Lance Hanlen wrote:
This proposal is about personality. It should not surprise anyone
that Theo wants us to stand up and be counted by taking a strong
stand, and being vocally critical of what is wrong in our world. He
is as loud and uncompromising an activist as they come and he
encourages everyone else to be one also.
Yes, and (I gather, I don't know him myself) that's Theo's personality.
Unless Timothy has a side about him I haven't yet seen, he seems a lot
more level-headed and pragmatic. You know, as one expects "hardware
guys" to be. "Personality" needs to be genuine. You can't fake it.
If Timothy were an iconoclastic loudmouth, I would say, "go for it". But
I think he's not, so he should just be fair and honest: 'We saw a
problem. We had the skills. We decided to fix it by doing some hard work
with those skills.'
It was RMS and Linus and Raymond raising a huge and a horrible stink,
a smell so bad that everyone just had to make room for this extremely
threatening new way of doing things.
This seems like a somewhat romanticized version of events, but to be
fair, I wasn't paying much attention before the late 1990s.
I say to you that the industry
did not cave in to their clever arguments and political acumen. I say
it caved in to all the attention they got and all the speculation
that attention bought them on the Nasdaq in 1999.
"The industry" is not a person (no single identity), and many of the
people in it, *still* don't see this.
The people who did first were hackers and engineers and scientists, who
quietly started using the technology on projects where they had the
freedom to do so. It was the swell of such tangible results that got the
attention of bigger players in the industry.
I suggest to you that, corporate and marketing strategy aside, you
want to do the same. Success on the open market means the general
consumer -- especially so when you are trying to cover manufacturing
costs -- and the general consumer is not impressed with product
quality.
Let me say it again. The general consumer is not impressed with
product quality. It's not my opinion, it is an absolute fact. The
general consumer will choose Windows, every time.
This won't work for OGP cards in particular.
They will not be competitive in features, price, or performance with the
proprietary competition (i.e. ATI and nVidia). Their primary benefit is
to people who are already using Linux or BSD. These are much more
sophisticated customers who *will* be swayed by both the ideology and
the quality (both present and future) of the product.
So we are competing in a theatre where corporate backing is
absolutely nonnegotiable (this is not software!) and, compared to our
competition, we have none. The general consumer does not care about
us and without him/her we are dead.
If this were true, we should give up. Fortunately, it's not.
The more sophisticated market I've described will support a higher price
than the competition, with "openness" being the principle benefit.
Unless I'm mistaken, the fact that OGP will not reach a "mass market"
isn't a problem -- the math has been done based on the assumption that
the cards are niche-market products.
For that group of consumers, it is very important that OGP remain firmly
a "white hat": solid supporters of the ideology that is encouraging them
to spend a little extra on a product they believe will support them in
the future.
That's what I'm suggesting, and Theo suggested a great way to get it.
Stand up and start talking about why we're doing this.
I don't like the way you are selling this idea. However your basic
conclusion is sound: there should be a clear statement of purpose. And
it's fair game to point out that the current industry behavior is not
helping.
However... and this is a big however ... what will you do if they
listen? What if ATI and nVidia call your bluff and release a card with
open specifications? The open/free-licensed design is (to me anyway) an
important core concern of this project. Even if ATI releases another
open-spec card that X.org can support, I'll still prefer the open design
one.
But for most users, most of the value is the open spec, not the open
design. And ATI or nVidia can beat you on that. Intel already has --
they've recently released open specs on their graphics system, which is
built into a number of popular Intel motherboards. The buzz is that
this is an attempt to gain an advantage against ATI (especially in light
of other events, such as AMD recently buying ATI -- thus putting them in
a position to compete directly with Intel on motherboards with built-in
graphics).
For Linux users who use AMD/ATI, this situation is a little troubling,
as the PRs I've read show a strong hint that these will be closed
systems optimized for Windows Vista.
So your first competition is actually Intel, since they are competing
for the "openness" mindshare.
This is one reason why it is much better that, if there is to be a big
marketing push for the product *or the ideology*, it is far better to do
so from the position of OGD1 as a fait accompli. That makes an
impenetrable defense against the FUD campaign that will follow, in which
industry competition will try to create the impression that you are
quixotic idealists, with no real chance in the real world of cut-throat
industry competition (i.e. they will appeal to the buyer's cynicism --
of which there is much to appeal to).
Neither one of us is suggesting we promote our product, we don't need
to say anything about what we're doing. We are only suggesting we
get some attention by using our very real achievement to back up WHY
we're doing it. Because something is wrong! Because there is danger
in the industry, because there is abuse, monopoly, unfair restriction
on competition -- whatever you believe is wrong, just say so. And we
all believe there is something wrong, or why are we here?
Remember, though: it's always more important to do something good than
to fight something evil. Those who define themselves by what they fight
have a built-in incentive to failure (because success would put them out
of a job).
Mind you, if Theo wants to run his mouth off, and he is NOT affiliated
with OGP, it's not necessarily a bad thing (you could even get some
Stallman/Torvalds style "Tastes great! / Less filling!" action going).
But anything coming out of the project needs to be clean, positive, and
directed at future success. Define yourself by what ATI, nVidia, or
Intel is doing, and you put them in the driver seat (and you can bet
their marketing departments are *sharp*).
IMHO, the better strategy is to promote the values of openness without
actually mentioning the competition. However, I think you will have
more success attracting attention if the focus is on the benefits and
social value of fully open / free-licensed design of the hardware, and
not merely the open specification advantages. From a logical
perspective, the latter may be more important, but from the point of
view of trying to inspire people to help you, the former is more likely
to get the job done.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
