Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:02:56 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Charles Swiger" <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org> Subject: RE: Adaptec AAC raid support Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNMENAFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <7ee3eea7bd5834be0664c3098fc27ae3@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Swiger [mailto:cswiger@mac.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 2:21 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: misc@openbsd.org; Theo de Raadt; freebsd list > Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support > > 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. > Whaat? Dell? The PERC 4 is an AMI device, Dell doesen't make chipsets they are an assembler. The amr driver supports it and is open, so obviously there was never an NDA there. And as for the i860, there's tons of programming docs on the Internet out there for it, once again, it's already open. > > >> 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. > There is a difference between legally obligated and morally obligated. You were originally speaking on moral obligation, then switched to legal obligations. Naturally, if Adaptec claims support where none exists, that is fraud. But if Adaptec customers want to use their products on OpenBSD, that is still an obligation, while it may not be a legal one, it is definitely a moral one. Or are you arguing in favor of scrapping the customer is always right idea? All the people arguing with Theo against pulling AAC support from OpenBSD's generic kernel are doing so based on a moral obligation that they feel Theo has to his users, you cannot argue that he has a moral obligation and Adaptec does not. If anything, the moral obligation on Adaptec to work with OpenBSD is far higher than the moral obligation on Theo to work with Adaptec, because the Adaptec customers have paid Adaptec, the OpenBSD customers haven't paid Theo. > 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. > But customers also should tell those vendors why they are avoiding them, too. And vendors should state specifically why they refuse to support certain platforms. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNMENAFAAA.tedm>