On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Darrin Chandler wrote:
>> Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
>> Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
>> ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's
>> consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of
>> "consumer." You don't, so you're left in the cold.
> I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They
> can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product,
> then don't use it.

Darrin is not missing the point.  He is just making a different point,
which is (for many people, including me) quite valid.

> Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong
> with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they
> have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and
> concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could
> produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are
> simply beating a dead horse here.

If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost
for the hardware vendor.  They don't even _have_ to make a driver for
their hardware.  What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an
open source driver with: ``Piss off!  We have you the technical specs,
so you can write your own.  Our development and support costs would not
be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.''

*This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :)

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to