[Open-graphics] Getting more exposure for OGP

[Lance Hanlen]

On 10/12/06, Patrick McNamara <wpmcnamara at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

In fact, this is my view. I believe it's Theo's as well, but he's a
complicated guy, and he's very careful about what he commits to saying
about anyone.

This is the critical point and I am a bit surprised it wasn't implied
all along. If anyone isn't sure about this just do a little browse on
the Net on all the "open source" projects that have been in place in
the last 10 years. I don't even want to venture a guess. Once you get
to this stage, you've arrived, and you have the potential to sway the
industry if you choose to use it.

The product itself is not important if you can demonstrate the ability
to create it. In this business, as in love, the potential is more
important than the delivery and the longer you can sustain
anticipation the longer you can postpone disapointment. We're still
waiting for GNU HURD by the way.

> 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.
>

Of course that's true, but the ability to do what we are striving to
do is MUCH more important than the achievement. Steve Jobs banks on
his ability to put profit making technology infrastructure together,
not his ability to produce a board. In fact, he doesn't produce that
much, but whatever comes out of him, even if it's a side effect of
biological realities, the world rediverts awesome resources to
accomodate it. That is a much stronger position than a parts catalog.

> 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.

Here are two large misunderstandings. Please help me to clear them up.

First, there is no side to this argument that advocates promoting
ouselves as a company. That's suicide. Theo's suggestion (and my own,
but who cares :) is to do some good in the world while drawing some
attention to ourselves.

We want to be known. We need to tell the world what we are known for.
Who are we? Why are we together? What is to be done?

As a group we need to draw attention and gravity to ourselves to take
advantage of our very real momentum. The time is right for that. No
product should be discussed, and no corporate matters of any kind,
until the first prototype is completed. These are two completely
seperate issues with completely seperate timing requirements. Theo and
I think the time for the former is now.

Second, I agree with you about RMS, and I presume that's why you said
"especially."

It would be a big mistake to make the same assumption about them both.
Theo is not a zealot, he is a strategist, one of the best I've ever
seen (and I've known some of the best there ever were personally).
When he makes noise it may sound like fringe ranting to you, but you
would be very surprised by real tactical gains Theo receives when the
stock market is done readjusting to his maneuvers. You don't have to
accept my word, but I urge you to keep an open mind. Theo will never
explain himself to anyone unless it furthers his position, so if you
mistake his motives or underestimate their effect, it will be your
loss alone, not his.

This thread was not prompted because I think it's time to get
attention, I thought so when I first joined. This thread was prompted
because Theo has offered us some of his knowledge on how to get the
most bang for your gripe. He knows the pressure points and his ability
 manipulate this industry is evidenced by his survival and success
without ever compromising with anyone.

He has offered to show us where, and, much more important, when to
speak out to get some real exposure to our views and agenda.
Ultimately, views and agenda build political capitol in this industry.
If you have that you can have market any product you want, but without
it, you couldn't even sell a perpetual motion machine.

>
> 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.
>

This is an excellent plan to put a positive spin on what is
fundamentally a complaint about the state of the industry. I agree
with those who urge caution in speaking about any product plans too
soon, much  better to have features in place before discussing them.
But it's an excellent strategy.

Again, political gravity drives successful open source entries. Our
agenda is being worked out and is uniquely our own. Theo can help us
get the word out.

> Patrick M
>


-- 
_Lance