The following, though not directly Linux related (save for the last line), is one of the most concise and comprehensive descriptions of how to go about getting hardware vendors' support for OSS, using *practical* methods and data to convince the vendors that it is indeed in *their* best interest to cooperate. It is also one of Theo's *least* aggressive and rabid emails.
For me, it also demonstrates *why* he gets so defensive when companies or people don't see his point of view; he really puts a lot of his time, effort, skill, and soul into this project. IAC, there are a few things that many OSS advocates can learn from what is said here. Tim ----- Forwarded message from Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: aac support > Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:27:39 -0700 > To: Sean Hafeez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > There has got to be a better way to work with the vendors in order > > to get the support we need. It just seem to me that the "screw you > > guys, I am going home" stuff just does not work. > > Well, there is. > > We do it all the time! > > We mail a vendor, and then we start a frank dialogue. I (or some > other developer, maybe even Bill Paul from FreeBSD (Mr. Ethernet)... > anyways, people like that.. ) explain the business case to the vendor. > > They almost always understand, and then give us documentation. > > Sometimes they open the documentation wide up! > > Sometimes they are willing to give us documentation as long as we do > not distribute it too far, and we are willing to do that. We normally > share it with, say, 3-4 developers, to ensure that the job gets done > and that there someone can fix it later. This also ensures that the > documentation stays around in someone's hands even if the company goes > away (like Adaptec might after the FTC gets finished with them?) > > I spend a LOT of time explaining the business case. > > When vendors do not work with us, they are the odd vendors. Normally > they are companies with strong USA stock profiles. I don't know if > that has something to do with it, but I suspect it does. And normally > they are ones that people, down underground, know produce crap. This > also ties into how sometimes it is very hard for us to support their > hardware. > > But, and I must emphasize this, 90% of companies *do* come around. > > > The vendors need a business case in order to do things - they are in > > business to make money and I can agree with that. Maybe we can do > > some sort of list of companies or OpenBSD people that use or would > > use the cards - along with number and install base study of the > > number of sales they would get and give it to them. We should work > > on some sort of cookie cutter type setup that tracks the interest > > and $$ with a product that we can compile and be sent to the vendor > > in order to get support. The data needs to be correct and true and > > presented in a business case manor. The one-off flock of emails just > > do not work. I would be happy to help with this and pursue this if > > there are others that think it is a good idea. > > I have thought about doing this, but it is a lot of work. I think we > all know what needs to be done to make this accurate. It is a very > big job and it needs one passionate person to run it from start to > end. It cannot at this time be me, sorry. > > > Also is there needs to be a stock form that is send the vendors that > > covers in detail what we ask for. > > I do not think so. I write each mail to the vendors individually, > taking the situation and the market into account. I research the > market at the stock level, and I ask people in various parts of the > world to help me form a profile of what chips are showing up there. > If not done carefully, they will be right to take me for a crank. > > > Some that can be vetted by their lawyer that they would be OK with. > > When the lawyers get involved, that is when the companies make bad > decisions and lose. OpenBSD 3.7 will ship with aac off. Adaptec just > lost. No matter how they sell it within their own ranks, they just > lost. Unless they have something to hide, like crap cards with > hundreds of unrepearable bugs and a history of selling crap to > customers after knowing that their product was not meeting the > promises they make. But what do I know for sure. I do however > believe they are balancing two choices of reality. > > > We need to work with the vendors in a clear, clean business like > > manner and leave emotion and philosophy out of it. > > I do. It is hard. I do it every day. Last week we got Ralink > documentation. I am working on Realtek for their 802.11g docs now. > And in a few days, if Realtek keeps stalling me, you will hear from me > as to where to send your mails. > > And then we can get further at supporting a chipset. > > One way or another, at some point we must get *ahead* of Microsoft at > supporting new hardware products on the market. > > (Show this previous line to your Linux friends) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- You don't have to be Microsoft to suck... but it helps. -- me in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
