On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 03:54:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't > > know about and are trying to protect themselves. > > "may just be"? > > > I imagine that there > > are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or > > accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not > > hold a license, into their commercial products. > > "imagine" > > > Rather than releasing > > information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property > > issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. > > No facts? None at all? Just "theories" as to why they "might have to > not give things away"? All phrased to let them get away with it? > > That's a lot of apologies you are making for a vendor who sells you > broken hardware.
Sorry, I didn't mean to apologize for them. Just making some guesses at how Intel is rationalizing the decision to not release information. Personally, I don't buy their products. -Damian
