In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.


On Tue, 9 May 1995, David M. Oliver wrote:

> On Mon, 8 May 1995, Rex Ballard wrote:
> > I wouldn't mind signing a disclosure agreement, but
> > I would be reluctant to forfeit my right to share that which I already 
> > knew, and that which I could intuitively derive, without having a vested 
> > interest in my own silence.  I was doing 3rd party authentication 4 years 
> > ago.
> 
> 	Sorry to have brought this up.

I am not saying I wouldn't sign a non-disclusure agreement, but Novell 
tried to stop me from sharing what I knew about TCP/IP by trying to get
our company to sign an agreement that we could not divulge anything they
gave us.  Much of the forbidden disclosure included the documentation on
Berkely Sockets and TCP/IP, streight out of the BSDI manual.  Microsoft
tried to do the same thing to stop me from talking about Unix.

Novell is now marching to the TCP/IP drum (reluctantly).  Microsoft is 
trying to prove it's NT product is a "Better Unix than Unix".  Obviously,
someone has forgotten to explain the infrastructure of Unix and X11 to 
them.  Actually, I'd love it if they fulfilled their promise.  I wouldn't 
have to spend the equivalent of on FTE to get the "Microsoft Bundle" on
their PCs.

Rex


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue May  9 16:20:32 1995