[Open-graphics] Getting more exposure for OGP

[Patrick McNamara]

Timothy Miller wrote:
> On 10/12/06, Lance Hanlen <lance.hanlen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We are only suggesting we get
>> some attention by using our very real achievement to back up WHY we're
>> doing it.
>
> What is our very real achievement?  More than one person has commented
> that we should have OGD1 out before we do something like this.  Having
> that, the vaporware problem goes away (mostly), and we can speak from
> a position of strength.
>
I think that in Theo's view (though I am just guessing here) that our 
real achievement is that enough people have seen the problem that exists 
with current hardware and enough people believe that it can be fixed 
that they have been willing to commit their time, effort, and in several 
cases money to try and do something about it.  It would be equivalent to 
the early days of GNU when RMS got fed up with the Unix status quo and 
began working to fix the deficiencies he saw by creating the GNU utilities.

We have identified that their is a problem with the closed nature of 
current hardware and have begun taking steps to fix that.  While our 
focus is actually on creating the video card, perhaps as important is 
the creation of the OGD1 board.  While we are needed it as a means to an 
end, it will also be a fully functional (I suppose that depends on your 
definition of functional) development environment for other projects as 
well.  Admittedly the first board is focused on graphics but, like many 
OSS projects that is because we need it to do that.
> Fortunately, we have an OGD1 board.  Unfortunately, it's missing the
> RAM chips, so it doesn't make for good photos.  Perhaps we should
> begin with a photo of a blank board.  People like annotated
> progression stories.  I wouldn't push a major media blitz about that
> (let this 'intermediate' bit of news trickle out via the grapevine),
> however, until we have photos of a fully-populated board.
>
> If there are good reasons to act sooner, rather than later, then let's
> keep going, but first we need to be sure we anticipate all of the
> questions people will raise.  Let's work this out here in this
> discussion.
> ___
I have found it quite interesting to read the opinions this topic has 
generated.  From the philosophy/advocacy side of things we have the 
argument that the identification of the problem and action on that 
problem is the newsworthy item and is the important achievement.  The 
creation of the physical thing is a side effect.  From the 
pragmatic/business side of things the creation of the physical thing 
that supports the underlying philosophy is the important achievement.  
Without it the philosophy is just a bunch of talk.

My general take is that both side are correct in their own way.  I would 
not start loudly proclaiming how great we are compared to other 
companies/groups without something to back it up.  Personally, I would 
never go so far as RMS or Theo to proclaim my philosophy.  While I 
greatly respect both for what they have done and what their philosophies 
are, IMHO they have crossed into the "fringe zealot" realm (RMS 
especially) and it has begun to hurt their influence and certainly their 
perception by the non tech crowd. 

To back up the philosophies claim, we need a piece of hardware.  We need 
OGD1.  Given that we can start with the more forceful espousing of our 
philosophy surrounding open hardware.  We will be able to explain the 
problem we see, what we are doing to solve that problem, and be able to 
show that we really are more than a bunch of hot air.  From that point, 
as new uses crop up for OGD1 or milestones are made with OGP development 
that can be demoed on an OGD1 we can push that information out along 
with corresponding philosophical points.  As we move forward and make 
milestones or new projects use the OGD1 for other things, we do not want 
to miss the opportunity to point out the technical benefits of having 
access to open hardware, as well as the limitations that are imposed by 
commercial closed hardware when compared to our approach. 

Patrick M