriting, vocals
 * DJ Clue – co-production
 * Shirley Elliston – songwriting
 * Lincoln Chase – songwriting
 * Michael Walden – songwriting
 * Jeffrey Cohen – songwriting

title: Heartbreaker (Mariah Carey song)


text:
Sunshine Superman (album)

Sunshine Superman is the third studio album by Scottish singer-songwriter Donovan. It was released in the United States on August 26, 1966, but was not released in the UK because of a contractual dispute. In June 1967, a compilation of tracks from this album and the follow-up Mellow Yellow was released as Sunshine Superman in the UK.

The album featured Donovan's titular hit single, which was initially released in the US in July 1966. The album was Donovan's most successful, peaking at number 11 in the US and remaining on the Billboard Top LPs chart for six months. The 1967 UK edition peaked at number 25.

The tracks from Sunshine Superman and Mellow Yellow were not mixed into stereo, with the exception of "Season of the Witch", until the 2011 2-CD deluxe edition issued by UK EMI.

History
Whilst still incorporating folk music, these recordings mark a distinct change in Donovan's music, representing some of the first psychedelia released. A full rock band backs up Donovan on many of the songs, and the instrumentation had been expanded, being one of the first pop albums extensively to use the sitar and other unique musical instruments. This change is partially the result of working with producer Mickie Most, whose pop sensibilities led to chart hits for many other artists at the time.

Sunshine Superman integrates psychedelic rock and folk styles. The album's lyrical content encompasses Donovan's increasing ability to portray "Swinging London" and give listeners an insider's look into the mid-sixties pop scene. He was close to the Beatles and Brian Jones at this time, and he became widely known after "Sunshine Superman" became a chart-topper in the US, and hit number 2 in the UK. Donovan's penchant for name-dropping in songs such as two influenced by his travel to Los Angeles, "The Trip" and "The Fat Angel" (written for Cass Elliot) coupled with his chart success helped elevate him to superstar status. In addition to noting the people in the pop scene, Donovan recorded "Bert's Blues" for his friend and folk music notable Bert Jansch. Contrasting this modern bent was Donovan's fascination with medieval themes in such songs. The title track was also inspired by Brian Jones' girlfriend Linda Lawrence.

Several other songs were recorded for Sunshine Superman, but did not make the cut. These include "Museum" (later rerecorded and released on Mellow Yellow), "Superlungs My Supergirl" (later rerecorded and released on Barabajagal) and "Breezes of Patchulie" (originally called "Darkness of My Night" and released on Donovan's 1964 demo collection Sixty Four). The Sunshine Superman recordings of these songs were all included on Troubadour The Definitive Collection 1964–1976.

Legacy
In 2017, Sunshine Superman was ranked the 199th greatest album of the 1960s by Pitchfork.

In the video for the Beatles' "A Day in the Life", a close up of a spinning turntable shows the Epic Records version of Sunshine Superman playing. The film was shot at the recording sessions for the song, which was included on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. A cover version of "The Fat Angel" was recorded by Jefferson Airplane for their 1968 live album Bless Its Pointed Little Head. Monster Magnet covered "Three King Fishers" (as "Three Kingfishers") on their 2013 album Last Patrol, with a live version included on 2014's Milking the Stars: A Re-Imagining of Last Patrol.

Original US release
All tracks are written by Donovan.

Side one
 * 1) "Sunshine Superman" – 3:15
 * 2) "Legend of a Girl Child Linda" – 6:50
 * 3) "Three King Fishers" – 3:16
 * 4) "Ferris Wheel" – 4:12
 * 5) "Bert's Blues" – 3:56

Side two
 * 1) "Season of the Witch" – 4:56
 * 2) "The Trip" – 4:34
 * 3) "Guinevere" – 3:41
 * 4) "The Fat Angel" – 4:11
 * 5) "Celeste" – 4:08

UK release
Due to the contractual dispute between Pye Records and Epic Records, Donovan's releases were held back in the UK throughout 1966 and early 1967. During this time, Donovan released Sunshine Superman and Mellow Yellow in the US. To catch up to the Epic Records schedule in America, Pye Records compiled a cross-section of both albums and titled it Sunshine Superman.

It was released in the UK (Pye NPL 18181) in June 1967 and reached #25 in the British charts.

Side one
 * 1) "Sunshine Superman"
 * 2) "Legend of a Girl Child Linda"
 * 3) "The Observation"
 * 4) "Guinevere"
 * 5) "Celeste"
 * 6) "Writer in the Sun"

Side two
 * 1) "Season of the Witch"
 * 2) "Hampstead Incident"
 * 3) "Sand and Foam"
 * 4) "Young Girl Blues"
 * 5) "Three Kingfishers"
 * 6) "Bert's Blues"

 * (Titles in italics are from Mellow Yellow)

Personnel

 * Donovan – vocals, guitar, organ
 * Bobby Ray – bass guitar
 * Eddie Hoh – drums
 * Shawn Phillips – sitar

On "Sunshine Superman" and other tracks recorded in England:
 * Donovan – vocals, acoustic guitar
 * Jimmy Page, Eric Ford – electric guitar
 * John Cameron – keyboards, arrangement
 * Spike Heatley – bass guitar
 * Bobby Orr – drums
 * Tony Carr – percussion

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sunshine Superman (album)


text:
Deckard

Deckard may refer to:

Surname

 * Historical:
 * Carl R. Deckard (1961–2019), American engineer
 * H. Joel Deckard (1942–2016), American politician
 * John Silk Deckard (1938–1994), American printmaker and sculptor
 * Ruth Deckard (fl. 1930s-1950s), American pin-up artist
 * Tom Deckard (1916–1982), American runner
 * Rick Deckard, fictional character of both prose Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and several Blade Runner works

Given name

 * Deckard Cain, a fictional character in the Diablo series and Heroes of the Storm

 * Deckard Shaw, a fictional character in The Fast and the Furious franchise

Other

 * Deckard (band), Scottish rock band, also known as Baby Chaos

title: Deckard


text: User talk:69.212.73.178

title: User talk:69.212.73.178


text:
Australian First Tactical Air Force

The Australian First Tactical Air Force (No. 1 TAF) was formed on 25 October 1944 by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Its purpose was to provide a mobile force of fighter and ground attack aircraft that could support Allied army and naval units fighting the Empire of Japan in the South West Pacific Area. One of several Allied tactical air forces formed during World War II, it evolved from the RAAF's No. 10 Operational Group, established a year earlier. Following action in the assaults on Aitape and Noemfoor, the group was renamed the First Tactical Air Force to better reflect its size and role. It was beset with morale and leadership issues in early 1945, but recovered to take part in the battles of Tarakan, North Borneo, and Balikpapan. Reaching its peak strength of over 25,000 personnel in July 1945, No. 1 TAF's squadrons operated such aircraft as the P-40 Kittyhawk, Supermarine Spitfire, Bristol Beaufighter, and B-24 Liberator. The formation remained active following the end of hostilities in the Pacific until it was disbanded on 24 July 1946.

No. 10 Operational Group
No. 1 TAF was formed as No. 10 Operational Group (No. 10 OG) on 13 November 1943, under the command of Group Captain Frederick Scherger. The group consisted of No. 77 Wing, operating A-31 Vengeance dive bombers, and No. 78 Wing, operating P-40 Kittyhawk fighters, as well as various ancillary units. It was to act as a mobile strike force capable of supporting Allied ground and naval units as they advanced against the Japanese in the South West Pacific Area (SWPA), as distinct from the RAAF's area commands then based in Northern Australia, which had a static, geographical defence function. No. 10 OG took over the mobile role originally undertaken by No. 9 Operational Group, which by 1944 had itself evolved into a static garrison force in New Guinea and been renamed Northern Command to reflect its new purpose.

After establishing headquarters at Nadzab, Papua New Guinea, in support of the US Fifth Air Force, No. 10 OG's first sorties took place on 13 January 1944, when Kittyhawks of No. 78 Wing launched patrols and bombing missions near Madang. By March 1944, No. 77 Wing's Vengeances had been withdrawn from operations due to their inferiority to newer equipment. Three RAAF squadrons—one each flying Bostons, Beaufighters, and Beauforts—were assigned to the Wing as replacements. Following his promotion to air commodore, Scherger led No. 10 OG in Operation Persecution, the assault on Aitape, New Guinea, in April 1944. With airfield construction elements of No. 10 OG going ashore shortly after the attack, Aitape airstrip was repaired and No. 78 Wing was operating from it within three days. This operation was followed by the attack on Noemfoor, commencing in June, by which time No. 10 OG's combat strength consisted of Nos. 71, 77, 78 and 81 Wings RAAF. Scherger was injured in a jeep accident that August and replaced by Air Commodore Harry Cobby.

First Tactical Air Force
No. 10 OG's name was changed to First Tactical Air Force (No. 1 TAF) on 25 October 1944, ostensibly to emphasise "the formation's impressive size and ambitious purpose". Its complement of units was much greater than that typically assigned to RAAF groups, which were themselves considerably larger than USAAF "groups" that consisted of three or four squadrons. As the conflict gradually shifted further north, however, No. 1 TAF was relegated—in the absence of a Japanese air presence—to patrol, reconnaissance and some ground attack duties, including the Philippines campaign in 1944 and the Borneo campaign in 1945. By early 1945, there was widespread dissatisfaction among the fighter squadrons of No. 1 TAF due to its new focus on close air support duties. The underlying cause was the reluctance of the Allied Supreme Commander in the SWPA, Douglas MacArthur, to use non-American forces for the main advance towards Japan.

Frustration was especially evident among highly experienced pilots, such as Australia's top-scoring ace, Group Captain Clive Caldwell, who commanded No. 1 TAF's Spitfire squadrons. This led to a series of events known as the "Morotai Mutiny" in April 1945. Officers based at Morotai in the Dutch East Indies, including Caldwell, protested the missions against what they saw as unimportant targets and tendered their resignations. Cobby was held responsible for the incident and eventually dismissed, being replaced by Air Commodore Scherger, who had recovered from his earlier injuries and who immediately set about restoring morale. He took over No. 1 TAF as Operation Oboe One, the Battle of Tarakan, was under way; the formation's airfield construction teams had been tasked with opening the runway on Tarakan Island within a week of Allied landings but extensive pre-invasion damage and adverse environmental conditions delayed this until the end of June. Poor planning on the RAAF's part was blamed on its earlier low morale and disruptions caused by the "Mutiny". No. 1 TAF then participated in Operation Oboe Six, the Battle of North Borneo, where its performance was much improved.

During July 1945, when the final Allied offensive of the Borneo Campaign took place as Operation Oboe Two, the Battle of Balikpapan, No. 1 TAF reached a strength of some 25,000 personnel, augmented by the B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadrons of No. 82 Wing transferring in from North-Western Area Command. It was freed of garrison duties and had its strength reduced somewhat on 30 July, with the movement of units to the recently established No. 11 Group, which had been formed to command operations over the eastern islands of the Dutch East Indies and much of Borneo. Prior to the formation's disestablishment, No. 1 TAF units helped organise the medical treatment and repatriation of thousands of Australian prisoners-of-war. Group Captain Charles Read had taken over command from Scherger following the end of the Pacific War in August; by January 1946, No. 1 TAF numbered 1,400 personnel compared to its wartime peak of 22,000, and its remaining units were slated for imminent disbandment. No. 1 TAF itself was disbanded at Morotai on 24 July 1946.

Order of battle
Upon its establishment on 25 October 1944, No. 1 TAF consisted of:
 * Headquarters No. 1 Tactical Air Force
 * No. 77 (Attack) Wing
 * No. 22 Squadron (Beaufighter)
 * No. 30 Squadron (Beaufighter)
 * No. 78 (Fighter) Wing
 * No. 75 Squadron (P-40 Kittyhawk)
 * No. 78 Squadron (P-40 Kittyhawk)
 * No. 80 Squadron (P-40 Kittyhawk)
 * No. 81 (Fighter) Wing
 * No. 76 Squadron (P-40 Kittyhawk)
 * No. 77 Squadron (P-40 Kittyhawk)
 * No. 82 Squadron (P-40 Kittyhawk)
 * No. 61 (Airfield Construction) Wing
 * No. 3 Airfield Construction Squadron
 * No. 14 Airfield Construction Squadron
 * No. 62 (Airfield Construction) Wing
 * No. 4 Airfield Construction Squadron
 * No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron

The following units joined No. 1 TAF shortly after it was established:
 * No. 80 (Fighter) Wing
 * No. 79 Squadron (Spitfire)
 * No. 452 Squadron (Spitfire)
 * No. 457 Squadron (Spitfire)
 * No. 31 Squadron (Beaufighter) under No. 77 Wing

title: Australian First Tactical Air Force


text:
Congonhas

Congonhas (Congonhas do Campo until 1948) is a historical Brazilian city located in the state of Minas Gerais. It is situated 90 km south from Belo Horizonte, the capital of state of Minas Gerais, by the highway BR-040. As of 2020, the city had a population of 55,309.

It is a well preserved historic city and retains the characteristics of a baroque city, with its churches, buildings and museums.

Other historical cities in Minas Gerais are Ouro Preto, São João del-Rei, Diamantina, Mariana, Tiradentes and Sabará.

Sanctuary of Bom Jesus de Matosinhos
The city is known for its basilica - the Santuário do Bom Jesus de Matosinhos, commissioned by Portuguese adventurer and miner Feliciano Mendes in 1757 and completed in 1775. In the ramped forecourt of the basilica are twelve soapstone sculptures depicting Twelve Prophets, crafted by Aleijadinho, one of the best artists in the baroque style in the world. The twelve sculptures of old testament prophets around the terrace are considered one of his finest works. Around the forecourt are six chapels with painted wooden scenes depicting the Stations of the Cross. In 1985 the Sanctuary was named a World Heritage Site by UNESCO for its exemplary Baroque architecture and art.

title: Congonhas


text:
Talk:List of Olympus products

No Lenses?
No lenses are mentioned?

 * I just added the 14–54mm II, but I have no time to add the rest now. I am not sure about the organisation; I have changed Cameras to Photography and added Lenses under that, but I guess it would be nicer still to have under Photography either two categories Cameras and Lenses each divided into Digital and Analog, or two categories Digital and Analog each subdivided into Cameras and Lenses. Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Other products
Added the dm-10 under list of Digital voice recorders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.146.62 (talk) 23:51, August 23, 2005

Need to add the K1000 - a classic "photography class" camera as it is/was cheap, rugged and fully manual (a pain generally, but required in many photography classes in the past)

 * You will find K1000 in List of Pentax products where it belongs SMeeds 20:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Table Formatting
That table is a mess. Does anyone know how they're done on Wikipedia? I haven't found out yet.
 * I've just changed the digital camera one - is that better? User:danio

Done. See Help:Table if you want to know more. Aeons 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

e100-rs
Doesn't appear to be a listing, or wikipedia article, for the e100-rs. It was a 1.5MP camera, with a 4-5 second movie mode at 640-480 and 24fps, I believe (which dSLRs never had, and only recently might be found with other 10x stablized 'prosumer' cameras, perhaps). It had massive jpg precapture abilities, as well. It was one of the most expensively produced professional early efforts from Olympus, hoping this would find use perhaps among sports professionals, even though 1.5MP was smallish even for its time. It's not even mentioned on wikipedia.

If you can find a reliable source as reference for this product OUTSIDE wikipedia, you can add it with the appropriate references. And please sign your posts Aeons 07:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Added a brief entry for the E-100RS (I own one). When I can obtain more info (date launched, for example) I'll add it. There are reviews all over the Net - I'll pick a good one as reference and add a citation shortly. AncientBrit 13:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Research material
I don't think that these links will stay in the external links for very long. So, I put them here so that others can carry out research on their own (Links worked as at 15 January 2007):

 * Olympus Camera History
 * Olympus collectors & users
 * Olympus history

Aeons 09:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please list the products of microscope as a category in the article
Info about the microscopes

--222.64.211.128 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/micro/substance.cfm
 * http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/micro/headstand.cfm
 * http://www.olympus-global.com/en/magazine/techzone/vol55_e/index.cfm
 * http://www.olympus-global.com/en/magazine/techzone/vol55_e/page5_sub.cfm
 * http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2002a/nr020509micde.cfm
 * http://www.olympus-global.com/en/magazine/techzone/vol55_e/page1.cfm
 * http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2004a/nr040326ols3e.cfm
 * http://www.olympus-global.com/en/magazine/techzone/vol52_e/page3.cfm

Where does this new entry go
Where would an entry for an "Olympus Tough TG-820" go? RJFJR (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on List of Olympus products. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090103151039/http://www.olympus.co.uk:80/consumer/29_C-2.htm to http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/29_C-2.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070606093837/http://www.olympusamerica.com:80/e1/default.asp to http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

About the Infinity II?
About the Infinity II?

The Olympus Infinity II was realesed in December 1989.

What is the model name of Infinity II of Olympus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.64.163 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on List of Olympus products. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220051605/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_4478.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_4478.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203115250/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-370_ZOOM.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-370_ZOOM.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041104002502/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-450_ZOOM.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-450_ZOOM.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203113737/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-460_ZOOM.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-460_ZOOM.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203133120/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-460_ZOOM_del_Sol.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-460_ZOOM_del_Sol.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203112553/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-470_ZOOM.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-470_ZOOM.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230210201/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_c-55_zoom.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_c-55_zoom.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230205130/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-70_ZOOM.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-70_ZOOM.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113123929/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-725_UltraZoom.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-725_UltraZoom.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230210457/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-730_UltraZoom.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-730_UltraZoom.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127012334/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-765_UltraZoom.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_C-765_UltraZoom.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025030829/http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?cameras=oly_d490z&method=sidebyside to http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?cameras=oly_d490z&method=sidebyside
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316002456/http://www.olympusamerica.com/oai_pressDetails.asp?pressNo=796 to http://www.olympusamerica.com/oai_pressDetails.asp?pressNo=796
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220122211/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_E-400.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_E-400.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726041635/http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_digital_slr_e-450_21270.htm to http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_digital_slr_e-450_21270.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112110327/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital-camera_fe-4030_22624.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital-camera_fe-4030_22624.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125014236/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital_camera_fe-5000_20535.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital_camera_fe-5000_20535.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124232849/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital-camera_fe-5020_21933.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital-camera_fe-5020_21933.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112110332/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital-camera_fe-5030_22608.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital-camera_fe-5030_22608.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130130190310/http://www.olympusamerica.com/oai_pressDetails.asp?pressNo=717 to http://www.olympusamerica.com/oai_pressDetails.asp?pressNo=717
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110045552/http://www.olympusamerica.com/oai_pressDetails.asp?pressNo=818 to http://www.olympusamerica.com/oai_pressDetails.asp?pressNo=818
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808073808/http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/29_SP-350.htm to http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/29_SP-350.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324231542/http://scaredofthedark.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/olympus_sp550_r_3.html to http://scaredofthedark.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/olympus_sp550_r_3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820194505/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_Ferrari_Digital_Model_2004.htm to http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_Ferrari_Digital_Model_2004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing Products
Olympus OM-25 Film Camera

Olympus XZ-1

Olympus XZ-2

Compact Digital Cameras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.187.133 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Olympus products


text:
Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film Festival

The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film Festival (BHFF; Bosanskohercegovački filmski festival) is an annual event founded in 2003 and held in New York. This Festival showcases Bosnian cinematography and also provides a platform for the international exposure for emerging Bosnian filmmakers. In addition to showcasing the Bosnian production films the festival also includes in their program films by other producers and directors that deal with historical, socio-political and cultural issues of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film Festival is organized by not-for-profit organization the Academy of Bosnia and Herzegovina Inc.

History
The idea for organizing the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film Festival was first conceived in 2002 among film enthusiasts from the Bosnian-Herzegovinian diaspora in San Francisco and New York City. The late Benjamin Filipović, film director, professor at the Academy of Performing Arts in Sarajevo and president of the Association of Filmmakers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, provided the inspiration for the first film festival.

In 2003, the first edition of the BHFF was held at the Two Boots Pioneer Theatre (the opening screening was the multiple award-winning film Remake directed by Dino Mustafić and written by Zlatko Topčić). The following year, BHFF moved to larger premises at the Anthology Film Archives, known as an international center for the preservation, study, and exhibition of film and video. In 2007, BHFF relocated to Tribeca Cinemas. In 2018, the festival takes place in two theaters SVA Theatre as the main and Anthology Film Archives as the adjunct venue.

Awards
BHFF is a competition based film festival and it awards The Golden Apple award in several categories to eligible films screened at each BHFF. Since 2006, BHFF has awarded 39 Golden Apples to some of the most outstanding films of the Bosnian film industry or dealing with Bosnia and Herzegovina in their themes. The winning films have been selected from more than 180 films screened at BHFF over the course of 14 years. They have also passed a difficult and rigorous selection process which to date includes a pool of some 400 film titles entered for BHFF screening consideration. The Golden Apple is given to the most outstanding films screened at the BHFF in two categories of awards, the BHFF Audience Award and BHFF Jury Awards

Jury Awards
Since 2012, BHFF awards BHFF Jury Awards to the most outstanding films screened at the BHFF and selected by jury members as most outstanding in its categories. Members of the BHFF Jury are accomplished and recognized members from Bosnian and American cultural, film and art community who have significantly contributed to the Bosnian-Herzegovinian film industry and culture in general.

BHFF jury awards following honors to the most outstanding films:

BHFF Jury Award for Best Documentary Film BHFF Jury Award for Best Short or Animated Narrative Film BHFF Jury Award for Best Feature Narrative Film BHFF Jury Award for Best Acting Performance BHFF Jury Special Mention

BHFF awards following Jury awards:

 * BHFF Jury Award for Best Documentary Film
 * 2012 A Cell Phone Movie - Nedžad Begović
 * 2013 Zizi - Nedžad Begović
 * 2014 Finding Family - Chris Leslie and Oggi Tomic
 * 2015 Pretty Village - Dave Evans
 * 2016 I Can Speak - Mirza Skenderagić
 * 2017 No Smoking in Sarajevo - Gianluca Loffredo
 * 2018 To Be Far - Samira Kameli and Sajra Subašić
 * BHFF Jury Award for Best Short Film
 * 2012 Short for Vernesa B - Jons Vukorep
 * 2013 Baggage - Danis Tanović
 * 2014 Mum - Ado Hasanović
 * 2015 Chicken - Una Gunjak
 * 2016 Damaged Goods - Nermin Hamzić
 * 2017 Refugee 532 - Goran Kapetanović
 * 2018 Great Wall of China - Aleksandra Odic
 * BHFF Jury Award for Best Feature Film
 * 2012 Cirkus Columbia - Danis Tanović
 * 2013 Halima's Path - Arsen Anton Ostojić
 * 2014 An Episode in the Life of an Iron Picker - Danis Tanović
 * 2015 The Bridges of Sarajevo - multiple directors
 * 2016 Tigers - Danis Tanović
 * 2017 A Good Wife - Mirjana Karanović
 * 2018 The Frog - Elmir Jukić
 * Honorable Mentions
 * 2012 The Fuse: or How I Burned Simon Bolivar - Igor Drljaca
 * 2016 Our Everyday Life - Ines Tanovic
 * BHFF Jury Award for Best Acting Performance
 * 2017 Mirjana Karanović - A Good Wife
 * 2018 Emir Hadžihafizbegović - The Frog

Audience Awards
BHFF Audience Awards were first introduced at BHFF in 2006. For 6 years, BHFF nominated films for the BHFF Audience Awards in Documentary, Short or Feature Film categories. In 2012, BHFF unified these awards into a single award given to a film voted by audience members as the most outstanding in all categories as BHFF Audience Award for Best Picture

 * Best Feature Film
 * 2011 - Belvedere' - Ahmed Imamović
 * 2010 - Storm - Hans-Christian Schmid
 * 2009 - AgapE - Slobodan Maksimović
 * 2008 - The Rhythm of Life - Enver Puška
 * 2007 - Grbavica - Jasmila Žbanić
 * 2006 - Go West - Ahmed Imamović
 * Best Documentary Film
 * 2011 - Much Ado in Mostar - Steve Nemsick
 * 2010 - Sevdah - Marina Andree
 * 2009 - Diagnosis S.B.H. - Enes Zlatar
 * 2008 - Enter the Dragon - Ozren Milharcić
 * 2007 - Carnival - Alen Drljević
 * 2006 - I See You My Friend - Ćazim Dervišević

Since 2012 and after introduction of jury awards BHFF consolidated the audience award into a single award

 * BHFF Audience Award for Best Picture
 * 2012 - Cirkus Columbia - Danis Tanović
 * 2013 - Halima's Path - Arsen Anton Ostojić
 * 2014 - Finding Family - Chris Leslie and Oggi Tomić
 * 2015 - Racket - Admir Buljugić
 * 2016 - Our Everyday Life - Ines Tanović
 * 2017 - Death in Sarajevo - Danis Tanović
 * 2018 - Men Don't Cry - Alen Drljević

Noteworthy guests and participants

 * Zlatko Topčić
 * Armand Assante
 * Aleksandar Hemon
 * Benjamin Filipović
 * Ines Tanović
 * Ron Haviv
 * Danis Tanović
 * Mirjana Karanović
 * Alen Drljevic
 * Emir Hadžihafizbegović
 * Ademir Kenović
 * Aida Begić

title: Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film Festival


text:
Gorodets

Gorodets may refer to:
 * Gorodets Urban Settlement, a municipal formation which the town of district significance of Gorodets in Gorodetsky District of Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, Russia is incorporated as
 * Gorodets, Russia, several inhabited localities in Russia
 * Krasny Gorodets

title: Gorodets


text:
Lard of the Dance

"Lard of the Dance" is the first episode of the tenth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on Fox in the United States on August 23, 1998. Homer discovers he can make money by stealing and reselling grease, but eventually stops after negative encounters with Groundskeeper Willie and the Springfield Grease Company. Meanwhile, Lisa becomes jealous that a new student (voiced by Lisa Kudrow) is distracting all her friends by using her fashionable personality. The episode was written by Jane O'Brien and directed by Dominic Polcino.

Plot
After going back-to-school shopping, Homer Simpson learns from Apu Nahasapeemapetilon that he can sell grease to make a profit. At breakfast, Homer begins frying up various amounts of bacon to use the grease to make money and decides to have Bart help him with his "grease business" and forces Bart to quit school. Meanwhile, on the first day back at school, Lisa volunteers to help Alex Whitney, a fashion conscious new student, by showing her around the school. To help her make new friends, Lisa takes Alex, Sherri, Terri, Allison Taylor and Janey Powers for lunch in the cafeteria after the two groups meet up, but shortly afterwards, they abandon Lisa after seeing that Alex owns sophisticated accessories like a cell phone, a purse, and perfume.

Homer and Bart begin their grease business and make sixty-three cents worth of grease from twenty-seven dollars' worth of bacon, much to Homer's glee and Bart's disappointment. After Bart points out that they need larger amounts of grease, the pair drive to Krusty Burger, where they attempt to steal grease from the fryers. After loading it into Marge's car, two employees of the Acne Grease and Shovel Company steal it, claiming they control the grease and shoveling business in the city.

Alex convinces Principal Skinner to have a school-dance rather than the regular yearly event of apple picking. Skinner agrees, so Alex and Lisa, accompanied by Sherri, Terri, Janey, and Allison, visit the mall to purchase party supplies, but the girls detour and begin trying on outfits for the dance, despite Lisa's protests. The group leaves the mall, none speaking to each other. After failing to get a date to the dance and intimidating Milhouse after he manages to do so, Lisa decides not to attend the dance, but changes her mind and goes to the school to take tickets at the door. She is later forced to enter the dance hall, discovering the boys and girls are standing on different sides of the room, and explains to Alex that it is like this because they are only children, not adults.

Homer and Bart arrive at the school during the school-dance to steal the grease in the school's kitchen which Bart told him about. They sneak inside and plant a hose in the fryer to suck it into the car, but Willie spots them and finds the hose, claiming the grease to be his retirement plan, and attempts to stop them inside the school vents; Willie grabs Homer's leg and strangles him with the hose sucking the grease, which explodes due to the increased pressure, causing the grease to flood into the dance hall. A grease fight begins among the students, where Alex eventually joins in after being told by Lisa to act her own age.

Production

The episode originated from a conversation between Jane O'Brien and Mike Scully about how girls always want to grow up so fast, as Scully has five daughters. The idea for the subplot came from Jace Richdale, who came up with Homer stealing grease for business, having read about in a magazine. Several aspects of the characters used throughout the episode had been improvised significantly by Lisa Kudrow. Ron Hauge, a writer for The Simpsons, came up with the initial character of Alex, and Jane O'Brien named the character after her best friend. The scene showing Homer's hemorrhaged eye as Groundskeeper Willie strangles him got a big laugh in the studio. Mike Scully comments that he now uses it in college clip shows.

Cultural references
The title of the episode is a play on the hymn and later Irish musical Lord of the Dance. Marge sings her own, altered version of the 1990 song "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" when attempting to persuade Lisa to attend the dance. Much of the shop where the girls enter to buy clothes is based on Wet Seal. In the same mall is a party supply store, called Donner's Party Supplies which has a window sign saying "Winter Madness Sale", a reference to the Donner Party. Alex tells Lisa to not be "such a Phoebe", a reference to Lisa Kudrow's character Phoebe Buffay on the series Friends.

Reception
"Lard of the Dance" finished 31st in the weekly ratings for the week of August 17–23, 1998 with a Nielsen rating of 7.2. It was the third highest rated show from the Fox Network that week. The episode aired during the summer so that it could serve as a lead-in for the early premieres of That '70s Show and Holding the Baby. While That '70s Show would receive higher Nielsen ratings than The Simpsons, Holding the Baby was a ratings flop.

In a 2008 article, Entertainment Weekly named Lisa Kudrow's role as Alex as one of the sixteen great guest appearances on The Simpsons. Lisa Kudrow refers to herself in the episode, stating "Your name's Lisa? Shut up, I love that name!".

The authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood commented that "The idea of Lisa being unpopular in the light of a new girl in the school hallways is not new (see "Lisa's Rival") but it is done here with such class," concluding of Homer's treatment that "this is an episode which shows that even he can find interesting ways to do things."

Wesley Mead noted, in a review of the tenth season that the episode "might deal with familiar territory ("Lisa's Rival", anyone?), but it doesn't feel like a retread, and is also home to a superbly realised subplot that sees Homer and Bart go into the grease business."

In 2012, The New York Times highlighted this episode in an article about grease theft from restaurants: "An episode of The Simpsons from 1998 has Homer Simpson trying to make a quick buck selling grease, but for years, law enforcement authorities seemed unaware that fryer oil was being stolen by unlicensed haulers, causing millions of dollars' worth of losses each year for the rendering industry that collects and processes the grease."

title: Lard of the Dance


text:
Josh Server

Joshua Aaron Server (born April 11, 1979) is an American actor best known for being the only All That cast member to remain through all six original seasons.

Acting career
Server began on All That at age 14 to tape the pilot for the show. His characters include Detective Dan, Earboy, Jimmy Bond Agent 1/7, and Bernie Kibbitz. In 1997, he and a few cast members starred in the 1997 feature film Good Burger (based on the All That sketch of the same name).

While he was on All That, Server made guest appearances on other Nickelodeon shows. He appeared in a Season 3 episode of The Secret World of Alex Mack in 1996. Starting in 1997, he and other All That alumni were panelists on the Nickelodeon game show, Figure It Out where he appeared until 1998. In 1999, he then appeared in the Season 3 finale of Kenan & Kel, and the pilot for The Amanda Show, along with All That fellow alumnus, Kenan Thompson.

After All That
After he and the last cast members of the original All That had left, Server moved on to host Oh Yeah! Cartoons for Season 3 in 2000-2001. Afterward, he made another guest appearance in a Season 3 episode of 100 Deeds for Eddie McDowd in 2002.

Server returned to All That for its 10th-anniversary special which aired in 2005, reprising a few of his characters. In 2006, he made a guest appearance in a third season episode of Drake & Josh.

In 2006, Server began starring in the web series Laugh Out Loud with Kenan Thompson. In early 2007, he appeared in a season 3 episode of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide and an episode of Sam & Cat in 2014.

He's made several All That reunion-type appearances, such as 2015 New York Comic Con and a 2018 episode of Wild 'n Out, culminating in recurring in the 2019 revival of All That, along with Denberg, and Mitchell, starting with the season premiere.

Personal life
Server was born in Highland Park, Illinois. He has a younger sister who was born in 1982. He is good friends with all of his castmates on All That, including Kenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell. He is also good friends with Nickelodeon series stars Drake Bell, Josh Peck, and Miranda Cosgrove. Server stated in the 1998 collector's guide, All That: Fresh out the Box, that his hobbies include going to the movies, rollerblading, the beach, and working out. Server is Jewish.

Awards and nominations

 * 1997 Kids' Choice Awards
 * Nominated: All That (Favorite TV Show)
 * 1999 Kids' Choice Awards
 * Won: All That (Favorite TV Show)
 * 2000 Kids' Choice Awards
 * Won: All That (Favorite TV Show)

title: Josh Server


text:
Talk:List of version-control software

Untitled
I will erase the cleanup, what exactly neads to be cleaned up right now? Moa3333 13:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

So what happened? It's 2013.. 78.141.139.10 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

CVSNT wasn't in the list.
Considering that CVSNT started back in 1999, while SVN started in 2004. (not to mention other cool things about CVSNT.)

thats messed up, haha. ---Fractal3 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Files-11
Should OpenVMS's Files-11 be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.1.42 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

order of programs
is it by popularity? chronology? it sure isn't alphabetical, but I think a clear well-defined order is fine as long as it adds something to the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.107.250 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Since chronology and popularity are both too hard to research and prove, I would vote for alphabetical within each category. Next time I'm back on this page, if nobody has objected, I'll probably do it. - kevins

Evolution description fair?
Article says "Evolution, (available here), simply better SCM and digital asset management" - isn't this a bit point-of-view (the "simply better" part)? Or is it their slogan? Peter S. 09:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with the above comment. I see the  extended description for Evolution was removed, and then reinstated.  My opinion is that the current extended description is advertising that does not reflect a neutral point of view and should be reverted. --Seitz 07:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Adding a link that's snazzier than any of the others. If there's a list of products that gives just their names, and you add a product with a short blurb about how great it is, we'll all know why you did it."--Seitz 08:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The Evolution description seems to qualify as spam:

"Simply better" was/is one of the slogans associated with Evolution. The listing has been updated though and no longer contains this text.

patch management software
I think quilt isn't a true version control software but rather tool for managing set of patches. Citing Patchwork Quilt's homepage: "The scripts allow to manage a series of patches by keeping track of the changes each patch makes. Patches can be applied, un-applied, refreshed, etc."

From other point of view, if you chose to list here patch management software, why no mention of other such systems, e.g. dpatch? This is unfair :).

After all I must say that quilt is quite (if not very) mature and functional at the moment. Several Debian projects use quilt (and prefer it over abovementioned dpatch) for keeping Debian's separately from Caesar^H^H^H^H^H^Hupstream's. --Xrgtn 13:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

SCCS categorization
I don't think it's correct to list SCCS as "Proprietary: Server based":
 * SCCS started as proprietary. But the command set is now part of the UNIX standard, and FreeBSD includes an implementation.
 * SCCS simply operates on files, it doesn't have a repository server.

 * SCCS is OpenSource sccs.berlios.de. The current version does not include server support but this is going to change with SCCS revision 6.0. --Schily (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Marketing pitches
I think describing products as fast and/or easy to use is too subjective and should be removed. The latest such edit: "Mercurial — written in Python. Extremely fast, lightweight, portable, and easy to use." After removing marketing hype should read, "Mercurial — written in Python. Portable." -- Bartosz 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This problem is getting worse. Phrases like "next generation" or "powerful" have no place in Wikipedia. They are meaningless marketing hype. -- Bartosz 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that phrases like "advanced", "powerful", and "next generation" are mostly meaningless. I've gone through the article and removed some of the claims that looked like hype to me.

 * However, I think we need to be careful not to remove information. Some tools really are easier to use, more portable, or more lightweight than others. I don't think we should to water down all the claims to to eliminate any controversy, at the expense of providing a useful comparison. Wmahan. 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's true that some products are easier to use than other and it would be helpful to rank them. The problem is: Who would do this ranking? As for portability, just listing the platforms is good enough and it's objective. --- Bartosz 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also what is CVSNT doing in the 'widely used and accepted' section?! I don't think it's any more widely used than the other obscure ones or am I missing something? And if they've been at it since 1999...

I just removed reference to Perforce having a 'scalable' client-server architecture - without categorising scalable in this context it's just marketing. Also, Perforce doesn't seem to be scalling very well in our installation.... --212.159.69.172 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

StarTeam text is overboard: "A robust platform... promotes team communication and collaboration..." I don't know enough about it to supply a better description. Paul F. Williams 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise - Clearcase described as "Market leading" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.200.199.37 (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Internal links
If someone had a mind to it, it would be nice to replace all the external links with internal (possibly red) links followed by the internal link. e.g., replace:

 * TLIB - ...

with

 * TLIB - ...

Maybe there's a tool to make this easier. Basically, all these tools warrant actual articles about them, rather than just a link to the corporate website. Stevage 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki
I've added MediaWiki to the list, since technically it meets the criteria for being revision control software. If that was too bold, then let me know and I'll revert or change it. --Bill Clark 12:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it warrants inclusion in a separate category. MediaWiki, to my mind, *is* not revision control software, but it *has* it built in. MediaWiki is not well suited at all to storing revisions of a project written in C, for instance. It's really only good at storing revisions of wiki pages - just like lots of software can store revisions of its own data files. Stevage 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Linkfarm
This list is little more a linkfarm, in violation of WP:EL - Wikipedia is not a directory of software. I am going to remove anything that is not considered notable. By precedent, the best criterion for assessing this is whether the software has an article on Wikipedia. The appropriate way to add software not in the list, assuming it satisfies WP:NOTE and/or WP:SOFTWARE, is to create an article about it. That way, the notability can be established and/or discussed via the usual channels. CiaranG 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Client/Server
I think there's more than just 2 categories for this. For example, Visual SourceSafe is a filesystem based system, not traditional client/server. Client/server would indicate there is some piece of software accepting requests on a server. VSS just reads and writes to a file on the filesystem, and uses it's own form of file locking. There have to be others that do this as well (basically, similar to the way RCS/SCCS operated). I'm not sure what the best way to classify that would be. Maybe this would work better as a comparison chart. TheMadGerman 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

.SCC compliant, what is that?
Some revision control systems are marked as SCC compliant: RCS, SCCS, Clearcase, Telelogic Synergy.

It is not explained in the article what ".scc compliant" means. Nor is it evident from the linked page http://filext.com/file-extension/scc. That page doesn't use the word "compliant". The article should either remove the use of ".scc compliant", explain its meaning, or link to a page that does explain it. --HelgeStenstrom 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RCS performance
The claim (made by the RCS people) RCS is faster than SCCS is definitely wrong. Even when retrieving the most recent version, SCCS is aprox. twice as fas than RCS. When retrieving the oldest revision and there are many revisions, RCS is aprox. 4x slower than SCCS. If you don't believe this, run your own tests. --Schily (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * The original one also, or only that of your revival? --129.187.150.74 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * RCS is faster than SCCS for retrieving the most recent version. Going back more revisions requires reconstructing the older revisions by applying editing scripts (contained in the archive).  Successively retrieving older revisions steadily increases the cost.  SCCS stores all of the information interleaved in the archive, so that retrieving any given archive is about the same cost.  It depends on which you're attempting to prove.  fwiw, most people are interested mainly in comparing against the most recent revision.  (This is for the trunk - RCS branches have problems not found in SCCS). TEDickey (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * SCCS takes the same time to retrieve the latest and to retrieve the oldest version. RCS takes twice as much time than SCCS to retrieve the latest version and four times as much time than SCCS to retrieve the oldest version. The claims from the RCS people (RCS is supposed to be faster than SCCS) never have been verified, but my numbers agree with the numbers from Larry McVoy with his BitKeeper SCCS implementation. BTW: my version is the original software. --Schily (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * That's still not addressing the topic at hand, which needs a WP:RS. TEDickey (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, it is easy to verify that SCCS is faster than RCS. But even without a test, it is easy to understand why SCCS cannot be slower: SCCS does not store deltas but the weave format which allows to access any version at the same cost. --Schily (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * It's trivial to demonstrate the converse. Start with an archive containing a thousand revisions.  If all I care about is comparing against the last revision, SCCS will always be slower than RCS, if the content of the current revision is small enough.  (I have some files with more revisions than that).  Whether they are actually faster/slower, depends on the data (number and size of revisions, as well as the number of chunks that change in each).  However, all of this is moot - WP:RS is where your attention should lie TEDickey (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * So you like to tell us that you did never run any own comparison? RCS may have been faster in than SCCS in 1982 with thousands of changes and on a computer with only 1 MB of RAM and a with filesystem that is slow with reading files > 64 kB, but nearly 30 years passed since then. BTW: I did run mý main tests with 10000 deltas but there is a clear tendency in the tests that RCS is slower under any circumstances. But I am open to new experiences, so feel free to present us a repeatable test that proves your claim. --Schily (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Your comment about a test with 10000 deltas is misleading. For RCS to read the tip revision, it reads (as does SCCS) a summary of the revision list, followed by the content of the tip revision.  SCCS does additional work at this point, reading through an extra 20000 lines (one each for start- and end-deltas).  The statement made regarding RCS (which is what you're disputing) is that access to the tip version is faster.  Conflating it with discussion of older revisions is nonconstructive.  I'd want to see a benchmark that I could run myself before discussing the latter, even though that appears in at least one FAQ TEDickey (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a reliable source for the original statement. There is of course Tichy's paper here which you have alluded to.  If you want to continue the discussion in lieu of providing a reliable source, you're welcome to do so on this page.  Disparaging remarks will of course detract from the discussion. TEDickey (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I am sorry to see that you again did not prove that RCS is faster than SCCS but just give quotes to people who claim that RCS is faster without giving any prove.

 * Please stop your edit war on the article as long as you cannot prove your claims. RCS is not faster than SCCS under all conditions I test.

I did run more tests that all give similar results. This simple test: i=0 date > foo ci -mnone foo < /dev/null while true; do       i=`expr $i + 1` if [ $i -eq 10000 ]; then break fi       co -l foo date >> foo ci -mnone foo < /dev/null done takes 27 minutes of wall clock time, 850 seconds of user CPU time and 325 seconds of System CPU time and creates a foo,v with 1605635 bytes.
 * 1) !/bin/sh

After you are ready, "co foo" takes 86ms wall clock time and 70ms uf user CPU

"co -r1.1 foo" takes 110ms of wall clock time and 100ms of user CPU

This test with SCCS: i=0 SCCS=/opt/schily/ccs/bin mkdir -p SCCS date > foo $SCCS/admin -ifoo -fy SCCS/s.foo rm foo while true; do       i=`expr $i + 1` if [ $i -eq 10000 ]; then break fi       $SCCS/get -e SCCS/s.foo date >> foo $SCCS/delta -ynone SCCS/s.foo done takes 14 minutes of wall clock time, 440 seconds of user CPU and 49 seconds of system CPU and creates a SCCS/s.foo with 1314546 bytes
 * 1) !/bin/sh

After you are ready, a /opt/schily/ccs/bin/get SCCS/s.foo takes 40ms of wall clock time and 30ms of user CPU time

/opt/schily/ccs/bin/get -r1.1 SCCS/s.foo takes 36ms of wall clock time and 30ms of user CPU time.

BTW: this creates reverse deltas that are easy to trace for RCS but since recent RCS versions have been highly optimized, you get similar results with random edits (I did run related tests).

Conclusion: SCCS is aprox. 2x faster than RCS. Do you have more than unproven claims that would allow me to repeat something I can believe because it is tangible? --Schily (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I get different results, using your script. Testing on Solaris 10 (closest at hand), the SCCS script does not run without modification due to a writable file (fixed using chmod).  I further modified both scripts to move the "10000" where it could be overridden via an environment variable, and redirected the output (and errors) to a file.  The RCS messages (which of course can be quieted), were 2063444 characters, while SCCS provided 984256.  However, the real time reported was 20m5.58s and 17m4.59s (RCS and SCCS respectively), with comparable results for user- and system time.  It's likely that you're misled by your script, if you're supposing that it supports "aprox. 2x faster".

There are of course further factors that might make the result go either way (since you're not actually measuring the feature under discussion, but instead are measuring the gross program behavior, which includes several factors). The "10000" by the way, is a waste, since similar results can be shown for smaller repetitions. TEDickey (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Writable file??? if you have a problem, you should name it, I have no idea what you could mean with "fixed using chmod". The script works the way it was posted, I did however redirect the error messages from RCS. As you did only provide numbers that confirm my statement, could you explain why you asume that I misinterpret my results? I am open to new tests, but it is obvious that RCS is not faster because of a better concept. On systems like AIX, SCCS is not faster than RCS, but this is a result of the slow filesystem on AIX and the higher number of temporary files with SCCS and the slow filesystem on AIX can be verified by checking star -x -no-fsync speed.

 * If we look at the main claim from Tichy: "unpacking is more efficient with RCS because if the better history file design"... the tests show that RCS needs more user CPU time when retrieving the last revision and current RCS versions use mmap to access the history file. And BTW: the 10000 is not a waste as e.g. GNU CSSC uses an algorithm to unpack the weave data that scales with ndelta**2. I did run my tests with Solaris 11 on a 6 year old Opteron system. --Schily (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Regarding "writable file" - the program refused to overwrite the writable "foo". I tested with both Solaris SCCS and CSSC (same result).  And as I pointed out, my numbers don't support your statement TEDickey (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * This is why there is a "rm foo" in the script..... and your numbers support my numbers as your test also shows that RCS is slower than SCCS. As I don't know whether you used a recent SCCS or vanilla Sun SCCS, you may have testetd with Sun SCCS that calls write(2) with a transfer count of 1016 bytes (which of course slows down SCCS). Sun SCCS also uses a silly algorithm to check for binary content that is slow and that has been replaced in the recent version of SCCS. --Schily (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 * None of your modifications to your argument improve your case measurably. What I walk away with is the impression of strong bias, which is inappropriate for benchmarking, more appropriate to marketing (or a hacker) than an engineer.  In Wikipedia, this is called WP:OR.  Bye TEDickey (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 * OK, I see that you are biased and either not willing or not able to understand that the main claim from Tichy is void. You however confirmed that you don't have numbers to confirm his claim. Given the fact that SCCS is twice as fast than RCS on Solaris verifies that the inteleaved deltas (called weave) as used in SCCS are a good choice. A scientific talk about this topic would need numbers and arguments that I did not see from you. But thank you for confirming by naming WP:OR that the Tichy paper cannnot be used as a base to verify the claim that RCS is faster (it not even contains numbers anyway). So it is obvious that we need to revert your latest edit in the main article. --Schily (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 * hmm - no amount of repetition will prevent you from pretending that I'm agreeing with you. Perhaps you can submit your original research to a reputable journal, and get it published.  Your comments here are of course, an unreliable source of information, and it is noted that no facts have been established TEDickey (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 * In any way, the paper from Tichy cannot be called scientific with respect to the performance claims as it does not contain provable facts but just claims that have been disproven by my test results. If you like to convince me and believe that you found facts that disprove my results, you would need to give more facts, and if you like to be scientific here I would expect to see a related theory from you. As you however confirmed that your tests also resulted in RCS being faster than SCCS, I need to asume that you agree with me. --Schily (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 * You might want to contact Professor Tichy at the University of Karlsruhe / KIT: http://www.ipd.uka.de/Tichy/index.php - I see little reason to not trust his research, he's an ACM distinguished researcher, and RCS is also very well known. Maybe you just need to read another paper that has more details. Also try on other operating systems. Preloading of the history file by the operating system might bias your data, and your benchmark probably just analyzes how well the software and your operating system cooperate. And for Wikipedia, a published article by a distinguished computer science professor does indeed qualify as reliable source. Your own benchmarks here do not: WP:OR --87.174.110.113 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't care who publishes wrong claims. In our case, it was Mr. Tichy. As mentioned before, Tichy did never give any method to repeat a test that could verify his claims and he did not even ever give numbers, so his claims cannot be called scientific. Tichy's claims for that reason are obviously WP:OR and you either need to find an independent source that verifies your claim or we need to remove the unproven claim that RCS is supposed to be faster than SCCS. BTW: It may be that RCS has been faster than SCCS in 1982 when on a machine with the old AT&T-V7 filesystem and with less than 4 MB of RAM. Todays machines behave different than 30 years ago and iff RCS really has been faster than SCCS in 1982, this was a result from other reasons than the ones claimed by Tichy. The most important reason, why RCS may not be slower than SCCS on some platforms is that it needs less rename operations on intermediate files and this a fact that is missing from Tichy's paper.... --Schily (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional hint: I meanwhile found an original paper from Tichy from 1982 that verifies that he used a 4 MB machine running a UNIX-V7 file system. As Tichy did only check 10 revisions and his results for RCS have only been slightly faster, it is obvious that he did just meter the UNIX V7 file system performance and the checksum performance in SCCS (RCS has no checksums) but not RCS vs SCCS performance. Today, such a test has absolutely no meaning anymore, as we use modern fast filesystems and computers that have no problem to calculate checksums quickly. --Schily (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 * If your "benchmark" were related to the statement in discussion, that might be relevant (without the inferences which underlie your comment). Not the case of course.  TEDickey (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand the relation between the benchmark and the wrong claim you introduced into the article, you may be the wrong person to discuss this topic. Why dou you continue to reinsert claims that have been proven to be wrong? --Schily (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. We've been here before (keep the discussion civil rather than accusing people who do not accept your claims as being incompetant) TEDickey (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While you were working on your edit war and reverted the article to it's incorrect state, you ignored the fact (see history comments of the main article) that there is a second independent source (Larry McVoy) who also disproves the claims from Tichy. Why do you ignore two independent research results in favor of a claim from Tichy that even contains enough information to prove that Tichy's conclusions are the result of a missinterpretation? --Schily (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My definition of "independent" must be badly wrong. Or yours! Actually, both Larry McVoy and you have one thing in common: you have a strong Sun/Solaris history. One of the reasons Larry McVoy gives for SCCS instead of RCS is: "I learned SCCS at Sun". In fact, Larry McVoy acknowledged that accessing the trunk version is faster in RCS, but he needed fast branch access for BitKeeper. Btw, there are also pointers on how your benchmark is flawed: It does in fact favor SCCS "weave" format by the way you modify the file across revisions, I beleive, which makes the weave representation more favorable than the diff delta representation used by RCS? And actually, I believe you were very well aware of your benchmark being biased towards SCCS weave format. --87.174.37.97 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to do my own benchmark (that would be WP:OR, and thus irrelevant. Tichy by not being part of Wikipedia btw. cannot be WP:NOR). But I figure that if you'd replace the file contents instead of appending that would make SCCS look much worse. From what I read, SCCS is O(n) with n the number of unique lines across revisions. RCS HEAD access supposedly is O(m) with m being the HEAD file size. Your benchmark used m==n, whereas in reality, n>>m is to be expected. I am convinced you deliberately used this flawed benchmark, and we therefore must not trust your benchmark results. I figure it is undebated that merges and branches in RCS are awful and slow. Btw, isn't SCCS single-file only also? If so, we should put this into the section description. --87.174.37.97 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Since Schily now claims that Larry MacVoy also said that SCCS is faster than RCS, let me quote him with some empahsis and comments added:
 * The myth about SCCS getting slower is nonsense and in fact, the opposite is true for the sort of revision history that is found in BitKeeper trees [comment: i.e. not in general]. RCS is optimized for getting the most recent version on the trunk [comment: this is what the article says: "faster access to the trunk tip"]. All other versions are slower and branch versions in RCS get really slow. [comment: the article says "at the cost of slow branch tip access"] SCCS time to get any version is constant. [comment: constant apparently means: independent of the revision number, whereas RCS needs to apply n deltas to go n versions back]
 * So in general, I'd say we can actually add MacVoy as another sources that supports the claim that RCS is faster for accessing the branch tip version. It's not faster for BitKeeper-internal use. --87.174.37.97 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One obvious flaw in the benchmark is that it assumes that check-in (and the associated work of constructing a diff) are just as frequent as retrieval of the tip-revision (which the disputed statement singled out). I suppose it's possible to construct a workflow that used a write-only archive (essentially matching the benchmark), but expecting other editors to accept it as unbiased is unrealistic. TEDickey (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 * It seems that I need to admonish you again to come to a fact based scientific discussion.

 * RCS is always slower than SCCS. Even if you retrieve the latest version, RCS co is typically 1.5x .. 3x slower than SCCS get and when you retrieve older versions, RCS (even release 5.7) slows down by an additional factor of 2 while SCCS retrieves all versions at the same speed. So RSC is up to 6x slower than SCCS.

 * This statement is true for all operating systems with more than 4 MB of RAM and with a filesystem that is better than the UNIX-V7 filesystem. I tested on many operating systems...

 * The original claim from Walter Tichy has been made from simple tests on a VAX with 4 MB of RAM that used a UNIX-V7 filesystem that is really slow with retrieving files > 32kB. As the original test from Walter Tichy was a test that only included up to 10 revisions in a history file, the results have been missinterpreted by him as the small differences he detected are a result from the missing cheksums in RCS and from the fact that the UNIX-V7 filesystem slows down when reading larger files. Modern filesystems however implement a very efficient read ahead in case that a linear reading access is detected. This results in typically no additional costs to read the whole file compare to reading only 2/3 (a typical value for RCS).

 * As his observed "performance win" from RCS was much less than the factor of two, it can be seen as a very dubious result. With machines having more RAM and using UFS (a much faster filesystem) in the mid 1980s, a vanilla SCCS was expected to be always faster than RCS past 1982.

 * In the late 1980s, UNIX implementations did add support for automated DST switching in the libc functions that handle local time. This support has been implemented in a very inefficient way and as SCCS uses local time in the history file, this caused SCCS to slow down around 1990.

 * Solaris revised the local time support functions during the past 20 years and thus SCCS on Solaris was much faster than on other platforms since a while. The most recent version of SCCS implements a workaround for slow local time support functions and dramatically improves SCCS performance. On SunOS-4.1, this optimization did speed up SCCS by a factor of 10.

 * Note that all performance optimizations that have been recently introduced in SCCS affect only code that has been introduced past 1986. So it would have been sufficient to compare RCS and SCCS on a decent file system in 1983 in order to verify that the claims from Tichy are no more than a myth.

 * Also note that the performance tests I did run are in favor of RCS, as typical filesystems on many OS (AIX, Linux, ...) implement slow directory operations, a SCCS delta gets a performance penalty on those OS because SCCS delta uses more temporary files than RCS ci. Thus if you compare overall performance, SCCS may only be 20% faster than RCS while SCCS get offers a bigger performance win. --Schily (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Reading through your comments, two issues are apparent: (a) you have only repeated your previous assertions without providing a WP:RS, and (b) you are not responding to any of the points which have been made TEDickey (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to see that you still repeat your unsourced claims. Once you give statements that are based on repeatable facts, I am happy to respond to you. For now, I cannot see any valid and/or repeatable claim in your statements and thus have no idea what to respond to. You neither have a theory nor a confirmation for the claim that RCS is faster as we need to call the paper from Tichy unrepeatable and self claimed. My statements are however all repeatable and based on validated theories as I was able to improve the performance on many OS platforms from applying the theories. --Schily (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the above information of RCS vs. SCCS really needed and should it be in the talk page? It's 2013, FFS. RCS vs SCCS is pretty irrelevant anymore, on a level about whether castor oil is a good additive for that 1903 Ford. :-) 78.141.139.10 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't know what you understand by FFS. RCS may have been relevant because of usage. RCS however never was relevant because of the ideas behind it. Note that RCS is much slower than SCCS and gives less features than SCCS.

 * SCCS of course still has relevance because all recent source code control systems that offer distributed usage have been derived from the ideas behind BitKeeper SCCS which is based on a SCCS clone and as the first distributed systems, e.g. NSE (Sun's Network Software Environment from 1986) and Sun's TeamWare from 1990 are all based on SCCS (they are in fact SCCS front ends),

 * The problem in the main article still exists. It claims that RCS is faster than SCCS and tries to verify this with the Usenet FAQ that contains no more than an unproven and unprovable claim. So this claim in the main article can only be seen as "original research" that is not allowed in Wikipedia. Even Mr. Tichy did only claim RCS to be 1.2x faster than SCCS when using less than 10 deltas. He did not publish the exact constraints, so his claims cannot be proven. His results can be explained by the missing integrity check in RCS, but testing less than 10 deltas is not related to reality. The fact that SCCS is much faster than RCS can be proven (the scripts to repeat the test have been published). If you use the Solaris SCCS binaries, RCS is (in the best case for RCS) 2.5x slower than SCCS. If you compile yourself a recent SCCS source version (e.g. SCCS version 5.06) and comopare this with RCS, RCS (in the best case for RCS) is 6x slower than SCCS. If the files are larger than 126kB and you use a recent RCS, add another factor of 2 to the time spend in RCS. This is of course relevant, as the false claims about RCS performance misleaded software developers for aprox. 20 years and caused them to use an inferior system. Schily (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

List of SCM tools
The list of SCM tool at List_of_build_automation_software should be scratched and merged into here or something. 78.141.139.10 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Agree. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on List of version control software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://mail.bitmover.com/pipermail/bitkeeper-users/2003-December/001137.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025054653/http://svn.collab.net:80/repos/svn/trunk/CHANGES to http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/CHANGES

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Distributed and ClearCase
ClearCase should be under distributed. There are a gazillion companies spread over the world who use ClearCase distributed. A developer has his own branch and only when he checks in it becomes part of the main branch, which on its own can again be part of another branch. Furthermore, the VOBS are distributed, so that any department can work locally while on the background the VOB storages sync between locations. Etc... This means no reliability on one main server such as Github or something to check in or check out to. You can work locally, on top of that locally in your department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.24 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Organizing by attribute
Organizing anything by category is foolhardy. What eventually happens is that the categories from one point in time don't apply at a later point in time. Often lines get blurred between categories. Better to tag items with attributes. Today, one dimension is: local, client-server, distributed. Another dimension is: proprietary vs open-source. I think there should be one, flat list and each item tagged with the value for both dimensions.

Maybe a second list of obsolete guys. That hard separation seems maintainable and useful. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of version-control software