Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:34:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com> To: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> Cc: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Some recent changes to GENERIC Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.94.960711080954.21744B-100000@harlie> In-Reply-To: <199607110449.VAA06047@root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, David Greenman wrote:
> >> Ok, Joe, I'm going to put back sio2 and sio3 for you, OK?
> >
> >I don't appreciate your tone.
>
> (...lots of mutual bickering deleted)
>
> I think folks need to step back, calm down, take a deep breath, and put
> this all into perspective.
I'm sorry if I came across as demanding, know-it-all, etc. I do think
removing sio2 and sio3 is a mistake. I don't think it's a big enough
deal to get everyone all agrivated. If the probe for sio3 is causing
problems, then we should find a way to avoid this problem. I don't know
how widespread the problem is. I know it exists, but it hasn't affected
any of my S3 based computers, and that's the only video chipset I use.
It seems to me that the preference would be to
1) probe without invoking the problem (I don't know if we want to
include special case detection to detect the problem video cards
first).
2) disable the probe for sio3 only, in such a way that it can be
reenabled with -c configuration. I thought someone had recently
added this ability. Is the problem that this is only in -current?
3) disable sio3 and it's probe, but leave sio2 intact
4) disable sio2 and sio3
Of these, since I ranked them by preference, then obviously I think 1
would be best, since it's transparent to the user. 2 would be transparent
to anyone who doesn't have a modem on sio3, and an RTFM to those that do.
3 would mean a kernel recompile in the case of a modem on sio3, and 4
would mean a kernel recompile on sio2 or sio3.
As to the last two, a kernel recompile isn't a good answer if they want to
install via PPP (maybe yet another boot image? Then we could call it
RedHat FreeBSD :-) Also, I don't think we should be putting people in the
position of having to recompile the kernel when at all possible.
My first *nix machine ran on a 30Meg HD. Some of the machines I
administer are running off of 80-120Meg hard drives, because they are only
firewalls etc. Now, I've got several FreeBSD machines with pentiums and
1.6-2.8GB worth of fs that I can do a kernel recompile on, but that's just
me (and just recently).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.94.960711080954.21744B-100000>