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 <S264096AbRFNVtW>; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:49:22 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S264097AbRFNVtM>; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:49:12 -0400
Received: from mx01-a.netapp.com ([198.95.226.53]:41636 "EHLO
	mx01-a.netapp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S264096AbRFNVtH>; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:49:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kip Macy <kmacy@netapp.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
cc: Kip Macy <kmacy@netapp.com>, nick@snowman.net,
        Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 3com Driver and the 3XP Processor
In-Reply-To: <15145.12402.102143.400686@pizda.ninka.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10106141446590.13625-100000@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



On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, David S. Miller wrote:

> 
> No, that's not my take.  My personal view is that 3com thinks that
> allowing anyone to program the card like that was the biggest mistake
> Alteon made with the Acenic.
> 
Why do you think that they think that? Alteon certainly avoids exerting
itself in supporting the open firmware kit, so cost is not a good
justification. What do they lose?
	
			-Kip