From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 14 10:31:27 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AEA106564A for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:31:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au) Received: from mail.unitedinsong.com.au (202-172-126-254.cpe.qld-1.comcen.com.au [202.172.126.254]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F138FC1D for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:31:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (unknown [192.168.0.199]) by mail.unitedinsong.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6AF4940 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:31:59 +1000 (EST) From: Da Rock To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20081212212931.F5072@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <1228733482.4495.14.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20081211103742.21621a6d@gom.home> <20081211190951.GB845@comcast.net> <20081211113257.405a082c@gom.home> <20081211202023.GC845@comcast.net> <20081211134622.15c81ecd@gom.home> <20081212002813.GD32300@kokopelli.hydra> <20081211170011.777236f8@gom.home> <20081212015814.GB32982@kokopelli.hydra> <20081212120437.B3687@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212181258.GE36348@kokopelli.hydra> <20081212203202.H4803@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212150228.520ad7f8@scorpio> <20081212212931.F5072@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:31:17 +1000 Message-Id: <1229229078.18610.80.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:31:27 -0000 On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 21:35 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> NVidia MUST INCLUDE full documentation of their hardware. > >> this is normal - hardware manufacturer produces hardware, programmers > >> do make support for it. > >> > >> what is common today isn't normal. > > > > I honestly have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. > > exactly what i wrote. the problem is that people like You (and millions > others) are willing to buy product without any documentation. > > if you think they do this to hide their hardware secrets you are wrong. > See x86 instruction set - does it reveal how Intel or Amd made their > processor so fast? no! > > They do this to hide their hardware faults that way - that's the true > reason they do this. > > With new hardware produced every year it MUST be buggy and certainly there > are thousands of hardware bugs. > > with "secret" drivers - they can easily hide them. AFAIK at least half of > their driver code are to do workaround of their hardware bugs. Actually that sounds like a very close approximation of what is going on. It explains why cpu usage can go up some times during use. What I can't equate with is why its acceptable for intel to do the same... check if_iwi and its "firmware". No other wifi device (that I'm aware of- at least they'd be in the minority anyway) works this way. The excuse is fcc regs- I doubt that... And before anyone defends intel: I've spent a lot of time wasted on making their stupid nics to work in windows, I usually just flick em and put in a rl nic. The cpus are shit as well- I've had no end of trouble with them, plus too hot, power hungry etc. Alas, finding a decent notebook with an alternative has been to no avail...