Probably this annoys somebody, but I think it's funny. Never encountered it before, though:
https://twitter.com/BrandsSayingBae
null1024 wrote:universally, they'd have an expired Norton, too
Oh, we have to buy a shrinkwrapped antivirus, because the people at the store promoted it and said it was free.
t_t
Instead of just saying "no thanks, keep it" and just defaulting to Defender (you don't even need to explicitly install it anymore).
This reminds me, [url=
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-sou ... point.html]here's[/urls] Richard Stallman missing the boat, IMO, by claiming that
“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare.
Well Dick, most people want free, in the common-sense of the word. Just by being there Open Sores (as our hero JEFFK puts it) made an impact, but trying to push the argument onto people whose software admittedly serves a totally different goal - think some indie game maker releasing free but not open software - doesn't particularly make sense to me. Open is simply distinct from free. It makes it clear that there is something
new and exciting about a standard (should we have called them Free Standards instead?) Saying "but it's truly free" is going to make people look right through you in search of the astral plane, IMO.