Ah, I see my problem now. It works just fine under Linux and FreeBSD, but those command line options are horribly broken on this Solaris build I got. If there was some documentation somewhere, I could have figured it out. But docs aren't for newbies, so I should have known.
I'm paying $49 for Earthlink DSL, and typically get 1.5Mbps, except on those days when Earthlink says nothing is wrong and then I only get 9Kbps. And everyone in the world blocks your address. It sucks.
But that's America. Home of the megacorp. We didn't invent it, but we improved it. If you want Broadband here in the middle of Silicon Valley you either have to go with some frickin huge corporation that hires mandrills to admin the network and baboons to answer the phone. If you're not running their current favorite version of Windows, they won't even talk to you on the phone, so you have to lie.
I'd go with someone else, but Earthlink has me locked into another nine months on the contract I never signed, which they say I agreed to by using software which I have never used. But even If I got out of it the only other choices are Monopoly A (AT&T), Monopoly B (Pacific Bell), or the Three Stooges (Larry, Curly and Moe).
Oh that's it! Just go embarrass me in front of the whole world why don't you!
Did I confuse this with Netscape6 or an earlier Mozilla release? I don't know. But I do recall one where that didn't work under Windows, and it was extremely annoying.
Oh well, if CmdrTaco can get away with not being able to spell, I can get away with sticking my foot in my mouth.
You can't sit down someone who has never touched a computer and expect them to be able to use Windows.
To someone absolutely new to computing, a funny menu organized in an illogical manner that pops up strange windows on your screen when you try to manipulate the blasted mouse that is the epitome of bad ergonomics, can be just as difficult as the command line.
No, nobody is going to remember all those strange Unix commands, let alone all their options. I sure don't. But do you know where every option is in every dialog of every program in Windows? Hah! It's quicker for me to use a man page in Unix and find my answer than trying to find that stupid checkbox in MSSnafuPlus that I need.
But how many technophobic users would never install software by reading the README, unzipping the files, and putting them in the proper places?
Interesting. That's what I thought two weeks ago. Then I entered the real world.
I ported a homebrewing program from Unix to Windows. It's in a zip file, and the README says to unzip to the desired location, and link the.exe to the desktop for an icon. I was worried for a while that even that would be too complicated for a Windows user. But then I realized that if someone couldn't do even that, then they have no business being around boiling wort in the first place:-)
Make it easy, yes. Make it simplistic, no. Dumb it down, no.
Unfortunately, too many of the people in charge of specing out software don't understand the difference. Mozilla isn't too bad, and it certainly kicks IE's butt, but I really would like a command line option to specify mail or browser, so I can have two different icons on my desktop, one for mail and one for browser. It doesn't have to be complicated. Maybe that option is there, but I haven't found it yet through trial and error, reading the documentation, or consulting with Miss Cleo.
What's harder? Having the distribution/installer set up these icons once, or having the use always start a browser to send an email?
I'm not picking on Mozilla. It's really great, and that problem is extremely minor. But it's typical of a lot of software. Because someone decided that the command line is evil, all the intermediate and advanced users are penalized because the newbie might, just might, discover that there's a command line option to start the mail client and run away screaming in terror.
for the average end user typing anything at all is too much work
That probably explains why I don't like Windows. But it doesn't explain why a significant number of Mac users think that finally having a command line is a Good Thing(tm).
I will agree that arcane command options are difficult. I can't even remember them for the apps I use every day. But at some point you have to draw the line and say "you have to be at least this intelligent to use Unix." That's not elitism, that reality. Until hardware and software reaches some mythical perfection, there will always come a time when the user will encounter a problem not addressed in the five page glossy cardstock entitled "how to use your computer".
An initiative that focuses on slicker installation procedures for OSS (which they would have to do if they want to be taken seriously by less than geeky types) will benefit the entire field of OSS development.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them and they all stink. So here's mine.
I think the package management tools for several Linux distros (and other free unices) are far superior to the InstallShit crap that Windows users are used to. t's far easier to click "install" than to click "install" and have to answer a thousand questions afterwards, reboot twice, and deal with corrupted registries.
Package managers will need good front ends, good package descriptions, and possibly a way to force commercial EULA's on the hapless. But other than that I don't see what else is needed. The only reason Windows has these silly installers in the first place is to deal with the registry and locked files.
Go look at how the typical Mac user installs software. InstallShield programs are far from ubiquitious in Mac land, yet the Mac is still considered easier than Windows. Go figure.
BSD software is mostly hand-me-downs from other projects.
You need to get a clue and find out what BSD really is. BSD predates Linux and GNU. BSD is more Unix than most systems that can claim that trademark.
On the other hand, did you realize that the original (unofficial) logo for Linux was the platypus? That's because Linux was, and is, a patchwork of of "hand-me-downs from other projects". It's a kernel from one project, binutils and libc from another, daemons from a third, filesystems from others, etc. And glue from the distros to hold it all together.
On the third hand, FreeBSD is a complete integrated OS. Everything from the OS to the shell is one complete source tree. Some of the stuff is contributed, of course, like tcsh and gcc, but the vast majority of it is pure BSD software.
The point is that no major software emanates from FreeBSD - none.
FreeBSD does not claim or want to be a clearinghouse for every open source project under the sun. Neither does Linus Torvalds for that matter.
Your silly rant is puerile. You're like some kid shouting that your dad can beat my dad up. The actual fact is that every project that you mentioned as major contributors from every distro and freenix out there. Including FreeBSD. You would be surprised at how many Gnome and KDE developers use FreeBSD.
p.s. Redhat doesn't own GCC. The FSF owns GCC. Go look at the copyright.
Gnome is not a Linux program. Mozilla is not a Linux program. Gimp is not a Linux program. They all run just fine under FreeBSD.
GCC, bash, XFree86, tar, Perl, Windowmaker, etc, etc, etc, aren't Linux programs either. They're all Open Source Unix programs that work just fine under just about every Unix OS there is.
Buzzword bandwagon? What the fsck are you talking about? C++ has been around for about two decades! It's been around longer than Linux and Windows. I think it even predates GNU by a few years.
Sheesh. Next thing you know you'll be complaining about all these people jumping on the ANSI C bandwagon instead of sticking to K&R.
Regardless of what anyone may tell you, C++ is still C. If you can do it in C you can do it in C++ just as fast.
The advantages of the STL sort over any comparable C sort, is that the former has a generic interface with a specific implementation produced at compile time. You just can't do this in C (yet).
In order to get a generic sort in C, you have to use void* somewhere. That casting is going to slow you down ever so slightly. Imagine you can write a sort algorithm specifically dedicated to sorting lists of MyStruct's. In order to make this algorithm work with YourStruct's you have to create a virtually identical algorithm that merely replaces "MyStruct" with "YourStruct".
That is *exactly* what the STL does!
The disadvantage of the generic STL sort is that you can't tune for your data. But the same disadvantage applies to your generic C sort with void pointers. To balance this out somewhat, you also have the ability to specialize sort.
You might want to take a look at the EULA from M$ and see if they allow the transfer of operating system.
Who says he's going to transfer anything? These are upgrades. The EULA may specify it being tied to a specific CPU, but if it doesn't, I dont' see the problem. These will still be the same machines.
If all else fails, just keep the original CPU and glue it to the inside of the case:-)
I recently ported a X11/Qt application of mine to Windows. Because Qt is crossplatform, and I had extremely few unixisms, I expected no problems.
The Qt stuff was completely effortless. The unixisms were simplicity. All that was kind of stuff was done in five minutes.
But porting code that works under gcc-2.95.3 to Visual C++ 6.0 took about an hour. I wasn't using any GNU extensions. All of my code was ISO Standard C++. But VCPP choked on quite a bit of it. One example: if you declare a counter variable in a for loop, it remains defined until the end of the function, and not just until the end of the block.
As I said, I heard the explanation third hand. Next time I'm down to see my friend, I'll stop by that shop and ask the tech for the whole skinny. I'm suspecting that the boot sector got corrupted, and it didn't really have anything to do with Linus versus Bill.
Weird story. I got this third hand, but I plan to see for myself next time I visit my friend.
His kid's computer, which I built, and installed dual-boot WinME and Slackware, was having problems booting into Windows. Windows was on one drive, and Linux on the other. Lilo was set to dual boot, with Windows as the default. He tried reinstalling Windows but he was unable to. When he called me, I said it sounded like the harddrive was going out. So he took it into the local shop, and they found nothing wrong with any of the hardware.
From what the tech told him, LILO was preventing Windows from operating. He did a DOS fdisk/mbr, and everything worked. Sounds to me like LILO was giving Windows some of it's own medicine:-)
If licenses are really contracts (like everyone from RMS to Bill Gates say they are), then why do they need to see them? It would be like your landlord demanding to see your rental agreement, or your insurance agent going all nasty on you and demanding to see your insurance policy.
If it's a legally valid contract, then the manufacturer will already have a copy of the license and already possess proof of your assent. It seems to me that if they even have to ask to see the license, then it can't be contract.
p.s. Can you be in breach of contract for not agreeing to the contract?
Probably the best of both worlds. It's pure Unix underneath, command line and arcane parameters and all the other gory details. On top it's a slick interface with a hell of a lot of usability work put into it. But one is not stuck with one or the other.
The Mac user is a different breed than the Windows user. Everyone talks about how the Mac is easier than Windows, but Mac users, in my experience, have a higher tolerance for complexity than Windows users. I'm not quite sure of the reason for this, but I suspect that it derives from the overall design of their systems (pre OSX included). One example is how their respective applications are installed. Under Windows you just about have to use InstallShield or some other installation wrapper to deal with a single global registry, locked DLLs, adding menu entries to the start button, installing and uninstaller, putting a shortcut on the desktop, etc. Under Mac you just unarchive the package where you want it and it works.
What you're saying is simpler=dumbed down? Is the automatic transmission of a car "dumbed down"? If I use "apt-get" to grab something instead of downloading the source and running "make install," is that dumbed down as well?
You've misunderstood me. Computers are complex not simple. There is no way to make them simple. Any attempt to make them simple will only result in the complexity being hidden, not removed. Ease of use is different, in that it "streamlines" the complexity to make it easier to deal with.
A good analogy is yours: automatic transmissions. Automatic transmissions are *more* complex than manual transmissions. But designed correctly, they are also easier to use than manual transmissions. The complexity is still there, but it's been shifted over to the auto mechanic instead of the user.
There are the equivalent of auto mechanics of computers. They're called sysadmins. Problem is, hardly anyone utilizes them. Compare Windows with the support of a good MCSE with any brand of Unix with a good sysadmin. Suddenly Windows doesn't necessarily win the usability race. KDE and Gnome start to look pretty damn good. In my opinion, if you take away the hassle of installing, configuring and maintaining the system, Linux/BSD/Unix with KDE or Gnome is superior to Windows in the usability department.
My problem isn't so much that people aren't willing to learn about their computer, it's that those who aren't willing to learn about it insist on doing their own installation, configuration and maintenance. My Mom thinks computers are easy, because I am always around to empty her trashcan when she gets a "filesystem full" error". I know other people who have sold their computer and stopped computing entirely for similar error messages that they never could figure out.
Unix may not be ready for the home user's desktop, because the home user isn't willing to pay for support. But it is ready for the corporate desktop, which already has its own support department.
Usually I start X with "startx."
At the risk of sounding sarcastic: is that really so difficult?
I would love to completely abandon Windows for Linux or *BSD, but it's just not feasible right now.
I remember when I got rid of my TV. For about six weeks I was in sheer panic mode. Only my impoverished status at the time prevented me from buying another. But after those six weeks I experienced this wonderful sense of freedom. Ditto for getting rid of Windows. Oh, I still have it around for a few games (and to figure out what my Mom is talking about when she calls me for her free support). But the freedom of actually being in control of your hardware and software is worth it.
I hear that people who switch to manual transmissions get the same feeling as well after their initial panic wears off.
Slashdot Mirror
d) Americans just can't handle voting systems.
Florida retirees in plaid bermudas can't handle voting systems. The rest of the country can manage just fine.
The problem is rather that people aren't taught to think critically.
That's a very important point. And it goes far beyond science.
Politics: I can't understand that issue, but I like my candidate's hair...
Religion: I've never studied the Bible, but my preacher says...
Dieting: My neighbor took this pill and started jogging, and lost 25 pounds. I had better get that pill too...
Computers: The browser crashes everytime I go to that webpage. This Linux thing sucks...
Ah, I see my problem now. It works just fine under Linux and FreeBSD, but those command line options are horribly broken on this Solaris build I got. If there was some documentation somewhere, I could have figured it out. But docs aren't for newbies, so I should have known.
I'm paying $49 for Earthlink DSL, and typically get 1.5Mbps, except on those days when Earthlink says nothing is wrong and then I only get 9Kbps. And everyone in the world blocks your address. It sucks.
But that's America. Home of the megacorp. We didn't invent it, but we improved it. If you want Broadband here in the middle of Silicon Valley you either have to go with some frickin huge corporation that hires mandrills to admin the network and baboons to answer the phone. If you're not running their current favorite version of Windows, they won't even talk to you on the phone, so you have to lie.
I'd go with someone else, but Earthlink has me locked into another nine months on the contract I never signed, which they say I agreed to by using software which I have never used. But even If I got out of it the only other choices are Monopoly A (AT&T), Monopoly B (Pacific Bell), or the Three Stooges (Larry, Curly and Moe).
Oh that's it! Just go embarrass me in front of the whole world why don't you!
Did I confuse this with Netscape6 or an earlier Mozilla release? I don't know. But I do recall one where that didn't work under Windows, and it was extremely annoying.
Oh well, if CmdrTaco can get away with not being able to spell, I can get away with sticking my foot in my mouth.
You can't sit down someone who has never touched a computer and expect them to be able to use Windows.
To someone absolutely new to computing, a funny menu organized in an illogical manner that pops up strange windows on your screen when you try to manipulate the blasted mouse that is the epitome of bad ergonomics, can be just as difficult as the command line.
No, nobody is going to remember all those strange Unix commands, let alone all their options. I sure don't. But do you know where every option is in every dialog of every program in Windows? Hah! It's quicker for me to use a man page in Unix and find my answer than trying to find that stupid checkbox in MSSnafuPlus that I need.
But how many technophobic users would never install software by reading the README, unzipping the files, and putting them in the proper places?
.exe to the desktop for an icon. I was worried for a while that even that would be too complicated for a Windows user. But then I realized that if someone couldn't do even that, then they have no business being around boiling wort in the first place :-)
Interesting. That's what I thought two weeks ago. Then I entered the real world.
I ported a homebrewing program from Unix to Windows. It's in a zip file, and the README says to unzip to the desired location, and link the
Make it easy, yes. Make it simplistic, no. Dumb it down, no.
Unfortunately, too many of the people in charge of specing out software don't understand the difference. Mozilla isn't too bad, and it certainly kicks IE's butt, but I really would like a command line option to specify mail or browser, so I can have two different icons on my desktop, one for mail and one for browser. It doesn't have to be complicated. Maybe that option is there, but I haven't found it yet through trial and error, reading the documentation, or consulting with Miss Cleo.
What's harder? Having the distribution/installer set up these icons once, or having the use always start a browser to send an email?
I'm not picking on Mozilla. It's really great, and that problem is extremely minor. But it's typical of a lot of software. Because someone decided that the command line is evil, all the intermediate and advanced users are penalized because the newbie might, just might, discover that there's a command line option to start the mail client and run away screaming in terror.
for the average end user typing anything at all is too much work
That probably explains why I don't like Windows. But it doesn't explain why a significant number of Mac users think that finally having a command line is a Good Thing(tm).
I will agree that arcane command options are difficult. I can't even remember them for the apps I use every day. But at some point you have to draw the line and say "you have to be at least this intelligent to use Unix." That's not elitism, that reality. Until hardware and software reaches some mythical perfection, there will always come a time when the user will encounter a problem not addressed in the five page glossy cardstock entitled "how to use your computer".
An initiative that focuses on slicker installation procedures for OSS (which they would have to do if they want to be taken seriously by less than geeky types) will benefit the entire field of OSS development.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them and they all stink. So here's mine.
I think the package management tools for several Linux distros (and other free unices) are far superior to the InstallShit crap that Windows users are used to. t's far easier to click "install" than to click "install" and have to answer a thousand questions afterwards, reboot twice, and deal with corrupted registries.
Package managers will need good front ends, good package descriptions, and possibly a way to force commercial EULA's on the hapless. But other than that I don't see what else is needed. The only reason Windows has these silly installers in the first place is to deal with the registry and locked files.
Go look at how the typical Mac user installs software. InstallShield programs are far from ubiquitious in Mac land, yet the Mac is still considered easier than Windows. Go figure.
That's only for native linux binaries. The only thing I use it for is Acroread and Staroffice. Everything else I use is the FreeBSD version.
Sure, there's a linux-gtk, but I prefer real gtk straight out of the box like Mom used to make.
BSD software is mostly hand-me-downs from other projects.
You need to get a clue and find out what BSD really is. BSD predates Linux and GNU. BSD is more Unix than most systems that can claim that trademark.
On the other hand, did you realize that the original (unofficial) logo for Linux was the platypus? That's because Linux was, and is, a patchwork of of "hand-me-downs from other projects". It's a kernel from one project, binutils and libc from another, daemons from a third, filesystems from others, etc. And glue from the distros to hold it all together.
On the third hand, FreeBSD is a complete integrated OS. Everything from the OS to the shell is one complete source tree. Some of the stuff is contributed, of course, like tcsh and gcc, but the vast majority of it is pure BSD software.
The point is that no major software emanates from FreeBSD - none.
FreeBSD does not claim or want to be a clearinghouse for every open source project under the sun. Neither does Linus Torvalds for that matter.
Your silly rant is puerile. You're like some kid shouting that your dad can beat my dad up. The actual fact is that every project that you mentioned as major contributors from every distro and freenix out there. Including FreeBSD. You would be surprised at how many Gnome and KDE developers use FreeBSD.
p.s. Redhat doesn't own GCC. The FSF owns GCC. Go look at the copyright.
I'm not really sure I understand your question.
Gnome is not a Linux program. Mozilla is not a Linux program. Gimp is not a Linux program. They all run just fine under FreeBSD.
GCC, bash, XFree86, tar, Perl, Windowmaker, etc, etc, etc, aren't Linux programs either. They're all Open Source Unix programs that work just fine under just about every Unix OS there is.
Buzzword bandwagon? What the fsck are you talking about? C++ has been around for about two decades! It's been around longer than Linux and Windows. I think it even predates GNU by a few years.
Sheesh. Next thing you know you'll be complaining about all these people jumping on the ANSI C bandwagon instead of sticking to K&R.
Regardless of what anyone may tell you, C++ is still C. If you can do it in C you can do it in C++ just as fast.
The advantages of the STL sort over any comparable C sort, is that the former has a generic interface with a specific implementation produced at compile time. You just can't do this in C (yet).
In order to get a generic sort in C, you have to use void* somewhere. That casting is going to slow you down ever so slightly. Imagine you can write a sort algorithm specifically dedicated to sorting lists of MyStruct's. In order to make this algorithm work with YourStruct's you have to create a virtually identical algorithm that merely replaces "MyStruct" with "YourStruct".
That is *exactly* what the STL does!
The disadvantage of the generic STL sort is that you can't tune for your data. But the same disadvantage applies to your generic C sort with void pointers. To balance this out somewhat, you also have the ability to specialize sort.
You might want to take a look at the EULA from M$ and see if they allow the transfer of operating system.
:-)
Who says he's going to transfer anything? These are upgrades. The EULA may specify it being tied to a specific CPU, but if it doesn't, I dont' see the problem. These will still be the same machines.
If all else fails, just keep the original CPU and glue it to the inside of the case
I recently ported a X11/Qt application of mine to Windows. Because Qt is crossplatform, and I had extremely few unixisms, I expected no problems.
The Qt stuff was completely effortless. The unixisms were simplicity. All that was kind of stuff was done in five minutes.
But porting code that works under gcc-2.95.3 to Visual C++ 6.0 took about an hour. I wasn't using any GNU extensions. All of my code was ISO Standard C++. But VCPP choked on quite a bit of it. One example: if you declare a counter variable in a for loop, it remains defined until the end of the function, and not just until the end of the block.
The biggest advantage to the STL is that it isn't RogueWave :-)
Of course, nothing in life is perfect, and STL is a prime example. But it's advantages far outweigh its warts.
As I said, I heard the explanation third hand. Next time I'm down to see my friend, I'll stop by that shop and ask the tech for the whole skinny. I'm suspecting that the boot sector got corrupted, and it didn't really have anything to do with Linus versus Bill.
Weird story. I got this third hand, but I plan to see for myself next time I visit my friend.
:-)
His kid's computer, which I built, and installed dual-boot WinME and Slackware, was having problems booting into Windows. Windows was on one drive, and Linux on the other. Lilo was set to dual boot, with Windows as the default. He tried reinstalling Windows but he was unable to. When he called me, I said it sounded like the harddrive was going out. So he took it into the local shop, and they found nothing wrong with any of the hardware.
From what the tech told him, LILO was preventing Windows from operating. He did a DOS fdisk/mbr, and everything worked. Sounds to me like LILO was giving Windows some of it's own medicine
As you might imagine, it's usually a good idea to avoid any provider who promises "Unlimited Bandwidth"
Unlimited bandwidth, but everyone else on the service trying to get the same unlimited bandwidth acts as a pretty effective throttle.
Even better... I was going to click no, but my cat jumped up on the mouse and the next thing I knew it was installed.
Or... My kid, who is under eighteen years of age, installed it.
Or... Well, I remember agreeing to that for the installation program, but I didn't agree to anything for the actual product.
Or... I patched InstallShield so that screen didn't come up, and last I checked, you're not InstallShield.
If licenses are really contracts (like everyone from RMS to Bill Gates say they are), then why do they need to see them? It would be like your landlord demanding to see your rental agreement, or your insurance agent going all nasty on you and demanding to see your insurance policy.
If it's a legally valid contract, then the manufacturer will already have a copy of the license and already possess proof of your assent. It seems to me that if they even have to ask to see the license, then it can't be contract.
p.s. Can you be in breach of contract for not agreeing to the contract?
Probably the best of both worlds. It's pure Unix underneath, command line and arcane parameters and all the other gory details. On top it's a slick interface with a hell of a lot of usability work put into it. But one is not stuck with one or the other.
The Mac user is a different breed than the Windows user. Everyone talks about how the Mac is easier than Windows, but Mac users, in my experience, have a higher tolerance for complexity than Windows users. I'm not quite sure of the reason for this, but I suspect that it derives from the overall design of their systems (pre OSX included). One example is how their respective applications are installed. Under Windows you just about have to use InstallShield or some other installation wrapper to deal with a single global registry, locked DLLs, adding menu entries to the start button, installing and uninstaller, putting a shortcut on the desktop, etc. Under Mac you just unarchive the package where you want it and it works.
What you're saying is simpler=dumbed down? Is the automatic transmission of a car "dumbed down"? If I use "apt-get" to grab something instead of downloading the source and running "make install," is that dumbed down as well?
You've misunderstood me. Computers are complex not simple. There is no way to make them simple. Any attempt to make them simple will only result in the complexity being hidden, not removed. Ease of use is different, in that it "streamlines" the complexity to make it easier to deal with.
A good analogy is yours: automatic transmissions. Automatic transmissions are *more* complex than manual transmissions. But designed correctly, they are also easier to use than manual transmissions. The complexity is still there, but it's been shifted over to the auto mechanic instead of the user.
There are the equivalent of auto mechanics of computers. They're called sysadmins. Problem is, hardly anyone utilizes them. Compare Windows with the support of a good MCSE with any brand of Unix with a good sysadmin. Suddenly Windows doesn't necessarily win the usability race. KDE and Gnome start to look pretty damn good. In my opinion, if you take away the hassle of installing, configuring and maintaining the system, Linux/BSD/Unix with KDE or Gnome is superior to Windows in the usability department.
My problem isn't so much that people aren't willing to learn about their computer, it's that those who aren't willing to learn about it insist on doing their own installation, configuration and maintenance. My Mom thinks computers are easy, because I am always around to empty her trashcan when she gets a "filesystem full" error". I know other people who have sold their computer and stopped computing entirely for similar error messages that they never could figure out.
Unix may not be ready for the home user's desktop, because the home user isn't willing to pay for support. But it is ready for the corporate desktop, which already has its own support department.
Usually I start X with "startx."
At the risk of sounding sarcastic: is that really so difficult?
I would love to completely abandon Windows for Linux or *BSD, but it's just not feasible right now.
I remember when I got rid of my TV. For about six weeks I was in sheer panic mode. Only my impoverished status at the time prevented me from buying another. But after those six weeks I experienced this wonderful sense of freedom. Ditto for getting rid of Windows. Oh, I still have it around for a few games (and to figure out what my Mom is talking about when she calls me for her free support). But the freedom of actually being in control of your hardware and software is worth it.
I hear that people who switch to manual transmissions get the same feeling as well after their initial panic wears off.
Cheers.