Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:38:15 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 211
Message-ID: <31797567.1943F730@lambert.org>
References: <3176AFE0.28146F7@lambert.org> <pmh.829934962@ardbeg.islay.sub.org> <31785FD3.214C1457@lambert.org> <stephenkDq63JA.8JK@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:14567 comp.os.linux.development.system:21659 comp.os.linux.x:29633 comp.os.linux.hardware:36648 comp.os.linux.setup:51006 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:661 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3287 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3119 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17587
Stephen Knilans wrote:
] >As Stephan brow-beats more and more free software advocates into
] >"just not buying their product" (because they no longer care),
] >then it reduces the number of people available to leverage
] >a policy change.
]
] So you're saying "buy lousy products, so we can threaten and
] have them CHANGE!"
No. Reread it, please.
I am saying your brow-beating serves no useful purpose relative
to the goals you say you are pursuing. This means either:
1) The goals you say you have are not your real goals
Or
2) You don't understand this, and need it explained to
you.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and choosing to
respond to hypothesis #2.
Your parents have failed you, your teachers have failed you,
but fear not! I will not fail you. You *will* learn critical
thinking skills!
] Gee, a message is intelligent if it is all lower case?
It is more readable; since convention is to intrepret all
upper case as "louder", it seems less like you are maniacly
ranting. Try some other means of emphasis other than
capitaliztion. If you mean to *italicize* or "paraphrase"
(or speak parenthetically), or 'quote', then do so.
] >Say it costs them $10,000 to have the lawyers reconsider it,
] >and then talk about it in a meeting with 6 people for half
] >an hour, and then change and print new manual to hand out to
] >their support people, and to dictate, type, and send a memo
] >so that the support people who now answer the question by
] >reflex know that the previous answer from the old policy
] >manual is no longer right, and they have to "unlearn" it.
] >Then they have to publicize the change to undo Stephan's
] >"good work".
]
] Why would attorneys have to get involved?
Did you truly not read David's original post in this thread
regarding their response? It *clearly* stated that the
reason they were not releasing the information was protection
of their intellectual property.
This is a legal issue.
Attorneys are the people companies hire to deal with legal
issues.
] As for the employees? Don't they have a quick way of
] communicating?
I am sure they could spend 10 minutes in a meeting of 20
employess, which would cost them 200 minutes times the
average wage + 200 minutes times the average opportunity cost
of not covering some other topic or those employees being
at their desks doing their job instead of sitting around in
a meeting.
] Heck, as I recall, it isn't even an 800 number!
Irrelevant trivia. Disregarded.
] >Now divide that number by the net profit per card, and this
] >is how many cards they need to make as a result of the
] >policy change to actually make the policy change "a sound
] >business decision".
] >
] >If Stephan gets his way, will that many people be interested
] >in buying cards?
]
] Hopefully not. Companys don't care if you use their cards
] (OBVIOUSLY), they care if you BUY them!
>Ding!<
Announcer: Stephan now has one point!
And are you going to appreciably impact the number of people
who buy their cards by your ranting in this particular
cross-posted nightmare?
No.
>Ding!<
Announcer: Terry is now tied with Stephan!
And is your claimed goal of free software advocacy advanced
by causing free software people to not consider Matrox cards
at any time in the future, regardless of any change in policy
that may occur?
No.
>Ding!<
Announcer: Terry has two points! Things are beginning to look
bleak for Stephan!
] >They look at the old policy that Stephan has made it
] >cost-ineffective to change.
]
] Actually, it costs MORE to send out NDA agreements, handle the
] legal hassles, and take all the calls to complain, and lost
] business, than it would EVER cost to NOT do all that stuff,
] and sell more cards.
Announcer: Oh, I think we need a ruling from our panel of
judged on that one...
...
>Bzzt!<
Announcer: Sorry, Stephan, but the judges say that companies
have what they call "policy inertia", and that
since so few people in the free software community
are willing to sign NDA's, the cost of processing
them is much less than the cost of a policy change
and much, much less than the value they (erroneously)
believe they are getting in terms of "insurance" for
their intellectual property. Even though they're
wrong unless someone tells them they're wrong instead
of posting huge brow-beating articles to somewhere
they will never see them, we just can't accept that
answer. Jay?
Jay: Stephan, we're sorry you lost, but you'll be getting
"enlightenment", as our gift to you for playing...
] >It's in my own best interest to make sure Stephan doesn't
] >screw the free software community out of the use of the
] >next generation of card because he's too lazy to have a
] >rational discussion.
]
] What does laziness have to do with it? I have spent MONTHS
] on the phone with DOZENS of companys trying to figure out how
] various hardware/software works.
Did you spend any time on the phone to Matrox *explaining* why
not disclosing programming information doesn't offer them any
intellectual property protection, and that there are people
who will not buy their card otherwise who will buy it if they
disclose? (That was a rhetorical question; of course you didn't).
] It is bad enough when it is things that have no standard. Like it
] or not, there IS at least a defacto standard in VGA cards,
Irrelevant crap.
] and they have NO valid reason to hide their methods!
This, however, is correct.
How about explaining this to them. They are not idiots. After
all, they can make video cards that *you* can't figure out how
to program correctly. They *must* be at least as clever as you
are.
] >Make sense?
] >
] What, do you work for these guys, or are you a lawyer that
] wants to see this become more prevalent?
No, I'm a systems software engineer who knows enough about how
businesses operate solely on the basis of economics to know
that the only argument that will change Matrox's policy is
an economic one, and you aren't making it.
I also see that you are steadily eroding the economic leverage
available to the free software community with your ill-thought
postings on the subject. If you destroy their future market
opportunity (their opportunity without a policy change was
destroyed by David without you needing to chime in like a
maniac), then there is no incentive for them to consider the
free software community in any future policy decisions. Or
for them to reconsider any previous policy decisions, like
the one that caused this thread.
If you advocate free software, like you say, then you should
damn well act accordingly.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.