Subject: Re: Cumana SCSI II Card
To: None <port-arm32@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Mr F H Baylis <fhb22266@ggr.co.uk>
List: port-arm32
Date: 10/04/1996 11:31:00
To: Aidan Corey and RiscBSD Development Team
Thanks for that info Aidan. I'm going to get hold of a drive soon because I
haven't backed up my RiscPC at all since I bought it! Over a year ago!?? So
I better get a backup done shortly. I had a feeling that RiscBSD should
work with a SCSI tape device, but it was RiscOS I had the problem with.
I had an answer from Mark Gillman or Cumana yesterday who said that they
are about to anounce the release of a new backup application that will work
with Exabyte and DAT under RiscOS :-) He didn't give me an indication of
the cost though.
When I asked about the tape drive software I also asked about the current
status with technical help to the RiscBSD core team for writing drivers
for the Cumana card, this was his reply:
I asked:
> >
> > Can you tell me whether the relevant information will be made
> > available to the RiscBSD development team.
> >
Mark Gillman replied:
> The relevant documention has, I understand, already been made available to the
> core RiscBSD team. It was however supplied under a strict NDA so if any of the
> original team who signed the agreement are not available then progress will
> be very slow.
>
> Unfortunately I am not currently in a position to make the documentation
> freely available. I do understand the problems (I think!) but we have so
> much on our plate at the moment that adding our support to this project
> is a little impractical. My apologies for any inconvenience this causes.
>
Is anyone aware whether the original members of the Cumana driver
development who signed the Non Disclosure Agreement are still working on
the project? If not is it not a simple task to get the current developer(s)
to sign another agreement with Cumana. I understand that NDA's are a pain,
but I work with major computer harware/software suppliers who are much less
willing to divulge information. I can understand Cumana's situation, they
aren't saying they can't help, but will under their terms; it's not
intended to make life difficult for developers of new OS's, but to keep the
competition from stealing their ideas/code.
Anyone like to comment?
Rgds,
Forbes.