 So, the pandemic could help free open-source software, but unfortunately, it was a win for proprietary software. If we look at the trends over the last 20 years, the amount of code in software, the amount of open-source code in software has grown. And today, we have a majority of open-source software in all the applications and we have a large number of Linux servers. We have a very large number of Linux applications in the background. We don't have a lot of open-source on the desktop. But this was slightly changing when the pandemic started, as you can see from this slide. In early 2020, Linux market share was growing rather quickly for a few months. And then it was back again to the current 2.53% of all desktop software, of all desktop operating system. Why this? Of course, when the pandemic hit, many people started working from home and many of them didn't have adequate PCs or hardware for the task. So, a few people switched to Linux and this is the growth that we have seen probably in the period from April to August 2020. But then what happened? It happened at the usual suspect. So, the large tech, US tech have reacted. We should never forget that these companies are the largest companies in the stock market. If you look at the capitalization in 2016, it's rather clear. All the companies of the, let's call it all the economy have disappeared from the top traded companies. Of course, they're still there, but they're fairly smaller than large tech. And if we look at what happened during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, these large technology company grew even further during a period where most of the other companies had issues. And this chart gives you an idea of the market dominance from US companies that we have in Europe. Because we should never forget that these companies are based in the States, but they export their technology to Europe. And most of European government are relying on the technology provided by these companies. Even if the guarantees that these technologies are protecting European user more than the US government is not sure at all. What is incredible is the amount of money that these companies spend in lobby activities. Technology is an industry that has issues like any other industry, but it's definitely not the industry with the heaviest issues in terms of environment or in terms of human health. But even if this is not happening, the technology companies are the largest lobby spenders in the world and definitely in Europe. These are the lobby expenses in Brussels of the largest technology companies and they grew their lobby expenditures with the introduction of the antitrust activities. Microsoft was already spending quite a large amount of money for this reason. And they have developed a network of lobbyists in Brussels that are propagating around Europe. And of course this reflects on the meetings with politicians with the EU Commission. If we look at what companies and business associations have been able to do in comparison with NGOs and associations and organizations representing the open source environment. The numbers are amazing and this of course explains why companies are being able to profit from the pandemic instead of then suffering from the pandemic. These budgets have a significant impact in fact on EU policy makers and the people that represent these companies spend a huge amount of money and the consequence of lobbying say according to Shoshana Zuboff, the author of Surveillance Capitalism, she says that lobbying has fortified the business model that violates people's privacy and unfairly dominates the market. And this business model is flourishing without being challenged exactly because it is protected by politicians. One unfortunate confirmation of this subservience to large tech companies was the story of the human genes being renamed to please excel. Instead of the scientific community going to Microsoft and not just asking but imposing them to patch excel in a way that excel could import in the proper way the gene names without considering them as dates. By the way, LibreOffice has never provided the same issue. They renamed the human genes and this is just unbelievable because it is a community and a strong community because the scientific community is a strong one. That is prone to Microsoft wheels and of course if we look at the European community open source adoption maturity index and we look at what happens on the desktop, which is the first line, the situation is really incredibly bad. No open source in 60% of the cases, something ad hoc in 20% and the remaining 10% is local policy or EC policy but it's really limited. And while of course if you go to the data center, open source is a lot more used than proprietary software, and if you go to other areas there is almost a clear majority from open source software because when you go into strategic or business critical server based application, you almost don't have a choice than implementing open source. So while open source is being adopted but has not been in the adoption has not been increased during the pandemic where there could be an increase that was on the desktop and that could have been an advantage could have been represented an advantage for user, especially because the privacy could have been implemented in a better way, this has not happened. So and in fact when we look for news, we go to the usual suspect, we Google, we go to the media, we turn on the TV and what is producing this is producing the cycle of providing, giving out our information because if you search for something or you look for something on the web, this is profiled and your profile is increased and and at the end is digested by machine learning and artificial intelligence to and is transformed into business data. This slide just gives you an idea of what data brokers are providing in terms of profiles of population, we have profiles with 3000 or even more attributes for each individual. By switching to open source software for desktop productivity, European government would have regained control of cities and personal data and manage them according to their confidentiality. In addition, switching to free open source software would have meant moving from proprietary to standard document format with a significant advantage in terms of interoperability. Proprietary software, in fact, protect the user by obfuscating everything, algorithm and information and this way they also obfuscate the way that user and user data. On the contrary, free open source software protects the user by applying transparency, sharing the source code and sharing all the information so that the user is knows or all the information to decide by himself what he can give in terms of personal information and what he doesn't want to give to the general public. Apparently this is a no brainer but the issue is that politicians that the majority of them doesn't understand almost anything about technology sees the big tech as part of the global system and therefore sees the big tech issues as blocker for the entire digital transformation process. Instead of seeing them correctly as an issue for the digital transformation process, they see that as an issue because it's a blocker of the digital transformation process. So they and they don't see free open source software the same way. So instead of seeing free open source software as a potential solution to the digital transformation process, they see that as a they ignore it as a potential solution. And trust only the proprietary software, which is widely used in by governments, even if there are sentenced by the Court of Justice of the European Union that say that the standard contractual clauses of the proprietary software shouldn't be used and shouldn't be allowed in Europe. And these slides give you a feeling of how much these clauses are ignored in some cases or even if they are known for their issues. They are adopted 95% of the companies of small and medium enterprises with 2000 more employees uses standard contractual clauses, which means that they give out their data to big tech. And they made it them available to the US government instead of keeping them by for themselves. And unfortunately the cost of reassessing all these is extremely high or but and and therefore there's not a willingness of of tackling the issue. What would happen if the public code was that the code developed with public money was public as well. We would use standards, we would rely on interoperability, we would be able to read the documents, we would be able to avoid the locking strategies of Microsoft, which is has been even capable of publishing a manual on how to lock in your clients. If you don't find it online, I can send it a copy to you if you want to learn the strategy to lock in customers. And the issue is that we keep on using formats that are used by malware to carry viruses, Trojans. This is a Caspersky lab research in 2019 that says that 70% of malware global malware is carried by office documents. So by using office document by standardizing on office documents, we expose European citizens to this risk. Instead of using a truly interoperable format, which would avoid these issues because it would be an open format. And being an open format, it would be easy for expert people to understand if the format is being used to carry information or to carry malware or to carry components that are not supposed to be there. So we still have people that European user that are amazed by the fact that online companies, large tech companies seems to know everything about them, knows when they go to sleep, know when they get up, knows everything about their credit card, knows everything about their family and are even able to suggest doctors or solutions to their personal issues. All this is called surveillance capitalism and this is what has allowed big tech to profit from the pandemic instead of suffering from the pandemic. And by ignoring what is happening, European politicians are putting at stake the human expectation of sovereignty over our own life and ownership of our own experience as Shoshana Zuboff says in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The risk is that we are losing the control of our life and of our contents of what we produce because that is managed by someone else. And the politicians that should protect us are on the contrary protecting the people that are picking the information from our activity and are using it for their business and are using it to the advantage of other governments. Thank you for listening. Happy to answer your question if you have some on the topic. I understand that this is not a trivial or an easy topic to discuss, but if we don't face it now, we will find ourselves in a terrible situation quite soon. Thank you again. It just goes live, but I was asking you about the recommendations. You know, I know. And so the problem, I think we have a general issue in Europe, which is quite big one because we, our government, our government, are relying too much on US based technology. And of course, we don't have, I don't think we should be clear that we are not against US technology. We are against US technology, which is too much close to the US government objectives. We have different governments. We have decided in the past to have different privacy laws and there should be a higher level of respect for this. Today I see the situation being really bad for Europe and for other continents, but not really positive even for the US. We are really surrounded by big tech. And for instance, my son works as a chef in a restaurant in a, in a skiing resort in the Alps. Every month we go and visit him and I usually book my room through booking because it's convenient. And just because I booked the room, the day after I start receiving emails from restaurants, which are in the area. Do you want to rent a car? Do you want, do you really need, you know, health services? And why? I mean, I booked a room and that should be my task. And let's say that what we could find appropriate would be the site asking me, would you mind if we share the information that you will be in that area so that you can get some help? Okay, in that case, we should decide by ourselves and we should, we would be aware that there is this sharing of information, but at the moment there is no, there is no sign of this. And last time I'm still, but I will soon be out of the OSI board. But the last time I went to an OSI meeting in the States, I, when I was at the customs in, I think it was San Francisco. But the city is not important. The guy said, oh, you're here for the OSI board meeting. Sure. But how the hell do you know you are a custom officer in the US? And I've just exchanged emails with my fellow board members in the US. So if I tell you that I'm there for the OSI board meeting, okay, but why you're already in the system that is already the fact that I'm there for the OSI board meeting? That's not pleasant, especially if you understand why it happens. And of course, yes, this network of lobbies that of course then talk to each other, Europe to the States and vice versa, the largest lobby agencies are in contact with them. We really are surrounded by the big tech. And of course the big tech being all based or mostly based in the state and in China, according to their headquarters will not share, maybe they are unwilling to share the information. But the reality is that if you are active in a market, then the government of that country has some influence on you in any case. So I think we should, the people should learn that the situation that we have today is not a good one. That we should be more careful for our privacy. And we should, education should not be in the in the ends of big techs, unfortunately is. So I'm going to ask you the next question, but we're about to run out of time so folks who are watching live can come join us in the breakout room which will be listed in the chat. But but we'll continue here and say, you know, someone asks it's it's Bradley asking if there's anywhere in the world that doesn't face this corruption. Seeing how the EU suffers with.