Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

Taking over the world, one GNU/Linux PC at a time

This is the promised followup to the recent article which basically establishes significant flaws in execution of the World Domination 201 plan which by all means seems to have started. The flaws are in the nature of the business model employed by the company who is apparently supposed to play a crucial role in this plan, Linspire.

"World Domination 201" presented a strategy of *temporary compromise* in order to accelerate the adoption of GNU/Linux by the masses and hence put it in a position in which the 64bit tide will throw GNU/Linux at the top of the operating systems market. However there are no confidence-inspiring indications that this plan is consistently being put to action as such. Not only that, but it is proving hard to trust Eric Raymond to care enough about holding true to the "temporary" part of the plan. He doesn't have a real problem with proprietary software anyway. We can't count on him being the one advocating replacements for proprietary components when the fitting time for that comes.

In fact, as we were able to find out from Landley's comments, it was Landley who wrote most of the document, not ESR, and it is probably due to Landley more than ESR that the document advocates a "temporary" compromise, and yet ESR obviously has more pull in the matter than Rob Landley, and is much closer with Linspire.

In this article we move away from this document and its propositions, suggesting that even the plan itself may not be the best way forward and that there is in fact an alternative more uncompromising way to get to our goal, which is the prevalence of a Free Software operating system.

Proprietary components by default: how far can it get us?

It seems as if everyone lightly assumes that as soon as we start putting proprietary components into GNU/Linux systems by default to enable certain functionalities which wouldn't work otherwise, the mass market will be ours. I don't hear this question being asked too often; how far can this compromising really get us exactly?

The fact is that there always were certain GNU/Linux distributions which did exactly this, and yet they didn't get so far as to cause mass switching from Windows to GNU/Linux. Instead, Ubuntu was the first to make a significant dent, and it never advertised itself as the distribution which includes all the proprietary components needed for all functionalities people usually demand. Just the opposite, it advertises as a distribution that "will always be free to download, free to use and free to distribute to others". Even today when it seems to be compromising this promise a bit, it still doesn't include things like flash and proprietary video drivers, albeit they make it easy to install them.

This begs the question; is including proprietary software really the key to winning the operating system market? It looks like Ubuntu is doing as fine as it possibly can even without that.

We can make GNU/Linux "just work", absolutely perfectly, right after installation, no matter how many proprietary blobs, drivers and other software we have to use to make it happen, and yet, how far would this bring us? There is a certain point at which this just doesn't cut it anymore, and I think we are slowly reaching that point today. Everyone who would switch based on technical superiority alone is already switching. Those aren't the masses, however. The real masses are people who don't get past the very first step at getting GNU/Linux on their computer, installation.

How can proprietary bits help us there? They can't, and suggesting this as a solution is completely missing the point. They can only take us so far, but definitely not all the way we want to go. Is it, then, worth tainting our systems with it at all? When you consider the alternative way I would boldly say no, it is not. We should keep our systems 100% Free Software by default.

Get me a GNU/Linux PC now!

The amount of energy some people put in advocating compromises with proprietary software could be much better spent asking great and small PC vendors to enter the business of selling GNU/Linux powered PCs, out of the box. In fact, not only should we be demanding others to sell GNU/Linux PCs, the ones able among us should start such businesses on their own! Saturate this new market, expand it and make new leaders if the existing ones (Dell, HP, Lenovo) don't see the light (as soon as we want them to).

The key is in building computers out of hardware which is fully supported by Free Software, rather than putting in proprietary drivers for things that aren't supported. Companies should take a 100% Free Software GNU/Linux software setup and test their machines on them, in order to make sure that everything works flawlessly. If an ATI or Nvidia card doesn't work well, dump it and use Intel! If this or that wifi chip doesn't work with Free Software, dump it! Create a situation that ATI, Nvidia and others who refuse to open up won't find comfortable, because they would be missing the increasingly more significant portion of the market.

We could summarize this strategy the following way: instead of adapting our software to existing hardware even when we have to use proprietary software for that, adapt hardware to Free Software and this way not only make fully functional Free Software supported computers, but also pressure uncooperating hardware vendors into freeing up their specs and drivers.

Once everyone can come to a computer store and order a fully functional 100% proprietary fat free GNU/Linux powered PC that just works, there is no more the installation obstacle, and indeed there are no more hardware support obstacles for that particular user either. This is when we will be winning the mass market.

But what about popular file formats and codecs?

Yes indeed, companies in *some* closed mindedly run countries like USA, can't legally pre-install support for certain file formats, like MP3. But there is an acceptable solution to that, and it still doesn't include proprietary software. Instead it includes a patent license with everyone who uses GNU/Linux, through a single agent capable of paying for such a broad license. Such license would allow PC vendors to safely install support for such file formats and users to safely use this support on their GNU/Linux PCs.

This is NOT the kind of deal Microsoft made with Novell. The MS-Novell patent deal doesn't include anyone else but users of SuSE GNU/Linux. We need patent licenses that extend to every single user of GNU/Linux and Free Software.

However, even if this were not to happen it wouldn't be such a major drain as many make it out to be. If so many computer users can live with getting a Windows PC and then have to install so many applications on it to actually be productive, then GNU/Linux PC users can click a few buttons after getting their PC to install the Free Software necessary to play MP3s. Eye

Conclusion:

A reasoning which suggests that merely making GNU/Linux "just work", even if we need to put proprietary software in by default, will open the doors to the mass market is flawed. It can't get us this far as long as people are required to actually install it to be able to use it.

This warrants rejection of all compromising with proprietary software and going for a strategy of forcing hardware vendors to adapt to us instead. Build PCs out of hardware supported by Free Software, reject the rest. There is enough of such hardware today to make many lines of excellent PCs. Make hardware vendors clearly realize that the only way they are gonna be able to take advantage of the growing GNU/Linux market is by at the very least freeing their specifications, allowing the community to write drivers.

From this perspective, shipping proprietary bits into otherwise Free operating systems doesn't make all that much sense, nor value.

So make them adapt to us, not us to them!

Thank you
Danijel Orsolic

Comments

libervisco wrote: What I

 
libervisco wrote:

What I don't want to see is boxes with pre-installed flash, but if someone offers easy access to flash (and similar stuff), but with a warning that it is proprietary (plus a scary EULA Eye-wink ), then I can live with that.

Ok, so we agree on this point. I was under impression that you wanted a complete exclusion of proprietary software, not only when it comes to what is preinstalled.

libervisco wrote:

So? Not everything works with Apple either, heck some things don't work too well even with Windows. The computer, or a third party, can set up an easy to read and access hardware database, linked to some GUI on their new system, which would guide these users towards buying only supported hardware. They should be informed that by buying these devices they will work out of the box even without having to install any drivers, which is again much more convenient than anything on Windows.

Apple is not a good example here, we are talking about mass adoption, not obtaining a niche market. But what you described is exactly the problem I am talking about - users can't simply walk to any computer store and take a printer off the shelf. This would annoy people. Would you list, for example, NVIDIA graphic cards in that database but with a notice that says "we don't sell or support this [link to details why], but you can buy it elsewhere and download proprietary drivers [link to info how]"? I think that database you mentioned should include this hardware (at least most common such hardware, and a general notice about all other hardware), otherwise it would hide options from the user. And if user still wants to buy that card, he should be able to install whatever proprietary drivers are needed easily.

Let me clarify my thoughts about proprietary bits a bit more. User should be given choice to install whatever software he wants. Some bits such as various codecs, flash and drivers (software that has somewhat distribution dependent installation) should be made easy to install, if needed (a tutorial on how to add particular repository and install from there would suffice). Other software, such as proprietary applications, should be excluded, unsupported, not mentioned at all etc (this is what I don't like about CNR.com).

libervisco wrote:

Read above reply. Smiling They are not the only ones in this game, even if they're the biggest. If we can't start with them we can start with small vendors who already sell GNU/Linux PCs, as well as our own businesses.

So, Stojic, shall we build a GNU/Linux PC business in Croatia? Eye-wink

Agreed, bottom-up approach is what works. I thought you were suggesting somehow changing the big vendors in a short amount of time.

We might build such business, let me see where that SuperGold credit card is Smiling.

What are you saying in the

What are you saying in the end? You seem to be mixing a few things here to a point that it is hard to understand clearly what's your point in the end?

What I actively oppose to is offering non-free software on a system by default. What you do with it once you get it is indeed your business more than anyone elses, so if you want to abide by the restrictive terms of some proprietary software, despite how much someone like me would urge you not to, it's your call, and we don't deny you the freedom to make that call. It mostly affects you, because you're the one agreeing to be restricted.

But when a distro maker ships proprietary software with its OS by default, in the name of getting to the mass market (as if that will really get them so far), they are choosing for a certain amount of people who would accept that distribution without second guessing its content. This is a whole different thing.

So I say give people freedom by default. If they want to break that for themselves alone who will stop them? What's wrong with that exactly?

stojic wrote:Ok, so we

stojic wrote:

Ok, so we agree on this point. I was under impression that you wanted a complete exclusion of proprietary software, not only when it comes to what is preinstalled.

In fact I do want complete exclusion of proprietary software as an end goal and I certainly wont be the one offering this easy access to flash. What I was saying is that someone will, regardless of what I think, probably offer this easy access anyway (which can be set up easily enough by a good deal of people), so if they really want this restrictive piece of software, they'll be able to find it and install it easy enough, certainly not harder than hunting down some proprietary freeware for Windows.

What my point was is that this whole thing is totally exaggerated. We shouldn't even be talking about flash as some sort of a big problem here. It was so incredibly overblown. Gosh we're looking at those windows switchers as some sort of gods who need to have everything brought to them on a plate, despite Microsoft's repeated failure so far to do exactly that.

How much friendlier than Microsoft do we have to get, exactly, to please the masses, according to these Open Source hot heads who are advocating this "nothing short of perfect convenience will cut it" concept??? Guys, you're taking it way too far.

stojic wrote:

But what you described is exactly the problem I am talking about - users can't simply walk to any computer store and take a printer off the shelf.

Gosh, darn that's it then I guess. They wont be able to just walk out, take it without using their darn heads at all to think about whether it's supported or not and leave to plug it to just work! No world prevalence for us!

Again, you are overblowing the inconvenience. They don't have to have this kind of "perfection". Using GNU/Linux will ultimately still be much easier than using Windows, even if they have to check with that little GUI that came right with their computer where all you have to do is enter a name of the manufacturer of a certain piece of hardware to see whether it's green or red. If it's green, go buy it. If it's red, don't.

stojic wrote:

This would annoy people.

More than Microsoft Windows and it's unproductive virus prone, DRM infected telling-me-how-to-live-my-life piece of proprietary fat??? Again, my point is that Windows is MORE annoying that what you describe here! And that's our best selling point!

stojic wrote:

Would you list, for example, NVIDIA graphic cards in that database but with a notice that says "we don't sell or support this [link to details why], but you can buy it elsewhere and download proprietary drivers [link to info how]"?

No I wouldn't list that as long as it doesn't have a working free driver. It's about hardware supported by Free Software, not by proprietary software, so proprietary drivers are off. And why are they off? Because only this way can we send Nvidia and others a loud clear signal.

If a user still wants to get a Nvidia card and use proprietary drivers with it, he'll just have to go to Nvidia directly and ask for support, in which case Nvidia may point them to proprietary drivers, in which case the user chooses for himself whether to go with that restrictive top-secret-code thing or not.

stojic wrote:

Let me clarify my thoughts about proprietary bits a bit more. User should be given choice to install whatever software he wants. Some bits such as various codecs, flash and drivers (software that has somewhat distribution dependent installation) should be made easy to install, if needed (a tutorial on how to add particular repository and install from there would suffice)

But if we want domination of Free Software, not a domination of yet another OS, then this is not what we should do. Of course, some people who disagree with that will do it, and that's as far as I can go deliberating on that subject. You're missing my point. I actively oppose proprietary software in default installations, but that doesn't mean I condone proprietary software offerings post-installation. I simply choose to be agnostic in that regard, leaving the choice to the user, but not making it an easy choice for them myself. All the while actively advocating the following (again):

1. Only total rejection of all proprietary can send a clear signal to uncooperative corporations..

For some perspective, I'll add summaries to other points that together form a picture I am seeing:

2. Adopting proprietary bits will not lead to world prevalence! No sir it will not, you're deceiving yourself about that.

3. Buidling PCs with hardware fully supported by Free Software will lead to world prevalence.

4. Inconveniences brought by lack of support for other hardware and some bits like flash are much smaller than inconveniences of using BSODastic, DRMtastic, Virusfected Microsofted Windows. Test it! Give your grandma a GNU/Linux PC, and then give her Vista PC. Then ask her what is more convenient..

Sorry for sounding annoyed. You bet I'm annoyed. This is a thick glass I'm trying to break here, a collective illusion by the many in the FOSS community which seems to pose a totally wrong assumption that proprietary software leads to domination of Free Software. I've done my analysis didn't I? I considered the option of compromising, didn't I? I found it flawed! You can't, you can't and you can't establish world domination of Free Software, with help of proprietary software.

And I wont support that! Clear enough?

Thank you. Smiling

Clear enough indeed, I guess

 

Clear enough indeed, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

While you think that I am overblowing some issues, I think that you are greatly underestimating them. If you take a look at Ubuntu forums, especially at beginners section, you'll see that many questions are dealing with exactly the issues of flash, java, various codecs, running windows apps on Ubuntu, installing proprietary drivers and such. And these are all questions from people that have installed Ubuntu on their systems, so they overcame the installation barrier. My point is that people want certain proprietary bits on their systems, and I think that hiding the options from users (or not making them easier in order to keep them away) is a wrong way to go. The right way is educating them and let them choose.

About hardware, I am just trying to put myself in users' shoes here and point out the obvious advantage that Windows still has over GNU/Linux - the larger choice of working hardware that covers practically all common hardware out there. GNU/Linux is very good in this regard, but still covers less hardware (I am talking about PC components, not other architectures, to be clear).

I am pointing all these inconveniences because the fact is that Windows is in the monopoly position at the moment and that is its biggest advantage. This with the problems it brings for GNU/Linux users, together with (you say minor) problems that users would face on GNU/Linux without proprietary bits is enough to be a turn off for many users unaware (or not caring) of freedom and deeper issues, even with all the technical advantages that GNU/Linux has over Windows.

So, when you ask "How much friendlier than Microsoft do we have to get, exactly, to please the masses ... ?", you are asking a good question. In these circumstances, we have to get a bit friendlier than MS is, and I believe that proprietary bits help here at the moment, but I agree that those bits alone don't provide some kind of magical solution. I am not trying to force some magical rapid expansion of GNU/Linux, I am pretty satisfied with the rate of growth it has at the moment - I am only saying that these proprietary bits are something that most users want (or feel they need) at the moment.

If you want mass adoption to happen only when most people recognize freedom and choose free software because of it (this would be ideal, I agree), then you need to expose people to ideas behind free software. Unfortunately, most people don't care, unless you show them some practical advantages of free software (this is why open source movement was created). The right way is much longer and requires some fundamental changes to the way people think, and I (maybe pessimistically) don't see it happening fast this way. But, I am ready to wait.

"You can't establish world domination of Free Software, with help of proprietary software." isn't in contradiction with "Proprietary software bits lead to faster adoption in current circumstances.", so we might be arguing about nothing here.

To use a drug addict analogy, what you want to do is put people on cold turkey, cut them out completely from proprietary software. While I agree that this is the purest way to convert people, it takes a long time, and I think that it isn't a fast road to mass adoption at the moment. If you were thinking about adoption time span of some 20-50 years, then I have completely misunderstood you, or you weren't clear enough.

It's zealots like you who make this difficult

 

Honestly, I've been a Linux developer for over two years now, and I think the only thing preventing more users from switching is the "GNU/Linux" zealots who spend more time fighting holy wars and explaining that "free software" isn't gratis but rather libre rather than actually improving the code in the first place. I'm sorry, but I've been a Linux developer for over two years now, and none of my users have ever complained about "proprietary" software (in fact, one of the reasons my distribution is popular within its community is simply because we actually include components such as proprietary codecs, Macromedia Flash, and support for stuff like MP3s and iPod synchronization by default, even on platforms like AMD64 where it might be a bit challenging to get everything to "just work"). If it weren't for all the flames between "free software" zealots over such-and-such-isn't-freely-licensed-thus-we-can't-include-it and that type of thing, I think there would be significantly greater adoption. As far as my own user community goes the only kind of senseless fighting and mockery we allow is poking fun at the occasional spammer who's so utterly clueless it's impossible to resist.

Case in point: My desktop machine uses an ATI Xpress 200 integrated graphics chipset. Users such as you would probably suggest that I simply get an nVIDIA card since that "just works" with Linux; however, I happen to be on a fairly limited budget, and I see no reason to spend any additional time or money getting a new video card when the integrated chipset works just fine. The catch is, the "free" drivers do not support 3D graphics, while the proprietary drivers do. And when it comes right down to it, the ATI drivers are free to download and even redistribute, so long as they are not modified without permission (and since they work so nicely, why modify them anyway?), while a new video card, no matter how cheap, still costs money! Paying for a new video card just to use a "free" driver is simply absurd, and I would much rather see the developers update their own code rather than complain about everyone else's.

As far as installation goes, I'll say it right now - my distribution (which is Slackware-based, thus it uses the admittedly horrible Slackware installer) is somewhat of a pain to install sometimes, but I have yet to see a single user complain that the installation was so bad that they just gave up altogether and quit. Admittedly there have been a few problems with the installation before - and eventually I'm planning to put in a much more friendly interface and remove the Slackware code altogether - but I have yet to see a single user complain that the installation was so horrible that they simply could not tolerate to continue any further.

In short, I think it's not shipping proprietary software that has little sense nor value, but rather continuing this senseless argument. You may have a long post, but I see no real substance in there. Please, try to get the facts before you make such an inflammatory argument.

By the way, "GNU/Linux" is just stupid. I don't care how much code they wrote, those 80s has-beens have no reason to shove their name down everyone's throat when Linux is the system which actually made its name among real, actual users.

stojic wrote:If you take a

stojic wrote:

If you take a look at Ubuntu forums, especially at beginners section, you'll see that many questions are dealing with exactly the issues of flash, java, various codecs, running windows apps on Ubuntu, installing proprietary drivers and such.

Look at windows forums. They have problems of their own, possibly even more, and how much is MS doing at addressing those? They put DRM into the system to create even more problems, that's how much.

Sure we have to get friendlier than Microsoft, but I think we already are, even with proprietary software excluded.

stojic wrote:

And these are all questions from people that have installed Ubuntu on their systems, so they overcame the installation barrier.

Like most of the participants of online support forums. On windows forums, a lot of the people have installed windows too.

stojic wrote:

My point is that people want certain proprietary bits on their systems, and I think that hiding the options from users (or not making them easier in order to keep them away) is a wrong way to go. The right way is educating them and let them choose.

Keep them away? I didn't say that. We don't have to hide those options, but we don't have to make it easier either, but not to keep them away. The time we could spend trying to make it easier for them to install proprietary software would be better spend trying to educate them about the disadvantages of proprietary software, as well as building infrastructure that provides easy access to *free alternatives* to, in this case, flash.

If they still choose to go for flash, that's their choice, but we don't have to go out of our way trying to settle them on proprietary software.

Besides, when you say "hiding" you imply an active measure of concealing something while the only thing I mean is to simply not aid them in discovering it themselves. There is a difference.

stojic wrote:

GNU/Linux is very good in this regard, but still covers less hardware (I am talking about PC components, not other architectures, to be clear).

Maybe less of the popular hardware, but I wouldn't be so sure that it is less in general. And popular doesn't mean the best. If our easy to use Free Software Hardware Database GUI recommends good alternatives, people may find them quite adequate. This again, indeed, downplays this as such a big issue.

stojic wrote:

In these circumstances, we have to get a bit friendlier than MS is, and I believe that proprietary bits help here at the moment.

While we're both free to disagree, I simply don't think we've tried enough of other strategies to be so sure that proprietary bits are the only way. Has anyone actually built the Free Software Hardware Database I am talking about, along with a Free Software PC business I am writing about in the next article? No.

I think we're jumping on the "proprietary bits are a must" bandwagon a bit too fast.

stojic wrote:

If you want mass adoption to happen only when most people recognize freedom and choose free software because of it (this would be ideal, I agree), then you need to expose people to ideas behind free software. Unfortunately, most people don't care, unless you show them some practical advantages of free software

Yes that's what we should be doing, while building and selling Free Software PCs that "just work" to prove just how much can be done with Free Software only (practically showing them why is following this ethic better). Smiling

stojic wrote:

To use a drug addict analogy, what you want to do is put people on cold turkey, cut them out completely from proprietary software.

Well you know, that analogy is flawed because Free Software experience is not *that* extremely different from the experience they had before to be comparable to the drug addiction. In fact it is probably more pleasant and easier to adapt to.

Flea

 
Anonymous wrote:

By the way, "GNU/Linux" is just stupid. I don't care how much code they wrote, those 80s has-beens have no reason to shove their name down everyone's throat when Linux is the system which actually made its name among real, actual users.

Stand on the shoulders of giants and expect to piss on their heads? Cop yourself on.

libervisco wrote: Look at

 
libervisco wrote:

Look at windows forums. They have problems of their own, possibly even more, and how much is MS doing at addressing those? They put DRM into the system to create even more problems, that's how much.

Sure we have to get friendlier than Microsoft, but I think we already are, even with proprietary software excluded.

This has nothing to do with the fact that people want some proprietary software on their systems because they feel they need it. When you take naked Windows and naked GNU/Linux, I agree that we are friendlier, but you are suggesting that we should be less friendly when it comes to installing additional needed (by many users) bits. I disagree if there are no free alternatives to those bits.

libervisco wrote:

Keep them away? I didn't say that. We don't have to hide those options, but we don't have to make it easier either, but not to keep them away. The time we could spend trying to make it easier for them to install proprietary software would be better spend trying to educate them about the disadvantages of proprietary software, as well as building infrastructure that provides easy access to *free alternatives* to, in this case, flash.

If they still choose to go for flash, that's their choice, but we don't have to go out of our way trying to settle them on proprietary software.

Besides, when you say "hiding" you imply an active measure of concealing something while the only thing I mean is to simply not aid them in discovering it themselves. There is a difference.

We are talking about several codecs, few plugins and non-free drivers here. Making it easier would mean providing a link to a web page that explains how to install codecs, with warnings about possible illegality etc (that web page doesn't have to be written by us, but it should apply to the distro we're distributing), letting firefox do its "install additional plugins" dance (preferably with additional warning). With drivers there should be yellow dots in hardware database, with explanation (one general explanation for all yellow-dotted hardware) that this hardware isn't supported by us, but that it can be made to work using proprietary drivers from the manufacturer. We don't have to fill in the yellow dots ourselves, but can rely on community or manufacturers to do that.

To do all of the above is so easy (writing three warnings, creating one link and modifying the database a bit) and benefits users in need of those features so much that time spent on it is not an issue. I maybe used too strong words there, but you talked about "sending a clear message to hardware manufacturers", so you deliberately choose not to mention information that many users will need, solely because this information points to proprietary software. This is, in my opinion, treating users in the bad way.

libervisco wrote:

Maybe less of the popular hardware, but I wouldn't be so sure that it is less in general. And popular doesn't mean the best. If our easy to use Free Software Hardware Database GUI recommends good alternatives, people may find them quite adequate. This again, indeed, downplays this as such a big issue.

I agree that this downplays the issue, especially with yellow dots included.

libervisco wrote:

While we're both free to disagree, I simply don't think we've tried enough of other strategies to be so sure that proprietary bits are the only way. Has anyone actually built the Free Software Hardware Database I am talking about, along with a Free Software PC business I am writing about in the next article? No.

I think we're jumping on the "proprietary bits are a must" bandwagon a bit too fast.

I agree that we haven't tried other strategies enough. I'll point out again that I don't think that proprietary bits are a must, but they do help very much, especially if you want the adoption to be fast. I am only talking about the bits for which there are no free alternatives.

I think that drug addict analogy isn't flawed, it is only exaggerated to show the point better. After all, not being able to work because you are staying clear of the only proprietary application that can read your data is bad enough to compare it to being without the drug you are addicted to. Or not being able to play your music, watch your movies, surf your favorite web pages etc.

There is a good reason to do this "revolution" this way

 

There is a point there: hardware changes very quickly, so adapting to hardware vendors is pointless. Today nvidia and Ati, tomorrow who knows? The changes are fast and new chips are produced every month. So i can see the point in not adjusting to them, but telling them to adjust to us.

Regards,
Radak

That's fine

 

That's fine. . . you do what you want to do. Just leave your opinions out of my computer. I use NVIDIA cards because they are good enough to write drivers for Linux (just like they do for Windows). I appreciate that they took their time and money to provide these to me for free. Same for codecs and other software. So, you run your computer your way, and I'll run mine my way. -dB

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.