From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Nov 23 21:34: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles532.castles.com [208.214.165.96]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3F414F51 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:33:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00694; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:24:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199911240524.VAA00694@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: mi@aldan.algebra.com Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: speaking of 3.4... In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Nov 1999 13:51:10 EST." <199911231851.NAA22406@misha.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:24:25 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Mike Smith once wrote: > > > > The inability to boot after a seemingly successfull install should > > > be eliminated... > > > The only way to guarantee this is to cause the install to fail unless > > the installation program can be 100% certain of the bootability of the > > install. > > You know, a very similar answer was given to me a couple of years ago on > this very forum (may be on -current). Back then, the inability to detect > over 64Mb of RAM was the issue. > > Both problems are related to the majority of PC BIOSes' brain damage, > but somehow other operating systems manage to work around the said > damage. I don't know if it is the installer or the kernel's root-device > seeker (or both), that need to be made even smarter, but something needs > to be done. Actually, these "other" operating systems avoid the issue by not offering the functionality in question at all. We make the obviously shaky assumption that our users are willing to think and apply a little common sense to the situation. > Of course, the statements like this do not solve the problems. But they > put them into spotlight... Then, may be, that's not what's needed? The > 64Mb problems, AFAIR, was only addressed after some magazine benchmarked > FreeBSD against Linux on a 128Mb machine and we sucked because we were > only using 64Mb... You remember incorrectly. The 64MB problem was licked when I managed to steamroller Sean and Jonathan's VM86 work into the system in order to use the BIOS. Likewise, I can in all modesty claim credit for fixing the very problem that you're whining about in the 4.x branch as well. I'm also responsible for the workaround in the 3.x branch. I'm not sure just why it is that the easier it is to work around a problem, the more people whine about it. It's documented, it's massively discussed in the list archives, and yet still people find it somehow "too hard". *sigh*. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message