From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 11 10:38:26 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA21617 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA21612 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA01531; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:34:37 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:34:37 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199607111734.LAA01531@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Terry Lambert Cc: michaelv@headcandy.com (Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com), freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some recent changes to GENERIC In-Reply-To: <199607111718.KAA29355@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199607110450.VAA01629@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> <199607111718.KAA29355@phaeton.artisoft.com> Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [ Making *nix be the best OS available ] > > Well, yeah, that's a great goal. But, how do we solve the ATI/S3/com4 > > conflict and kernel bloat with the source base that exists _right_ > > _now_ in 2.1.5 (and/or NetBSD 1.2)? Better ideas? > > My general soloution to this type of question is to consider how > things should be, not how they are, in formulating my answer. And my response is 'provide me with the best solution' if you believe it's such a big deal. Having access to the tools and the documentation to *DO* the best solution is at best 33% of the job. If the project did all the 'tasks' that you gave us 'enough information to do the job with' then we'd have Terry-BSD and no-one would be having fun. But, instead we go have fun and wait for someone else (ie; Terry!) to finish the 'trivial implementations' he claims must be done. *grin* Nate