Re: [fsf-community-team] Freedom to become slaves?

[James Phillips]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:54:56PM -0800, Franz Christopher wrote:
> >
> > I am going to disagree with that - it sounds good but it is just
> > semantics:  we have learned that a society in which anyone is enslaved
> > is not a free society.
> >
> 
> 
> This is indeed true, the powers that be do spend quite a lot of resources in
> trying to sell you the idea that -if you choose to be their slave it's ok,
> because
> you chose it- did you really?
> 
<SNIP!>
> Here is a basic example:
> 
> I buy a nifty host-to-host USB cable, I am happy with it
> it works fast, its easy to use, but, here is the kicker:
> 
> I can only use it on MSW because the chip inside it
> uses an extra bit to communicate and none of my Linux/BSD
> machines know what to do with that extra bit.
>

I don't know if this is a real example or not, but if it does not meet 
the USB Spec, it is not a USB cable. Or by "bit" do you mean the actual 
device that does all the work? (I am probably going too far focusing on 
the example, not the point here.) "cross-over" does not work for USB. 
You need some kind of buffer. I have started looking for USB certified 
devices: Http://www.usb.org

 
> What to do?
> 
> Well, I do some research, I find that other brands are indeed supported
> by my Linux/BSD/GNU distros so I run back to the store, ask for a return
> pay a bit extra for the brand I am looking for and then write a nice letter,
> yes a real paper letter to the company that makes such device and describe
> my not so pleasant experience with their device and their narrow support.
> 

I find the most annoying part is that you can't read much into the 
omission of Linux and BSD on the box when they list their supported 
OS's: a lot of common devices "just work" because some sucker(s) bought an 
unsupported device and were able to write drivers for it. This is easier 
if documentation is available of course!


<SNIP!> 
> Correct indeed, it is extremely underhanded of hardware vendors to hard-lock
> consumers into using a specific software exclusively for their hardware.
> Much like the infamous WinBoards that have chipsets deliverately missing
> so they can be emulated in software only in the MSW environment.
> This is completely unethical.
> 

I'm sure the vendors would argue that they disclosed the supported OS's 
on the box. I was able to get a refund on a Winwodem after explicity 
asking the sales person if it was a winmodem or not (before purchase), 
then bringing in a printout from the manufacturer's website explaining 
that it is, in fact a  win or software-implemented, or whatewer they 
called it modem. It should just say it on the box in bold lettering!

I think part of the problem is the price system: prices are something 
that are easy to compare, but don't always compare the same things. 
Sometimes the reduction of components makes a good more reliable, while 
at the same time lowering price. However, reducing components can also 
lead to a cheaper product that is less reliable. 

If you are making the less reliable device, you never want to advertise 
that fact, so you end up with ambiguous boxes with sparse documentation. 
You can look up what chipsets are supported by your OS of choice, but 
that information is often only conveyed accidentally in the product 
picture that "may not be exactly as shown" /rant

Regards,

James Phillips