From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 19 22:21:19 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 5AC4B16A4CE for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:21:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1039E43D3F for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:21:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin02-en2 [10.13.10.147]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id j2JMLE3d024611; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:21:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (pool-68-161-53-96.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.53.96]) (authenticated bits=0)j2JMLBJM005004; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:21:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7ee3eea7bd5834be0664c3098fc27ae3@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:21:11 -0500 To: Ted Mittelstaedt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) cc: misc@openbsd.org cc: freebsd list cc: Theo de Raadt Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support 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: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:21:19 -0000 On Mar 19, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> Scott is or was under NDA with Adaptec. Scott certainly is not in a >> position to give away all of Adaptec's internal documentation. >> Frankly, I doubt even the CEO of Adaptec would be free to simply give >> away all of their internal docs-- Adaptec undoubtedly has NDA >> obligations with their partners, chip suppliers, and so forth, which >> constrains what they can make public. > > This is bullcrap. Adaptec is quite obviously the single largest > customer > of any of those chip partners. If they told those partners they wern't > going to sign an NDA those partners would say "How high do you want me > to jump, sir" You've a habit of confusing your opinions with factual data. While the process can be entertaining, you should be aware that it greatly inhibits the quality of your arguments. Tell me, who is bigger, Intel or Adaptec? I don't think Adaptec dictated terms to Intel vis-a-vis the i860 chips used for hardware parity computation on some of their RAID cards, for example. I don't think Adaptec dictated terms to Dell vis-a-vis the PERC 4 series, either. If you disagree, show me data proving otherwise, rather than hand-waving. >> But the hardware vendors aren't obligated to meet your demands, > > This is also bullcrap. The hardware vendors are obligated to support > THEIR customers who have bought product from them. Some of those > customers want to run OpenBSD. Therefore the hardware vendors are > obligated to get off their fat asses and work with the OpenBSD people > regardless of how they may personally like or dislike them. Hardware vendors publish software compatibility lists. They have an obligation to support their products on the systems they claim to support. They have no obligation to support their products when used on systems they do not claim to support. Of course, customers should avoid doing business with vendors who don't work with open standards, or provide adequate support for the systems those customers want to run. -- -Chuck