From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Nov 19 14:17:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFCB37B479; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:17:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03952; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:17:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA08880; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:17:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14872.20864.904617.287982@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:17:36 -0700 (MST) To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: Mike Smith , Brandon Fosdick , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dangerously Dedicated 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> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > 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