Hi Brad,
Sorry about my delayed response, but here are my
comments on it.
> From: Brad Hards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 6:03 PM
>
> A while back I made a suggestion that we should approach various
> manufacturers to beg USB 2.0 information and products.
> I have finally gotten around to writing a sample letter. Not liking
> \LaTeX so much now...
Thanks for following up on this. We could use better vendor
cooperation and I agree that approaching them civilly is the
right thing to do.
> I have attached the letters - they are provided as a point to start
> discussion off again, and I expect several rounds of changes.
>
> In particular, the letters are dependent on the existence of
> a Linux USB
> Special Interest Group. At one stage, this was proposed as an offshoot
> of Linux International. However we could probably become the Linux USB
> Special Interest Group on the basis of just the letter.
What advantage does the LUSIG have over the Linux USB Project?
Would having Linux International on a letterhead help us with
some vendors?
> I have tried to structure it as an "executive overview" (what we want)
> and then backup detail (why we want it, who we are etc). This
> is on the
> basis that otherwise none of it will get read. Any ideas from sales /
> marketing gurus on this or any other aspect of the approach.
>
> Also, this probably won't generate a high rate of response
> (I'd like to
> think we could get 5%). Over say 200 manufacturers, this is still 10
> companies to deal with. Do we land Randy with this? Or another
> coordinator?
Miles Lott volunteered back in Feb./2000 to be the Linux USB
vendor liaison, although he was mostly concerned with serial
converter devices. Miles, are you interested & willing to
approach USB 2.0 vendors also?
I'd really like to see someone besides me doing this, mostly
because it's more time-consuming than you'd expect it to be.
I also don't mind offloading some Linux-USB project jobs.
Oh, I'm also (a little) concerned about vendors being confused
by seeing requests coming from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They may say something like, "What's going on here?
Our device is already at Intel." OTOH, it could also
add some leverage to the request (unofficially of course).
~Randy
__________________________________________________________
Typos/edits:
annex.tex:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a. The "next" USB PlugFest is in Taiwan in June/2000.
We are targeting the next US USB PlugFest which is tentatively
scheduled for August/2000 in California.
There's also a new Compliance spec (Rev. 0.9) that is in the
members-only area. The URL for it is
http://www.usb.org/app/members/compliance/ but only members
can access it.
b. Under "Open Source Benefits," you have "supporting supporting".
c. Under "Linux USB support for your products," change "There
essentially" to "There are essentially".
Also change "and information that protocol" to "and information
on that protocol".
Somewhere near "A true win-win situation", how about a short
point about providing specs publicly and allowing (or providing)
open source drivers allows a company to (a) offload driver
development and support and (b) continue with their new product
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
