Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:15:51 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Martin <nakal@nurfuerspam.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quality of FreeBSD Message-ID: <20050722081551.GA5387@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <42DFC345.10205@nurfuerspam.de> References: <1121917413.4895.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050721095732.GG52120@stack.nl> <200507212029.47615.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200507210850530519.03A3275D@sentry.24cl.com> <20050721135839.K97888@fledge.watson.org> <42DFC345.10205@nurfuerspam.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2005-Jul-21 17:46:13 +0200, Martin wrote: >One more thing about "cheap hardware": if you know that a piece of >hardware is potentially buggy (I mean real BUGS and not missing >support), please publish your opinion, because I will buy hardware >FOR FREEBSD, so I avoid major problems. How about test suites for >ACPI quality, e.g.? Would it be possible? In general, I'd say what you want isn't achievable. Firstly, there's the risk of legal action from a vendor who believes they have been maligned and the reliability (or lack thereof) of the supplied opinions. More critically, vendors often make (significant to FreeBSD) changes to products without any obvious external differences. For example, wireless cards that are externally identical but have different chipsets when you open the packaging. And there's no way to ensure that the BIOS and ACPI in the motherboard you bought last week bears any resemblance to the BIOS and ACPI in the supposedly identical motherboard that I buy this week. As far as the vendor is concerned, as long as it (sort of) works on Windoze when you use the vendor-supplied driver then the vendor has fulfilled their "fit-for-use" responsibility. -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050722081551.GA5387>