14 Dec
2004
14 Dec
'04
2:15 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:12, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:31:01 -0500, Lee Revell
<rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
*Nobody* is telling them to GIVE AWAY hardware.
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:03 +0100, Esben Stien
wrote:
Damn, was I really able to stir up such a hornet's nest with just 4 words? ;-)
Esben Stein expressed his opinion. That's totally cool. He expressed
it much more politically on the RME forum. Not sure what that means or
why he chose to do that. I thought it wise to be polite to RME. Honey
vs. vinegar.
It seems to me that many people involved in Open Source think that
business should operate financially as Open Source operates. Business
should just give things away, no matter what it cost them to develop
it and no matter what the company might be able to get for it in the
future. Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> writes:
Christ, what the fuck country do you live in? Don't you understand the
concept of people having bills to pay? Or do you just assume the RME
guys are independenly wealthy and just design sound cards for fun?
Sheesh.
Lee So basically they want to protect their
investment in getting
knowledge of how to implement a powerful firewire interface from the
eyes of other hardware manufacturers.
A society where you put money higher than cooperating with other
people is not a good society, in my opinion.
Personally I think that there are probably way more shareholders in
RME than there are Linux audio people that *might* buy an RME Fireface
800.
No.
It seems to me that this is a tough idea for people
who are so used to
getting everything for free.
Do you *really* think that people are here because they want beer for
free? They could happily use pirated software for instance.
(Read Open Source users or folks in some
countries.)
Could you please show me the country where people get everything for
free?
Marek