From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Apr 1 17:57:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from stargate.compuware.com (stargate.compuware.com [166.90.248.158]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 25ADC37B71B for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from driehuis@playbeing.org) Received: from [199.186.16.12] by stargate.compuware.com via smtpd (for hub.freebsd.org [216.136.204.18]) with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 00:57:48 UT Received: from bh1.compuware.com (compuware.com [172.22.1.239]) by cwus-dtw-mr02.compuware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535FA74BBD for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trashcan.nl.compuware.com ([172.16.16.52]) by bh1.compuware.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id HWM0ZG72; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:57:41 -0400 Received: from c1111.nl.compuware.com (c1111.nl.compuware.com [172.16.16.36]) by trashcan.nl.compuware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E01145A4; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 02:57:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 02:57:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Bert Driehuis X-Sender: bertd@c1111.nl.compuware.com To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Network performance question In-Reply-To: <20010402023800.B75063@mail.webmonster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote: > mike, driver stuff can be implemented in not just one way or style of > code as we all know. the freebsd approach is to have readable code, no > awkward hacks (well, errrhm, almost ;) and a structure that meets the > specifications of the hardware and, hopefully, is extendible for newer > hw versions. the linux approach is to have a flying penguin touching the > ground with the tip of his left foot, trying not to crash into the next > obstacle - and so is the source. the linux community tends to fix driver > problems on certain hardware with evil hacks and, hell, at least it > _seems_ to work ;-) I should probably shut up at some stage, but I couldn't let this one pass :-) Evil hacks are required from time to time. I still remember the rift between the BSDI community and FreeBSD, because BSDI refused to implement bounce buffers for the ISA Adaptec devices because they were Evil. FreeBSD chose to be evil, and won a fair amount of BSDI users over on these grounds. Hardware is inherently buggy -- once it ships, you have no easy recourse like recommending firmware updates; if a soldering iron is all that can help the end user, the end user is screwed if the hardware has a bug. I'm glad you mentioned the i82559 chip as an approved one, because I'm currently dealing with a vendor that happened to miswire them, and broke 100/full autonegociation by doing so. I'm not a big Linux fan, but if it does the job on a machine that FreeBSD throws its hands up on, what am I to recommend? Buy new hardware? I've been through this loop often enough to recommend top notch hardware from vendors that actually can tell a 100pF capacitor from a 100uF one (which is apparently what broke those Intel based boards), but if a workaround exists that doesn't jeopardize the users of Decent Hardware, let a thousand workarounds blossom! If life were easy, we'd all be out of a job. I'd far rather concentrate on getting stuff to work than on bashing the competitor for bashings sake. {Free,Net}BSD have the edge in driver development for having a clear, bus-agnostic driver development model. I never stop being amazed at how cleanly most hardware bugs can be worked around if the basics are taken care of. Cheers, -- Bert -- Bert Driehuis -- driehuis@playbeing.org -- +31-20-3116119 If the only tool you've got is an axe, every problem looks like fun! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message