Keep him on. We as a group tend to distort things to fit our own model of reality, and I think that the more writers who are around to step outside this view give us a chance to receive new perspective. While Katz tends to write so that his audience likes him (something he hasn't quite got the hang of considering the reply posts), this guy seems to just write out what he has found.
As far as the Katz haters, I understand that he is trying to evangelize his works and that he is in fact "preaching to the choir." I didn't get a sense of evangelism from this one, so time will only tell if he will demean himself to that level. The general sense though around here is that we're geeks and we don't need preachy effects in articles, just plain, hard facts and numbers. We like those.
Well, well, I was amused at the comment by the one IP lawyer who was certain that this was just a fad. Apparently, he doesn't realize that the other software (spreadsheets, word processors, etc) that is needed to run on the operating system is free as well. Wonder if he knows his ISP runs Linux?
I don't want to sound too paranoid, but does it seem like the lawyers are just waiting to figure out how to deal with this cause celebre? The fed govt is already trying to figure out the taxing system for eCommerce (they want the biggest piece of the pie). We've got the morons passing laws on Y2K, and trying to figure out how to prosecute and defend the cases that are "inevitable". When do we let the suits know that that one is a hoax?;)
Btw, is it me or does anybody else realize we've still got nearly 49 years til Y2K (2K = 2048, right?)
Oh well, I just wanted to bitch about lawyers. Oh might as well stop and thank one of them though. Mr. Vice President, thank you for creating this forum so I could bitch about your fellow lawyers.
>The Open Source trend is important, but I'm not >convinced it's quite as profound as Mr. Perens >and others seem to believe it is.
Just a reminder, this "trend" was the de facto standard of development prior to the stricter licensing of *nix systems in the early-mid 80s.
>But it's definitely premature to predict that it >will ultimately lead to the death of "closed >source" software. Software exists primarily >because people have a use for it; open source >software exists primarily because its users have >a use for the code.
I agree, people have become accustomed to buying software that meets their needs. Even before closed source became the norm, software engineering firms existed that solved the problems of clients and gave the clients proprietary software. This is one of the primary methods of software engineering. The other, of course, is developing a product that has a certain demand in the market and attempting to make it meet the needs of the majority of consumers.
However, the numbers become important when you're talking one of two things. Money and usage. First I'll look at the money issue. This is the primary reason why open source makes more sense to more and more corporations. Bottom line, generally speaking open source often means free software (Now there's a hot issue.), but even when it doesn't it follows that a buy once rev many policy will follow.
Example: Let's say I must choose between NT * Server and an open source alternative. If I go with the NT solution, I must purchase the software and along with it, hire someone who can make it work. Microsoft did the IT profession a service when creating the MCSE because now once I'm certified, I can charge more. Now, if I choose the open source solution, I pay a minimal amount (compared to the NT solution) and I don't have to hire someone who has the MCSE added to his resume.
What about the usage? What I mean by usage here is not the general usage, but I guess usability and the ease at topping the learning curve. Right now, I have Mandrake 5.3 on my system as well as a more obscure OS from Redmond. I dual boot, that's life. Why do I do this? Because I'm still learning my Linux and I need a "reliable" system. MS reliable? No, not on your life, but for my needs right now, yes. I haven't gone about hunting down the elusive geek who actually does know how to set up Linux for dialup at school. And I've still got some revs to do to my system before I really want to anyway. So, I need it for connectivity. Personally, I jump over to the Linux partition when I need to do some coding for class, whatever. I've found that I can do some of my own revisions easily by reading the Howtos (what a novel idea, and that these are easily accessible to the average joe on the net. hmm...) In other words, besides the difficult stuff, patience pays off and reading before you leap is the best lesson I've learned. Soon enough, I'll be revving my kernel with the best, something I could never do with the other OS. I can make what I have meet my needs, in other words, and if it's not meeting them, I don't have to wait for a patch or whatever. Therefore usage is met.
Now, the big kahuna of it all. Open vs. closed, do they meet your needs? That's the meat of this argument, right? Well, for now, there are more solutions on a closed os from redmond than the open one from around the globe. But I have a feeling that the end of the ms era was at hand even without the DOJ. IBM held it for 25+ years, then a little upstart came along. It's been about 20 years that that little upstart has been running things, and 20 = 25+ these days what with web speed and all being accounted for.
Solutions are coming, because more problem solvers are turning to open source. The best idea I've seen in this whole new age is the idea that in closed source, the wheel is reinvented too many times and no progress is made. With an open view of the wheel, more ideas are bound to flow.
Okay, he's right. Linux does not have off the shelf apps. I can't go to my Best Buy and get the latest version of Oracle for Linux in a box. But I've got one coming anyway.
The fact is, many apps for MS are installed the same way the Linux world does it. Primary apps like Oracle and WP are ordered on CD, and you as the IT of your own little computer base install it for better or worse. How many non-IT people ever install large packages for their corporation?
The smaller apps are downloaded, unzipped, (we've got an extra step), then installed. Anyone using the web and MS will say that a lot of their apps were installed that way. Netscape (don't have to unzip it), MSIE (download cabs? those are zipped files right?), etc. The fact of the matter is that the distribution model of going to a reseller is crumbling in this industry. You don't go to Best Buy, you go direct to Dell for your computer. You don't go to Circuit City, you go direct to the software team. MS is perpetuating the old model, as well as the hardware periphery companies, to help those companies that have been forced to be the grunts of their monopoly.
I bought my computer at Best Buy, for an immediate solution and knowledge that my warranty would be void the moment I got home. I opened this bitch up and started with the upgrades and tearing apart. I recently painted the thing. I didn't go to Best Buy because I was too stupid to build one, nor go to Dell because I wanted custom. I needed both of those solutions, but I needed them fast, so I compromised and got a fairly decent computer, never mind the OS (that comes off easy, hmm... fdisk or format... fdisk, I'll have to do it sooner or later.)
Big corporations can look to Linux, because the apps are there, and their IT people know how to go about getting them and putting them on. Muth just has lost touch with the IT group at ms. Linux is only run by the IT group, and a few well trained individuals. None of us started out gurus, and the learning curve is equally steep for all OS for a novice. I just hate the fact that MS increases the learning curve by putting out a shoddy system that does it all for you, too much goes on behind the scenes and people just adopt the "as long as it works" attitude. I have noticed that the Linux community has the attitude, "as long as it works, alright, but when it fails then what..." Well, ms says reboot, reinstall, reformat. Linux actually lets you recover without those extremes in most cases and most of the time you can do it without the extreme of reboot and reformat. Why, because we already know the frustration that computers cause us in the programming phase. I think we look at our users, or at least should, in the respect that this is a computer, it is not a toy. If you want to treat it like a toy, use ms. After that people will begin to understand that blue screens of death and the like are what's to be expected of an operating system that doesn't understand its customer base, except to treat them as the lowest common denominator.
Basically, that's why the world is getting more stupid, because no one is forced to learn, and that makes everyone but the true lovers of knowledge happy. The day I stop learning is the day I take my last breath. How many dead people do you know today?
but I like the ergo from MS. I was in fact using it (good luck finding any ergos without that annoying Win key combo.) but I was inspired to paint my computer and I decided to return to my ole 101.
Some of you, rightfully so, have recognized that there are certain spokespeople for the movement. But there is no galvanizing figure. Sure, Linus is the head of state for Linux, and Stallman runs his group, while ESR provides rhetoric for his followers. But there is no galvanizing figure. bill is the galvanizing figure for m$, we all know that, we call him by name. steve is the galvanizing figure for mac, another first name. larry, the other steve, are two other names we all know, because they take it upon themselves to be known.
Who galvanizes this group? Linus doesn't want the job, and instead we have petty bickering between stalwart proponents of more or less the same ideal. Linus doesn't want the job because he has successfully figured out how to live a fulfilling life. It is important to remember that it is this community that has become over-zealous (not particularly all of us zealots) in sealing m$' doom. Face it, we're not going to nail the coffin shut. Microsoft couldn't do it to IBM, we're not going to do it to m$. But we can revolutionize the expectations of computers.
ITs expect their systems to run, and they choose the systems that will ensure that. The focus should be on the consumer, because that's what we all would like to see, right? "Linux on every desktop," sounds like the old campaign promise, "A chicken in every pot." The motivation is right, change the expectations of all users.
The fact of the matter is that I didn't choose to go to Linux because of Linus, Eric, Richard, or Bruce. These names were insignificant until only a few months ago. I chose it because I had higher expectations. The beliefs of any of those last three in the list are more on the side of the developer's own work, and not in galvanizing the ideal for using "free" software. It is always important to remember the reason why you're here, that way you don't get lost.
Why are we here? Because some Finn took an operating systems class and wanted to improve the functionality of Minix. The Andrews would not let him change it (because they had a reason for the way it was), so instead he worked on a new system based on it. The reason why we're here is because we are the people who hate to see bad code, so we give advice on how to fix it. Follow the advice of Linus and use it because you need a *nix to run on your pc, and forget the rhetoric of fighting the war. I've always found that if I concentrate on what I should be focused on, the war wins itself. Win the battle first.
Finally, I need to explain why I have used "galvanizing" so much in this reply. The process of galvanization makes your metal much stronger, it makes your sword less likely to break during the battle. With one figurehead, there is but one true ideal. Everyone is entitled to their own innovative translation of that ideal, but in the end, only the figurehead provides the true embodiment. Whether the ideal is right is best left undetermined. You can't win an argument with a zealot of either side. Stop fighting those battles, and get back to reality.
I've said my fair share here, but it is something that should be realized. In the words of my favorite professor this semester (Yes, he is a cs prof.), "This isn't about software. We're in the entertainment business, y'all. It is all about the marketing." Get back to reality and maarket the hell out of this thing.
Oh come on, your generalizations make me sick. Take a look at Linus, he's married. What's his claim to fame? Developing a free OS for christ's sake! He's not seeing penny one from this thing, because penny one doesn't exist (Distros don't count, because penny one goes into bundling and CD production costs). Yes, he has a job @ Transmeta. I bet a lot of these geeks who live healthy lives have jobs in the RW. I have a job in the RW, I go to school, I hack around on the box, and I have a beautiful gf (former ballet dancer, who gave me a beautiful picture of herself modeling for a professional photographer). What about my looks? I'd say that yeah, i'm a little pale (but so are most other redheads), and yeah I've got thick glasses (but I've been watching radiation for 16 years), but, if you saw me at the mall, you'd probably not notice because I'd be with my gf or group of non-geek friends and guess what I'd be behaving under standard social norms. Just because there are some people who enjoy hacking to a point of obsession doesn't mean we all do. And to those of you who do, great, you guys are the ones who come up with some of the cool little apps that I like so much. IOW, us geeks are as diverse as any other group, just happens that a lot of us (including the less presentable in your opinion) decided to have a good old fashioned protest.
No, I haven't read my copy of the EULA today, nor will I, because I do some of my work in that ghastly m$OS. Nonetheless, I do believe that if it has been accurately stated, the users are entitled to refunds. It's kind of like a car's 3-year, 30,000 mile warranty. During that period you're entitled to technical support, and replacement of faulty parts for little to no charge (I'm not sure, never been fortunate enough to have a new car). So, you go to your dealer and they contact Ford or Dodge or whoever. Ford or Dodge or whoever then contacts you (if I remember the protocol that I've seen my dad go through in the past). Well, I have a feeling that the industry here just doesn't work that way.
Well, what to do then? I imagine 40 hyenas could take down a lion, why not 100s of penguins attacking an elephant? The user went to his dealer, said "This part (m$OS) is faulty, I want to get rid of it and put in a better part (Linux, etc.)" The dealer says the contract doesn't work that way, but enough of you EULA readers say it does. There will be lawyers looking into this (they may not have contacted you yet, because they're more precise in their attacks) because there are already enough lawyers who smell blood on m$.
The arguments about ppl wanting a computer without m$ on it going out and building it themselves is totally off topic. I want a car that can go over 100 mph and get me chicks, and if I have a resource to go to, I'll buy from them. Now I want a kickin' stereo as well, maybe a new mp3 player for my car. My car's under warranty, take in the radio and return it. It's a part I don't want. Unfortunately with that analogy, there's no plastic wrapper on the radio, they're not going to take it. There is a plastic wrapper on your OS. I want a computer that will let me gib the idiots who think that this whole "point of attack" is ridiculous. And I want to gib them without them ever seeing me. Yeah, I can build my own computer, just as a mechanic builds his own car, but most mechanics just soup up their machines, and some of us just are too busy for (or too tired of) building computers, that we just want to soup the box up.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you refunders, because I believe that knowledge and freedom of thought are two things that everyone is entitled to. Just that most people don't like to exercise theirs. Props to all of y'all.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep him on. We as a group tend to distort things to fit our own model of reality, and I think that the more writers who are around to step outside this view give us a chance to receive new perspective. While Katz tends to write so that his audience likes him (something he hasn't quite got the hang of considering the reply posts), this guy seems to just write out what he has found.
As far as the Katz haters, I understand that he is trying to evangelize his works and that he is in fact "preaching to the choir." I didn't get a sense of evangelism from this one, so time will only tell if he will demean himself to that level. The general sense though around here is that we're geeks and we don't need preachy effects in articles, just plain, hard facts and numbers. We like those.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
PsychoSpunk
Well, well, I was amused at the comment by the one IP lawyer who was certain that this was just a fad. Apparently, he doesn't realize that the other software (spreadsheets, word processors, etc) that is needed to run on the operating system is free as well. Wonder if he knows his ISP runs Linux?
;)
I don't want to sound too paranoid, but does it seem like the lawyers are just waiting to figure out how to deal with this cause celebre? The fed govt is already trying to figure out the taxing system for eCommerce (they want the biggest piece of the pie). We've got the morons passing laws on Y2K, and trying to figure out how to prosecute and defend the cases that are "inevitable". When do we let the suits know that that one is a hoax?
Btw, is it me or does anybody else realize we've still got nearly 49 years til Y2K (2K = 2048, right?)
Oh well, I just wanted to bitch about lawyers. Oh might as well stop and thank one of them though. Mr. Vice President, thank you for creating this forum so I could bitch about your fellow lawyers.
PsychoSpunk
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!!
>The Open Source trend is important, but I'm not >convinced it's quite as profound as Mr. Perens >and others seem to believe it is.
Just a reminder, this "trend" was the de facto standard of development prior to the stricter licensing of *nix systems in the early-mid 80s.
>But it's definitely premature to predict that it >will ultimately lead to the death of "closed >source" software. Software exists primarily >because people have a use for it; open source >software exists primarily because its users have >a use for the code.
I agree, people have become accustomed to buying software that meets their needs. Even before closed source became the norm, software engineering firms existed that solved the problems of clients and gave the clients proprietary software. This is one of the primary methods of software engineering. The other, of course, is developing a product that has a certain demand in the market and attempting to make it meet the needs of the majority of consumers.
However, the numbers become important when you're talking one of two things. Money and usage. First I'll look at the money issue. This is the primary reason why open source makes more sense to more and more corporations. Bottom line, generally speaking open source often means free software (Now there's a hot issue.), but even when it doesn't it follows that a buy once rev many policy will follow.
Example: Let's say I must choose between NT * Server and an open source alternative. If I go with the NT solution, I must purchase the software and along with it, hire someone who can make it work. Microsoft did the IT profession a service when creating the MCSE because now once I'm certified, I can charge more. Now, if I choose the open source solution, I pay a minimal amount (compared to the NT solution) and I don't have to hire someone who has the MCSE added to his resume.
What about the usage? What I mean by usage here is not the general usage, but I guess usability and the ease at topping the learning curve. Right now, I have Mandrake 5.3 on my system as well as a more obscure OS from Redmond. I dual boot, that's life. Why do I do this? Because I'm still learning my Linux and I need a "reliable" system. MS reliable? No, not on your life, but for my needs right now, yes. I haven't gone about hunting down the elusive geek who actually does know how to set up Linux for dialup at school. And I've still got some revs to do to my system before I really want to anyway. So, I need it for connectivity. Personally, I jump over to the Linux partition when I need to do some coding for class, whatever. I've found that I can do some of my own revisions easily by reading the Howtos (what a novel idea, and that these are easily accessible to the average joe on the net. hmm...) In other words, besides the difficult stuff, patience pays off and reading before you leap is the best lesson I've learned. Soon enough, I'll be revving my kernel with the best, something I could never do with the other OS. I can make what I have meet my needs, in other words, and if it's not meeting them, I don't have to wait for a patch or whatever. Therefore usage is met.
Now, the big kahuna of it all. Open vs. closed, do they meet your needs? That's the meat of this argument, right? Well, for now, there are more solutions on a closed os from redmond than the open one from around the globe. But I have a feeling that the end of the ms era was at hand even without the DOJ. IBM held it for 25+ years, then a little upstart came along. It's been about 20 years that that little upstart has been running things, and 20 = 25+ these days what with web speed and all being accounted for.
Solutions are coming, because more problem solvers are turning to open source. The best idea I've seen in this whole new age is the idea that in closed source, the wheel is reinvented too many times and no progress is made. With an open view of the wheel, more ideas are bound to flow.
Okay, he's right. Linux does not have off the shelf apps. I can't go to my Best Buy and get the latest version of Oracle for Linux in a box. But I've got one coming anyway.
The fact is, many apps for MS are installed the same way the Linux world does it. Primary apps like Oracle and WP are ordered on CD, and you as the IT of your own little computer base install it for better or worse. How many non-IT people ever install large packages for their corporation?
The smaller apps are downloaded, unzipped, (we've got an extra step), then installed. Anyone using the web and MS will say that a lot of their apps were installed that way. Netscape (don't have to unzip it), MSIE (download cabs? those are zipped files right?), etc. The fact of the matter is that the distribution model of going to a reseller is crumbling in this industry. You don't go to Best Buy, you go direct to Dell for your computer. You don't go to Circuit City, you go direct to the software team. MS is perpetuating the old model, as well as the hardware periphery companies, to help those companies that have been forced to be the grunts of their monopoly.
I bought my computer at Best Buy, for an immediate solution and knowledge that my warranty would be void the moment I got home. I opened this bitch up and started with the upgrades and tearing apart. I recently painted the thing. I didn't go to Best Buy because I was too stupid to build one, nor go to Dell because I wanted custom. I needed both of those solutions, but I needed them fast, so I compromised and got a fairly decent computer, never mind the OS (that comes off easy, hmm... fdisk or format... fdisk, I'll have to do it sooner or later.)
Big corporations can look to Linux, because the apps are there, and their IT people know how to go about getting them and putting them on. Muth just has lost touch with the IT group at ms. Linux is only run by the IT group, and a few well trained individuals. None of us started out gurus, and the learning curve is equally steep for all OS for a novice. I just hate the fact that MS increases the learning curve by putting out a shoddy system that does it all for you, too much goes on behind the scenes and people just adopt the "as long as it works" attitude. I have noticed that the Linux community has the attitude, "as long as it works, alright, but when it fails then what..." Well, ms says reboot, reinstall, reformat. Linux actually lets you recover without those extremes in most cases and most of the time you can do it without the extreme of reboot and reformat. Why, because we already know the frustration that computers cause us in the programming phase. I think we look at our users, or at least should, in the respect that this is a computer, it is not a toy. If you want to treat it like a toy, use ms. After that people will begin to understand that blue screens of death and the like are what's to be expected of an operating system that doesn't understand its customer base, except to treat them as the lowest common denominator.
Basically, that's why the world is getting more stupid, because no one is forced to learn, and that makes everyone but the true lovers of knowledge happy. The day I stop learning is the day I take my last breath. How many dead people do you know today?
but I like the ergo from MS. I was in fact using it (good luck finding any ergos without that annoying Win key combo.) but I was inspired to paint my computer and I decided to return to my ole 101.
Some of you, rightfully so, have recognized that there are certain spokespeople for the movement. But there is no galvanizing figure. Sure, Linus is the head of state for Linux, and Stallman runs his group, while ESR provides rhetoric for his followers. But there is no galvanizing figure. bill is the galvanizing figure for m$, we all know that, we call him by name. steve is the galvanizing figure for mac, another first name. larry, the other steve, are two other names we all know, because they take it upon themselves to be known.
Who galvanizes this group? Linus doesn't want the job, and instead we have petty bickering between stalwart proponents of more or less the same ideal. Linus doesn't want the job because he has successfully figured out how to live a fulfilling life. It is important to remember that it is this community that has become over-zealous (not particularly all of us zealots) in sealing m$' doom. Face it, we're not going to nail the coffin shut. Microsoft couldn't do it to IBM, we're not going to do it to m$. But we can revolutionize the expectations of computers.
ITs expect their systems to run, and they choose the systems that will ensure that. The focus should be on the consumer, because that's what we all would like to see, right? "Linux on every desktop," sounds like the old campaign promise, "A chicken in every pot." The motivation is right, change the expectations of all users.
The fact of the matter is that I didn't choose to go to Linux because of Linus, Eric, Richard, or Bruce. These names were insignificant until only a few months ago. I chose it because I had higher expectations. The beliefs of any of those last three in the list are more on the side of the developer's own work, and not in galvanizing the ideal for using "free" software. It is always important to remember the reason why you're here, that way you don't get lost.
Why are we here? Because some Finn took an operating systems class and wanted to improve the functionality of Minix. The Andrews would not let him change it (because they had a reason for the way it was), so instead he worked on a new system based on it. The reason why we're here is because we are the people who hate to see bad code, so we give advice on how to fix it. Follow the advice of Linus and use it because you need a *nix to run on your pc, and forget the rhetoric of fighting the war. I've always found that if I concentrate on what I should be focused on, the war wins itself. Win the battle first.
Finally, I need to explain why I have used "galvanizing" so much in this reply. The process of galvanization makes your metal much stronger, it makes your sword less likely to break during the battle. With one figurehead, there is but one true ideal. Everyone is entitled to their own innovative translation of that ideal, but in the end, only the figurehead provides the true embodiment. Whether the ideal is right is best left undetermined. You can't win an argument with a zealot of either side. Stop fighting those battles, and get back to reality.
I've said my fair share here, but it is something that should be realized. In the words of my favorite professor this semester (Yes, he is a cs prof.), "This isn't about software. We're in the entertainment business, y'all. It is all about the marketing." Get back to reality and maarket the hell out of this thing.
Oh come on, your generalizations make me sick. Take a look at Linus, he's married. What's his claim to fame? Developing a free OS for christ's sake! He's not seeing penny one from this thing, because penny one doesn't exist (Distros don't count, because penny one goes into bundling and CD production costs). Yes, he has a job @ Transmeta. I bet a lot of these geeks who live healthy lives have jobs in the RW. I have a job in the RW, I go to school, I hack around on the box, and I have a beautiful gf (former ballet dancer, who gave me a beautiful picture of herself modeling for a professional photographer). What about my looks? I'd say that yeah, i'm a little pale (but so are most other redheads), and yeah I've got thick glasses (but I've been watching radiation for 16 years), but, if you saw me at the mall, you'd probably not notice because I'd be with my gf or group of non-geek friends and guess what I'd be behaving under standard social norms. Just because there are some people who enjoy hacking to a point of obsession doesn't mean we all do. And to those of you who do, great, you guys are the ones who come up with some of the cool little apps that I like so much. IOW, us geeks are as diverse as any other group, just happens that a lot of us (including the less presentable in your opinion) decided to have a good old fashioned protest.
No, I haven't read my copy of the EULA today, nor will I, because I do some of my work in that ghastly m$OS. Nonetheless, I do believe that if it has been accurately stated, the users are entitled to refunds. It's kind of like a car's 3-year, 30,000 mile warranty. During that period you're entitled to technical support, and replacement of faulty parts for little to no charge (I'm not sure, never been fortunate enough to have a new car). So, you go to your dealer and they contact Ford or Dodge or whoever. Ford or Dodge or whoever then contacts you (if I remember the protocol that I've seen my dad go through in the past). Well, I have a feeling that the industry here just doesn't work that way.
Well, what to do then? I imagine 40 hyenas could take down a lion, why not 100s of penguins attacking an elephant? The user went to his dealer, said "This part (m$OS) is faulty, I want to get rid of it and put in a better part (Linux, etc.)" The dealer says the contract doesn't work that way, but enough of you EULA readers say it does. There will be lawyers looking into this (they may not have contacted you yet, because they're more precise in their attacks) because there are already enough lawyers who smell blood on m$.
The arguments about ppl wanting a computer without m$ on it going out and building it themselves is totally off topic. I want a car that can go over 100 mph and get me chicks, and if I have a resource to go to, I'll buy from them. Now I want a kickin' stereo as well, maybe a new mp3 player for my car. My car's under warranty, take in the radio and return it. It's a part I don't want. Unfortunately with that analogy, there's no plastic wrapper on the radio, they're not going to take it. There is a plastic wrapper on your OS. I want a computer that will let me gib the idiots who think that this whole "point of attack" is ridiculous. And I want to gib them without them ever seeing me. Yeah, I can build my own computer, just as a mechanic builds his own car, but most mechanics just soup up their machines, and some of us just are too busy for (or too tired of) building computers, that we just want to soup the box up.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you refunders, because I believe that knowledge and freedom of thought are two things that everyone is entitled to. Just that most people don't like to exercise theirs. Props to all of y'all.