Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:30:11 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: "Sergey 'DoubleF' Zaharchenko" <doublef@tele-kom.ru> Cc: "''freebsd-questions@freebsd.org' '" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Using int 13 while BSD is running Message-ID: <20040311153010.GD27984@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20040311155119.775a9ae2@Hal.localdomain> References: <E50A109EE98AA049BAA09D725DB0714F01AD3BB3@mail.tapeware.com> <20040311155119.775a9ae2@Hal.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Mar 11), Sergey 'DoubleF' Zaharchenko said: > > However in dos we have garanteed hard drive support via int13 (Well > > almost garanteed, but if an os can boot of the computer, we can > > access the disk), > > The hard disk is not the only device you can boot off. Consider > floppies, CDROMS, etc. etc. So your access to the disk is only > guaranteed when you can read the disk, which seems like a tautology > to me:). > > > and I'm looking for the same sorta garantee in BSD. > > You are stating that the BIOS has better hardware support that > FreeBSD. Can you give any examples? I've seen lots of work go into the ata driver recently to support new ATA and SATA chipsets (take a look at the commits to ata-chipset.c since its creation just a year ago). If I were to put a kernel into some product, I would probably not want to have to keep releasing updates to it every time SiS, Promise, or Via releases a new chipset. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040311153010.GD27984>