From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 9 07:37:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA16430 for chat-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 07:37:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from word.smith.net.au (ppp13.portal.net.au [202.12.71.113]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA16425 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 07:36:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA00402; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:01:35 +1030 (CST) Message-Id: <199711091531.CAA00402@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Terry Lambert cc: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith), wghhicks@ix.netcom.com, mini@d198-232.uoregon.edu, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: x86 gods; advice? Suggestions? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 09 Nov 1997 10:32:24 -0000." <199711091032.DAA24687@usr06.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:01:28 +1030 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > And it doesn't lock you into x86 to run the BIOS on video cards... > > > where's the fun in that? > > > > I don't give a shit what it doesn't do, Terry. > > Boy, no sense of humor. What it *does* do, then is make cards not > depend on particular processors. Sorry; I didn't want you hijacking the thread. But I guess it's too late now. 8) (redirected to -chat) It only makes cards independent if they have Fcode BIOS support. How many video cards have Fcode BIOS support out-of-the-box? Yes, they *could*, but they *don't*. > > What *I* care about is that OpenBoot is big, it is expensive and > > proprietary, > > That last arrow struck home (the others missed, though, if expensive > is meant in terms of overhead instead of as a subset of proprietary, > which would make your statement redundant. No, expensive is "Ask FirmWorks what it would cost to license their implementation". Unless you feel like trying to code such a monstrosity from the specification alone. > > and it is a complete crock from the POV of usability. > > Again, you only need to use it once. The code for the OS is similar > to what I've been pushing in terms of VM86 fallback drivers. You > don't use it except for the boot, so usability isn't an issue. "Only use it once" multiplied by *how* many new users? mike