From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 20:56:39 2005 Return-Path: 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 5B74916A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:56:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from trans-warp.net (hyperion.trans-warp.net [216.37.208.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D208843D1D for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:56:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsilver@chrononomicon.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unverified [65.193.73.208]) by trans-warp.net (SurgeMail 2.2g3) with ESMTP id 1662316 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:56:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: <813611053.20050329205032@wanadoo.fr> References: <42480F8B.1060405@makeworld.com> <1648629793.20050329122346@wanadoo.fr> <42496060.1060404@makeworld.com> <467487023.20050329162852@wanadoo.fr> <42496992.7020800@makeworld.com> <1805326777.20050329181237@wanadoo.fr> <42498D19.60209@makeworld.com> <813611053.20050329205032@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bart Silverstrim Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:56:37 -0500 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com X-Authenticated-User: bsilver@chrononomicon.com X-DNS-Paranoid: DNS ptr lookup of (65.193.73.208) failed Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:56:39 -0000 On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Chris writes: > >> No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH >> the >> modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not. > > Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative > humidity, and atmospheric pressure as well? Are you really this obtuse or do you just play you are on the Internet? >> Again - I doubt that that perticulare Adaptec WITH the modifide code >> is >> listed. Now I'll bet an untouched Adaptec is. > > Nothing on the list says either way. I'm sure they're going to list every permutation of code. If it doesn't say, the list is referring to the generic off-the-f'ing-shelf version. The firmware you have ISN'T. You bloody POSTED that in the version output! It's a MODIFIED FIRMWARE. >> No - not worthless - NOT SUPPORTED. Just like the HCL that MS puts >> out. > > There are lots of configurations unsupported by Microsoft that will > still run Windows without problems. Very good. And if you take one of them whining about a problem, they point at the list and say, "Tough Sh*t." If it works, great. If it doesn't, oh well. It wasn't previously tested and the programmers aren't going to test on every bit of hardware in existence. I mean, DUH. >> Another thing to understand, most of the HP added code is related to >> SNMP. That's what HP/Compaq does. Now, you also need to realize that >> the >> drivers under NT talk to HAL (Hardware Abstration Layer) which >> happenes >> to be far more forgiving of altered code then something under Unix >> where >> the driver talks directly to the hardware. > > Are you saying that Windows NT has a superior design? Yes, that's exactly what he's saying when properly twisted. If "superior design" consists solely of ignoring problems or ignoring glitches in hardware, then you have a real gem. You should go out and reinstall Windows on that server and leave this list in peace.