On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:38:45PM -0700, Rob wrote: > On 10/19/06, Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:34:49AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > 2006/10/18, ICMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit > > card > > > > > companies to have open source communities making their drivers > > better? > > > > > > > Why do some people feel the need to make up utter bullshit defences > > > for the vendors, when there is not one ounce of fact to back it up? > > > Why? > > > > I think anyone who cares about this at all has tried to figure out why > > vendors take the attitude they do. I have, though I haven't posted much > > about it. > > > > Since you and those you work with on this project have dealt with many > > different vendors, do you find some common reasons they give? Or when > > you back them into a logical corner, is there some last refuge they > > resort to? > > > > I'm sure you can guess why I'm asking. > > > Companies don't always do things that make sense to an engineer. Engineers > generally make decisions based on what's best for the design; the engineer > says, "we should open this up, and let other people improve it for us." > > But, someone in management says, "I don't want to open this up, because it's > a secret, and it's our secret, and secrets are valuable." > > You can waste a lot of time attacking someone's attitude with logic, and in > the end, it won't change anything because their attitude isn't based on your > kind of logic. Sometimes you just have to wait for their attitude to change.
And sometimes you have to do things to expedite that change in attitude, like not buy products from companys that don't have your best interests at heart. This thread is boring and going nowhere. -Rick
