After watching this debate go on and seeing comments on issues that I
deal with every day in a completely different industry, I couldn't help
but feel obliged to comment.
Below, I included a note that Mr. Long wrote earlier in this thread that
got me thinking. The All-or-Nothing attitude is often the most
effective way to stay true to your philosophical beliefs - and
especially a mission statement you claim to abide by. Mr. Long treats
this as a downfall, not a positive. I realize that compromise is a part
of life, but this is not one of those areas where OpenBSD can even dream
to compromise. It would shake the core philosophy/goals of what Theo
and the OpenBSD developers have promised the community at large that
they would follow. Mr. Long laments Theo's insistence on documentation
and claims he is drawing users into "...political fights depriving them
of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything [they] want..."
No, Mr. Long, Theo is insisting that the OpenBSD project does not
compromise where it matters most. Most users expect (if they have paid
any attention to the press OpenBSD has received with regards to these
types of issues) Theo (and the developers) to do the Right Thing. The
Right Thing in this case is not ignoring the clause, "Integrate good
code from any source with acceptable copyright (ISC or Berkeley style
preferred, GPL acceptable as a last recourse but not in the kernel, NDA
never acceptable). We want to make available source code that anyone
can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions." -
http://openbsd.org/goals.html
I am personally involved in two manufacturing operations that deal with
customers who are much larger than us. When GM comes to us and offers
the possibility of doing business we get excited. Sure, we deal with
huge corp's like Freightliner, Isuzu, and Carrier Transicold (& tc.),
but GM has stigma where we live (seeing as most of us in our
organization drive one type of GM car or truck) and it would be with
great pride that we could tell people we do business with GM. On the
other hand, part our mission is to do work our way. We want complete
control over those things that we are responsible for - namely,
manufacturing the product and making sure it meets or exceeds the
quality expectations of our customers. Customers like GM often take the
approach that they know better how to conduct business (which is
laughable considering the fact that a corp. as large as GM constantly
struggles to be profitable). Therefore, they think they ought have a
say in our manufacturing methods, financial management, personnel
management, purchasing management - the list goes on. To be honest, it
is quite amazing that they feel they know our business better than us
and yet aren't doing it themselves.
There is a time and place for compromise (I did so earlier this evening
with my wife...), but when someone suggests that we change what we do
and who we are to fit *their* needs or wants, we *fail* through
acquiescence. While the stigma that comes with saying we can *do* or
*handle* this or that feels good, it isn't right. If Adaptec feels that
their customers are better helped by not providing documentation needed
by OpenBSD developers, then it is certainly their choice. I don't see
how this supports them doing more business, though. The OpenBSD
community is asking for nothing more than documentation. Are there
hidden functions that Adaptec doesn't want us to see or have access to?
I fail to see how our requests are unreasonable. It seems to me that my
above analogy of GM is befitting of this situation. Adaptec wants to
have control where it doesn't matter or, more importantly, make any
sense. This is a choice they are free to make. I would hate, however,
to be the one lying down and accepting this because I think that a
greater good can come of such compromise. This is nothing more than
tomfoolery. Each time we choose to compromise on our core values, we
are headed towards ruin.
I hope OpenBSD is able to support Adaptec, but it is more important to
me that I can trust that whatever hardware is supported can run
unencumbered by legal agreements that do nothing but restrict us users
from using a product to it's fullest capabilities. I am already forced
to do so every day because people I do business with require me to use
one software product or another and I am vehemently working on ways of
getting myself (and my companies) out of this predicament. I don't need
yet another OS/software project fooling me into thinking I'm using free
software.
I could go on... Thank goodness I have paid attention to threads like
these to know who I can trust to follow through with what they say they
are going to do.
snf
These thoughts brought to you by:
Scott Long wrote:
I can't see how the All Or Nothing attitude here is productive. Good,
you guys want to produce fully open and unencumbered stuff. That's
wonderful. But why is it so important to go around screaming and
yelling about it and alientating those who do try to help? Let me
tell you, Doug is about the most positive and supportive guy you'll
ever have at Adaptec, pissing him off really won't produce results.
Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights
by depriving them of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything
that you want? I'd love to have fully open stuff from all the RAID
companies too, but I also want the users of FreeBSD to be able to use
the resources that are out there to their full advantage and not be
pinned down by my political beliefs on the subject.
Scott
|