The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by William Hennin » Fri, 08 Aug 1997 04:00:00




> From http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/5343.html:

> I would claim that I2O is not a proprietary spec - anybody is free to
> join the SIG."
>                                         - Michael LoBue
>                                           I2O spokesman

> (How long do you think "anybody" would remain "free to join" the SIG
> if, say, Red Hat or Caldera tried to sign up?)

Just as long as it took them to change the terms.

I've been following this I2O debate with interest.

This is patently ridiculous. If they *really* want I2O to be "the" new
standard, they should make the spec public. If they need $$$ for
funding, they should charge for membership to their board.

I am hoping that I2O will be another 'MCA' and quietly pass away.

Can anyone confirm the poor I/O rate of I2O? I've heard the theoretical
max is about 50Mb/sec, which is fairly low, even PCI manages ~133Mb/sec,
and a 66Mhz/64bit PCI bus could do 533Mb/sec (Yes, I am aware of the
difference between the PCI bus and an I/O bus like SCSI, however there
is no reason why you could not get PCI like speeds from an I/O bus)

Bill

--
William Henning         Web Technologies          Affordable web hosting

http://theROCK.bc.ca    http://barts-life.door2net.com   for businesses!
http://half-price.computer-books.com http://antique-gallery.door2net.com

 
 
 

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by Kenneth R. Kinde » Fri, 08 Aug 1997 04:00:00



> The following almost needs no comment.

> From http://www.veryComputer.com/:

> "I try to tell these people that one, this isn't a * and two,
> the founders are not stupid, ignorant people unaware of a free
> approach to licensing - so grow up, get over it. Either join or wait
> until such time as they feel that it doesn't need to be licensed. Boy,
> they're sure having a lot of fun on their soapbox lecturing about how
> ruin and damnation will happen because there are 'proprietary specs.'
> I would claim that I2O is not a proprietary spec - anybody is free to
> join the SIG."

Of course they aren't ignorant of free software. Otherwise, it wouldn't
be engineered the way it is. It's an ATTACK on free software.

Hilter wasn't ignorant of Jews either... BTW, let's start calling the
companies on that members list the ShitList.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder

"An open architecture is a terrible thing to lose."
PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2  55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by James Youngma » Sat, 09 Aug 1997 04:00:00



Quote:> Hilter wasn't ignorant of Jews either... BTW, let's start calling the
> companies on that members list the ShitList.

Why?   It just makes us sound petulant, and anyway, the thread is
doomed now that you've compared them to the Nazis...
 
 
 

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by Michael Kozlows » Sat, 09 Aug 1997 04:00:00




Quote:>Hilter wasn't ignorant of Jews either...

Peeve:  The sure and certain knowledge that not even Godwin is going to
end this thread...

--

Recommended SF Reading at: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html
"Alzheimer's Sufferers Demand Cure for Pancakes" - www.theonion.com

 
 
 

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by Ben Lindstr » Sat, 09 Aug 1997 04:00:00



: > From http://www.veryComputer.com/:
: >
: > I would claim that I2O is not a proprietary spec - anybody is free to
: > join the SIG."
: >                                         - Michael LoBue
: >                                           I2O spokesman
: >
: > (How long do you think "anybody" would remain "free to join" the SIG
: > if, say, Red Hat or Caldera tried to sign up?)
:
: Just as long as it took them to change the terms.
:
: I've been following this I2O debate with interest.
:
: This is patently ridiculous. If they *really* want I2O to be "the" new
: standard, they should make the spec public. If they need $$$ for
: funding, they should charge for membership to their board.
:
: I am hoping that I2O will be another 'MCA' and quietly pass away.
:
: Can anyone confirm the poor I/O rate of I2O? I've heard the theoretical
: max is about 50Mb/sec, which is fairly low, even PCI manages ~133Mb/sec,
: and a 66Mhz/64bit PCI bus could do 533Mb/sec (Yes, I am aware of the
: difference between the PCI bus and an I/O bus like SCSI, however there
: is no reason why you could not get PCI like speeds from an I/O bus)

What is scary is if the person would have posted the whole part:

But, says LoBue, "I try to tell these people that one, this isn't a
* and two, the founders are not stupid, ignorant people unaware
of a free approach to licensing - so grow up, get over it. Either join or
wait until such time as they feel that it doesn't need to be licensed.
Boy, they're sure having a lot of fun on their soapbox lecturing about how
ruin and damnation will happen because there are 'proprietary specs.' I
would claim that I2O is not a proprietary spec - anybody is free to join the
SIG."

 
 
 

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by Mr. Whipp » Sun, 10 Aug 1997 04:00:00



Quote:> Of course they aren't ignorant of free software. Otherwise, it wouldn't
> be engineered the way it is. It's an ATTACK on free software.

> Hilter wasn't ignorant of Jews either... BTW, let's start calling the
> companies on that members list the ShitList.

Uh oh, we've been Hitled! Well that's the end of that.

Hey, how come I can read this? And this? Oh, drat.

--
Edgar Whipple            This is my signature.

 
 
 

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by david parso » Tue, 12 Aug 1997 04:00:00







>> > The following almost needs no comment.

>> > From http://www.veryComputer.com/:

>> > "I try to tell these people that one, this isn't a * and two,
>> > the founders are not stupid, ignorant people unaware of a free
>> > approach to licensing - so grow up, get over it. Either join or wait
>> > until such time as they feel that it doesn't need to be licensed. Boy,
>> > they're sure having a lot of fun on their soapbox lecturing about how
>> > ruin and damnation will happen because there are 'proprietary specs.'
>> > I would claim that I2O is not a proprietary spec - anybody is free to
>> > join the SIG."

>Isn't ridicule the first admission of truth and fear?

   You know, it's possible that the I2O folks are trying to avoid what
   happened to PCI when it first came out -- do you remember those
   years where all the PCI motherboards Just Didn't Work, failing in
   special ways like mapping all the devices to the same address,
   not assigning interrupts, not doing busmastering on some or any
   slots, or a whole raft of other equally annoying misfeatures.

   The $5000/year membership fee is just to make sure that the members
   are serious about the project;  I wouldn't be surprised if the only
   thing that the I2O steering committee had against free software
   was the annoying tendency to produce about 50% of a product, then
   lose interest and go on to the next big thing [1].  Look at the PNP
   tools for Linux, for instance;  for what they do, they're great,
   but when they produce a forth-like code dump that you have to edit,
   you know they won't be making it into any plug and forget software
   package.

   [1 Microsoft probably thinks this is A Good Thing.]

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/  And the specification has been published, for heaven's
                  \/         sake.  If it ever was `proprietary', it's public
                                                                knowledge now.

 
 
 

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by Kenneth R. Kinde » Sat, 16 Aug 1997 04:00:00




> > Hilter wasn't ignorant of Jews either... BTW, let's start calling the
> > companies on that members list the ShitList.

> Why?   It just makes us sound petulant, and anyway, the thread is
> doomed now that you've compared them to the Nazis...

My words may have been harsh, but I think it's a good point.  Ingorance
has very little to do with intentions.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder

"An open architecture is a terrible thing to lose."
PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2  55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

The I2O Consortium Spokesman Speaks

Post by Matt Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to rep » Mon, 18 Aug 1997 04:00:00


:> From http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/5343.html:
:>
:> I would claim that I2O is not a proprietary spec - anybody is free to
:> join the SIG."

But they can't ship non-proprietary drivers, now can they?

:>                                         - Michael LoBue
:>                                           I2O spokesman
:>
:> (How long do you think "anybody" would remain "free to join" the SIG
:> if, say, Red Hat or Caldera tried to sign up?)
:
:Just as long as it took them to change the terms.
:
:I've been following this I2O debate with interest.
:
:This is patently ridiculous. If they *really* want I2O to be "the" new
:standard, they should make the spec public.

If Microsoft and Intel want I2O to be the new standard, their will is
as good as law.

This is NOT like IBM and MCA.  In the old days, the cloners could say
'no' to IBM, and use a different bus, and save some money.  No brainer.

In this case, they cannot say "no" to Intel and Microsoft.

If they're on Intel's shitlist, they don't get any allocation for next
generation chips if they have the gall to not buy chipsets which use Intel's
I2O stuff.

If they're on Microsoft's, they get a nice call from a MS manager to
'renegotiate' their OEM terms, if they have the gall to market alternative
operating systems.

I2O will come, and Wintel will only run on it, and the 'operating system
independent' drivers will only work on Windows.

:William Henning         Web Technologies          Affordable web hosting

--
*        Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD           -
* "People who send spam to Emperor Cartagia... vanish! _They say_ that
* there's a room where he has their heads, lined up in a row on a desk...
* _They say_ that late at night, he goes there, and talks to them... _they
*- say_ he asks them, 'Now tell me again, how _do_ you make money fast?'"

 
 
 

1. Using I2O modules with I2O core in kernel (follow up)

Hi Alan and folks,

And again the mysterous lklm problem appeared and I forgot to append the
actual patch. Btw. the problem does exists through all the current
version of the 2.2 and 2.4 kernel line. The patch should apply cleanly
to all but the ac series where the sources were moved within the tree.

Michael

[ i2o-2.4.2.patch < 1K ]
--- linux-2.4.2/drivers/i2o/i2o_core.c.orig     Thu Feb 22 18:09:49 2001

 }

-#ifdef MODULE
-
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(i2o_controller_chain);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(i2o_num_controllers);

 EXPORT_SYMBOL(i2o_dump_message);

 EXPORT_SYMBOL(i2o_get_class_name);
+
+#ifdef MODULE

 MODULE_AUTHOR("Red Hat Software");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("I2O Core");

2. How do I run a job only at startup and shutdown?

3. Using I2O modules with I2O core in kernel

4. PD PC NFS Client???

5. Linux Consortium

6. Cron error "MAXRUN"

7. Linux Consortium (was

8. zyxel omninet plus modem

9. X consortium dissolving.

10. Xfree after X consortium

11. X Consortium closing - impact on Linux?

12. The X-Consortium is no more...

13. Net consortium ties flaws to BIND