16-Apr-2024 10:25 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 169 items in your selection (but only 19 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 169]
[Rant] osopinion: Close That Open Hardware!ANN.lu
Posted on 12-Jun-2002 00:21 GMT by sutro169 comments
View flat
View list
A rather unispired article at best. Read here for more.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 151 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 15-Jun-2002 22:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 149 (TBone):
> You're missing the Barbie, one of who's developers has already spoken about
> his take on the license issue.
I don't consider the Barbie a realistic option as it has less features than the AmigaOne. There is an embedded PowerPC board from ARTIS, should that be considered an option becuase it has a few PCI slots and a PowerPC CPU?
"Again, someone is miffed that there are no present plans to run OS 4.0 on the Pegasos. "
> That's your bias showing it's slip, not the petition. Like I said, there is
> a "Real" loss of options already, not speculated, Real. Two manufacturers
> have already stated publicly that they just don't DO their business this way, > face it no motherboard manufacturer does really.
The petition wouldn't exist if the bPlan/Thendic people accepted the license agreement. Everything would be peachy keen in the Amiga world. Oh I forgot about the x86 faction running Amithlon. Don't know how we're going to make them happy unless a PPC emulator comes out and makes everything POP moot.
> That's the proof right there that the license is damaging. It is, we have
> less options now, due only to the license. There are -Zero- manufacturers
> from outside markets who agreed to this license, this is hardly a forward
> thhinking move, especially to an OS that claims to be moving towards platform > independance.
The petition states it's damaging to Amiga Inc., the POP/PPC platform, and AmigaOS users. I doubt the Barbie designer was considering the Amiga as a platform for that product. Looks like STB or embedded material to me. bPlan has it's own plan and I wish them well. I don't feel hurt in any way as an AmigaOS user. As far as Pegasos staying away from OS 4.0, maybe it's a good thing for POP to see if it can stand on it's own and branch out into other markets rather than focus on the small Amiga market. These are fragile times and the rewards should go to the people taking the risks. I guess it means more sales for Eyetech if bPlan/Thendic aren't willing to play in the same sandbox.
> In your counter to the petition, you never did make your case that the
> license as is, is beneficial in a way that couldn't be implemented another
> way. In order to effectively oppose the petition, you would first have to
> show this to be the case.
I didn't there were rules to being critical. Generally speaking pointing out the holes in the argument are sufficent, but here goes!
1) Licensed products are good for the AmigaOS user: Licensed prodcuts will have been tested more thoroughly with available software and hardware by Amiga Inc. This would mean at this point in time and down the road for future realeases of the OS. Potential incompatibilities or BIOS problems can be identified before products are released to the customer. Fixes in the field are costlier and lessen the total experience of ownership. The reduced number of variation in initial systems will acutally help in ensuring compability. On the service side, responses will be more directed as the hardware hasn't had a chance to proliferate as it has on the x86 platform.
2) Licensed products are good for the POP/PPC market: These products would have an official stamp of approval by a company with brand recognition. Whereas most people in the world won't have a clue what a Thendic Pegasos is or a Tratech Barbie, people will recognize the name Amiga. That simple little stamp of approval holds a lot of credibility and will help sales of PPC based products.
3) Licensed products are good for Amiga Inc.: Do I need to say anything for this one? The licensing agreements ensure that the rewards (aka money, fame, fortune, etc.) go to the partners that are serious about developing the Amiga platform.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 152 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 15-Jun-2002 23:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 150 (Adam Kowalczyk):
The Pegasos board isn't built by DCE... It's built by bPlan in the DCE factory
in the ex-P5 assemply line.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 153 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 15-Jun-2002 23:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 152 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
That gives me even less confidence in the quality of the board. If the people that run the equipment day in and day out have trouble making quality parts, why would outsiders be able to come in on an infrequent basis and make decent parts?
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 154 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 16-Jun-2002 00:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 153 (Adam Kowalczyk):
Cause they have been using that assemply line for years?
The assemply line was bought from Phase 5 out by DCE.
It had been operating by the Phase5 team, Gerald Carda,
Thomas Knaebel etc. Thomas Knaebel formed bPlan GmbH. He and
Gerald Carda run the production of the boards themselves... they
have LOT'S of experience with the equipment now located at DCE...
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 155 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 16-Jun-2002 00:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 154 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
I wonder if they ever figured out why all those DCE made CSPPC boards have been failing. They seem to have a lifespan of just over a year and the they die. Maybe it's a good thing. The items won't get obsolete, they just burn out and you have to get a new one. I was really having fun with LinuxPPC and my Prometheus card. Maybe the card sensed I wasn't using a GREX and self destructed ;) Seriously, many people are going to have a hard time spending money on a Pegasos if the last piece of DCE hardware they owned gave up the ghost. The corporate name change game doesn't leave one with a sense of stability. I guess aPlan failed and they went on to bPlan, maybe cPlan will be the quad G5 board in 2003?
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 156 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by DDiehl on 16-Jun-2002 05:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 130 (Samface):
No, I don't think that Seehund, or even yourself, for that matter, have more or 'marketing' experience than those at Amiga Inc. All I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with Amiga Inc's potential customers voicing their opinion. Who buys their products, anyway? For sure, we can break this down into ratios of who agrees with such - and - such and the like, and therefore who will comprise most of the said companies business, but a little constructive criticism never hurts. Thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis, remember? Aside from that fact, if you are so sure of your points, you should have absolutely no worries(or FUD, to quote yourself) at all about Seehund's efforts.
As a small business person for many years, I know firsthand that ultimately the people who buy and support the product build the company. This issue is not about such - and -such side, as people and those people who make up these operations are many faceted, as a rule. (We can't all be stoic Germans, can we?:)) Perhaps by constructively voicing concerns new doors will emerge for the benefit many more, in the long run. Now what is the matter with that?
Thanks!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 157 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 16-Jun-2002 05:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 156 (DDiehl):
Criticism is good, spreading that cricism as facts all over the net isn't. Tell me, what was the good part about his article at OSOpinion.com?
I'm sorry but Seehunds efforts doesn't fall into the criticism category, it's in the FUD category and by the looks of it, he doesn't seem to have any plans of changing his mind either.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 158 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by hgm on 16-Jun-2002 07:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 155 (Adam Kowalczyk):
<I guess aPlan failed and they went on to bPlan, maybe cPlan will be the quad G5 board in 2003?>
Anything will fail concerning Amiga Inc. It is with these people a dead end.
No money. No vision and 3x NOTHING. Prove us the opposite!!
I wish it were the other way around.
A thousand+ will find its way.And that is it. More blah blah and exciting blah blah.
This is what it is all about. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 159 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 16-Jun-2002 14:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 157 (Samface):
>I'm sorry but Seehunds efforts doesn't fall into the criticism category, it's
>in the FUD category and by the looks of it, he doesn't seem to have any plans
>of changing his mind either.
And before we go into thinking that as a fact, let me remind you and everyone that it is your opinion. My opinion is that I strongly disagree, even though I don't necessarily agree with the opinion the petition is voicing. And let me remind you that the petition is NOT the article in question.
I think Voltaire put it quite eloquently and thus summarized my feelings towards the petition: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Overkill certainly, I wouldn't fight to death for the petition :-), but somehow it has a relevant ring to it.
I believe this discussion, which has been quite fruitful and constructive thanks to all, has also underlined some of the concerns that have prompted me to this response. There is this overwhelming sense of blind loalty towards Amiga Inc. that manifests itself in statements like that somehow suggest forbidding public criticism of Amiga Inc. That is scary.
I believe much of the heat this petition has been receiving is due to the fact that people loyal to Amiga Inc. somehow perceive it as a intended threat, instead of seeing it as constructive criticism. I firmly believe it to be the latter.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 160 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 16-Jun-2002 14:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 150 (Adam Kowalczyk):
>I do wish the petition was worded better and that it lacked the amibiguities.
Agreed, I do wish so as well. Some good points have been made here, and I do appreciate people making them. I still do not see it as fundamentally flawed or FUD, though. Quite the contrary.
>bPlan/Thendic are as responsible for the Pegasos not running OS 4.0. The same
>argument or petition could be directed at bPlan/Thendic to accept the
>licensing agreement.
Sure, IF the petition was only about Pegasos. But clearly it is not, and you are apparently refusing to believe this. I believe it to be a petition on a larger issue, that of open AmigaOS hardware platform, (be it Pegasos, Barbie or any future technology).
You listed some good arguments in your post why you think the licensing is good for the market. I appreciate these immensely even if I don't agree with all of them. This is the kind of debate we should be having about this petition. We should discuss and support the issues. Not blame the petition for some hidden agenda - that is all I'm against, not openly discussing the issues themselves.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 161 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 16-Jun-2002 14:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 151 (Adam Kowalczyk):
>> You're missing the Barbie, one of who's developers has already spoken about
>> his take on the license issue.
>I don't consider the Barbie a realistic option as it has less features than
>the AmigaOne. (...)
>"Again, someone is miffed that there are no present plans to run OS 4.0 on the
>Pegasos. "
And the fact that you don't consider Barbie a realistic option means that no one else does either and thus the petition is all about Pegasos? Oh c'mon, take a leap of faith and try for a second to believe there are people out there who have a larger issue to support on this.
Sure, Barbie may be less feature rich than AmigaOne (or not, who knows), but so what? It may still be an interesting development to some people.
Again, as the petition says, the petition itself is not against licesing. Optional licensing could still be done. The petition is about as large as possible choice for the consumer. Even if you yourself won't make a choice outside the licensed range, someone else might be interested.
Oh well, more I defend the petitions rights to exist more it seems to make sense for me. I guess that's cognitive dissonation at work (don't know if it translates to English like that).
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 162 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 16-Jun-2002 15:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 157 (Samface):
>Criticism is good, spreading that cricism as facts all over the net isn't.
>Tell me, what was the good part about his article at OSOpinion.com?
I'd guess even the domain name OS Opinion suggest firmly that he was expressing an opinion. "Tech opinion commentary - for the people, by the people." You seem to have a problem with free speech?
If I really have to start people's right to publish social or technological commentary, I guess I must discuss the article as well. First, it starts with a title "OPINION:" written in red. Now, it is an opinion. Great. Let me go about it one paragraph or so at a time. I will not quote it in its entirety though to respect copyright. The story is here:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/18156.html
>Two and a half years ago, Bill McEwen purchased...
He sure did. Perhaps we should also mention Fleecy, VC & co., but that is hardly relevant.
>Nowadays, Amiga Inc. is a software-only company...
It sure is. This has been mentioned by Bill many times.
>The AmigaOS is being updated, though...
True.
>Nobody is planning, designing, building or providing specifications for any
>new Amiga machines...
Well, this has been debated here, but really, nobody is planning any custom hardware in the original sense of Amiga. Even the Zico spec has been obsoleted according to Gary.
So, everything above the first header "Mixed messages" seems to be in order.
>Amiga users were happy to hear this...
Well, even myself thought we'd be getting an open hardware platform. I was happy with the idea. Whether or not everybody was happy, who knows. But I feel the general mood this sentence conveys was pretty accurate.
>As a result, several of us said, "Finally, our favorite OS would break loose
>from its shackles of custom-made proprietary hardware!"
I feel this to be approriate.
>It was then that Amiga Inc. published a new, so-called "Executive Update"...
True.
Everything above the header "Everything Upside Down" seems to check out.
>The document starts out in an ominous tone from the first paragraph:
Well, it is an omnious tone. But for the sake of completeness, lets call it an opinion.
>"A week ago we shared with you our joy as we move towards the rebirth of the
>Amiga desktop platform...
Well, that is the text of the update anyway.
>Huh? Hey! What "Amiga desktop platform"? They promised us AmigaOS!
>Our "platform" is none of their business...
Well, they did promise us AmigaOS. And the rest of this paragraph is an opinion. Quite logical in fact - the opinion states that hardware is none of their business since they are a software company. But that is just an opinion, you are free to disagree - Amiga Inc. is free to disagree. The beauty of opinion, huh?
I feel everything checks out prior to "Going Downhill".
>Hardware must be licensed by Amiga Inc. in order to be allowed to run >AmigaOS...
True.
>The vendor must also equip his hardware with some means of license
>verification -- ...
True. The only ambiguity here is if the vendor only points to a hardware maker, not a dealer. English is not my native language so I'm not sure, but obviously it has been made clear that in addition to a hardware manufacturer a dealer can also apply for the license.
>Apparently, "partners" were "consulted" when this scheme was designed, ...
Well, so they say. And Eyetech is the first partner.
>Anti-piracy measures are one of the excuses mentioned, ...
It is. And the rest of this paragraph is opinion.
>It also feels strange to read about "quality assurance" as a reason for these
>draconian terms, when the only licensed hardware is presented before the very
>kernel of AmigaOS 4 is even in alpha stage...
Actually a quite good point. But still opinion, note the word "feel".
Everything above "Suicide Mission" checks out with the exception of not mentioning the possibility of dealers being able to license the hardware as well. The article speaks only of hardware vendors, which may be a bit ambiguous. Perhaps a minor correction should be added there.
>Of course, all this will create an artificial split in the POP/PPC...
Well, it will. Whether or not one believes that split to be necessary is another story of course. Again, as I said, it is an opinion and others are free to disagree.
>Hardware designers and vendors are not too keen on following the whims of a
>small software company for the "privilege" of becoming ...
Well, so far that seems to be the case for bPlan and Barbie. And I could agree that being probably the case with others as well. But it is mostly speculation and thus opinion. Hey, the article is an opinion.
>LinuxPPC users and others are also affected. They still can choose whatever
>hardware and vendors they want, but an influx of AmigaOS users could...
This is an opinion. No one knows how the market will shape up. But it is a reasonable opinion.
>A new petition aimed at Amiga Inc., collecting signatures ...
Well, it is.
I find the article a quite reasonable and articulate expression of opinion based on publicly available information from Amiga Inc. This is the kind of commentary many companies and individuals around the world in all kinds of markets receive from various medias.
Please do tell me which parts of the article to find questionable and quote them. Unfortunately I couldn't quote all of it here since I'm not sure about its copyright status.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 163 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by DDiehl on 16-Jun-2002 21:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 159 (Janne Sirén):
Well said!!!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 164 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 17-Jun-2002 08:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 162 (Janne Sirén):
Sorry for ruining such a fine and well thought out reply...
>>Criticism is good, spreading that cricism as facts all over the net isn't.
>>Tell me, what was the good part about his article at OSOpinion.com?
> I'd guess even the domain name OS Opinion suggest firmly that he was
> expressing an opinion. "Tech opinion commentary - for the people, by the
> people." You seem to have a problem with free speech?
Sure, it's an opinion. But, it's still based on innaccurate facts which he tells everyone about while trying to convince us about his opinion. I'm not complaining about his opinion, I'm complaining about the facts which he is constantly refering to when telling us about his opinion, see the difference?
>> Nobody is planning, designing, building or providing specifications for any
>> new Amiga machines...
> Well, this has been debated here, but really, nobody is planning any custom
> hardware in the original sense of Amiga. Even the Zico spec has been
> obsoleted according to Gary.
Hrm... He's complaining about the AmigaOS beeing tied to propriety hardware (such as the AmigaOne) while at the same time claiming there is no Amiga specific hardware? That made perfect sense, right?
I'm sorry but the AmigaOne is based on a design made specificly for Eyetech, in cooperatiion with Amiga Inc., targeted specificly for the Amiga desktop market. Why do you constantly deny it's existence?
>> Amiga users were happy to hear this...
> Well, even myself thought we'd be getting an open hardware platform. I was
> happy with the idea. Whether or not everybody was happy, who knows. But I
> feel the general mood this sentence conveys was pretty accurate.
Where did you get this idea from? Noone *ever* said that the AmigaOS4 was going to be "Open Platform" and POP was never mentioned. You made this one up on your own, I'm afraid.
>>As a result, several of us said, "Finally, our favorite OS would break loose
>>from its shackles of custom-made proprietary hardware!"
> I feel this to be approriate.
No, they only said that the classic Amiga custom chipset dependencies would be removed, not that the AmigaOS would become "Open Platform". Just face it, you jumped into conclusions and you got nobody but yourselves to blame for this.
>Huh? Hey! What "Amiga desktop platform"? They promised us AmigaOS!
>Our "platform" is none of their business...
They are still the ones to decide which hardware they will support. You can't simply force a software developer to support a certain piece of hardware just because you want it. The software developer himself makes this decision just like Macromedia has decided to not make an Amiga version of their Dreamweaver or Flash player.
Also, Amiga owns the brand and that's why they get to decide what is the "Amiga" platform, noone but Amiga Inc. is entitled to this. None of *us* paid $5 million for the brand and therefore it's not "our" platform.
[snip]
The rest is pretty much speculation based on above mentioned inaccuracies and misinterpretations.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 165 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 17-Jun-2002 16:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 164 (Samface):
Samface, since we are obviously getting nowhere, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still think the petition has its rightful place amongst us, no matter its shortcomings.
>But, it's still based on innaccurate facts which he tells everyone about while
>trying to convince us about his opinion.
I believe the relevant facts to be accurate, namely those listed by Bill McEwen in his executive update. You seem to disagree.
>Hrm... He's complaining about the AmigaOS beeing tied to propriety hardware
>(such as the AmigaOne) while at the same time claiming there is no Amiga
>specific hardware?
Again, you see it differently. I see it as standard hardware with a dongle and licensed badge. Sure, Eyetech played a vital role in getting it to us. Kudos to them, really. But it is still a far cry from the custom Amigas of the past. I see this part of the article and petition reflecting this view on the matter. You obviously see it differently.
>Why do you constantly deny it's existence?
I do not deny the existence of AmigaOne. I just believe the assertion made in the petition about no new "Amigas" existing anymore to be accurate at this time. It is made to separate the past situation from the present, and I respect that - and do feel it is sufficiently accurate.
Also, I don't think this is relevant for the main point of the petition. You obviously disagree and I doubt there is much left we can work from in this discussion.
>> Well, even myself thought we'd be getting an open hardware platform. I was
>Where did you get this idea from? Noone *ever* said that the AmigaOS4
Actually, I don't know. I never claimed anyone said so, I'm not sure whether anyone did or didn't. I do not know. Perhaps it was Ben Hermans comments about different platforms like exploring the possibility of Macintosh, bPlan support requiring only that dev board - that led me to think in such a way, perhaps it was the logic in it, given that the hardware is pretty much standard. But I still perceived it that way, and I doubt I was alone.
I was merely defending the one part of the article or the petition were former beliefs of the Amiga community were discussed. I certainly felt some of the same stuff the petition's writer seems to have gone through. I do follow these forums, news and other Amiga sources intensely but I was still lead to that conclusion. Whether or not it was because plans changed or I was simply wrong to assume such a thing, I don't know.
>Just face it, you jumped into conclusions and you got nobody but yourselves
>to blame for this.
Perhaps, in that sense, I did. Perhaps, considering the way Ben Hermans and Hyperion discussed some of these issues, I did not. Perhaps the people who wrote the petition did so or didn't, as well. Hey, I never said otherwise. I don't know whether or not plans really changed, just that I felt my expectations based on past knowledge differed from the plans laid out in the executive update.
I'm not going to blame anyone for it, not even myself, since it is not anywhere near relevant or important. If indeed myself and others were simply mistaken and no such plans were really in the works at any time, perhaps this part of the article deserves some kind of a retraction. (The comments by Hyperion should be explained, though.) Nevertheless, I still do find it a quite minor detail when compared to the main point in the petition.
You talk as if this fact that a bunch of people (okay, perhaps just the two of us, me and Seehund, no matter how unlikely that may be) were mistaken in their expectations somehow invalidates the actual meat in the petition. I hope this is not really what you are saying.
>They are still the ones to decide which hardware they will support.
Sure, they are. The thing is, with the license, they add the requirement that someone else has to decide - and more than just send out a dev CD - as well. It is an added obstacle. Whether or not you believe that obstacle to be necessary or not is your cue to sign or not to sign. I still have not.
>Also, Amiga owns the brand and that's why they get to decide what is
>the "Amiga" platform, noone but Amiga Inc. is entitled to this.
We are hardly disputing their claim to the Amiga name, or their right to dictate its fate (within the boundaries of their ownership). The people who signed the petition are just expressing an opinion. They are entitled to, and nobody is entitled to take that right away from them.
>None of *us* paid $5 million for the brand and therefore it's not "our"
>platform.
I never said it was. But nobody paid $5 for us either. Nor could anyone. We are still individuals with a right to make up our own minds and express our opinions. And feedback is still valuable to any company.
I have already admitted that there are flaws in the petition. I think discussing them is good. But there are still strong points, and no evidence of bad faith has been proven, so I still find it a respectable effort to voice ones concerns. I hope it does well.
So, in case you have nothing to add (if you do, I will still check in to reply), I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. Thank you for the discussion, all.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 166 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by hgm on 18-Jun-2002 08:40 GMT
Compare
Just anthor add on my doormat. A Dell computer P 4 1.7 GHz 12 MB ram. 17" flat srceen with 'tons' of 'fancy' things. 838 Euro. The set will run linux x86 and UAE. probably
The (amiga)emulation probably 3 x times any 'new' Amiga. So what are we talking about?
The new AmigaOne is an obsolete concept with an old processor with the same price tag. 'They' admit that this is true cuz there is already a trade in offer.
That is a very smart and that is the way to get confidence from the customer.
It is opportune , however its worth trying.
A motorola PPC 1.4GHz would make sense to any potential buyer.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 167 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 18-Jun-2002 11:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 166 (hgm):
> The new AmigaOne is an obsolete concept with an old processor with the same
> price tag. 'They' admit that this is true cuz there is already a trade in
> offer.
Obsolete concept? Conceptually, the AmigaOne is the next generation Amiga running a true PPC OS using generally available hardware? Please explain what "concept" is obsolete?
> A motorola PPC 1.4GHz would make sense to any potential buyer.
Sure, I'd like to see some faster PPC units come out of Motorola or IBM, but the fact of the matter is that Apple gets first dibs on the CPUs. With the recent use of higher end CPUs by non-Apple companies, it probably means G5's are just around the corner.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 168 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 20-Jun-2002 16:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 165 (Janne Sirén):
It's a petition complaining about facts that doesn't exist, circumstances that are not and conclusions based on the previous mentioned impossibilities. I prove it to you, yet you claim otherwise without beeing able to back it up. You ignore the facts and keep refering to the importance of not denying people from having their own opinion.
My view is that opinions based on the truth are great, opinions based on ignorance can be dangerous. That's how an evil dictator can be elected by the people, all it takes is ignorance. So, it's not about restricting people's opinions, it's about fighting ignorance by sticking to the truth and the real facts. The petition obviously doesn't and that's why I think it's doing more harm to the Amiga market than helping it. It's own cause is lost due to the fact that it's harming what it's trying to help.
Atleast you're right about one thing; sometimes it's just best to agree to disagree.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 169 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 21-Jun-2002 11:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 168 (Samface):
>It's a petition complaining about facts that doesn't exist, circumstances that
That is where we disagree, then. I believe the petition is based on sufficient amount of facts, even though it certainly has flaws that have been pointed out here. It is against mandatory licensing and that is quite clear in Amiga Inc.'s statements. That is where it has merit.
Anonymous, there are 169 items in your selection (but only 19 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 169]
Back to Top