Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:49:41 -0500 From: Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay Message-ID: <f801f5dd277642a8373fc9db6b7e0ec5@chrononomicon.com> In-Reply-To: <1651925454.20050329182327@wanadoo.fr> References: <42480F8B.1060405@makeworld.com> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEPAFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <1648629793.20050329122346@wanadoo.fr> <42496060.1060404@makeworld.com> <467487023.20050329162852@wanadoo.fr> <f7e70252fe751b0827e1938ae87a11bb@chrononomicon.com> <1651925454.20050329182327@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Bart Silverstrim writes: > >> If a machine with a gig of memory runs fine under DOS but actually has >> a bad big of memory hardware near the 512 meg address range, it would >> probably still run "flawlessly" for a very very long time... > > This machine has 384 MB of very expensive RAM, and all of it was used > by > Windows NT. That's nice. I wasn't talking about NT there. I was talking about DOS. Command line, popular before Windows but after CP/M...maybe you've heard of it? It was a reference to the non-use of extended memory by DOS, so if there was a problem on that computer with the hardware DOS would run just fine on it since it didn't *use* that area of memory, so it would run fine despite there being a problem...? An example of there being a problem with the hardware that the OS wasn't reporting or wasn't aware of? Not that far out of the ballpark for an example here...<tap tap>....this thing on?.... >> But if you swap the hardware with a replacement and it works, how do >> you explain Windows being broken when that would suggest it was the >> hardware that was broken? > > I don't recall ever swapping anything. I have no reason to believe > that > a hardware failure has occurred. They're trying to help troubleshoot over the list. They ask, what happens when you swap X out? You refuse. Hello? They're trying to rule out other problems. Its' troubleshooting. This list isn't a bunch of slackers with nothing better to do than dive into your problem with debuggers, frothing rabidly at the mouth to prove they can get an eight-year-old frankenserver resurrected to serve Anthony because Anthony taunts them. What's the matter, McFly? Afraid your drive is junk compared to WINDOWS NT? Are you...YELLOW? Why you...oooh!!! Fine! <tap tap tap tap tap tap> trace here...break...<tap tap tap tap> >> You never put it on another identical Vectra to prove it was >> reproducible. > > Why does it have to be reproducible on another machine? Did you pass science class? This would show if it's reproducible as a bug. Slap it on the same damn hardware, *right down to the firmware* (remember you have modified firmware?). If it isn't running on two machines that are exactly the same, that shows an increased chance that that is indeed a bug in some driver, and you should contact the driver maintainer. If you have it running on one and not the other, then maybe, just MAYBE, it's a problem with the hardware. It's troubleshooting by eliminating variables. > It doesn't work > on my machine, and that's sufficient. Bzzt. Wrong. Not if the hardware is going bad or has a problem. See, in our magical and mystical world, we need to be able to reproduce the problem in order to help. Otherwise we have to troubleshoot and speculate. You know, the things you insist we don't need to do. On top of that, you never even commented on the possibility of someone being able to FIX your problem *IF IT IS* a FreeBSD software problem WITHOUT THE DAMN HARDWARE on which to test the fix. Sheeyit! How can I fix something on a configuration that I don't even have? <scratches head>. Hmm.... > If you can tell me what all the > error messages mean, then please do so. If you can't, you're just > throwing darts. Wow, how long have you worked in the field as a troubleshooter? Can someone give him some lawn darts to play with? >> The problem being asserted is that the hardware was tweaked. The >> firmware microcode. > > No assertion is worthy of my time unless it is preceded by an > explanation of the exact meaning of all the error messages I'm seeing. So...unless everything is handled exactly as you wish it, unrealistic or not, by volunteers no less, it is a waste of your time. You must be management. >> Really? Windows XP must be broken. I can't install it on my Mac. > > Swap out the hardware and see if it goes away. See if you can > reproduce > the problem on another Mac. It's possible that Windows uses the > hardware much more efficiently than the Mac OS X, and it doesn't run on > your machine simply because you have a hardware failure that OS X > couldn't detect. And here I thought it was because it uses a PPC. Oddly enough, removing the motherboard and putting in a PC-based motherboard with an Intel processor makes the problem magically go away...holy frijoles, Batman! But no matter how many Apple motherboards I use, XP just won't install. Maybe it IS the hardware?! Your turn. Pull out that shit controller and set of drives, put in new drives and a new controller that's generic instead of modified, and see if FreeBSD works. Even your misguided sarcasm would lead to the same conclusion! I just said that swapping the motherboard WOULD FIX IT! You'd be insisting I go to Apple and demand that they "fix" their PowerPC-only OS to run on Intel...(oddly enough, Darwin already does!) >> Fine. FreeBSD is broken. Reinstall Windows and stop complaining. > > I'd rather fix FreeBSD. Then fix it. Or pay someone to. Stop demanding someone else do the work for you gratis without the hardware in the first place to troubleshoot on and do it exactly your method without going through other steps first to get it running. In the length of time you've spend insulting people on this list you could have swapped out the drives and controller and probably have things working already. >> PS-if you can still get a driver for the timex Ironman triathlon >> watch, >> care to share the link? I can't seem to find it anymore for the >> Windows 2000 system to work without some IR interface...I wanted to >> use >> the screen to update it still...or is Windows broken because I can't >> use it anymore? > > Did it ever work on Windows NT-based systems? All I recall is that it > looked like a custom-written trigger for photosensitive epilepsy. It did, it used an IR interface to do the transfer...hence the note *right in my question* about the IR interface. NT wouldn't allow the access to video that their program used to transfer data to the watch. But I can't seem to even find that driver anymore...thus by your logic it's broken?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f801f5dd277642a8373fc9db6b7e0ec5>