Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!uunet!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: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:53:55 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <31785FD3.214C1457@lambert.org>
References: <4kfkb2$dgs@coyote.Artisoft.COM> <stephenkDpoDrJ.177@netcom.com> <3170348D.4496D9F1@lambert.org> <stephenkDq2BCK.B40@netcom.com> <3176AFE0.28146F7@lambert.org> <pmh.829934962@ardbeg.islay.sub.org>
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:14681 comp.os.linux.development.system:21935 comp.os.linux.x:29882 comp.os.linux.hardware:36884 comp.os.linux.setup:51443 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:746 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3388 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3230 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17822
Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
[ ... ]
] >The situation is not analogous. XFree86 is the car, not Matrox,
] >and Matrox is a different octane fuel. Commercial service
] >vehicles can run on that octane, but your XFree86 car can't.
]
] I completely agree with you, Terry. As this arguement goes on and on
] I can't resist to ask:
]
] If Matrox is such an unfriendly, braindamaged company - why the hell
] even care? I just didn't by their product, period.
I care because I care about free software.
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.
Even if their policy is absurd (it is), and they say "hey, our
policy is absurd!", they still have to ask "will it cost us more
to keep or change the policy?".
As the number of people who will buy as a result of a policy
change is decreased by *stupid* "capitalize every other word"
arguments, the amount they will be paid to change their policy
is decreased.
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".
[Seems $10,000 might be an underestimate...]
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?
Now say Stephan "wins", and it costs more to make the change
than they will make off of it. They don't make the change.
In a year, they are trying to decide new policy for the new
"Matrox Media Master" (or some other card with alliterative
"M"'s to make it "cool").
They look at the old policy that Stephan has made it
cost-ineffective to change.
Now, it's cheaper to not print new policy manuals...
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.
Make sense?
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.