On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 02:27:53PM -0400, Nick Guenther wrote:
> On 6/30/06, Breen Ouellette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>J.C. Roberts wrote:
>>> This should take care of any of the long standing issues OpenBSD has had
>>> with the HiFn's procedures for releasing documentation.
>> Someone who participates in editing vendorwatch.org might want to
>> update the Hifn status page.
>
> Done, but I've left their ranking as "unfriendly" on the front page
> because they've given no apology and they still seem to be shady.
>
> If someone could add the links to the slashdot/newsforge/whereverelse
> stories that would be helpful though.
I see it is now 'somewhat friendly'. Since I can't resist adding to this
largely useless debate...
Theo is, of course, right that a company that does the right thing for
its consumers isn't doing anything special, and yes, Hifn has been
trouble enough.
On the other hand, they have changed and done pretty much what everyone
here wanted - granted, they could have done so sooner, but they did. In
fact, they might be rated positively `Friendly' right now.
Of course, this does not change the fact that they have been trouble,
but that's not what the VendorWatch status means. After all, VendorWatch
isn't in the business of tracking whether or not companies use child
labour and are wont to respond to labour unions with gross violence,
either.
However, it is a good thing to preserve this piece of history on the
Hifn page; but that does not mean that the status cannot be considered
`Friendly' right now.
Plus, rewarding people for good behaviour tends to encourage such
behaviour. This is even more true in the case of corporations, which
tend to be even more focused on rewards than people.
Joachim
