From: sweh.womble@spuddy.UUCP (Stephen Harris) Subject: Always IN-2000 Announceme Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 15:03:42 GMT
In article <C5CLAL.A6E@ra.nrl.navy.mil> eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> In article <14066.1189.uupcb@satalink.com> john.will@satalink.com (John Will)> writes:
> >I have to agree here, even though I have an Always IN2000, and I'd love
> >to have it supported by Linux! If Always won't release the programming
[snip snip on Always programming abilities ]
> Sigh. I guess this needs to be posted more frequently. I posted it
> once, and this thread has gone off on an irrelevant tangent. I repeat once
> again: WE HAVE OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM ALWAYS WITHOUT SIGNING AN AGREEMENT.
> A DRIVER HAS BEEN WRITTEN, AND IS BEING TESTED. AN ALPHA VERSION SHOULD BE
> AVAILABLE SOON. There is no need to flame Always, and there is no need to
> discuss this topic again.
Although Always may have redeemed themselves in this case by providing
programming information (congratulations! A vendor that has seen the light!),
the issue itself (which my [unquoted] message was about) is still relevant.
ANY vendor that will provide binaries only will have the problems I mentioned,
and any user of their equipment will be dependent on the vendor providing
regular updates (hint: this is why I mentioned "vendor" in my message, and
not the name of any individual company).
There *is* a need to discuss this topic in general, in relation to a
non-specified vendor. I believe there is a case to argue that the kernel
should be kept free of vendor supplied binaries.
Stephen Harris
sweh.womble@spuddy.uucp ...!uknet!axion!spuddy!sweh.womble
* Meow! Call Spuddy the Cat for Usenet access in the UK. Call 0203 364436 *