From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 27 06:03:05 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576C716A4DE for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.web-strider.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62F343D4C for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:03:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from coolf89ea26645 (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id k6R62Nx64910; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Message-ID: <008101c6b142$38cbdc40$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "User Freebsd" , "Darrin Chandler" References: <20060726032544.4CA2643D70@mx1.FreeBSD.org><20060726123204.C17979@ganymede.hub.org><20060726153515.I17979@ganymede.hub.org><20060726190108.GE5284@jeeves.stilyagin.local> <20060726164622.Q17979@ganymede.hub.org> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:02:15 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Cc: Nikolas Britton , FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? 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: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:03:05 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "User Freebsd" To: "Darrin Chandler" Cc: "Nikolas Britton" ; "FreeBSD Questions" Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:48 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? > > My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd > rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they > require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use > Adaptec products ... > No, that's not the way of Open Source. You cannot advocate binary only drivers for an open source OS, it is a slippery slope. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. It is philosophy bankrupt to demand binary support without the source code. You gave Adaptec a good shot - you gave them a chance to keep supporting you. They failed. It isn't your fault for upgrading, and it isn't FBSD's fault for changing so the binary blob doesen't work right anymore. > How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, > for similar fears? > I usually go gradually on upgrading, so I'll see problems like this long before I've changed over any significant percent of my servers. Ted