From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Sep 15 11:19:38 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14461
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14453
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.5/8.6.6) id LAA12526; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
Message-Id: <199709151819.LAA12526@kithrup.com>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: I20 to cause problems for linux et al. (fwd)
References: <199709151158.VAA10836@plum.cyber.com.au> from Darren Reed at "Sep 15, 97 09:58:43 pm"
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In article <199709151616.LAA13343.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@argus.tfs.net> you write:
>Remember MicroChannel?
>
>A bus is as good as 3rd party manufacturing support for it.  Most
>manufacturers didn't want to pay IBM, and most manufacturers think
>about the same of Mickeysoft as we do...

Uh, sorry, hate to tell you, but I2O already has more support than MCA ever
did.

Both uSoft and Intel now have more market control than IBM ever did in the
PC market.

The main reason for I2O is for Intel to sell more Intel chips.  Remember
that.

And then go look at the "Slot One" (designed solely to prevent anyone else
from being able to make a compatible CPU) and the (IMEO bogus) patents Intel
has on the Merced instruction set.