From owner-freebsd-hardware  Fri Jul 11 06:11:36 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA05956
          for hardware-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from terra.Sarnoff.COM (terra.sarnoff.com [130.33.11.203])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA05951
          for <freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from rminnich@localhost) by terra.Sarnoff.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05476; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:10:50 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:10:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM>
X-Sender: rminnich@terra
To: "Daniel M. Eischen" <deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org>
cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: I2O only available under NDA?
In-Reply-To: <33C4E3CC.41C67EA6@iworks.InterWorks.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970711090947.5368C-100000@terra>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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.

thanks
ron

Ron Minnich                |Java: an operating-system-independent, 
rminnich@sarnoff.com       |architecture-independent programming language
(609)-734-3120             |for Windows/95 and Windows/NT on the Pentium
ftp://ftp.sarnoff.com/pub/mnfs/www/docs/cluster.html