From owner-freebsd-hardware  Fri Jul 11 08:49:25 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA16303
          for hardware-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iworks.InterWorks.org (deischen@iworks.interworks.org [128.255.18.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA16298
          for <freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from deischen@localhost) by iworks.InterWorks.org (8.7.5/) id KAA18157; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:53:21 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199707111553.KAA18157@iworks.InterWorks.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:53:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org>
To: rminnich@Sarnoff.COM
Subject: Re:  I2O only available under NDA?
Cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I think a reasonable response to this NDA nonsense, if true, is to have 
> as many people as possible indicate to the I2O sig that their position IS
> nonsense. Just remind them of what happened to MCA when IBM tried the 
> same deal. That's what I'm doing.

Yup, I've already made some comments to them.   Since the boys from Redmond
are involved, I doubt anything will change.

Dan Eischen
deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org