Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:17:36 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Brandon Fosdick <bfoz@glue.umd.edu>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dangerously Dedicated Message-ID: <14872.20864.904617.287982@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <14872.20766.675326.503604@nomad.yogotech.com> References: <3A18304B.689C2CFE@glue.umd.edu> <200011192156.eAJLu5F09713@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <14872.20766.675326.503604@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Using what I consider to be a artifact of another operating system on a > > > machine that doesn't use that OS seems silly to me. Unless, of course, > > > that artifact has some useful feature(s) or functionality. If it does, I'm > > > all ears. > > > > What "you consider" doesn't have much bearing on the situation. As for > > useful functionality, this has been done to death. It should be enough > > for you to accept that the platform requires it > > Except that it doesn't, as 'dangerously dedicated' mode shows. > > >, and that a goodly slice > > of platform-compliant firmware and software will fail in undesirable ways > > if it's not present. All of which has been explained in excruciating > > detail before. > > Except that the software hasn't always required it previously, and it > previously did not fail. > > Some would call this 'regression', but I suppose others will call it > 'progress'. Note, this isn't directed at Mike (far from it), but more at the PC architecture, which seems to take one step forward, and then shoot itself in the other foot more often than not. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14872.20864.904617.287982>