Return to BSD News archive
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 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.hawaii.edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!usenet.seri.re.kr!news.cais.net!news1.erols.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!netserv.com!news.clark.net!netjam!snm.com!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!stephenk From: stephenk@netcom.com (Stephen Knilans) Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium Message-ID: <stephenkDq7ADH.Aq@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <31785FD3.214C1457@lambert.org> <stephenkDq63JA.8JK@netcom.com> <31797567.1943F730@lambert.org> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 07:05:41 GMT Lines: 188 Sender: stephenk@netcom12.netcom.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:14598 comp.os.linux.development.system:21720 comp.os.linux.x:29678 comp.os.linux.hardware:36695 comp.os.linux.setup:51103 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:676 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3307 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3141 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17626 In article <31797567.1943F730@lambert.org> Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> writes: >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. A rose by any other name.... >] 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. It is a stupidity issue! They need a psychiatrist. >] 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. OR, they could realize that we aren't in the 1960s anymore, and send Email! >] >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? I am merely continuing a thread, and responding to you. I didn't place those addresses in there. As for appreciably? I expect that 10s of thousands, or even 100s of thousands could have heard it by now. We know that over 6 have stated that this caused them to suggest AGAINST this card, and they lost THOUSANDS of sales! Not appreciable, but a BIG number, all things considered. This is what we KNOW of! >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? YES, if other companies decide to not follow matroxs lead! > >Announcer: Terry has two points! Things are beginning to look > bleak for Stephan! How does this "announcer" sound to you other guys? Doesn't he seem arrogant, and looking for some real [false] sense of accomplishment? > >] >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? > If they didn't have NDAs, they could place it on the web. Average realized cost to a company? ZERO!!!!!!!! If they have NDAS, the average is over $7/hour per inquiry(due to lost time by a receptionist). I won't even bother to calculate attorney costs, etc.... >] >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). Of COURSE I didn't! As I said, I had no interest! I DID do this with HP, DEC, DIAMOND, and many others though! I DID have an interest with THEM! Heck, It takes several minutes just to get through! Why waste my time with such things. It took me 40 minutes to get through to Compaq! >] 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. I have come up with codes that nobody has deciphered. I ALSO had a BBS operating for over a year with a prize of over $1000 to the first to crack it! NOBODY even came close! Does that make me inherently smarter? NO! Heck, I cracked the copyprotection on several disks, including dragon eggs for the apple(which had a multistage boot with EACH having a different method of reading the next, and the FIRST boot was in the input buffer)! Of course, I saw that as a CHALLENGE, and was a teenager with time on my hands! Cracking that disk was more fun than playing the game! Of COURSE, I could figure out how to program that diamond card, or ANY similar card(even the Matrox). But I do NOT have the time, and choose not to waste it! When I found a bug in the APPLE II, I traced the code and found a vector that wasn't documented. I built a whole security system around it, and even had some multitasking. I did a LOT of reverse engineering and code tracing and machine(without an assembler) on the APPLE II. Today, however, I get PAID for doing this, and have better things to do with my time. If you spoke russian, and I didn't, I couldn't understand you. That does NOT make you smarter. Just like my speaking german and danish wouldn't make me smarter than you. >] 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. Then WHY did you suggest that people buy their cards "for leverage"? >If you advocate free software, like you say, then you should >damn well act accordingly. > As I said, this is NOT about linux or ANY other free software.