See below.

-----
This message or posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
Any opinions or policies stated in this mail are my opinions and do not
necessarily constitute those of my employer.
Harvesting of this address for purposes of bulk email (including "spam")
is prohibited without my expressed prior request.  I retaliate viciously
against spammers and spam sites.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Shannon Hendrix [mailto:shannon@widomaker.com]=20
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:16 PM
> To: NetBSD User's Discussion List
> Subject: Re: IP: Wal-Mart PC, Operating System *Not*=20
> Included: $399 (fwd)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> This really should be in advocacy or somewhere else, but at=20
> least the subject is tagged...
>=20
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 02:19:29PM -0800, David Lawler=20
> Christiansen (NT) wrote:
>=20
> > Remember, it's not as simple as ensuring that the driver=20
> builds on the=20
> > following X incarnations of NetBSD, detects and that the=20
> kernel boots.=20
> > You have to test it.  Often, you also have to test it with multiple=20
> > motherboards, configurations, etc.  All that labor, time, and=20
> > expertise
> [snip]
>=20
> It doesn't cost them anything to provide the information=20
> necessary to write drivers.

That's not true: tech writers are not cheap.  And, remember that I
didn't say it was just an issue of documenting the drivers --
documenting the drivers is sometimes not desireable.  Some companies
wouldn't do it even if they could afford to, for reasons like
patent-protection.

Even if the cost were low, it's still a cost you wouldn't pay if you
didn't do it.  Most corporate managers, weighing the two costs, probably
didn't think it's worth it. =20

> Most of them could also write reference drivers that would be=20
> reasonably portable.  They only have to provide a couple of=20
> them and the community can do the rest.

Re-read my post: sometimes an open-source or openly-documented interface
is not preferable.  Hell, sometimes, it's not even legal if you want
customers like the NSA, banks, or overseas governments to buy it.

It's not even an issue with mere portability.  You MUST test it
yourself.  You can't just throw the problem over the fence and allow the
community to do it for you.  Testing absorbs significant resources given
the number of OS's you'd need to support. =20

Weren't you the one who was mad because we don't want to be
lawsuit-magnets for software bugs?  Your method is a surefire way to
soak up legal action; I guarantee it.

> > My point is that you need to look beyond the likes of=20
> CompUSA and Best=20
> > Buy.  If anyone thinks that chains like that are stocking Windows=20
> > machines because of some enormous "nefrious" plot by MS=20
> that involves=20
> > black helicopters, kickbacks, and strongarm tactics, please=20
> speak up--=20
> > I love to shoot down idiotic theories like that.
>=20
> I don't know about the helicopters, but they definitely have=20
> strong-armed more than a few hardware and other companies.  I=20
> have talked to some of the personnel in places where this has=20
> happened: this is not theory.

Fascinating.  Please elaborate on this "nefrious" strongarming.

> Besides that, Microsoft's unethical and stupid practices are=20
> intuitively obvious to the casual observer.

I'm sure we've done some stupid things.  However, last I checked that
wasn't what this thread was about.
I'm sure some of what we've done has been less than ethical to
somebody's taste.  If so, we wouldn't be the first company to do so.  We
won't be the last either.

> > Unclear whether "you" in this case is MS, or "you" is the consumer=20
> > wishing to buy components that are non-Windows-specific.  In my=20
> > experience, the consumer's hands are almost never tied--=20
> he/she's just=20
> > not being creative or resourceful enough.
>=20
> Some major software and hardware alternatives have been=20
> eliminated over the years by Microsoft.  Resourcefulness on=20
> my part will not bring them back so I can use them, they are gone now.

Some companies die.  It sucks, but that's life.  See my other post for
more on this.

> I personally think they will one day sink their own ship, and=20
> I cannot wait until they do, but for now living in the world=20
> they have created sucks. =20

Now you're saying that MS is responsible for life sucking, too?  Allow
me to clue you in on a little well-known secret: Life just sucks.
Microsoft has nothing to do with that.  It's been sucking for far longer
than we've been on the scene.

> You cannot get away from it no=20
> matter where you turn. Sometimes I can't even apply for a=20
> damn job without some idiot saying they cannot hire me unless=20
> I submit a resume in Microsoft Word format.

Amazing.  Next you'll tell me that Microsoft paid them to turn away
applicants who don't use MS Word, or has a way to prevent people from
reading documents written in plaintext, PDF or postscript form?  Is this
where the black helicopters come in?  Hmmmm... strange how companies
would have the most popular (and, like it or not, it IS the most
popular) wordprocessing software and expect that you have it too.

Next you'll be ticked at the phone companies because the job actually
required that you have telephone service in order to give you a phone
interview.  Just frigging amazing.

> I think they day they fall should become a national, if not=20
> worldwide, holiday.

Maybe you think our software sucks, and that everyone is just blind, or
has too low of expectations.  Maybe you're upset because you don't own
MS Word and the company you're applying to requires it.  Those might be
legitimate grievances.  If you feel this way, I urge you to take these
up with those who *actually made those decisions*.  Maybe the company
involved doesn't want to buy fifteen different readers.  Maybe they use
MS Word all over the place internally and this is just one more way to
weed out applicants who don't know how to use it.  Hell, maybe they are
testing you to see how much you really want the job... Who knows?

However, I don't think that's what you're so ticked about.  I think
you're mad because we're popular.  Or because we're successful.  The
phrase "I can't get away from them... They're everywhere" is usually a
tipoff to this viewpoint.   Along these lines, it seems to me that
you've chosen a banner to follow, and everyone who doesn't conform to
your zealotry is instantly worthy of your venom (it's "us or them").  If
this is the case, then accept my pity with the suggestion to be careful
for what you wish.  IMHO (with boldface on the *H*), a space with only
one set of opinions gets boring and decadent very, very quickly.

-Dave