From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S264141AbRFLBTp>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:19:45 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S264142AbRFLBTf>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:19:35 -0400
Received: from mx01-a.netapp.com ([198.95.226.53]:15547 "EHLO
	mx01-a.netapp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S264141AbRFLBTX>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:19:23 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kip Macy <kmacy@netapp.com>
To: "Brent D. Norris" <brent@biglinux.tccw.wku.edu>
cc: Kip Macy <kmacy@netapp.com>,
        Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 3com Driver and the 3XP Processor
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106111942080.8721-100000@biglinux.tccw.wku.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10106111812370.22254-100000@orbit-fe.eng.netapp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

I think that they are relatively friendly. However, if they publish the
interface to their card another company could come along with a card
with the same functionality and take advantage of pre-existing drivers and
undercut their price, thus taking away their margins. At least that is the
rationale I have been given and this has occurred on at least one
occasion to Adaptec. 

My opinion is that if you have to obscure your interface to protect your
margins because you are making a commodity component then you are in the
wrong business. Nonetheless they can correctly point out that they are
still making a lot more money than I am :-).

		-Kip

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Brent D. Norris wrote:

> I thought 3com was pretty friendly to the Linux Community, was that a
> misconception?
> 
> > It can't because 3com hasn't implemented in the driver and they won't
> > publish the interface.
> > 		-Kip
> >
> 
> Brent
> 
> Executive Advisor -- WKU-Linux
> 
>