Lee Elliott wrote:

IMO, money exists and until there's either a well thought out alternative, or no further need for it, you might as well try to get along with it.

Clever way to put it. :-)

However, there is a degree of implied endorsement and association so I think that anything 'endorsed' in this way should be checked for quality to ensure that it doesn't give the project a bad name.

Considering this specific example, I'd suggest that some thought is given to the issue of compatibility between the product and FG i.e. they should send you samples so you can ensure that it all works with FG and is up to FG's quality and standards;)

Yes, in my most recent reply to this company, I asked specifically about FG support (and support for operating systems not owned and operated by MS.) It's not necessarily clear from their web page exactly how their products interface with the computer and how they work ... hopefully we can get a bit of a better handle on that before we proceed.

In terms of quality here is what they proposed which seems reasonable since we face a chicken/egg problem here. They don't want to send free hardware to any random person that applies for their program and promises to post an add on their site. So they propose that we run an add for a week or two or however long it takes to generate a couple sales. Once that happens, then they feel their risk of loss is minimized and they would be willing to send a sample or two of something for review. It seems like a reasonable approach. They aren't unwilling to send a sample, but they don't want to be taken advantage of.



Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to