On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 04:53:06PM +1000, Alexander Else wrote:
> At 04:19 PM 4/7/00 +1000, DaZZa wrote:
> >Do you lambast Intel in a similar manner for its cheap Celeron chips? Do
> >you moan about the trend towards using non ECC or non parity RAM because
> >it's cheaper?
>
[snip]
> comparison may have some merit :) There is a trade off between cost and
> performance. All of the software based modems I've seen fail to meet what
> I would consider to be an acceptable performance standard.
So a company offering some modems to qualified testers is jumped on by you
when it sounds like you are highly qualified to give them an opinion on
their product.
>
> >These trends are part of the world we live in - and are, in large part,
> >responsible for the lower consumer cost of PC hardware today.
>
> That's fine except when a company knowingly ships a shitty product knowing
> that the consumer will have undue trouble and other companies will end up
> paying for the difference in cost. I think that's a very poor business
> ethic and at some point we've got to take the high ground and say, "hey, no
> more".
But you didn't. You just bitched and moaned about Winmodems in general. Did
you bitch and moan about their modems in particular? No.
> >At least there's _one_ modem company who realises that not everyone uses
> >WindoZe with their products. And this has got to be a good thing.
>
> That's true, but I'll be more impressed when they release open source
> drivers for a hardware based internal modem.
Of course you'll help them release this is a Good Thing by:
a. flaming them
b. testing their drivers out and demonstrating that they have no hope
of supporting a closed source driver
> With that said, I'm bowing out of this thread.
Ah, it appears you already made you choice. Great tactic that one, flame
and then disappear.
Anand
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
