On Sat, 2004-04-12 at 09:18 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: > On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 19:58, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > Your initial reply to me, which was not about the issue at hand > > whatsoever - you called me obnoxious and insulting. That counts as a > > personal attack in my books, and immediately forced the discussion in a > > useless direction. Point is you made comments about me personally, not > > my statements (always the sign of someone with no argument to stand on, > > BTW) > > > I didn't call you obnoxious. I asked you to stop being obnoxious. > A fine difference I admit but a difference anyway. You *did* insult a > number of people by calling their ideas ignorant so, in my book, you > started the personal attacks.
As I have already explained in detail, I called the _opinion_ ignorant because it fails to take into consideration numerous factors involved (actually every factor except "duh, I want card to work"). That is MY PERSONAL OPINION of that idea. Frankly, it's not my problem if people find my opinion insulting. And even if they do it's hardly a valid reason to not express an opinion. Every opinion insults someone out there. It is irrelevant. So in summary, I don't like your opinion, and you don't like mine. Good, great, grand, who cares. > Now, on to more important things. Agreed. <end previous pointless discussion> > I agree with almost everything > else you've said in this post and I think it's the right direction to go > in. The one thing I disagree with is that we *all* care about personal > freedom. It's just that some of us are a bit more pragmatic about it. > We do have to live in the real world after all. I said the exact same thing, thus we are in agreement. Yay. > > Why don't we find out the best way we can attempt to convince RME open > > is the way to go, and have as many of us as possible contribute? > > > > Options I can think of: > > > > - Mass letter campaign, with a template letter. Good, because it's > > easy, also good because it gives the impression of many individual > > customers being dissatisfied. This letter could be a "please open your > > driver" letter, or an "I'm not buying any of your products ever (again)" > > letter, or some combination of both. Either way, the point that a > > closed driver is a much less desirable (though not inacceptable, at > > least to some of us) must be made (some companies just don't "get it"). > > It's probably better to ask for specs.. we really have no right to be > > demanding RME do more work. > > > > This is probably the best option. I think you could also point out > that the Linux community as a whole is interested in finding a vendor > that they can trust and work with. A vendor that works with us on an > open basis would probably engender a hell of a lot of customer loyalty > (along the lines of Mac users ;-) The only negative is that it's hard > to fight inertia. Getting enough people to do this could be tricky. Enough right now would be tricky, yes. But in time, the effect would definitely be significant. I personally think Linux Audio will become a pretty important thing in time (at least on par with Windows anyway, which noone even takes seriously as an audio platform yet a lot of audio companies care about it a whooole lot). If Linux becomes tempting as an audio platform, when newbs go to switch and the entire community says "<companyX> is by far your best option for an audio interface" because we get along with said company, it can only be a good thing. Already Linux CDs are being shipped with more mainstread not-linux-specific music magazines - it's happening already. That's what we need to make RME understand. They used to be <companyX>. They aren't any more. > > - Forum posting. Apparently there's an RME forum? Never seen it > > personally. Possibly better than email letters because it's viewable by > > the public and they can't just ignore all of us. Plus a productive > > conversation might result. > > > As long as we keep it respectable. Well, seems Marek is already doing the forum thing, so maybe that's the best option? The public-ness of it is a plus anyway. -DR-
