Slashdot Mirror
Why Dell Won't Offer Linux On Its PCs
derrida sends us to an article in the Guardian by Jack Schofield explaining why he believes Dell won't offer Linux on its PCs. In the end he suggests that those lobbying Dell for such a solution go out and put together a company and offer one themselves. Quoting: "The most obvious [problem] is deciding which version of Linux to offer. There are more than 100 distros, and everybody seems to want a different one — or the same one with a different desktop, or whatever. It costs Dell a small fortune to offer an operating system... so the lack of a standard is a real killer. The less obvious problem is the very high cost of Linux support, especially when selling cheap PCs to naive users who don't RTFM... and wouldn't understand a Linux manual if they tried. And there's so much of it! Saying 'Linux is just a kernel, so that's all we support' isn't going to work, but where in the great sprawling heap of GNU/Linux code do you draw the line?"
More importantly, isn't anyone else tired of hearing about why or why not? Enough already, no one really cares.
Linux isn't really for the faint hearted, and is an absolute nightmare to maintain if the user is used to MS bloatware.
Many MS users don't know what a driver is or where to find one, what do they do when their new printer doesn't come with linux-compatible drivers?
He brings up a good point with the difficulties of providing tech support. Maybe Dell should offer computers with blank drives and let the buyer select a distro cd to ship with it, with the explicit instruction that tech support relating to software issues won't be availible.
The most obvious [problem] is deciding which version of Linux to offer. There are more than 100 distros, and everybody seems to want a different one -- or the same one with a different desktop, or whatever.
This has been answered many times. The people who know enough to know that they want a different distro can figure out how to get it on there. Therefore, they can pick a noob-friendly distro (like Fedora or Ubuntu), thereby guaranteeing the existence of drivers for the hardware. The rest of us who want to be all l33t and install Debian, Gentoo or even Linux From Scratch can figure it out ourselves.
FreeBSD would solve the problem of distribution sprawl.
The logic seems to make sense. I'm not sure why they don't just partner with one Distro and just go with it however. If someone really knows the diffence between distros then that person changing them wouldn't be an issue really. Dell doesn't NEED to support all the distros as I think the community already supports them pretty well (although I've had my share of Linux-based headaches too).
However, while slightly OT... I wouldn't want to be the IT manager at a company that I allowed everyone in a 10,000 person company to decide what distro and software they wanted to run. I mean if someone has a problem with something... supporting (as the acticle says) 100+ different distros, different kernel versions, different package/install systems, different windowing systems... hell even different text editors. It would be HELL for an IT department to support, so i could see how Dell would have a similar issue. Even simple things would become nightmares to support. Even asking the users what version they are using would confuse many.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
I support a bunch of Windows boxes, in addition to a bunch of OpenBSD machines.
As far as Windows and daylight savings goes, XP/2003 boxes were all patched by standard patch-tuesday patches. For win2k it took me a grand total of 15 minutes to research it on MS's website, write (+ copy/paste) a few text files, and roll them out on the Active Directory Domain. Not really tough. There are lots of problems with Windows. Daylight savings time just wasn't a big one.
It's all about hardware that works. It's great that I could buy a computer with Ubuntu on it, but you know I'm going to format it the second it comes though the door and install what I want. When I install what I want, I WANT it to work, because the kernel has supported that hardware since version 2.6.whatever.
What's wrong with the existing open source series from Dell, provided there is a genuine reduction in price for the absence of MS software?
If Dell is hesitant about offering Linux what the Free Software community forming a third party company and approaching Dell with a proposal that Dell simply contract the entire Linux support operation out to them?
Dell couldn't manage to support GNU/Linux, but lets not forget that Dell doesn't really support Windows either. Sure it's impossible to explain to your average user that the Internet and their web browser are different things. This doesn't change if the browser is IE or Firefox or Konqueror. However, as a "geek" I regularly need to provide tech support to friends and family. I have a much easier time doing this once I have switched them over to Ubuntu from Windows. It's simply more user friendly and secure. If you are looking for a new PC, I would highly recommend system76, not any big OEM that functions as a division of Microsoft.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
This is IMO, a problem that is custom made for the open source community. No, I'm not suggesting that people put together a hardware company to build their own. I'm suggesting that Dell give away a few of each PC they want to offer Linux on to any Linux distro group that wants to be supported.
In the end, they won't have to do the image build nor support it. Just let the Linux distro folks support it.
Example: The Ubuntu group could build the image for Dell to put on each line of machines they want to sell with Ubuntu Linux. The Ubuntu group provides software/configuration support, and Dell supports the hardware. Once the Ubuntu group provides a pre-built image, Dell doesn't have much left to do but burn it on the machine and ship.
Sure, there is a bit more to it, but that's it in a nutshell, and it is about open source support. Dell gets to sell the hardware, the OSS community supports the software, and everyone is happy. Current support for Linux comes from the OSS community anyway. Dell is just trying to limit their exposure when they shouldn't even try to expose themselves to support issues. Simply sell the machine as OSS supported software.
When it comes down to hardware issues, I'm certain that each Linux distro group will support tools to determine that it is hardware vs. software. Once that is done there is no reason not to ship boxes with Linux installed. Dell doesn't have to choose which distro to suppport. Let each distro sign up and if they don't, don't sell boxes with that distro installed.
To me it seems just too simple to be this difficult.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
When cars first came out, they broke down all the time, and every driver was also his own mechanic. This persisted through to the 60s when men were still expected to be able to fix a car by pulling up the hood and futzing about. You also saw a lot of opining about the internals of how cars should be put together.
Then Toyota showed up, and made cars that stopped breaking down. Gradually, nobody was hyper-opinionated about the internals of cars, till we get to the point today where nobody but Toyota dealership can actually understand the internals.
Same with Linux distros. We've been so starved of turnkey solutions for so long, that we're all hyper knowedgable distro experts! Just like the early auto operator/mechanics. Of course these people are going to have fine-grained and diverse favorites.
When someone gets a new laptop and figures out that its "good enough", they'll stop worrying that it doesn't have Slack (or whathaveyou), and just appreciate its "good enough"ness. This can't happen from the demand side, the supply side has to lead the way. Then the userbase of Linux will change. Then we'll start to complain bitterly. Remember when AOL happened and the Internet started to suck? That fate awaits Linux too.
______
And anywho, nobody's asking them to support every possible distribution for their computers. They're asking for two things:
1) support SOME distro, it doesn't matter what it is
2) open source any hardware wierdness you control, stuff like sleep/suspend, software volume control buttons, and whatnot. Just put that stuff out there and all the big distros will automatically move to support you. That's what distros do.
We're not asking, say, Toshiba to create a huge linux compile farm and put out Toshutils for every distro. Just expose the API, create a reference implementation, and let the community do the rest.
Dell supports windows all the time, as part of their business, and you presume to say they don't know how it's done?
<ANECDOTAL>
Based on my one time calling tech support (in Bangalore, I assume), Yes, I'd be willing to say that they don't know how it's done!
</ANECDOTAL>
OK, They know how it's done (let script monkeys handle the caller), but they don't know how it's done *RIGHT*.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Dell supports their PC's and will try to make sure the device is working but will not sit there and try to support every different Microsoft app that there is. They only try to support basic functionality and basic apps and stick to security, integration and general software maintenance.
So how is this different from supporting Linux? All they have to do is create a knowledgeable support staff, good knowledge base and they'll have pretty much the same thing they have for Windows. It's really not that hard once they make the decision as to what distro they are going to support, strike a deal with the distro's maintainers, and maybe even farm out the support to the distros maintainers or a third party. Pretty simple when you think about it.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Several months ago I bought a cheap laptop from Walmart. I found out from Acer's website they had a Linux cd distribution that I could download. What did this mean to me? Everything worked together, including wireless, sound, and accelerated video. Trying a different distribution, like Ubuntu worked without any hassles. Since then, I bought several other laptops from Walmart knowing they took time to make sure their laptops supported a free operating system. They have been the most trouble free units I have had the pleasure of giving my family. Its a shame Dell doesn't latch onto this idea.
I have no evidence to support this, but it seems that this has nothing to do with technical support at all. My guess is that Dell has some awesome OEM pricing for Windows (maybe $25 a pop or so), and this deal with Microsoft is contingent on them not offering competing operating systems. If they started pre-loading Linux, their cost of Windows may go up substantially.
However, I could be way off base, so feel free to point it out if I am.
His suggestion of starting a company is simply to highlight that there is A LOT of effort involved and that even a company like Dell likely can't see much business benefit in trying to go down this road. If Dell cannot do it with their cookie-cutter approach to most everything, then a completely different approach is needed and the author is suggesting that the collective figure that part out.
And by "cannot do it", I mean "cannot come up with a viable business plan". There is a very limited market for Linux on cheap PCs; what market there is would have extremely small profit margins; what market there is is further fragmented between the distros and desktops; and the training for a support organization would be next-to-killer to set up. How many Linux gurus do you know that want to either man phones or want to write up support scripts?
I'd love to see reasonably priced PCs come out with a stable, robust, well documented Linux distro. Unfortunately at this juncture, I don't know of one (yes, I run Ubuntu and Fedora...no they aren't well enough documented for a corporation to venture into supporting a disperate class of users).
The majority of people I know that run Linux exclusively are very picky about the boxes they run on. Most either built their own or completely spec'ed them out themselves. Dell simply would not be a place that these folks would buy from. Myself, I run Linux on just about any kind of box...but I'm not out to run bleeding edge apps on them, I simply want a shell, a text editor and some server software.
I would gladly buy a Dell with Linux, but there aren't enough of me to support a business model for Dell. I don't know what the overhead of them setting up a product line is, but I suspect that they'd have to yield many hundreds of millions of dollars to make it worth their while.
It's a simple matter of complex programming.
I would already be happier, if there was the option to buy systems without operating system. Dell could sell such systems cheaper not only because of the lacking windows system but also because they would not have to offer support for OS issues.
I hope parent is merely a troll (Grandma + config file is rapidly turning into a troll meme) but I'll bite. 1998 called; they want their lack of GUI configuration tools back.
On my Ubuntu box, I have had to manually edit configuration files to do two things:
- Install and configure beta software
- Install and configure Apache + MediaWiki
- Configure Vi
The one other type of config file I've had to edit regularly in the recent past are xorg.conf files. A computer that comes with Linux preinstalled would never need xorg.conf twiddlery; reconfiguring it when you upgrade your graphics cards isn't a particularly difficult thing to do (If you're the sort of person who is likely to upgrade your own hardware, then you can do it).The real reason Dell won't offer Linux PCs is plainly that it's not a good deal for them. It would mean more expensive Windows licenses, and it would mean less money for them from all the people paying them to bundle crapware with their boxes. The only way to have good, high-quality Linux PCs is to have an OEM willing to sell nothing but Linux boxes. Preferably one willing to sell well-designed, high-end computers and laptops with fully compatible hardware and pre-installed, thoroughly tested desktop environments and proprietary format support. Hopefully, packaged with a nice manual and long-term tech support for a particular set of "supported" packages too (Like Canonical does with Ubuntu).
Hey, I can dream.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
I very much doubt the support issue is the problem. If enough people would buy it Dell could just start the Dell Computer Expert line and make it damn clear that you don't order one unless you know what your doing and their is no support on anything but the hardware. Hell if they were worried enough about their name they could just sell them under some name other than Dell.
I suspect the problem is economic.
For starters I bet people demanding linux are far more willing to voice demands than they are to put up money. I bet tons of the people who asked dell to offer a linux PC wouldn't really buy one. They might like linux but when it comes time to buy a new computer they decide to dull boot and realize it's cheaper just to buy the computer preloaded with windows. Even if this isn't the case the possibility that linux advocates make more noise than they would buy computers is something Dell must consider.
Secondly Dell doesn't have apps to sell people who buy linux only boxes printer ink and all sorts of other high margin items. If anything the problem is they realize the people who buy linux boxes wouldn't buy extended support, at least not the sort of support it was economical to offer. Dell probably has a nearly zero margin on the basic PC and makes up their money on the extras. Why bother selling a linux PC if the purchasers are smart enough not to buy any of the high margin extras?
Finally there is the concern of pissing off MS. Whatever anti-trust rulings MS is constrained by why risk pissing them off unless it would bring you a high margin business?
The issue isn't offering support it is making money!
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
### A computer that comes with Linux preinstalled would never need xorg.conf twiddlery;
Unless that user wants to use a graphic tablet, a second mouse with some additional buttons, a different refresh rate for his monitor, a multi-monitor setup or a ton of other things. There is a lot of things that one can do with GUI tools in Linux, but I still have to visit xorg.conf *far* more often then I would like. And unless there one day comes a proper GUI configuration tool for said file that won't change, doing configuration changes without restarting Xorg would be a nice thing to have. Beside the lack of a standard cross distribution package format xorg.conf is among the ugliest show stopper issues for Linux on the desktop.
NO (absolutely none what-so-ever) ATI cards unless ATI decides to at least produce a binary driver that works (prefereably source, but at the very least, something that actually works as advertised and works in linux, not just for Toms hardware under the most fully patched version of WinXP)
NO (absolutely none what-so-ever) Phoenix BIOS unless they're willing to release every single last detail about ACPI, etc. to the kernel devs ... ditto for any other BIOS manufacturer.
Basically if Dell could do that, it wouldn't matter what distro they put on (I said Ubuntu because it's nice and flashy and is free and has left most of the libraries reasonably unmollested, unlike some distros ... I use Slackware myself)
This much should not be hard for a company with resources like Dell or Gateway or Toshiba to pull off ...
I'm surely gonna get troll rated for this, but it needs to be said...
/. going over to the polls on the Dell opinion site and clicking "Yes" thousands of times. [Or did you not realize that advocacy groups can astroturf as well as corporate groups?]
I've been there done that. Had an Amiga, used Linux and so forth at one time or another. I remember with the Amiga how many of us wrote letters to Software, Etc. or other companies begging them to support our computers. And then the demand never materialized as we claimed it would. So eventually, the Amiga was dropped to the dustbin of history. After buying a PC, I came to realize that the Amiga really wasn't "better", it was simply different. advanced in some ways, behind in others.
The Linux "demand" is similar. It's largely just astroturfing, rather than real demand from customers. It's people from
I'm fairly certainly Dell understands this. They've been around a long time. At one time they even release their own version of System V which was highly regarded in the industry. So they're not unfamiliar with Unix. They've also at various times offered machines without operating systems, or even with Linux.
But the demand wasn't there, which is why they keep falling back to the position they are in, and why despite freeping their poll they are unlikely to listen to it. Maybe they will, and if they do, you'd better start buying your machines from Dell to backup your poll answers.
As for open source advocates starting up their own company to sell machines. It's been tried. It was called VA Linux. They changed their name, abandoned selling computers and now run sourceforge.
The most obvious [problem] is deciding which version of Linux to offer. There are more than 100 distros, and everybody seems to want a different one -- or the same one with a different desktop, or whatever...
There is a horribly easy solution for this "problem": Support only one major distro, yet make sure that all hardware included with the PC is compatible with Linux. Slap a "Linux Certified" sticker on the damn thing and quite a few people will buy it. If they're more advanced, then they'll appreciate the fact that when they install their favorite distro instead of whatever the PC comes with, they won't have to hunt down a forum thread that points to an obscure hardware driver that is still in alpha, because they know that the hardware will "Just Work (tm)." If they're new to computers, or are the "A computer is an appliance" type, they won't have any need to switch from the supplied distro to anything else in the first place. It's a win win situation.
Either this guy didn't think his objections through very well, or he is just spouting FUD and hoping people take it at face value.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Grandma is fifty, and working full time. Grandma is seventy, a senior volunteer at the local library or community hospital. Grandma can't be ignored.
I'm a Unix/Linux guy myself, but I have to say that you miss the target entirely here if you think that daylight savings time patching is easier on Linux than on Windows.
/usr/share/zoneinfo/America/New_York to /etc/localtime, then also manually copy a zoneinfo file to etc/localtime in the chroot jails for both named and dhcpd, and restart these daemons, as well as ntpd (time server).
On Windows, patches came with the standard Tuesday updates, and all I had to do was accept installation. Ok, for boxes without outbound internet access, I actually had to copy the patches and install them manually, but that was pointy-clicky-done, with no hassle whatsoever.
On my Linux boxes, I had to install (which for my Gentoo boxes means recompile) a new version of the timezone-data package (Arthur Olson time zones), then manually copy
Then I had to repeat the whole procedure again, because a new version of timezone-data came out, because of bugs in the first one. Then I had to repeat the whole procedure YET again a third time cause the bugfix release wasn't complete. All in 2007.
Then, on Sun boxes, I had to, in addition to a system update, also install a java runtime environment update, because of course java can't use the same timezone data as the system, but has to have its own embedded implementation. And with more than one jre per system, that meant one update per jre instance.
I still prefer Linux and Unix, but it's not easier, and I bet many people forgot to update the zoneinfo files manually for chrooted daemons. Hopefully, most of them will only see odd logging timestamps. (Which in itself can be bad enough, if RIAA asks who used a DHCP IP address at a certain time between now and when the "old" DST kicked in.)
Regards,
--
*Art
Have you used linux in the last 5 years? Save slackware, every distro I have seen had a GUI app that did at least those things, some better than others, but all did most to some extent. SAX worked the best from what I seen (much better than windows)... but I didn't go very far with ubuntu, so I can't say about that. Fedora kind of has lame GUI config tools... but fedora isn't grandma's linux, ether.
Great Intellect...
Dell has also seen awesome OEM system sales for Windows.
---along with digital cameras, printers, monitors and HDTV, anything, really, that can be marketed as a Windows peripheral.
OEM Linux disappears from Walmart.com for three simple reasons:
Entry level for Vista at Walmart is a $500 Celeron laptop. Vista Premium is a $900 dual-core laptop from Toshiba.
OEM Linux doesn't significantly undercut Windows on price, doesn't sell worth a damn anyway and there is nothing to drive after-market sales. No iTunes for Linux. No Windows Home Server. No XBox 360. No HD-DVD. No Grand Theft Auto.
Even bigger BS is expecting a big company like Dell to spend a lot of money to go after a ridiculously small market. Is anyone here so deep into their geekdom as to believe that Dell would make a lot of money selling Linux boxes? I think this article makes a lot of sense with its explanation.
"The real reason Dell won't offer Linux PCs is plainly that it's not a good deal for them."
The real reason Dell won't offer Linux PCs is because the people who use Linux would prefer to build their own computer. Why duplicate the infrastructure?
Let's face it: businesses looking at Linux aren't equally considering 100+ distros. They're looking at maybe 5. And those five distros are close enough where Dell could easily cross-train their technicians to offer support for all of them. Using the argument that there are just too many distros is silly because most of those distros are either specialized or not even considered when a business looks at Linux. The promise of "Linux on the Desktop" will never really come true until a major vendor is willing to jump in with both feet and really push a distro (or a few distros) forward. IBM had this chance and missed it. I really don't think Dell is going to be able to pull it off either because they aren't serious enough. They could, but they won't.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
reconfiguring it when you upgrade your graphics cards isn't a particularly difficult thing to do
Bzzt, wrong answer.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
If you want Linux to be mainstream-friendly, one of the absolute must-haves is that the user must NEVER EVER EVER, any any circumstances, have to either (1) edit a text config file by hand, or (2) use the command line.
No exceptions, no "most of the time" situation, no "power users only" weasel words. Config files and command lines are OK for developers, but not for mainstream users -- end of story.
I'll get flamed for it, but I speak the truth.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Not only is Windows not ready for the desktop but it is an insult to the intelligence and actually makes you stupid. Linux has been ready for my desktop for 12 years. It has been ready for my wife's desktop for 10 years. It has been ready for my sons' (aged 12 and 8) desktops for 10 and 6 years respectively. I'll admit that my family members are probably smarter than you but they are not geniuses. My wife got a new laptop 6 months ago so I left Windows XP on a partition for her so she could try it out. She hates it because it never behaves the same way twice and virus checking kills the machine.
First, I could see myself setting up a nice command-line Linux installation for my grandma if she were still around. Of course, she used to program Fortran on big UNIX boxes when I was still in preschool... (Yes, I got a chance to see some of those systems in action.)
A better example is what happened when I migrated my parents to Red Hat Linux 6.1 (back in 1999). They had been using Windows 95 at the time. I installed it, configured it, made sure everything they needed was accessible, and set it up next to their Windows system. The tech support calls practically stopped, and they started using the Linux system more than their Windows system.
Linux isn't hard to use. There are things people are not used to ("How come Comet Cursors doesn't work?") bit in general, non-techies I know who have made the jump are fairly unlikely to go back.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"Start your own company and do it yourself?" The market is saturated- there's already a large number of major OEM computer manufacturers.
But there are no companies that are selling support to a Linux distro on Dells. Here's how it plays out, in familiar slashdot formatting:
1: Pick several models of Dells
2: Pick your favorite Linux distro and get make an image tweaked for models in step 1
3: Sell support contracts for said install image to others whose favorite distro is the same as your
4: Maybe make a little profit but more likely spend half your time explaining why you picked distro X instead of Y and the other half of the time trying to figure out what when wrong when the users heavily modified and recompiled your carefully tweaked image in bizarre ways without admitting to doing so when they call for support.
Debian Etch:
aptitude install nvidia
OK, I could have used a GUI shell, but why make more work for myself?
Tech Public Policy stuff
If you want Windows to be user-friendly, one of the absolute must-haves is that the user must NEVER NEVER NEVER, under any circumstances:
Follow me
Unless you think configuring using the registry, the necessity of the installation of antivirus and firewalls (with all their arcane messages and terminology) and all what implies using a Windows machine is infused at birth.
Some folks around here seem to think that Windows is *naturally* easy.
I have got news for you guys, it isn't. But this is masked by the myriad of people mildly familiar with it.
Grandmas that are introduced to Linux as their first computing experienc (hi mum!) can cope perfectly well with the tool of the penguin, and people suggesting otherwise are patronizing ageists.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It matters because soon as a major PC manufacturer starts shipping machines without the Windows tax, we can finally get some real competition in the OS world (how ironic that if I want to try free Linux, I usually have to buy Windows - which comes with my PC - and I can't get a discount if I don't want Windows).
Basically - Dell don't offer it because - and I have to be careful here- Dell get a volume discount on the Windows licenses they preinstall. If they start to offer Linux, they'll fall into a lower discount level on Windows and suddenly be uncompetitive in the crucial Windows market.
My experience (in a slightly different sector) of such deals is that they always coincidentally have break points remarkably close to what happens when the reseller starts dealing with a competitor of the dominant vendor. Of course, MS cannot charge Dell more for Windows just because Dell happens to ship some Linux machines, but it can double the price of Windows if Dell falls below a certain sale volume - which they can vary any time they like.
The solution? Manufacturers could [be forced to] [by France?] publish the embedded cost of software which ships with each machine so MS shenanigans could be spotted, but I'm sure plenty of fellow readers will point out the impracticality of that. The alternative is whistle blowers...
My father is 76, he was programming back in 1965 on the BMEWS systems
Just because some of you have ignoramusses for parents and grandparents does not mean all parents and grandparents are clueless when it comes to IT...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
The obvious proof that it is difficult to set up a secure windows machine is the millions of Windows zombies on the net. If things were as rosy as you claim, we would not have this problem.
I'm not too sure your conclusion nesseceraily follows from your evidence. It could be easy to set up a secure Windows machine, but people might still not do it, for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps they are ignorant of the dangers posed, perhaps they just can't be bothered (I think ignorance is the most likely, by the way).
All I ever did to secure my windows machines was install Zone Alarm. It has a lovely, brightly coloured, non intimidating installation dialog, lets you choose your experience level, uses a minimum of jargon and automatically configures itself to allow standard stuff through (IE, Firefox, etc). It's as simple as anything I have ever installed.
In any case, any windows PC you buy nowadays ships with SP2, and will have a firewall turned on by default. Really, most malware is installed by end users intentionally, although not knowingly, when they download and install toolbars, smilies, P2P clients and the like. It is virtually impossible for the OS to protect the end user from this sort of thing, and Linux is no different in this regard.
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks