Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:39:09 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay Message-ID: <626456216.20050322123909@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <1111490108.751.252.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com> References: <20050321095647.R83831@makeworld.com> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEOAFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <1907678552.20050322101315@wanadoo.fr> <1111486000.751.221.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com> <1181508865.20050322114009@wanadoo.fr> <1111490108.751.252.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Risdon writes: > You _are_ trying to run a version of FreeBSD equivalent to 2003/XP. No, I'm just running FreeBSD 5.3. It has nothing to do with Windows. > Because you were making comparisons with an 8 y.o. version of Windows. > Because it might be the case that you also have to run an 8 y.o. version > of Windows. That is your guess. Personally, I decided not to guess, so I actually looked it up on Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility List for Windows 2000. My machine is still there. See ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/whql/hcl/win2000hcl.txt and look for the HP Vectra XU 6/200 PPro (2p). > Because your hardware is 8 years old. Obvious, obvious, > obvious. Uh-huh. See above. Care to try again? > Of course code gets retired. The choice is actively maintain it or > remove it. You don't have to actively maintain code for hardware platforms that are not changing. If eight-year-old code worked with eight-year-old hardware eight years ago, it will still work with the same hardware today. You don't have to remove it or "maintain" it. UNIX is a prime example of this, since it contains decades-old code that still works, if you can find the hardware to exercise it. > Yes you do. No code is an island. Rather than see unmaintained code > break as dependencies get changed, it gets removed. That's not true. I've been there and done that. You don't have to change anything. Code doesn't wear out. If it worked then, it will work now. Only incompetent system programmers have problems with this, since their code is so convoluted that they cannot change anything anywhere without breaking something somewhere else. Fortunately, they tend to get weeded out of the pool in time. > That's the sort of completely uninformed guess that has been pissing > people off. Well, no. I researched the problem, and people have been complaining about it for a long time. Google is your friend. Instead of getting pissed off, you might want to actually look something up. I'm not the first person with problems like this by any means, but it looks like nobody has ever addressed them. Lots of people in denial, though, and that part obviously hasn't changed. > Sure - you have the source code. You CAN hack it, or pay someone to hack > it, to make your drives work. If you wanted to, you could then > distribute your own version of the OS, or maintain it in-house if the > project closes or the product is discontinued. This isn't an option with > closed source software and it means you actually own your technology > yourself, fully and completely. And this is as obvious as it's possible > to get. That's not an advantage. Nobody can dive into source code that way. That's not the way operating systems are built. > It's a choice made by Microsoft too and it hasn't brought them > to their knees. No. Microsoft sets goals and developers meet the goals or find employment elsewhere. The company's objective is to make money, not to pander to overgrown teenagers who are too immature to work effectively in a cooperative engineering environment. Those are the ones who never get into Microsoft in the first place. While the company is not completely free of developers who are convinced that butter wouldn't melt in their mouth, their developers are still a lot better than you find in many other companies ... which is one reason why they make so much money. > Such as? As I recall, the company planned to fix some problems by requiring an upgrade and I made it clear that an upgrade would not be acceptable to the customer base, and eventually they backed down. > Changes are made to FreeBSD following user interaction. This process is > actually embedded in the FreeBSD development process (man 1 send-pr). I'd like to get the bugs fixed first, before considering changes. > And you can interface them directly with a recent computer? Cameras don't need computers. > If you had a camera that was old enough to use film > stock that is no longer widely made, you'd have to cut your own. The film stock used in these cameras is still made today, and is available at every drugstore. > You don't. Why on earth do you say things like this? If you think eight years is old for a computer, then clearly you believe that computers must be replaced at regular and frequent intervals. I don't see any reason to do that. This old machine still runs just fine; why would I replace it? > I'm not interested in establishing anything at all about your complaint. So I've surmised. > I have no idea what your problem is ... I agree. Now if only someone who actually knew what he was talking about and were interested in helping out would reply. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?626456216.20050322123909>