From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 21:16:40 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 1548A16A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:16:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp9.wanadoo.fr (smtp9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E2D43D53 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:16:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0909.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id CCBF7240013B for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:16:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf0909.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 999D1240010E for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:16:38 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20050329211638629.999D1240010E@mwinf0909.wanadoo.fr Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:16:36 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <785092730.20050329231636@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:16:40 -0000 Bart Silverstrim writes: > If it doesn't say, the list is referring to the generic > off-the-f'ing-shelf version. I _have_ the generic, off-the-shelf version of this PC. > Very good. And if you take one of them whining about a problem, they > point at the list and say, "Tough Sh*t." No, they don't. They point out that they can't support your configuration. Sometimes they offer suggestions, anyway, sometimes they don't. They just aren't _obligated_ to provide any support. > Yes, that's exactly what he's saying when properly twisted. Even without twisting, that seemed to be the clear meaning. > If "superior design" consists solely of ignoring problems > or ignoring glitches in hardware, then you have a real gem. No, I was referring to the additional modularity and stability made possible by the additional abstraction of a HAL. -- Anthony