[Open-graphics] Getting more exposure for OGP

[Terry Hancock]

Timothy Miller wrote:
>  One thing that you're surely right about is that it's not in me to
>  behave just as they do.

Honestly, I'm trying to avoid psycho-analyzing you (or Theo, for that 
matter).  I don't know you that well.  I'm just saying that if we're 
talking about a "cult of personality" here, it isn't going to work 
unless it's in you.

Actors are probably an especially bad example, because they are 
professionals at impersonation.  But normal folks like you and I had 
much better just tell the truth. ;-)

 > I want to say just as much as they do, but I
>  do it in a style that is much more passive and indirect. When I was
>  younger, I was arrogant and didn't consider other people's feelings
>  and points of view. I would bowl people over with my opinions, doing
>  nothing more than piss them off and alienate them.

I agree that an ideological position is good to have, and OGP should 
give credit to that inspiration.

It's the "pissing off and alienating" that I would like to avoid.

 > Now, I've gone
>  the other way and feel that (nearly) every point of view is deserving
>  of some respect, even if I don't agree with it. As Lorne once said
>  on Angel, "How are you supposed to joust someone when you partially
>  agree with their point of view?"

We are in a very scary area when you make pop-culture references, and I 
actually know where they came from. I've recently watched pretty much 
the entire Joss Whedon oeuvre, more-or-less in marathon mode.  ;-)

 > So far, I've gone about this
>  project by saying to myself that it's nVidia's right to keep their IP
>  closed... and it's my right to work to make an alternative.

Well, IMHO, it's their right to close it, and my right not to use it.  
But I only have that right if somebody creates an alternative.  Making 
an alternative is about more than industry competition, it's about 
giving the user freedom.

I think that's what Lance is probably getting at.  I just feel that he's 
trying to create an "us vs. them" landscape, and IMHO that's no good -- 
because if the criterion for success is "industry competitiveness" then 
there is no "us", and if the criterion is "support for user freedom" 
then there is no "them".  I vote for promoting the latter worldview in 
which there is no "them" to act against.

Actually, since I had never heard of Theo de Raadt, I did a little 
research, and I find a quote from him which says much the same thing 
(while *simultaneously* pissing off and alienating a lot of people ;-) ):

"Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we 
do because we love Unix"

Well, I totally disagree with his opinion of Linux, but the sentiment is 
sound. Be "doing something good", not "fighting something evil".  (You 
fight evil because it's *in the way*, not because it's evil).

While I'm mouthing my favorite platitudes, let me add that I think 
"cynicism is naive": good things happen all the time, and good people 
are rewarded a lot.  Just because we're wired to remember the 
exceptions, because they are important to learn from, doesn't change the 
reality.  From an evolutionary perspective "good" is "good" because it 
wins -- fatalism and cynicism must have it wrong, or good wouldn't exist 
(not least because its success is often counter-intuitive).

Nobody "wins against the odds", they just prove the odds aren't what 
they were commonly thought to be.

>  However, I'm saying that, within ethical boundaries, if I have to
>  ruffle some feathers to make the alternative, then so be it. Just by
>  doing this project, some people are going to get upset. You can't
>  please everyone.

And I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that nay-sayers shouldn't be 
given the time of day. Do not give them the respect of engagement.

 > I will not say that the individual people at nVidia
>  are evil. I'm certain they're not. But their IP policy is totally
>  self-serving, done in large part out of fear of ATI, and they are
>  really more concerned about their profit margin than they are about
>  meeting the needs of consumers. There is no "customer is always
>  right" at nVidia. I can't prove it, but nVidia strikes me as the
>  sort of company that innovates ONLY because of the competition; just
>  like losing marketshare to AMD is the only thing that drives Intel to
>  truly innovate, nVidia is pushed to advance mostly out of fear of
>  losing marketshare to ATI (and ATI is no better!).

Sadly, this attitude is what got the US to the moon (Cold War 
competition). Notably, however, it's also why we didn't stay.  Had the 
Russians beat the US to the Moon, we would've gone to Mars before 1980 
(so it's kind of a shame they didn't -- Mars would've required so much 
more preparation that it would've been a harder foothold to lose).

That's what I mean about a built-in motivation to fail.  If your only 
motivation is to compete with the "winning team", then you have defined 
yourself as the "losing team" (and even if you do win the race, you'll 
stop running).

IMHO, you should not aim to create any kind of marketing worldview for 
open hardware that does not make sense in a world where there is nothing 
but open hardware.  What you ideally want is for the world to view 
proprietary closed hardware as a bug on the windshield on the way to 
real progress.  You don't want to be "counter culture", you want to be 
"the future".

I'm not saying you should never say anything negative about ATI, nVidia, 
or other industry players.  I'm just saying, don't make it your mission.

Or to get back to the Buffy-verse, it's about "saving people, not 
killing vampires". ;-)

>  This is why working with the community is so much fun. Intel and
>  nVidia minimize development costs by avoiding development. We can
>  minimize development costs by sharing with the community and letting
>  them share with us the innovations that we come up with together.

In the long run, of course, the free way will be more innovative, and 
OGP *will* be feature/price/performance compatible with the best 
proprietary card on the market. But it's hard to say when that will happen.

>  But I'm getting side-tracked from the main discussion, which is
>  whether or not I have the kind of personality necessary to stand up
>  and speak loudly for a cause. I believe the personality I already
>  have is sufficient for that. I can say what needs to be said. I
>  just have a tendency to file off a few more pointy corners than the
>  other guys do. When I speak euphamistically or indirectly about
>  someone... you still know whom I'm talking about.

I think that will work.  Probably better than the "me against the world" 
type, but even if not, I think it's what will work best *for you*.

FWIW, I myself, may well be more of the loud-mouth type.  But I have 
learned to be more cautious over the years. ;-)

> > However... and this is a big however ... what will you do if they
> > listen? What if ATI and nVidia call your bluff and release a card
> > with open specifications? The open/free-licensed design is (to me
> > anyway) an important core concern of this project. Even if ATI
> > releases another open-spec card that X.org can support, I'll still
> > prefer the open design one.
>
>  The fact is, any card that they might release full specs for would be
>  just as old-tech as OGA, if not worse. They're not going to give up
>  their money-makers at the high end, so they'll start selling $24
>  Radeon 7000 cards again. Big whoop. We'll beat Radeon 7000
>  performance hands-down, and we'll be infinitely more cooperative with
>  the developers who write drivers, thereby ensuring a less buggy,
>  more stable system.

Yeah. I agree that it wouldn't be easy for them to really compete. OTOH, 
they could create the impression of real competition, and since they 
have such an advantage of position, that might be enough to hurt you.

What I'm really telling you is: don't goad them into trying that without 
already having an OGP product positioned.  Frankly, if ATI and nVidia 
management don't think you have a chance at getting your product 
manufactured and sold, until you're already taking pre-orders, that'd be 
a good thing.

> > But for most users, most of the value is the open spec, not the
> > open design. And ATI or nVidia can beat you on that. Intel
> > already has -- they've recently released open specs on their
> > graphics system, which is built into a number of popular Intel
> > motherboards. The buzz is that this is an attempt to gain an
> > advantage against ATI (especially in light of other events, such as
> > AMD recently buying ATI -- thus putting them in a position to
> > compete directly with Intel on motherboards with built-in
> > graphics).
>
>  I think Theo's argument was made that this is all appearances and
>  little substance. IIUC, they haven't released full specs. They've
>  released partial specs to a handful of Linux driver coders. They're
>  playing like they're supporting FOSS, but really they're not.

While I doubt that they are highly motivated by FOSS ideals, I think the 
only thing they've not shared are essentially firmware blobs they are 
contractually obligated not to release (mostly to do with DRM, apparently).

I can't speak too authoritatively, though -- my information is all 
second-hand.

> > IMHO, the better strategy is to promote the values of openness
> > without actually mentioning the competition. However, I think you
> > will have more success attracting attention if the focus is on the
> > benefits and social value of fully open / free-licensed design of
> > the hardware, and not merely the open specification advantages.
> > From a logical perspective, the latter may be more important, but
> > from the point of view of trying to inspire people to help you, the
> > former is more likely to get the job done.
>
>  I think the very least of what Theo and Lance are suggesting is to
>  make a comparison. Coke and Pepsi compare against each other all the
>  time.

Well, at the risk of sounding like a complete ditz: I think ATI and 
nVidia are the "Coke and Pepsi". OGP is "Tea": classier, less 
exploitative, better for you, easier to make yourself, and does the same 
job without rotting your teeth.  ;-)

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com