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.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.cis.okstate.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.drake.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!mail2news.alias.net!myriad!mylinuxbox!suck!netcom.com!stephenk From: stephenk@netcom.com (Stephen Knilans) Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium Message-ID: <stephenkDq63JA.8JK@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <3176AFE0.28146F7@lambert.org> <pmh.829934962@ardbeg.islay.sub.org> <31785FD3.214C1457@lambert.org> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:40:21 GMT Lines: 80 Sender: stephenk@netcom.netcom.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:14709 comp.os.linux.development.system:21989 comp.os.linux.x:29927 comp.os.linux.hardware:36929 comp.os.linux.setup:51525 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:759 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3404 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3251 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17865 In article <31785FD3.214C1457@lambert.org> Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> writes: >Patrick M. Hausen 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!" >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. Gee, a message is intelligent if it is all lower case? hvis du can laese det ikke er det bedre? Was that more meaningful to you than: IS IT BETTER IF YOU CAN'T READ IT? (I apologize to any Danes out there, if I mangled things a bit) > >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? As for the employees? Don't they have a quick way of communicating? Heck, as I recall, it isn't even an 800 number! > >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! >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. > >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. 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. 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, and they have NO valid reason to hide their methods! > > >Make sense? > What, do you work for these guys, or are you a lawyer that wants to see this become more prevalent?