From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 11 07:30:14 2004 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 B3CD716A4CE for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FE343D31 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:30:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id i2BFUBcg001349; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:30:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:30:11 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: "Sergey 'DoubleF' Zaharchenko" Message-ID: <20040311153010.GD27984@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20040311155119.775a9ae2@Hal.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040311155119.775a9ae2@Hal.localdomain> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: Jason Dictos cc: "''freebsd-questions@freebsd.org' '" Subject: Re: Using int 13 while BSD is running 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: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:30:14 -0000 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