LAUs -- all I'm trying to do is appeal to those people, if there are any, who are willing to come together and face companies like RME and offer them a compromise as i outlined. nothing more or less. the company is worried about disclosure, fine ... thats their business. i want compatibility for such and such hardware though, and I'm willing to sign an NDA, help develop the driver, and negotiate the terms for distribution. whoever is interested in helping should speak up, voice their opinion on my method, and help get things organized. if you don't think it will work, fine; but thats all i was trying to do here. my apologies to anyone who is bothered by it, but i don't see how an attempt would hurt anything. it is simply a different method of, as you say, "letting [the manufacturer] know how i feel". if you don't have the time, resources, know-how, or even the inclination to assist, i certainly wont think any less of you. [and I'm not being sarcastic] best regards, --vord On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:03:49 -0500, Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 22:48 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote: > > But more importantly, is it really necessary to revive this nonsense > > again? This awful thread finally dies and now this... > > Agreed. I think that everyone has made their opinion clear WRT the > status of closed source Linux drivers. At this point there's nothing > more to do than for the people who bought or might buy RME hardware to > let RME know how they feel. If that changes their mind, great, if not, > take your business elsewhere. > > Lee
