Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ?
- Reply: Emmanuel Vadot : "Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ?"
- In reply to: Emmanuel Vadot : "Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ?"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:26:47 UTC
26.11.2021 23:13, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > Better as in it doesn't respect the specs ? People (except of programmers :-) do not work with specs, they work with real pieces of metal. sc(4) works out of the box and an upgrade does not ruin the system, so it is considered better. I was forced to deal with production system broken with 11.1->11.2 upgrade (it used vt(4) by default) and it was not fun. > You said yourself in this PR that we should blame the manufacturer. > Now if you want to work on making hw.vga.acpi_ignore_no_vga better in > loader based on the smbios info and some quirk table please go ahead. > But don't say that sc(4) is better because it works on buggy hardware > as it ignores some stuff. No, I will keep saying that compatibility with buggy hardware is better than lack of compatibility; at least in case we already have the compatibility and going to lose it. >> I'd like more FreeBSD developers respect POLA these days >> and take responds like "I've always used sc(4), it works for me don't touch it" seriously. >> >> Please, don't touch what works and works good. >> > > Why POLA ? > I'm asking for reasons to keep sc(4), how the hell is that POLA to ask > some questions ? Removal of sc(4) will astonish part of our user base. We should avoid it.