From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Mar 30 10:48:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from et-gw.etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE7337B71A for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:48:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by et-gw.etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05749; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:49:12 GMT (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20010330134837.03f30d20@mail.etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@mail.etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:06:51 -0500 To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG From: Dennis Subject: Re: if_fxp - the real point In-Reply-To: <200103301749.f2UHnNK02853@guild.plethora.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 12:49 PM 03/30/2001, Peter Seebach wrote: >In message <5.0.0.25.0.20010330123625.03db9610@mail.etinc.com>, Dennis writes: >[snip] > >Dennis, everything you're saying sounds exactly like the people who were >saying, five or ten years ago, that Linux would *never* make *any* difference, >because Microsoft had already won. Microsoft has won in the markets that existed at the time. Unix is more suitable for internet services, so it has a sizable chunk of the internet market. BSDi failed miserably against MS with an arguably better product in the server market. Source availability didnt help much. And lets face it. If MS had a good product, they would have a much larger market share and linux would be a non-issue. MS just makes shitty stuff. Its not about "open source". its about how well it works. I've said it 1000 times but none of the source weenies want to hear it. Linux started to make headway when it started to work well. The fact that its cheap helps too, with or without source. >If there is a measurable population of people to whom open specs are >important, open specs are a competitive advantage. Over time, they are >likely to win if all else is equal... and in the long run, all else *is* >equal. Open specs are a competitive disadvantage, because all players are equal. NetBSD will never be much better than FreeBSD (or vice-versa) because they keep stealing each others ideas and code. Those that sign an NDA have an advantage of those that dont, that the whole point. >Is General Motors worried about using a card for which the drivers require >an NDA? No. Is Home Depot, who are running a lot of boxes on Linux, more >likely to standardize on a few thousand cards that their programmers assure >them are "safer for us"? Yes. I'll bet you $.50 they use intel or 3com cards. >The pressure need not be overwhelming to be real. Over time, yes, I expect >to see more vendors release hardware specs, because failure to do so can cost >them *at least some* sales. The number of sales seems to be steadily going >up. It can be very small today and still be a big deal in five years. "some" sales dont matter. You dont understand the trade-offs, which often are negative. My competitors probably sell twice as many boards as I do and I'll bet that I make more profit than they do. Selling more is not necessarily good. Selling more can be very bad. WHO you sell to and HOW MUCH they pay are more important. Its all about MARGIN. And you lose margin when everyone has the same information. Dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message