The dufus who mailbombed DR admitted it on undeadly
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20050318231311&pid=4&mode=expanded
_Raju
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:38:43 +1100, Rod.. Whitworth <listen@witworx.com> wrote:
> Theo said that there was refused mail for DR.
>
> Well, I'm not sure if some fruitcake not in any way connected with
> OpenBSD mailbombed poor Mr Richardson.
>
> If one did I'm sorry that it happened amd if Mr R. is reading this, and
> he should be, he'll know that none of us who chooses OpenBSD condones
> that kind of behaviour.
>
> On the other hand he has himself caught in a nice little trap. Why?
> Because there are two possibilities for the near future:
>
> a> The documentation requested ( NOT SOURCE TO EXISTING CODE BY
> ADAPTEC) is provided.
> OR
> b> It isn't.
>
> (a) makes him look like a loser because he defended the lack of docs.
> That could be because he is the fall guy in the line of fire who has to
> defend, come hell or high water, the high ground claimed by TPTB who do
> not want their dirt revealed. If this is the case then I hope his
> salary package has an allowance for "unpleasant duties". <heh!>
>
> (b) means that Adaptec will lose some sales. It isn't like losing the
> Windows market, but then Adaptec would lick spittle off Bill's boots to
> avoid that. It DOES mean, when looked at from a stockholder
> perspective, that earnings were not all they could be. That view would
> be totally accurate.... unless somebody had a secret deal to make it
> impossible to give out the info needed to do an opensource driver and
> the concomittant utility code and Adaptec received a substantial reward
> for that undertaking.
>
> As my legal advisor says, such a deal would be a crime,and,very likely,
> its existance would eventually leak.
> Neither he nor I believe in conspiracy theories that last very long,
> particularly in corporations where more than one party per side is
> involved. So patience, my friends.....
>
> I don't really care whether the SEC gets 'em or the stockholders do but
> I'm sure of one thing: One or both should be interested. Their
> (Adaptec) fiduciary duty is to maximise return for the stockholder and
> there is no fury like a stockholder spurned. Male or female.
>
> I'm totally unaware of what deals may have been done and so I cannot
> allege that there are any in place. All the above (except for logical
> deductions) is pure speculation but if the theories on which it is
> based are faulty then I'd love to be put in my place by a concrete
> statement as to where I missed the point.
>
> Such a statement by some toady with no corporate responsibility would
> be treated with the contempt it deserves.
>
>
> From the land "down under": Australia.
> Do we look <umop apisdn> from up over?
>
> Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list.
> Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server.
>
>
--
May the packets be with you.
|