Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!newsfeed.acns.nwu.edu!ftpbox!mothost!newdelph.cig.mot.com!whelk!willmore From: willmore@whelk.cig.mot.com (David A Willmore) 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: 27 Mar 96 19:19:06 GMT Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group Lines: 60 Message-ID: <willmore.827954346@whelk> References: <4j21ph$crr@slappy.cs.utexas.edu> <slrn4lbb5r.ai.mark@hunter.mas.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: whelk.cig.mot.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:13681 comp.os.linux.development.system:20022 comp.os.linux.x:27634 comp.os.linux.hardware:34388 comp.os.linux.setup:47265 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:296 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2790 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2565 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:16036 mark@hunter.mas.org (Mark Swanson) writes: >I think their policy is just fine. One must respect a companies right to >protect intellectual property. Their attitude is snotty and arrogant, but >their policy shouldn't be too surprising. I should think that we (the Linux >community) have the intelligence to route around this. Why can't the XFree86 >team just distribute the binaries for certain cards? Do what you can for free >software but living or dying by it results in no support for this type of >hardware. There will ALWAYS be this type of hardware around that Linux >users would like to use. For one, they can't distribute just the binaries as portions of the code are distributed and used under the GPL which forbids binary only distribution. I don't have to respect any companies anything--be it their products or supposed 'rights'. I don't know how other Linux users view this situation, but I don't buy devices for which the producer fails to provide detailed and sufficient technical information. If I can't write a Linux device driver for it or if the XFree people can't write support for it, I don't buy it. Not only do I not buy it for my own use, but I don't recommend it to others. Being a technical person in a world of non-techies, I am often asked for purchasing advise. Though I only spend a few thousand a year on hardware, I influence tens of thousands of dollars in purchases. In a fair market economy, it is necessary for the consumers to be aware of what they are getting. You buy a Matrox card. Good for you. You get a fast card and no support--in terms of technical information. Buy an S3 based card or an ATI card, etc. and you get a fast card and technical support. To me, the technical information is a valuable part of that device. If that information weren't available, the value of the device would be lessened. Here's a practical example. Say you buy a matrix card for use on your windows system. It comes with a driver for Win95 and you're happy. A year later, Matrox--due to their bad business practices--goes out of business. Along comes Win96 (in late '97) which requires a new driver because it supports 3D when the old one didn't--or they change the GUI, etc. Your card can't be used under Win96. You poor thing. What can you do? Too bad you don't have the tech docs for the card. If you did, you might be able to write a driver which worked with Win96. Not realistic? Ok, Matrox gets bought out by a compeditor with the same style of business practices. They discontinue production of the old Matrox cards in favor of their *Blaster cards. They have the information on those old cards, but they are actively suppressing it's distribution. If they let that information out, then those old Martox cards would retain more value--as they would be useable in new OS revisions, etc. The new company doesn't want this to occur, so your year old card--though useful-- has lost its value. Fair market? Respect the rights of Matrox? I don't think so. When I go out to buy my next video board, I'll not even consider Matrox. They might as well not have a product for all it will matter. There is something--or there used to be--said for a brand name device. Too bad the biggest and the brightest now see themselves as too good to have to support their customers uses of their products. "Oww, a generic S3 card for half the price? I'll take it..." Cheers, David