On 10/12/06, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
I'm not following you here. What personality is Theo's? My statement
was that we need a personality, I did not endeavor to describe it, as
it needs to be defined over time by everyone here.
As to Theo, I don't think he is interested in sharing his with anyone.
But I'll ask?
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.
My message to you from Theo is that you need to show the world you
have integrity. That's from him.
My own message to you is that if you want to be someone who works hard
to do what other people tell you to do and don't complain, then no one
will fault you. Indeed, you can be sure of fixed salary.
But if you want to make changes in the world, for whatever reason, you
will need some dynamism in this personality we're discussing. That's
just my opinion.
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.'
Ok, that's a start. Tim we have one vote for you to not be an
iconoclastic loudmouth? I would like that personality for you myself,
although I had not yet thought about what kind of personality you
should have.
> 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 understand that the original open source philosophies had their
beginnings in the free love movement, which I think is romantic.
> 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.
You forgot the hippies and the communists. Bigger players in industry
don't care about what people do or want. They like it when everyone
voluntarily chooses to buy something that costs nothing to produce
though.
> 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.
I don't think you can cover your manufacturing costs with those people
alone. I think you need to sign an agreement with Red Hat if you want
to make an impact on the Linux Graphics base. Red Hat may or may not
want you for all sorts of mysterious reasons, but if people are
talking about you Red Hat will want you. That's my point.
> 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.
No. You can't say that you're going to do well in a market that is
willing to work harder just to not pay for it's software, or to avoid
the expensive hardware that Linux and BSD don't require. You can hope
so, but you can't say so.
> 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.
I don't like the way you're buying it, but I'll accept your agreement
at any level, and work with you to get it to where it needs to be for
everyone to sign off. It's that important.
So what if the worst happens? What have you got to lose? Theo gave me
some inside stuff about why it won't, but say it did.
You now have an even playing field. The community decides and does
what it likes and grows, and hardware gets made for developers by
developers. Is that not what's important?
Risking your competitive edge is not that big a risk when you have
none. But if you win, you win the hearts and minds of people who want
to build hardware. That's what I mean. You have a chance to rally and
build the community. Corporations can't touch communities.
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.
Buzz gets more fab than the chips. There is so much going on behind
those deals that we will never know, but will always be misled about.
The senior executives in those firms who will make the decisions don't
know what's going to happen. I won't spend my time discussing anything
like that.
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).
On the one hand, you're right not to discuss product strategy until
it's ready, as I've said.
On the other hand, you need to build a community, not a corporation.
You won't build it with sound management practices. And the FUD
campaign is well under way, directed against you, and already
appealing to buyer cynicism, which, by the way, is also directed
squarely against you before the buyer even knows who you are.
Do you want to pass yourself off as kind of another corporation that
does things just a littled differently? Good luck.
> 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).
I'm glad you feel that way. Because nVidia and ATI are waiting to hear
that from you so that they can hand over their pitiful share of a
pitiful market to... you!
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*).
Theo isn't going to "run his mouth off" on your behalf. He has
achieved something that you are only just dreaming about, and he has
done it without ever selling out to anyone, consistently, throughout
the revolution, and the reaction, and he has never had to spin
anything positive so as not to risk having anyone not like him. He
gets things done, and has the respect of everyone who is anyone,
friends and enemies alike.
He's the real thing, and his words carry real weight and he does not
use them unless he decides to do some damage. He is offering some
advice, and there's nothing you can offer him at all.
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.
I don't know what world you're living in, but I hope you succeed in my
world as well. I would just love it if from now on everyone is
rewarded for doing the right thing.
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)
--
_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)
