On 10/12/06, Patrick McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Timothy Miller wrote: > On 10/12/06, Lance Hanlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We are only suggesting we get >> some attention by using our very real achievement to back up WHY we're >> doing it. > > What is our very real achievement? More than one person has commented > that we should have OGD1 out before we do something like this. Having > that, the vaporware problem goes away (mostly), and we can speak from > a position of strength. > I think that in Theo's view (though I am just guessing here) that our real achievement is that enough people have seen the problem that exists with current hardware and enough people believe that it can be fixed that they have been willing to commit their time, effort, and in several cases money to try and do something about it. It would be equivalent to the early days of GNU when RMS got fed up with the Unix status quo and began working to fix the deficiencies he saw by creating the GNU utilities.
In fact, this is my view. I believe it's Theo's as well, but he's a complicated guy, and he's very careful about what he commits to saying about anyone. This is the critical point and I am a bit surprised it wasn't implied all along. If anyone isn't sure about this just do a little browse on the Net on all the "open source" projects that have been in place in the last 10 years. I don't even want to venture a guess. Once you get to this stage, you've arrived, and you have the potential to sway the industry if you choose to use it. The product itself is not important if you can demonstrate the ability to create it. In this business, as in love, the potential is more important than the delivery and the longer you can sustain anticipation the longer you can postpone disapointment. We're still waiting for GNU HURD by the way.
We have identified that their is a problem with the closed nature of current hardware and have begun taking steps to fix that. While our focus is actually on creating the video card, perhaps as important is the creation of the OGD1 board. While we are needed it as a means to an end, it will also be a fully functional (I suppose that depends on your definition of functional) development environment for other projects as well. Admittedly the first board is focused on graphics but, like many OSS projects that is because we need it to do that. > Fortunately, we have an OGD1 board. Unfortunately, it's missing the > RAM chips, so it doesn't make for good photos. Perhaps we should > begin with a photo of a blank board. People like annotated > progression stories. I wouldn't push a major media blitz about that > (let this 'intermediate' bit of news trickle out via the grapevine), > however, until we have photos of a fully-populated board. > > If there are good reasons to act sooner, rather than later, then let's > keep going, but first we need to be sure we anticipate all of the > questions people will raise. Let's work this out here in this > discussion. > ___ I have found it quite interesting to read the opinions this topic has generated. From the philosophy/advocacy side of things we have the argument that the identification of the problem and action on that problem is the newsworthy item and is the important achievement. The creation of the physical thing is a side effect. From the pragmatic/business side of things the creation of the physical thing that supports the underlying philosophy is the important achievement. Without it the philosophy is just a bunch of talk.
Of course that's true, but the ability to do what we are striving to do is MUCH more important than the achievement. Steve Jobs banks on his ability to put profit making technology infrastructure together, not his ability to produce a board. In fact, he doesn't produce that much, but whatever comes out of him, even if it's a side effect of biological realities, the world rediverts awesome resources to accomodate it. That is a much stronger position than a parts catalog.
My general take is that both side are correct in their own way. I would not start loudly proclaiming how great we are compared to other companies/groups without something to back it up. Personally, I would never go so far as RMS or Theo to proclaim my philosophy. While I greatly respect both for what they have done and what their philosophies are, IMHO they have crossed into the "fringe zealot" realm (RMS especially) and it has begun to hurt their influence and certainly their perception by the non tech crowd.
Here are two large misunderstandings. Please help me to clear them up. First, there is no side to this argument that advocates promoting ouselves as a company. That's suicide. Theo's suggestion (and my own, but who cares :) is to do some good in the world while drawing some attention to ourselves. We want to be known. We need to tell the world what we are known for. Who are we? Why are we together? What is to be done? As a group we need to draw attention and gravity to ourselves to take advantage of our very real momentum. The time is right for that. No product should be discussed, and no corporate matters of any kind, until the first prototype is completed. These are two completely seperate issues with completely seperate timing requirements. Theo and I think the time for the former is now. Second, I agree with you about RMS, and I presume that's why you said "especially." It would be a big mistake to make the same assumption about them both. Theo is not a zealot, he is a strategist, one of the best I've ever seen (and I've known some of the best there ever were personally). When he makes noise it may sound like fringe ranting to you, but you would be very surprised by real tactical gains Theo receives when the stock market is done readjusting to his maneuvers. You don't have to accept my word, but I urge you to keep an open mind. Theo will never explain himself to anyone unless it furthers his position, so if you mistake his motives or underestimate their effect, it will be your loss alone, not his. This thread was not prompted because I think it's time to get attention, I thought so when I first joined. This thread was prompted because Theo has offered us some of his knowledge on how to get the most bang for your gripe. He knows the pressure points and his ability manipulate this industry is evidenced by his survival and success without ever compromising with anyone. He has offered to show us where, and, much more important, when to speak out to get some real exposure to our views and agenda. Ultimately, views and agenda build political capitol in this industry. If you have that you can have market any product you want, but without it, you couldn't even sell a perpetual motion machine.
To back up the philosophies claim, we need a piece of hardware. We need OGD1. Given that we can start with the more forceful espousing of our philosophy surrounding open hardware. We will be able to explain the problem we see, what we are doing to solve that problem, and be able to show that we really are more than a bunch of hot air. From that point, as new uses crop up for OGD1 or milestones are made with OGP development that can be demoed on an OGD1 we can push that information out along with corresponding philosophical points. As we move forward and make milestones or new projects use the OGD1 for other things, we do not want to miss the opportunity to point out the technical benefits of having access to open hardware, as well as the limitations that are imposed by commercial closed hardware when compared to our approach.
This is an excellent plan to put a positive spin on what is fundamentally a complaint about the state of the industry. I agree with those who urge caution in speaking about any product plans too soon, much better to have features in place before discussing them. But it's an excellent strategy. Again, political gravity drives successful open source entries. Our agenda is being worked out and is uniquely our own. Theo can help us get the word out.
Patrick M
-- _Lance _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
