Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:      mef@cs.washington.edu
To:        cbrown@aracnet.com
Cc:        freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Lots 'o PCI slots
Message-ID:  <199707240618.XAA21456@tweetie-bird.cs.washington.edu>
In-Reply-To: <33D6F4BF.3FF44FA1@earthling.net> (message from Chris Browning on Wed, 23 Jul 1997 22:22:55 -0800)

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
   Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 22:22:55 -0800
   From: Chris Browning <brownie@earthling.net>

Hi Chris,

   All,
     I think this is a very interesting topic for FreeBSD to look at. I
   have been thinking about getting some of the free Un*xes to 
   support I2O.  There are many advantages to using it.

I think it would be great if one could develop a LAN and mass storage
I2O OSM for the free un*xes.  Right now you can't even get the OSM
binaries for SCO or NT without being an I2O member.  Consequently,
given the license restrictions, I doubt that you will be able to
easily just give a loadable kernel module away to non I2O members
(i.e., the rest of the world).  My guess is that the I2O SIG will keep
the I2O specification under lock and key until they can come up with a
reasonable standard.

   Hmm, I wonder if I were to write a I20 driver for Linux or FreeBSD would
   anyone get upset (I think all Intel employees are I20 SIG members :-)

I think that you would find yourself suid by the lawyers of the I2O
SIG.  Hope you got good lawyers. :)

Marc





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707240618.XAA21456>