From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 24 11:31:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from et-gw.etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0FD37B718; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:31:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by et-gw.etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04967; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:32:31 GMT (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20010324142928.03a8b9d0@mail.etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@mail.etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:49:14 -0500 To: From: Dennis Subject: Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Cc: mjacob@feral.com, Peter Wemm , Mike Smith , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <200103241731.SAA49447@info.iet.unipi.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 01:33 PM 03/24/2001, scanner@jurai.net wrote: >On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > I have read the thread for a while, and i wonder: > > > > why in the world someone should go through the effort and > > responsibility of SIGNING THE NDA _and_ negotiating with Intel > > for getting permissions to redistribute the code ? > > > > I made the effort to try and work things out for users like >dennis. Who constantly have problems with Intel changing their PHY's, and >our driver not getting updated. Because Intel wont give doc's out without >an NDA. Now that should tell people like dennis, that our developers are >*not interested* in writing binary only drivers, and/or signing NDA's. You use the term "our developers" as if you are some sort of closed cult. I have NEVER complained about Intel not releasing full information on their boards.That whining has come exclusively from hackers that didnt feel like doing the work. I complained about FreeBSD having a "maintainer" for a very important driver who didnt do any maintaining. I fixed the persistent PHY problem in an afternoon with info from the available linux driver supplied by intel. You dont need to get intel to change its policy to support the board. Its just an excuse to not do it. There are plenty of resources available. If the if_wx driver sucks, why not fix it rather than trying to coerce a mega-companies with a deep political structure to change is policies? But if youre not going to maintain it, dont do it at all. You cant stick it to users by deciding later that you dont want to support it anymore. I complained for days and then fixed the fxp driver in about 4 hours. Maybe its time to do work and complain less. dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message