On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Dennis wrote:
* Dennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010403 18:17]:
[stuff]
Just a reminder: estinc.com is NOT the same domain name as etinc.com and
the opinions of employees and management at Enhanced Software Technologies
Inc. (estinc.com) have nothing to do with etinc.com .
Just
At 03:59 PM 04/04/2001, Eric Lee Green wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Dennis wrote:
* Dennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010403 18:17]:
[stuff]
Just a reminder: estinc.com is NOT the same domain name as etinc.com and
the opinions of employees and management at Enhanced Software Technologies
Inc.
At 06:17 PM 04/03/2001, T. William Wells wrote:
Its not a "proprietary tree". I dont have time to clean it up
and submit patches.
But you do seem to have time to keep arguing with people???
I'm sure you'll have time to bitch again if 4.4 doesn't meet your needs
because you didn't
* Dennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010403 18:17]:
I am opposed to supporting individuals or corporations whose
principals cannot manage simple disagreements with civility. It
makes it clear what the consequences will be _to me_ should I, in
my capacity as consultant, ever have a dispute with such
| Ok, and unless we are totally desperate for cash (dont count on it) we wont
| sell anything to you. Deal? You've just made a world class business
| decision. Burning bridges with a vendor that you may someday need is
| absolutely brilliant.
Cool, can I please go on the list of people you
PROTECTED] Tue Apr 3 20:12:43 EDT 2001
Article: 12476 of local.freebsd.hackers:
Path: twwells.com!newsgate!nowhere
Newsgroups: local.freebsd.hackers
From: Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2.
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 19:33:27 -0400
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID
Folks- I've said it before. Just ignore Dennis and let the topic die.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
At 07:37 PM 04/03/2001, you wrote:
| Ok, and unless we are totally desperate for cash (dont count on it) we wont
| sell anything to you. Deal? You've just made a world class business
| decision. Burning bridges with a vendor that you may someday need is
| absolutely brilliant.
Cool, can I please
At 08:24 PM 04/03/2001, T. William Wells wrote:
The message referred to below was sent by me in *PRIVATE E-MAIL*.
Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted that private e-mail to this
public forum. He did not have my permission to do so.
(But, yes, I stand by my sentiments -- I just didn't want them
At 07:30 PM 04/03/2001, Rick Bradley wrote:
* Dennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010403 18:17]:
I am opposed to supporting individuals or corporations whose
principals cannot manage simple disagreements with civility. It
makes it clear what the consequences will be _to me_ should I, in
my
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Dennis wrote:
This "consumer" attitude that you are doing a company a favor by
buying something from them is completely misguided. Most companies are
not some ISP or consultant struggling to pay its bills. WE are doing
you a favor by making our technology available to you
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 08:49:55PM +0100, Koster, K.J. wrote:
Its not a "proprietary tree". I dont have time to clean it up
and submit patches.
But you do seem to have time to keep arguing with people???
I'm sure you'll have time to bitch again if 4.4 doesn't meet your needs
because you
At 02:18 PM 03/31/2001, David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 08:49:55PM +0100, Koster, K.J. wrote:
Its not a "proprietary tree". I dont have time to clean it up
and submit patches.
But you do seem to have time to keep arguing with people???
I'm sure you'll have time to bitch again if
[trying to move this off -hackers]
If memory serves me right, Dennis wrote:
At 02:18 PM 03/31/2001, David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 08:49:55PM +0100, Koster, K.J. wrote:
Its not a "proprietary tree". I dont have time to clean it up
and submit patches.
But you do seem to
wrt- Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED]- he doesn't think much of people here, and is
abusive. Let's just move on and let him go find other folks to pick fights
with.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Amen!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Its not a "proprietary tree". I dont have time to clean it up
and submit patches.
Please mail me your pci/if_fxp* just as they are and I wil clean up and
submit patches in your name.
Kees Jan
You are only young once,
but you
At 12:50 PM 03/25/2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Dennis wrote:
If the if_wx driver sucks, why not fix it rather than trying to coerce a
mega-companies with a deep political structure to change is policies?
But if youre not going to maintain it, dont do it at all. You
At 07:47 PM 03/24/2001, you wrote:
On 24 Mar 2001, at 19:59, Dennis wrote:
the only thing more annoying the 2 people having a discussion is a third
person telling them to stop. Feel free not to read any more messages in
this thread.
Feel free to read the list charter. You two are in a
At 12:50 PM 03/25/2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Dennis wrote:
If the if_wx driver sucks, why not fix it rather than trying to coerce a
mega-companies with a deep political structure to change is policies?
But if youre not going to maintain it, dont do it at
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Dennis wrote:
If the if_wx driver sucks, why not fix it rather than trying to coerce a
mega-companies with a deep political structure to change is policies?
But if youre not going to maintain it, dont do it at all. You cant stick it to
users by deciding later that
Mike Smith wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Let me just pipe in a bit. Compromise seems just like the kind of thing
marketing or legal would want to do. The problem is that _we_ cannot
compromise because one cannot write a "half-way there" driver. It's a
1 - Give a select group of people the docs under NDA
2 - If there are any specific features Intel wants avoided, get them to
identify
them up front.
3 - Let them write a driver that uses whatever features that are useful, with
header files that define the register bits etc that
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have read the thread for a while, and i wonder:
why in the world someone should go through the effort and
responsibility of SIGNING THE NDA _and_ negotiating with Intel
for getting permissions to redistribute the code ?
Because NDAs come as a
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have read the thread for a while, and i wonder:
why in the world someone should go through the effort and
responsibility of SIGNING THE NDA _and_ negotiating with Intel
for getting permissions to redistribute the code ?
I do not see how this is
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have read the thread for a while, and i wonder:
why in the world someone should go through the effort and
responsibility of SIGNING THE NDA _and_ negotiating with Intel
for getting permissions to redistribute the code ?
sleep deprived venting
At 01:33 PM 03/24/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have read the thread for a while, and i wonder:
why in the world someone should go through the effort and
responsibility of SIGNING THE NDA _and_ negotiating with Intel
for getting permissions to
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Richard Hodges wrote:
For many (most?) people that may be practical. But what about
those of us with a 1RU system using fxp on the motherboard and
NEED the single PCI slot for something else? I suspect that
there are
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 02:49:14PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
You use the term "our developers" as if you are some sort of closed cult.
They have something in common, and it's not a cult. It's called being
an "open source developer".
I have NEVER complained about Intel not releasing full
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Richard Hodges wrote:
Thanks for the tip on the XL driver. Over the years, I have seen
many questions about which driver/card was the best, and all the
answers were pretty vague, or suggested that Intel had the edge.
Yes. It's currently my understanding that the
If the if_wx driver sucks, why not fix it rather than trying to coerce a
mega-companies with a deep political structure to change is policies? But
if youre not going to maintain it, dont do it at all. You cant stick it to
users by deciding later that you dont want to support it anymore.
At 02:45 PM 03/24/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Richard Hodges wrote:
Thanks for the tip on the XL driver. Over the years, I have seen
many questions about which driver/card was the best, and all the
answers were pretty vague, or suggested that Intel had the edge.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 03:11:54PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Most drivers are written without full docs. Intel supplied drivers for
linux are available for both eepro100 and gigabit cards. The info is out
there. Cobbling together the info to produce a driver...THATS what open
source is all
At 03:12 PM 03/24/2001, Will Andrews wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 03:11:54PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Most drivers are written without full docs. Intel supplied drivers for
linux are available for both eepro100 and gigabit cards. The info is out
there. Cobbling together the info to produce a
On 24 Mar 2001, at 16:12, Dennis wrote:
And why does all of your email have that stupid attachment? Whats the
matter, cant figure out how to use an open-source mailer? :-)
It's called a PGP signature.
Could you two kids please take this pissing contest off -hackers? Thanks.
--
Dan
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 04:12:34PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
For your info, Bub, what makes the BSD license attractive is its usability
by commercial vendors, so maybe you should go play in Linuxland because
you are the one in the wrong camp, not me. the ability to take code, fix it
and
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 06:31:44PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
2) even if you have hardware with an "fxp" on board, adding a second
supported card is cheap and easy -- nothing like having to put
in a second video card;
Many, many U1-form-factor systems have two fxp on-board NICs.
No room
Matthew Jacob wrote:
1 - Give a select group of people the docs under NDA
2 - If there are any specific features Intel wants avoided, get them to
identify
them up front.
3 - Let them write a driver that uses whatever features that are useful, wi
th
header files that
At 04:19 PM 03/24/2001, Will Andrews wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 04:12:34PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
For your info, Bub, what makes the BSD license attractive is its usability
by commercial vendors, so maybe you should go play in Linuxland because
you are the one in the wrong camp, not me.
At 04:07 PM 03/24/2001, Dan Langille wrote:
On 24 Mar 2001, at 16:12, Dennis wrote:
And why does all of your email have that stupid attachment? Whats the
matter, cant figure out how to use an open-source mailer? :-)
It's called a PGP signature.
Could you two kids please take this pissing
Yes, I agree. We should delete the rest of this thread.
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Dennis wrote:
At 04:07 PM 03/24/2001, Dan Langille wrote:
On 24 Mar 2001, at 16:12, Dennis wrote:
And why does all of your email have that stupid attachment? Whats the
matter, cant figure out how to use an
On 24 Mar 2001, at 19:59, Dennis wrote:
the only thing more annoying the 2 people having a discussion is a third
person telling them to stop. Feel free not to read any more messages in
this thread.
Feel free to read the list charter. You two are in a pissing contest
unreleated to this
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 03:11:54PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Most drivers are written without full docs.
Feh. *EVERY* wpaul written Ethernet driver was written _with_ having the
full docs. wpaul will not write a driver otherwise.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Linux
:: Hah, me neither. In fact, if you want to try out a binary of my
:: Intel GigE driver, it is at http://www.flugsvamp.com/~jlemon/fbsd/drivers
:: Jonathan
Wow, what I coincidence. I just did a search a couple days ago for
any recent developments, and earlier today spent a bit of time with
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:08:39PM +0100, Olibert Obdachlos wrote:
If I may ask, this binary driver, which cards does it support and
which cards does it *not* support? Or if releasing that info is
restricted by the NDA, does your driver support the newer Intel
Pro/1000 F cards, which had
restricted by the NDA, does your driver support the newer Intel
Pro/1000 F cards, which had been mentioned here a couple months
I'm admittedly not familiar with Intels marketing nomenclature. But
if by "1000 F", you mean the 82543/Livingood chip, then yes, this
driver should work on that
Mike Smith wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Let me just pipe in a bit. Compromise seems just like the kind of thing
marketing or legal would want to do. The problem is that _we_ cannot
compromise because one cannot write a "half-way there" driver. It's a
I just got off the phone with Linda Sanchez at our favorite company
Intel. She is a Sr. "Marketing Engineer" (What is a marketing
engineer?) for their LAN products. She is itnerested in helping us get the
information we need to write drivers for their cards. But she also knows
NDA's are
Random idea from the peanut gallery...
Find someone who is NDA'd and knows both the programming manual and the
needs of the device driver. Have that person compose a list of those bits
of the manual most necessary for getting a working driver. This would
be an explicit list of figures,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
She need's specific information that we need that we cant get
unless we sign NDA's for the doc's so she can try and get them merged into
a reference product somewhere between the datasheet (worthless) and the
programming manual (NDA). I know this is not
In article
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you write:
She need's specific information that we need that we cant get
unless we sign NDA's for the doc's so she can try and get them merged into
a reference product somewhere between the datasheet (worthless) and the
programming
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Let me just pipe in a bit. Compromise seems just like the kind of thing
marketing or legal would want to do. The problem is that _we_ cannot
compromise because one cannot write a "half-way there" driver. It's a
technical impossibility.
I agree
For what it's worth, I believe I'm still committed to work on the GigE driver.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
btw- *I* have no problem with an NDA as long as it includes a rider that says
what we could release as open source.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
In article
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you write:
btw- *I* have no problem with an NDA as long as it includes a rider that says
what we could release as open source.
Hah, me neither. In fact, if you want to try out a binary of my
Intel GigE driver, it is at
I hate to say it, but anything that gets axed out of the manual basically
means that those features of the chip will not be used. I honestly don't
think that the marketer you talked to really understands this; I can't
for the life of me see how anything less than the programming manual
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:39:58AM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
I hate to say it, but anything that gets axed out of the manual basically
means that those features of the chip will not be used. I honestly don't
think that the marketer you talked to really understands this; I can't
for
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Let me just pipe in a bit. Compromise seems just like the kind of thing
marketing or legal would want to do. The problem is that _we_ cannot
compromise because one cannot write a "half-way there" driver. It's a
technical impossibility.
I
Jonathan Lemon wrote:
In article
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you write:
She need's specific information that we need that we cant get
unless we sign NDA's for the doc's so she can try and get them merged into
a reference product somewhere between the datasheet
59 matches
Mail list logo
