On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:14:12 -0700, thewade <pdman(a)aproximation.org> wrote: [sniped] In my experience this is not the case. Perhaps I should clarify by stating "full compatibility" rather than mere compatibility; I feel compatibility itself is enough to keep my point valid, though -- if people know their hardware will work in Linux as it does in Win32 they can no longer use compatibility as an excuse. definitely. [snip] The "short-term" nature of the solution is actually the whole point. Our development entity, by virtue of creating full linux compatibility for their hardware, opens their market to linux users. Profits increase for them, community increases for us. But thats only part of the trade-off -- the major gain for us comes after their market expands. Slowly but surely they will build linux compatibility into their organization, taking over where we left off -- otherwise their margins go down [which is incentive enough not to do it] -- and thus the involvement of that development team is necessarily short-term, and is so by design. But yes, in the meanwhile the burden is on the development entity to keep the manufacturers linux-using customers satisfied [if they don't, they risk wasting their time and making people switch off of linux]; and this is, I admit, an ironic position in which to put any developer. At any rate, if enough Linux users are visibly purchasing their hardware and using our drivers [and i assure you, we can make this very visible], the manufacturer will no doubt do one of two things with reference to their new hardware lines or firmware updates to existing lines, depending on their resources: (1) as stated above, hire people to develop the necessary code to give support/compatibility to CURRENT and FUTURE customers using linux, [or perhaps start paying the initial development people to do it?] (2) give our development team advanced warning and/or access to their new designs in advance in order to not alienate the linux community -- and this is what we want, simply to not be left out. So it isn't RME who has to fix anything, its the people who've signed the NDA who're responsible. And you are right about the sacrifice involved since more than likely most manufacturers would opt to keep their code closed, at least in the beginning. To me, though, it is still an improvement on the current situation to have support for linux ... even if we cant [immediately] have the code. So rather than making my model out to be a "short-term solution" to the compatibility problem, it is best to view the problem you bring up as a problem that only exists before the change is made on their end [the inevitable change toward accommodating the linux community in one way or another once the linux community becomes a visible and proven market] -- more precisely, as a short-term problem that inevitably goes away. The nature of business [profitability] and the nature of OSS are currently butting heads. Apparently catering to linux users is not viewed as profitable so there is no incentive to do so -- all I suggest is that we give them some, and that we do so by testing our principles in the real world in a new way. If the OSS model is truly better for everyone [or at least enough of everyone such that hardware should come with drivers for it] we have to prove it to the people who make hardware -- we do this by stepping up to the plate and doing what we do best: fearlessly sharing our knowledge and skills. and mine, --vord