Adaptec AAC raid support

[Jason Crawford]

So something is only unacceptable if it has been previously talked
about on a freebsd mailing list? Wow that's one big ego there. If it
was acceptable, none of this would be happening, but it is. And it
would be A LOT easier to write an open source driver if Scott had
pushed to open the docs sooner. He has successfully helped Adaptec
lock it's customers, including FreeBSD users into using their
binary-only management utility. Just becasue "there are efforts" from
him that he wants to write an open source version, doesn't mean the
user community has more choice. It still doesn't. Still locked to
Adaptec's binary only version. If he had started a movement to make
their docs open a long time ago, none of this would be neccessary now,
and the users wouldn't be locked to ONLY ONE MANAGEMENT UTILITY that
ISN'T FREE. He's about freedom of choice, yet helped to keep future
choices harder to get.

Jason


On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:06:17 -0500, Charles Swiger <cswiger at mac.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2005, at 7:20 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
> > I fail to see how this "FUD check" email has anything to do with the
> > fact that Scott locked all freebsd users to Adaptec's binary-only
> > management utility, which means the user IS NOT FREE to change
> > something on it to either work better, fix a bug, add a feature, or
> > just experiment, as well as just develop/use a different management
> > utility.
> 
> You made the assertion that Scott was doing something to lock FreeBSD
> users "into only one option for a RAID card".  This assertion is
> nonsense, so obviously so that it is clearly FUD.
> 
> You have also made the assertion that FreeBSD users are forever locked
> into using a binary-only solution from Adaptec to manage AAC hardware.
> This assertion is also untrue.  I've seen one or two people talk with
> Scott on the FreeBSD lists about creating an open source replacement to
> the binary-only management tool.  It's probably a lot of work, and it
> will be ready when the work gets done, or not, depending on their time,
> interest, and motivation.
> 
> In the meantime, people can use the binary management tool just fine,
> or they can revert to using the BIOS directly if they don't want to run
> the binary tool.
> 
> > This is not FUD, but fact. An unacceptable fact.
> 
> "Unacceptable" to whom?  I can't remember seeing *anyone* complain
> about this matter over the past three years, so it's demonstrably not a
> problem for any noticable fraction of the FreeBSD userbase.
> 
> You claim otherwise?  Prove it!
> 
> Cite Message-id from the FreeBSD mailing lists prior to this thread.
> Don't be bashful when it comes to showing evidence to back up your
> words....
> 
> --
> -Chuck
> 
>