On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Neil A. Carson wrote:

> I tried. . . . no interest in any other OSs. 

This is absurd.  I can't believe we're still putting up with this.  It's a
different world now.  Do you remember how NVIDIA had to eat their boots
after that whole header-file mishap with the XFree86 folk?  Maybe _we_
will put up with this kind of treatment, but the Linux people won't, and I
have a sneaky suspicion they would very much like to hear about our
predicament.

Does someone want to send a letter to Slashdot? Don't even say, ``we want
a free box, or we're writing Slashdot.'' I think we should make an example
out of these guys.  I don't care a scrap for their little overpriced box,
and I don't think it's worth mailboming mbrown@rebel.com.  I think this
``destructive, expoitive corporate attitude needs to be stopped, _now_.''
I think rebel.com needs to be exposed for the ``uncooperative,
overmarketed tinsel-and-tissue-paper frauds that they are.'' I think, in
short my friends, that this is the excuse we've been waiting for.

------8<----- 
Do you suppose the Linux people would be happy about the fact that
rebel.com has stolen the Linux source code and used it to make a
proprietary, closed box, without published technical specifications,
without supporting software development in the Open Source community?  
They have no interest in letting others do independently-funded research
work on their platform, because they were never interested in supporting
Open Source software to begin with.  They do not see any advantage to Open
Source Software and would just as soon run Windoes CE, except that (a)
Windows CE costs money and Linux is free for the taking, and (b) Open
Source is already well-marketed.  This is the kind of outrageous corporate
exploitation that the Linux community should not tolerate.  We need to
take a firm position on this now, or this rebel.com fiasco will not be the
last--a dozen similarly exploitive companies selling everything from
overpriced office products like the NetWinder to Pepsi machines will rape
the Open Source community for all their worth, and give nothing in return.  
In a gift-oriented cultire, it's up to us, the members of the community,
to insist that companies support the Open Source ideal, else we shall not
support them.  At least, I for one will not!  rebel.com's NetWinder claims
to advocate an Open Source Operating System, but when the Open Source
Community at large approaches them and asks for development assistance we
are snubbed.  Apparently it's become clear they had no intention of
contributing to the community from the beginning--they just wanted free
software to run their product.  For my money, i'd much rather get a
product like the mmEye or the DNARD or a cheap PC running RedHat--that way
my money goes to a company that truly supports Open-Source Software.
------8<-----

Now all you've got to do is tack on a few facts, what actually _happened_,
to that dramatic tripe and you're good-to-go.

Lies, damn lies.  perhaps.  i don't know--reading it over and over i'm
almost starting to believe it myself!  there must be at least a little
truth in it.  At least, though, I know this block of text is not exactly
the BSD position on corporate relations.  But, it is the position of
Slashdot, and of most of the Free UNIX community.  I think being a trifle
hypocritical at this juncture would, overall, help the Project. Especially
if some disposable and certifiably insane lunatic were to send in the
original posting rather than someone who speaks more directly for TNF.  
Then, those with stronger ties to TNF, more important ARM gurus, could
voice more mellow opinions in the comments section.

What do you think? Shall we send Slashdot something?

Arrgety ar, ar...
-- 
Miles Nordin / v:1-888-857-2723 fax:+1 530 579-8680
555 Bryant Street PMB 182 / Palo Alto, CA 94301-1700 / US