From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 18 06:19:41 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id GAA00255 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 1995 06:19:41 -0800 Received: from duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu [18.43.0.236]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA00249 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 1995 06:19:40 -0800 Received: (from mycroft@localhost) by duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) id JAA22722; Sat, 18 Mar 1995 09:19:31 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 09:19:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199503181419.JAA22722@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> From: "Charles M. Hannum" To: gibbs@estienne.CS.Berkeley.EDU Cc: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: SVNET Meeting? Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I feel compelled to add something here... The first words from his mouth were anti Adaptec. Now I'm not the greatest Adaptec fan, but I don't like their policy blown into something it isn't. He basically said that they would not give enough information out to program the cards without an NDA. That (mis)information originated from Julian Elischer. Julian said many moons ago that Adaptec's policy was such, and for a long time it was touted as the reason for not having a 2x42 driver. You can find this in your own mail archives. (I thought I'd corrected that long ago, but it appears not.)