> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > She need's specific information that we need that we cant get
> > unless we sign NDA's for the doc's so she can try and get them merged into
> > a reference product somewhere between the datasheet (worthless) and the
> > programming manual (NDA). I know this is not ideal or what bill, jonathon,
> > or others want. They would rather Intel just get a friggin clue and stop
> > being anal. And while in the long term this may change it isn't going to
> > be soon. She is willing to compromise and try and get us doc's on the bits
> > we need.
>
> Let me just pipe in a bit. Compromise seems just like the kind of thing
> marketing or legal would want to do. The problem is that _we_ cannot
> compromise because one cannot write a "half-way there" driver. It's a
> technical impossibility.
No, no, no, no, no.
You can write an open source driver that contains all the basic features one
would want (i.e., Networking works). But advanced features in the manuals that
a company considers valuable IP might not be open sourced (e.g., vlan tagging,
teaming, crc offloading). Frankly, that's dumb, but as long as the basic
reasonable support for a NIC is there I believe that meets a reasonable
'support' test.
>
> Now, if Bill Paul, Jonathan Lemon or whoever can come up with a
> "compromise" that would work, fine. But otherwise, and I think otherwise
> is likely, please explain the above to this person.
>
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
