Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:50:57 -0500 From: "Nikolas Britton" <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> To: "jan gestre" <freebsd.ph@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Message-ID: <ef10de9a0607271050y5d940271h5e00bcaf3c618db2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <a25afc300607270829n6575615cu8c2e63e8803c4f99@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060726164622.Q17979@ganymede.hub.org> <20060726201933.GH5284@jeeves.stilyagin.local> <20060726185018.BB70.GERARD@seibercom.net> <20060726231555.GB19000@gothmog.pc> <a25afc300607270829n6575615cu8c2e63e8803c4f99@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/27/06, jan gestre <freebsd.ph@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/27/06, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> wrote: > > > > On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert <gerard@seibercom.net> wrote: > > >Darrin Chandler wrote: > > >> Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from > > >> Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your > > >> ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's > > >> consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of > > >> "consumer." You don't, so you're left in the cold. > > > > > > I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They > > > can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product, > > > then don't use it. > > > > Darrin is not missing the point. He is just making a different point, > > which is (for many people, including me) quite valid. > > > > > Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong > > > with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they > > > have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and > > > concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could > > > produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are > > > simply beating a dead horse here. > > > > If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost > > for the hardware vendor. They don't even _have_ to make a driver for > > their hardware. What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an > > open source driver with: ``Piss off! We have you the technical specs, > > so you can write your own. Our development and support costs would not > > be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.'' > > > > *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :) > > > > and if i may add, if they don't provide FreeBSD drivers for their > > products, its their loss, they won't earn anything from FreeBSD users coz we > > won't buy or stay away from their products. and i also think the reason they > > are discontinuing support for FreeBSD 6 onwards coz they feel we are just > > few and won't make a significant increase in their profit driven company, > > one way of making us heard is by letting them know how many we are, why not > > bombard them with request for support, IMO once they notice how many we are, > > i'm pretty sure they'll give in. > > Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. What we really need is score card to keep track of the good and bad companies. Someone with initiative could have this up and running in a day or less... After it's up we can put a BIG HONKING LINK on the FreeBSD main page. The second thing everyone (All who use X) needs to do is get AMD to force ATI's hand into releasing documentation. This should not be hard to do because ATI's lead counsel is on the way out. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ef10de9a0607271050y5d940271h5e00bcaf3c618db2>