Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.misc:22488 comp.unix.bsd:14665 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!news.uoknor.edu!ns1.nodak.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!psgrain!rainrgnews0!pacifier!news.alpha.net!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!xmission!u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: APC refuses to give out info without NDA Date: 22 Aug 1994 06:02:46 GMT Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT Lines: 54 Message-ID: <339f26$1l6@u.cc.utah.edu> References: <32o173$icu@thor.tjhsst.edu> <jmonroyCuwv3J.HpB@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu In article <jmonroyCuwv3J.HpB@netcom.com> jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes: [ ... Company with non-disclosure policy is railed against ... ] ] Might I recommend to Mr. Metz (and any others) ] that this type of critisium is uncalled for. ] ] True a company may want to be less that freindly ] about the way in which the deal with the marketing/sales ] policy of their products, but this is no reason ] to even suggest a "bias" of any sort. "Tit for tat, Dr. Lecter, tit for tat" -- Clarise Starling _Thomas Harris, Silence of the Lambs_ I have to note that it is idiotic for a company to protect what is, essentially, boot code. The speed with which boot code operates is irrelevant... it yields no competitive advantage. Diamond and Adaptec engage in this practice, to the practical effect that anyone interested in their code need only run Frank van Gilluwe's "sourcer" product to determine the code in question. This in no way results in better protection of these companies "intellectual property". On the other hand, rather than boot code, the UPS manufacturer in this thread protects a line protocol easily obtainable with a serial line analyser. In all three cases, the "competition" is not prevented from determining the information; the only practical effect, then, is to prevent the effected products use by the widest possible market (by artificially restricting that market to no other effect). This is, in the small scale, unwise, and in the large scale, nothing less than blatant stupidity. Stupidity should be punished (one of my arguments for spending money on space exploration is that without an antagonistic anvironment, stupidity is, for the large part, non-fatal, and that's a crying shame). If you disagree with this view, then you must believe that stupidity should have the minimum penalty possible. Of course, this means that you believe people should post about products so that uninformed consumers are protected from the stupidity of buying something they can't use, right? After all, the greatest stupidity for the greatest number... Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.