[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: ServerWorks docs?
Rico & Dan,

Below is the Email that Jim Forster of Serverworks sent to me:

"We want to enable the Linux community as quickly as possible; we
agree with
you that it makes business sense to do so. Given the fact that
our IP is
our sole product, we cannot release our technical documents to
the world at
large. We have been working to create an extract of our
documents to enable
the Linux community. As a small company experiencing tremendous
growth, our
support infrastructure must focus on our existing customers. At
this time,
I do not have an estimated release date for the technical
We are continuing our work to enable the Linux community. Can
you think of
any alternative methods to enable the Linux community without
ourselves? I'm certainly open to new ideas..."

Jim responded to my Email regarding support for lm-sensor. Granted
Serverworks has
not released any information to the public. But they are planing to extract
certain chipset
information that might be helpful for you. They are also open to idea from
the Linux

After Jim replied, Phil Edelbock from lm-sensor group came up with a good
idea. They
decided to ask Jim for a specific set of information pertaining to the
project. So rather
goes for the whole documentation, they only asked for a small subset. The
idea worked
because Serverworks were able to supply the information quickly.

This could be a good approach in getting information from Serverwork outside
of NDA.


ASL Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rico Tudor" <>
To: "Jeff Nguyen" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: ServerWorks docs?

> Thanks for the offer, but the basic problem remains: no docs.
> As noted, shows some
> cause for hope, but a medium-sized LART is still called for.
> My interest in ServerWorks documentation is two-fold: first, to
> expand chipset support in my ECC utility and second, to better support
> ServerWorks-based machines in my workplace.
> On behalf of the Linux community, I would sign NDA if it was civilized
> and if my source remained, obviously, public-domain. I could visit
> ServerWorks on my next foray to the Bay Area.
> More important to me is ready access to technical documentation to support
> machines at work. I come from the era when PDP-11's were shipped with
> schematics, the OS, and the source to the OS. Things have been going
> downhill ever since. I'm not catching the next plane to the Bay Area
> for "eyes only" examination of a document every time a problem arises.
> In this regard, companies like IBM Storage and Intel win my kudos,
> and my dollars. ServerWorks may get some of those dollars because they
> have an affordable chipset that supports 4 GB, but that advantage can
> change overnight. It's not like IP has a long half-life these days,
> unless you can corner the pyramid-building business.
> These companies must evaluate their proprietary stance in relation to lost
> sales, the more so as free source accelerates. ATI, Matrox, Adaptec: need
> we say more? But then, I'm preaching to the choir. Perhaps ServerWorks
> should look into their hearts, and decide what small part of their IP
> has enormous, eternal value -- the kind that will have them rolling in
> dough, just like Scrooge McDuck. The rest of the specification, like
> the miserable ECC circuitry that's been done a million times before,
> release it already! Their adoring Linux fans are waiting.
> P.S. I wonder if Via reads this list.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.041 / U:3.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site