It's official: Mac users are morally superior to Windows users The online donation–management company Qgiv has analyzed the charitable-giving patterns of 165,000 people and found that Mac users are far more benevolent than Windows users. Qgiv analyzed 320,000 donations given through their donation platform from November 2011 through November 2012, and discovered that the average donation …
I feel it's about average income and not price or gullibility, read on if you care to, the rest is your basic rant.
"We already know Mac users are more gullible than Windows users, that's why they are using Macs. "
About gullibility: YOU already know that, I don't. I don't own a Mac., won't buy a Mac., don't care to run one. However, have you even heard of Windows 8? Even seen screens shots? The "Power User" for windows 8 is the user who can figure out how to make it run like, not look like, Windows 7. And if I'm not mistaken, there is some pretty pricey Windows 8 machines out there, so what about those people not giving?
About price: I tend to believe it is about the average income of a Mac. user, not the prices they pay for their devices. For instance, if it was about the price of their devices then they wouldn't be buying a desktop made by Mac. or any other one size fits all PC manufacturer. After all, you can buy one graphics card that cost more than any Mac (and you'll sadly have to run it on Windows to get performance out of it). Some people I know have spent so much money on their Windows 7 gaming machines, that they make any All-in-one PC manufacturer like Macintosh look like a "Value Price" second-hand brand.
No matter the details, it is good to see that more people with a higher income are being charitable. So hats off to those higher income people. Merry Christmas!
"No matter the details, it is good to see that more people with a higher income are being charitable. So hats off to those higher income people. Merry Christmas!"
The details do matter a lot, mind you. How many MacOS users gave anything compared to others? What was the distribution? What was the donation normalised to income? What was the proportion of the userbase for each system?
Did 2000 Firefox user with no income give $2 each? that would drive the average way down. Perhaps one single billionnaire MacOS user gave $2000000 and all the others gave 2 cents each?
Means are utterly useless in that case. Statistically, this is a non-story. And as the whole thing is a non-issue I can't be bothered to go do _actual_ statistics on the raw numbers (provided they are even available). Maybe we can Have Randall XKCD to do a real analysis, he gets off on this kind of things.
...let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing.... or something of the sort.
Maybe Windows users donate to charity through other means
Maybe Windows users are out volunteering while Mac users are clicking 'donate' from their sofas
Maybe Windows users are poor and NEED donations
Maybe Windows users are just cheapskates....
OR maybe the fact that Mac users donate more than Windows users through one particular donation site out of many hundreds means nothing more than that Mac users donate more through that particular site.
More likely, there are several orders of magnitude more Windows users (market share would appear to support this theory) which in turn means that donations are divided among a vastly bigger base, most of whom will be at work (Macs in the workplace are even rarer than Macs as consumer items) and thus wary of websites being tracked as well as more likely to contribute to an office pool.
/shrug
dull flamebait is dull.
.....especially those running Ubuntu are even worse. Not once have I seen a freetard ever put his (because you can bet it's a 'him' - no woman would bother using such a stupidly unusable operating system) hand in his pocket and make a donation to charity. Everyone of them is selfish
I use open source software. I donate to the projects that make the packages or distributions I use. I also donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and OpenMedia.ca (because they support the rights of individuals instead of copyright megacorporates) as well as the Free Software Foundation.
These organisations provide me with value. They deserve compensation for their work. It isn't about business, or milking everyone else around you for every last bent copper. It's about right, wrong and a send of fairness and ethics that a certain segment of our society will never comprehend.
Do well by me and I will do my damnedest to do well by you. Welcome to the meritocracy. If you're a douche, the internet will treat you as damage and…well you know the rest.
You provide something of value, I return the favour. You compete for my funds, time, attention and care on merit. You do not have a fundamental, inalienable right to anything I have; from money to me giving more than zero fucks.
I'm sorry if that seems cruel, but it is the way I purchase products and services.
That said I treat employees differently. Employees are not expected to constantly prove their own value to the company. It's completely asinine and insane to expect that. The levels of stress you would generate in the employee are unconscionable. People have good times and bad times; a proper employer plans for both and sticks by their employee.
The trade of labour is not merit but loyalty. I am loyal to you; I help you when you need it, invest in your ongoing training and development. In exchange I expect you to be loyal to me: you give your all when realistically possible. You don't take years of training and run. We come to mutually agreeable decisions regarding wages. I am transparent with you about what the company can pay, you help me understand what your financial needs are. We determine if I can meet your needs and if the services you can provide are adequate value for the money. If the balance falls out, we part amicably.
I don't have such loyalty for corporations. A corporation is not a person. It deserves no loyalty. A corporation – or an open source project – is the result of the efforts of multiple people. They are producing a product or service to be consumed. They are expecting you to give up your hard earned in exchange for it, so I expect that they are providing something that has more value (merit) than that of the competition.
You see? There is a difference (at least in my philosophy) between how we should treat people and how we should treat companies. I realise that this isn't a view shared by all, but when it comes to the purchase of products or services from others, I am ruthlessly meritocratic. Capitalistic even.
Philosophy, eh? It requires some complexity for some people. Almost like our perceptual and ethical parsers have more than three lines of code.
An illuminating breakdown. Glad to see you differentiate between services and people. 'Unconscionable' is exactly what I witnessed on a daily basis, and it took me a long time to realise that as a developer I was being treated disproportionately better than, for example, the test team as their 'productivity' simply didn't figure in the metrics, and they didn't generate measurable revenue. Despite working just as hard as the rest of us.
But then I always was too much of a wishy-washy liberal :(
Hum, as an 'Murican I gotta jump in here with a bit of 'corporations are not people'. And very likely I don't have a lot of this quite correct, but I'll see where it goes. Admittedly, we here have gone way stupid with this idea, but as best I can remember the idea developed out of British law, probably during Colonial times when Britain had some (at the time) unthinkably huge corporations running around the world. Even so, it was pretty much agreed that this idea was simply a legal fiction to allow corporations to function and not meant to be taken at all literally. I do remember being taught that many, if not most of our Founding Fathers either distrusted or outright loathed the concept. Mainly because the Revolution had a LOT to do with how those companies were screwing the Colonies. Still, we somehow went along with the legal fiction. And now we definitely seem stuck with entities that are more equal than we (humans, that is) are.
"thousands of other peoples opinions"
Well... let's be fair, thousands of other people's choice to use one particular donation site, that I've personally never heard of.
I'm not a Mac user, but all of my donations are either direct debit or paid directly to the charity/organisation.
So the headline should be (if it was serious) "Qgiv is used by Mac users more than Windows users" or "Qgiv detects more 'Mac' user agents than 'Windows'", since user agent spoofing is hardly complex.
How many did each group donate in total? I don't know what and why they are searching behind these correlations, but how about this one:
Most Mac users/owners I know are earning quite a bit of money. I assume if you earn less and need to think about what you spend, you go for cheaper gear. So the correlation is probably more that of income versus donation.
I'm also fairly sure this correlation will not hold for mobile platforms, because a lot of iGear owners I know put most of their cash in their status symbol (one student even had to sell it to be able to buy some music)
" I assume if you earn less and need to think about what you spend, you go for cheaper gear."
That's part of the story. If you think about what you spend, it quickly becomes obvious that you can build a PC that has twice the graphics capability of a top of the range Mac for half the money. Hence a lot of people do that.
This post has been deleted by its author
I am a linux user and I regularly donate to various charities. However I have a different take on the the whole Mac generosity. Mac users are less technically savvy, or less savvy in general and will open their wallet if you tell them they are getting the greatest thing, or doing some good. More so if you say it is green good. This is evidenced by the simple fact that they are paying at least 30% more for their computing devices than an equivalent from another manufacturer, just for the iCandy or iBuzz. A Windows user on the other hand is a little more technically competent, as they have to be to deal with the crapware they have to deal with, so they see through more of the "giving" scams and realize they could probably help more in other ways. The linux users are the most savvy of they bunch and thus recognize most charities are scams with hugely bloated administration and instead of giving money, go directly to the source (no pun intended) to lend a helping hand.
>This is evidenced by the simple fact that they are paying at least 30% more for their computing devices than an equivalent from another manufacturer
Tom's Hardware would disagree with you. I could take your word for it, but Tom's were good enough to show their working and you weren't. Sorry. Obviously the UK case is different, because exchange rates can up the margins, but this study was done by a US organisation.
Generally though, Mac users are more likely to be baby-boomers with some expendable income, their children are grown up, house is paid off etc... people who probably didn't use digital technology from a young age. Remember- for every objectionable hipster with a Macbook in a coffee shop, there will be a dozen Macs in the homes of perfectly pleasant people who don't get worked up about technology for its own sake, but do whatever they do in one of the myriad other areas of worthwhile human activity besides IT.
>The linux users are the most savvy of they bunch and thus recognize most charities are scams with hugely bloated administration
If the Linux folk are so savvy, wouldn't they be able to differentiate between the efficient charities and the bloated ones, rather tar them both with the same brush? I think that they are, and they can. There are also organisations that attempt to rate charities on their effectiveness, should one want guidance.
Dave 126 wrote :- "If the Linux folk are so savvy, wouldn't they be able to differentiate between the efficient charities and the bloated ones, rather tar them both with the same brush?"
No, they (incl me) are technically savvy, not administratively savvy. All I know is that most things I have heard about charities are about inefficiency and downright dishonesty, particularly at the middle level. I cite The Salvation Army scandal, which paricularly upset my mother as she had contributed to it for years as the "only charity she could trust". (I just Googled for it and found there is a *further* recent scandal at the SA). What percentage of lovingly collected African Aid money ends up in necessary tribute to local chiefs and warlords? Charities turned a blind eye to Jimmy Saville's activities because he brought them money.
Jeffrey Archer raised two million pounds as a charity organiser and kept a million himself - legally, it was his fee. He rationalised it by saying that the charities got a million that they would not otherwise have had. He was not counting the lost money that people might have contributed in future if he had not fouled the scene.
Perhaps there are "efficient" charities, but I do not have the time, resources or inclination to find them out.
Generalisation, much?
" This is evidenced by the simple fact that they are paying at least 30% more for their computing devices than an equivalent from another manufacturer"
Please, do feel free to show me the 27" iMac equivalent from HP or Dell that isn't laughably crap. Or, indeed, the "equivalent" of the Retina MacBook Pro 15" model.
No? Thought not. Apple kit is expensive because Apple only targets the high-end markets. Because that's where the profits are to be made. The margins for the kind of low-end tat you find from Asus and Eurocom are so razor-thin, it's not worth Apple's time.
As for:
"A Windows user on the other hand is a little more technically competent,"
No. Just... no.
GNU / Linux distros, certainly. You need a certain kind of IT-obsessed masochist to get the most out of those.
But Windows users? "Technically competent"? I want some of whatever it is you're smoking please. I'll pay, because it's clearly top-class, hardcore hallucinogenic stuff and well worth the money.
Windows users are simply more interested in buying 'value' goods. They're the people who shop in Tescos instead of Waitrose. People who don't give a gnat's chuff about aftersales customer service until they actually need it.
Which doesn't mean you can't have a decent Windows (or GNU / Linux, or whatever) box that runs like a dream, but the notion that Windows users are inherently more "technically competent" is, like repeatedly ramming your finger up a dog's arse while driving up and down a multi-storey car park: seriously wrong on oh, so many levels.
"No? Thought not. Apple kit is expensive because Apple only targets the high-end markets. "
Should be:
"No? Thought not. Apple kit is expensive because Apple only targets fashion conscious gullible fools with more money than sense and a misplaced feeling of superiority ".
There, fixed that for you.....
I bought my first PC in 1982 - an Ohio Scientific C1P with 8k of static RAM. I immediately cut traces on the motherboard and jumpered it to double the clock speed - to 2Mhz. That was after I had spent some months programming in octal on a COSMAC ELF 1802 singleboard, and after a two years of FORTRAN IV on a school's computer. I have programmed in 1802, 6502, Z-80, 8080, VAX-11, and....OS 360 assembler. I won't mention the year of APL coding I did, nor writing my first processor simulator at 18 - when it was still hard...on a timeshared IBM SYSTEM-34. And I won't mention being a beta tester for Borland Turbo Pascal...running on a Molecular Z-80 Supermicro under CP/M. Your tech credentials frankly don't come close.
And now ALL I use is MACS. By choice. Best designed platform I have ever used, with the possible exception of NEXT. (SGI was a close third, and I admit I didn't use BeOS much.) So fuck off that only the tech incompetent use Macs. Really and once and truly for all.
Why do the windows guys then always ask if and how you can do things.
The problem is that the less technically sawy, actually listens to your crap talk, cause they don't have the skills to check up if that's so.
Maybe you like to fiddle around in Linux, or Coping with Window's inconsistency. But I appreciative when the software get out of the way and I can concentrate, on what I want to accomplish.
I've donated to some freeware and shareware stuff, but I think not once to any open source stuff. Simply if it's something I really like I do think they are worthy of the little I can contribute.
I'm not a rich guy, when I buy a computer I see it as an Investment. I'm still using my 6 year old Mac Pro, and have no intention to upgrade yet. It has served me well. Nothing I can say about the computers I use at work. Next month it will be my 4th work computer while I'm still happy with my mac at home.
Just wondering. I'm no Christian, but I do recall some parable about a rich guy putting a hefty chunk of silver on the plate, and a poor man giving away a few pennies.. everything he owned, basically.
No, I'm not so petty as to accuse Mac owners of being misers. They're as much a victim of lock-in as Windows slaves, moreso in some ways. However, it may explain an increased absolute level of donations.. because that doesn't take proportion into account.
You're right, yet again the Reg headline is taking liberties with the source material... morality or otherwise can't be judged by the information in the article. We're looking at difference in donations of dozens of dollars, when income can vary much more than that. The very poorest won't have computers, the very richest will have a PA do things for them. There are more ways to give than through a computer browser- though the richer folk would want to get the tax benefits of charitable donation, which on-line giving makes easier.
Studies suggest that poor people give away a greater percentage of their income than rich people.
In the UK, charities have seen a marked drop in donations this year.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are trying to convince fellow billionaires that giving away half their fortune won't leave them on the breadline.
"Just wondering. I'm no Christian, but I do recall some parable about a rich guy putting a hefty chunk of silver on the plate, and a poor man giving away a few pennies.. everything he owned, basically."
Errrrrmmmm, I think you'll find it was a chick rather than a bloke.
Mark 12:44
zemerick: It's called, maths, it's a new trick people are using. (short answer: browsers can be used on different OS.)
Long answer: Eg, these sets of donations
Chrome - Windows - 10, 10, 10, 10
Chrome - Mac - 50, 50, 50, 50
IE - Windows - 20, 20, 20, 20
Average for Chrome is 30
Average for IE is 20
Average for Windows is 15
The average for windows is therefore less than the average for any one browser. Without looking at the raw data, it would be tricky to say exactly why, but it is probably like my noddy example, IE users give more than the average for windows, !IE users on windows give less than the average for windows, and !IE users on !windows give more than both.
The biggest flaw with this "research" is that there's no attempt to compensate for differing socio-economic backgrounds. Less well-off individuals tend towards internet access primarily via work, public access and/or low-cost computers, which are overwhelmingly PCs.
It would be interesting to compare the average cost of the PC installed base vs the average cost of the installed Mac base (excluding in both cases system that are unlikely to be used for charitable donations, such as industrial control monitoring systems and music studio systems). If the resulting difference exceeds 25%, then I think we can discount the headline!
Incidentally, I wonder if the data counted user agent strings containing the words "like Mac OS X" as being Macs? A real (contemporary) Mac reports "Intel Mac OS X"; "like Max OS X" actually means "iThing" running iOS.
I must have imagined all those old Dells and Acer business machines we use for system testing that can run Windows 7 while equally old Macs are stuck on earlier versions of OS X. People replace PCs more frequently, in my experience, because they can afford to.
My feeling is that while some Mac users have more money, others are people who are more prone to making emotionally invested purchases that they can't quite afford. This may explain Apple's larger market share in the US, where that kind of consumerism seems more common than in Europe.
If you really do, not sure I believe you, testing must be curious in your establishment, unless all your customers use only out-of-date hardware. I have had the dubious pleasure of working in two firm,s one large and American, one smallish and European, that insisted on Dells and, in both cases, Linux (Redhat for the big one, Slackware, later Suse for the smaller) and my present, gigantic employer, is moving from Solaris to Linux (Redhat) virtual machines on who knows what cheap hardware (I'm at the suffering end and get only the end results).
Then, it depends on what you call "old". Truly old hardware can not support Windows 7 or 8, at least not with a useable performance, because of limited memory capacity and other hardware and firmware limits. I know, I've got some such hardware and have used more at work.
I can only the experience with multiple returns of multiple Dell kit (thank heavens for same day Gold Service, makes up for the saved pennies in service charges) and the often very flaky interpretations of how UNIX utilities should work and do simple things well, using pipes and filters to manage interesting tasks) have put me off both. But then I am a UNIX engineer of many years experience on many real lUNIXes who recognises bad implementation when he sees it, whatever the apparent cost.
On the other hand, my old thinkpad is 11 years old and still working, at the pace of cold treacle on XP, just, as is my five year old macbook, very well and fast , on Lion, complete with its lovely, BSD o/s and full shell, LAMP etc., without having to go through idiocy to get the most basic drivers and compilers working properly.
What we make is largely small footprint agents that run with a few percent of CPU doing basic monitoring and housekeeping tasks with uptimes in the months to years timescale. Virtualised environments are just not good enough for testing this on their own, though obviously we do a lot of testing in VMs.
And the further east you go in Europe the less macs you see. I live in a border country to old sovjet. We fought Russia in WWII. Paid war depts to russia after the war.
Not lot's of mac's here, compared to our neighbor countries in west. Who suffered less.
Still I use windows 5/7 days in the week. The 2 other days when i can choose, I would never burn my money on it. For me I could just as well throw my money into the fireplace as buy a windows pc. Why buy something that I would not use or even less like to use?
Now that is funny as I have had my computer at home for 5 years and I don't see any need to replace it any time soon. My 2nd computer is 8 years old. Neither have any problems with it.
At work we use computers that are minimum 2 year old refurbished HP's and we use them for a good few years. Some of the boxes get loaded with Linux if they are file servers and then the desktop ones get loaded with Windows.
Personally I prefer windows as it is what I am used to and what I know how to get the most out of. I know with tweaking I could get more out of my Linux but at home I like my old school games, so windows XP is sound for that.
In my opinion it is the people with more disposable income that have Mac's and are generally the more technically un-savvy of the lot. But just as I an am exception to the rule as I use both Linux and Windows and am technically competent you will have mac users that are very competent... but just personally I have seen more of the former then the latter when talking about Mac users.
I'll get me coat, it's the one with the windows PE disk and USB linux boot in the pocket.
"I purchase a new Mac on average about once every 5 years"
That's a normal time frame for a PC too. Ironically my girlfriends 3 year old MacBook which cost more than twice my Laptop cant upgrade to the latest version of OS X and same with my 4 year old Mac Mini.
"Friends with PCs rarely go half that time"
Unless they are buying the bottom of the range kit they are probably wasting money then. I am using a 6 year old Pentium D based desktop right now with no issues
"Initial cost is more for a Mac but upkeep and depreciation is less."
Very true
In starting the old Mac/OpenSource/Windows (in alphabetical order not preference) arguments.
The thing we overlooked is that QGIV (never heard of them) are releasing stories to increase their own exposure not to highlight any genuine discernable useful information about one or other groups in society.
ie a manipulated news story for manipulating their newsworthyness (sorry, about that last word)
Your methodology is flawed. The study in question shows that Mac users donate, on average, more than Windows users do. It's your assumption that Mac users are more generous than Windows users that's flawed. It's the causal relationship that matters here. It's no surprise to anyone that Apple computers generally cost more than comparable products running Windows. There are notable exceptions but as a general rule this is true. Given that fact, people on a limited budged are significantly more likely to purchase PCs running Windows than they are a Mac. The natural result of this inference is that percentage-wise, people who use Apple computers tend to have more disposable income to work with than those who use PCs running Windows. That's not an indication that said people are more generous, only that they have more money they don't need.
I find myself reminded of the South Park episode about the clouds of Smug surrounding eco-friendly car owners =D
"Surveys have shown Mac user to be more educated and higher pay earners then Windows users."
Surveys conducted by who? Apple? In my work repairing computers, I've seen roughly the same spread of Mac users occupations as Windows. No, we don't ask everyone what they do for a living - it's a small country town so we just know most of the customers.
"Also Mac user pay for their software while the majority of Windows users have no problem pirating"
Uh huh... One quick search on the Pirate Bay suggests Mac users have no problems pirating Apple software either. Try a search for "Final Cut Pro". Or OSX Mountain Lion - there's 182 people downloading an ISO right now from one torrent alone.
"They go for the cheapest possible hardware."
Of course. My laptop decision was easy - Asus Zenbook. Better specs than the Macbook Air, same price. It was destined to have Linux and Win7 anyway, so having the license for Windows included just made it even better value.
Was just trying to keep my observation light-hearted!
I personally regard Bill Gates as a modern day Robin Hood and an example to all millionaires+ everywhere.
Now if I can just go make my first million, I can join the club helping others less fortunate than myself :)
This probably won't be popular.
>I personally regard Bill Gates as a modern day Robin Hood
Helping thousands if not millions of unfortunate souls in devolving countries with healthcare, disease-eradication efforts and basic infrastructure, by causing years of minor irritations to Windows users (such as myself). Ah well, I can live with that.
you betcha!??
Dave Mihalovic,PreventDisease.com notes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Gi6cf-jiI
'Bill Gates on GM foods, vaccines ...'
In the video above, Bill Gates states at 0:11:
"Over this decade, we believe unbelievable products can be made
both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get to all the children that need them."
At 0:20 he continues:
"We could cut the number of children who die every year
from about 9 million to half of that if we have success on it."
Now here is the statement straight from the source which should not leave any doubts
on the intention of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Listen carefully at 0:28:
"The benefits are in terms of reducing sickness,
reducing the population growth. It really allows a society to take care of itself once you've made that intervention."
Is their clientele proportionately larger in Anglo-Saxon countries or other societies where charitable giving is more of a cultural standard?
Then again, maybe they just ask themselves "what would Jesus-phone do?" :) OK, that was an iPhone user joke instead of a Mac user joke, but I did try...
Whilst the *amount* of moeny given away by mac users may be greater, I wonder if that amount represented a greater *percentage* of their income, or less - I give to charity each month, but it's well within my means - if the person next to me gave the ame amount to charity despite making less, I'd consider them more "charitable" than I.
In any case, the cynical part of me sees the purpose of this study being to guilt people into giving more to charity - since windows users vastly outnumber Apple users (in the desktop environment at least) it seems prudent for them to come to a conclusion that paints the majority of people as needing to donate more (and, given the state of the world, perhaps we do).
So how is then that these 'fools' still have the money to buy a Mac, then?
No really, please do expand on your reasoning.
(do bear in mind that any price difference between PCs and Macs is no more than a few hundred dollars if that, whereas even the most basic 'upgrade' package on a new car, for example, is far, far more. Hell, in the UK, Ford charge £250 for a wretched DAB radio to be factory-fitted to your new Focus, never mind fancy wheels, leather upholstery or upgraded sound system etc. A slightly nicer house? Thousands. A couple eating out once more per month over a year? One extra pint of beer per week, over a year? Hundreds. You don't need a spreadsheet to get the gist.)
Hehe, funny you mention souls... Today I happened to watching a music video from "How You Sell Your Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul?" and spotted that Chuck D had a Macbook on his desk. Many contemporary musicians do- and whilst they aren't all Mozart or Hendrix, there is soul out there still.
So far though, I have yet to see Flavor Flav with an iPad (with clock app, naturally) hung around his neck, though!
Ah lies and statistics. Its all about interpretation. Its a shame they did not also include "donation as a % of income", not that they would have that info but anyway I would expect it to tell a different story.
I wonder how I would be classed in the survey, a Windows PC, an iPhone , a Macbook and multiple Debian servers...
Technically if you add Chrome, Firefox and IE together, it is triple the amount of Mac users; assuming that they are not running Linux or Unix...and trust me; it's only like 5% of the world on Linux. Regardless (I'm one of them); it should be more like "Mac users were crushed by the rest of the donators." Just saying.
This year Microsoft's employees passed the $1bn mark of giving through the company's Giving Campaign, in addition to whatever they do themselves outside of that. How much have Apple's employees done? Oh right, Apple doesn't have a charitable program with 100% company match.
Most charities are indeed run as a business where the vast majority of any money they collect goes to the charity executives / their friends rather than the needy. Show me a charity where 100% of what I give goes to the needy and I will donate should I agree that the target are indeed needy and will benefit from my donation.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
