On Friday 16 July 2004 22:41, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> 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.
Best see what the following time-zones think though;)
Flightgear-devel mailing list