Supermicro Hardware and FreeBSD

[Tm4528 at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/5/05 4:03:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
joshua.lokken at gmail.com writes:

> Besides ... with a name like hardcodeharry, I would expect a little more
> intelligence; a little more willingness to dig into things. A slight
> tendency to ask the question: "how can I hack this code to work, and how
> would I contribute those modifications to the BSD team?"

 
You obviously speak from your armpit, because to do the kind of work
to support the O/S at the chipset level is beyond the reasonable expectations
of even the most talented of programmers. The learning curve to be able
to understand the basic code is exceptionally steep. Thats why there are
maintainers, becuase what takes him an hour would take someone else
weeks.

"> 2. Don't expect every damn piece of hardware out there to work out of
> the box with an older version of the kernel for the given *nix. This is
> NOT WINDOWS (thank god) and just because you have a particular piece of
> hardware doesn't mean it's going to work. It is your responsibility to
> know this and to work with it.
> 
> 3. Ask questions politely in the appropriate forums, and be civil.
> Failing to do so is probably not going to get your question answered.
> 
> I for one was drafting a post for this list thanking *everyone* on it
> for being the kind of terrific help they are when  Boris' post appeared.
> The kind of discourse I see on this list (and on other BSD oriented
> lists) is a huge and welcome contrast to the childish banter I see on
> most of the Linux (and MacOS and Windows) discussion lists out there. It
> is like  the kind of professional enthusiasm I remember on the BeOS lists.

"
------------------

Your point might have some teeth if the "newer" version were better, but 
the entire problem is that 5.x is much worse than 4.x, so there lies the
issue. 4.10 is NOT supposed to be an "old" version. Its the production
version. Because its readily admitted that 5.x is not yet ready for 
prime time by those in the know. And its not properly suppored.

The "tranquility" of this list is apparently because the  people on this list 
are too technically incompetent  to realize how badly botched 5.x is. 

"thank you master, thank you for helping me get my mouse working, let
me kiss your boots"

The truth is that you are  in awe of a "team" that has done a terrible job 
of transitioning to a new version, who can't get the new version to perform 
at close to the levels of the previous version after several years, and who 
have time and time again failed to meet their promised performance targets. 
They force their customer base to use the slothy thing, because modern 
motherboards and comm cards dont work in 4.x. And you stand and cheer 
them. Like a bunch of blind men cheering the one-eyed fool.