From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 5 22:59:03 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 9252016A4CE for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:59:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-m16.mx.aol.com (imo-m16.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D70443D54 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:59:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Tm4528@aol.com) Received: from Tm4528@aol.com by imo-m16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id o.190.36a29286 (4418); Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:58:54 -0500 (EST) From: Tm4528@aol.com Message-ID: <190.36a29286.2f0dcb2d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:58:53 EST To: joshua.lokken@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5116 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Supermicro Hardware and FreeBSD 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: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:59:03 -0000 In a message dated 1/5/05 4:03:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, joshua.lokken@gmail.com writes: > Besides ... with a name like hardcodeharry, I would expect a little more > intelligence; a little more willingness to dig into things. A slight > tendency to ask the question: "how can I hack this code to work, and how > would I contribute those modifications to the BSD team?" You obviously speak from your armpit, because to do the kind of work to support the O/S at the chipset level is beyond the reasonable expectations of even the most talented of programmers. The learning curve to be able to understand the basic code is exceptionally steep. Thats why there are maintainers, becuase what takes him an hour would take someone else weeks. "> 2. Don't expect every damn piece of hardware out there to work out of > the box with an older version of the kernel for the given *nix. This is > NOT WINDOWS (thank god) and just because you have a particular piece of > hardware doesn't mean it's going to work. It is your responsibility to > know this and to work with it. > > 3. Ask questions politely in the appropriate forums, and be civil. > Failing to do so is probably not going to get your question answered. > > I for one was drafting a post for this list thanking *everyone* on it > for being the kind of terrific help they are when Boris' post appeared. > The kind of discourse I see on this list (and on other BSD oriented > lists) is a huge and welcome contrast to the childish banter I see on > most of the Linux (and MacOS and Windows) discussion lists out there. It > is like the kind of professional enthusiasm I remember on the BeOS lists. " ------------------ Your point might have some teeth if the "newer" version were better, but the entire problem is that 5.x is much worse than 4.x, so there lies the issue. 4.10 is NOT supposed to be an "old" version. Its the production version. Because its readily admitted that 5.x is not yet ready for prime time by those in the know. And its not properly suppored. The "tranquility" of this list is apparently because the people on this list are too technically incompetent to realize how badly botched 5.x is. "thank you master, thank you for helping me get my mouse working, let me kiss your boots" The truth is that you are in awe of a "team" that has done a terrible job of transitioning to a new version, who can't get the new version to perform at close to the levels of the previous version after several years, and who have time and time again failed to meet their promised performance targets. They force their customer base to use the slothy thing, because modern motherboards and comm cards dont work in 4.x. And you stand and cheer them. Like a bunch of blind men cheering the one-eyed fool.