i2o fiasco- a possible workaround
On Aug 8, 1997, at 04:42, Conley Roberts wrote:
> I read that you guys are attempting to come up with an alternative to
> i2o. Then again, how about this? We let them bring the beastie out, and
> we reverse engineer from the COMPONENTS! There is no way i2o can make
> this illegal. And, if the effort is stealthed long enough, we can cause
> an interesting situation, possibly:
> 1: Wintel sits and laughs. At least, we're there!
> 2: Wintel says "all developers will recode. We will stay the same."
> If nothing else, the developers will be mucho upset, and will
> probably balk (very soft word, IMHO) at this proclamation.
> 3: Wintel and developers recode. Just look, their efforts just were
> wasted for the past year. I am just soooooo sorryyyyyy...
> I will not post this to the NG for obvious reasons. If you read this,
> please reply. Do not agree or disagree, unless you wish. If you post
> this, please document my name, but say the idea is anonymous. I don't
> have THAT much money, either :-) If this is kept very tight and quiet,
> there will be no way to combat an effort of this type. Let the .COM
> developers in on this, if there are some trusty people in there to let
> know about this...you can guess Wintel would be FURIOUS if they knew
> that this could be happening (tho they probably are planning on it
> happening anyway...
> If this is not worthy, feel free to ignore it. If there are possible
> legal aspects that could be problems with the idea, send them to me and
> then I can know too.
> Send any replies to firstname.lastname@example.org
> (remove 'y's when responding)
> P.S. If i2o is the wave of the future, may I live in the desert, please?
Could you please provide more details on what you are talking about?
What's i2o? Perhaps the fact that I'm asking proves I don't need to
Gonzalo A. Diethelm G.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .