From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 30 01:58:45 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B20B16A4CF for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:58:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5843643D53 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:58:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from [192.160.235.2] (cs242746-26.austin.rr.com [24.27.46.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DF914316; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:58:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon Organization: Lonesome Dove Computing Services To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:56:15 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <20041027161650.GA39008@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> <41829D84.5000903@errno.com> <20041030012703.GK3999@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> In-Reply-To: <20041030012703.GK3999@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410292056.15701.linimon@lonesome.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:12:50 +0000 cc: Sam Leffler cc: Daniel Hartmeier cc: Christian Weisgerber Subject: Re: ACX100 Firmware Licensing X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:58:45 -0000 > If you're telling the hordes to sit down, shut up and quit rocking the > boat, because you're already sailing smoothly, I'd like to ask where > you're heading and how far you already got. This is an overreaction, IMHO. We all agree on the goal, it's a question of how we get there. Please understand how someone (say, me) could see how including people's work phone numbers in a general broadcast message could wind up doing more harm than good. Pressure them? Sure. Politely and through channels? It's the way I would prefer to see it. Frankly, if I were in business supplying these cards and started getting mail along the lines above, I'd be less inclined to follow up on it than something that stated the same case with less rhetoric. I wouldn't take a case based on something like that to upper management of any company I've ever seen -- and they are the decision makers. That's just the way it is -- it really is easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar. mcl