Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay

[Peter Risdon]

On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 11:40 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Peter Risdon writes:
> 
> > 1. Does either Windows 2003 or XP SP2, the only versions of Windows that
> > are meaningful comparisons with the latest versions of FreeBSD, fully
> > and without errors support this SCSI adapter and drive combination?
> 
> I don't know.  But I'm not trying to run Windows 2003 or XP SP2.

You _are_ trying to run a version of FreeBSD equivalent to 2003/XP.

> 
> > 2. Does a version of FreeBSD that is contemporary with NT and your
> > machine (ancient, unsupported, like NT) drive this hardware OK?
> 
> I don't know.  Why should I have to run an eight-year-old version of
> FreeBSD? 

Because you were making comparisons with an 8 y.o. version of Windows.
Because it might be the case that you also have to run an 8 y.o. version
of Windows. Because your hardware is 8 years old. Obvious, obvious,
obvious.

>  Does every new version introduce regressions?  UNIX still
> supports dumb terminals that are thirty years old.  Why shouldn't
> FreeBSD support disks that are eight years old?

Of course code gets retired. The choice is actively maintain it or
remove it. 

> 
> > In the sense that maintaining support for all discontinued devices ever
> > made would be a seriously misguided use of resources, this is a feature
> > rather than a *defect*.
> 
> You don't have to maintain support.  Usually, just leaving the code in
> place is sufficient.  That's why UNIX still has support for hardware
> that virtually no one still uses.

Yes you do. No code is an island. Rather than see unmaintained code
break as dependencies get changed, it gets removed.

> 
> My guess is that FreeBSD has _never_ supported this hardware correctly.
> People have been complaining about it for years.

That's the sort of completely uninformed guess that has been pissing
people off. But, having said that, FreeBSD does NOT support all
hardware. I'm amazed you seem unaware of that. 

> 
> > You bet. Paid help is surely available. What you fail to realise is that
> > nobody is under any obligation to give you such detailed and
> > time-consuming help FOR FREE.
> 
> So tell me again the advantage of open source, as opposed to proprietary
> software?

Sure - you have the source code. You CAN hack it, or pay someone to hack
it, to make your drives work. If you wanted to, you could then
distribute your own version of the OS, or maintain it in-house if the
project closes or the product is discontinued. This isn't an option with
closed source software and it means you actually own your technology
yourself, fully and completely. And this is as obvious as it's possible
to get.

> 
> > FreeBSD development follows the lines decided on by the development
> > team, just like every OS in the world. If no developers choose to spend
> > time fixing (non-destructive) issues for you, personally, then that's
> > their choice. If that is their choice, it's a pretty good one.
> 
> It's not the sort of choice that is conducive to widespread use of the
> OS.  Software developed by prima donnas answerable to no one makes large
> organizations nervous.

Rubbish. It's a choice made by Microsoft too and it hasn't brought them
to their knees. Windows XP upgrade disks include a compatibility check
for exactly this reason. And it's not just hardware compatibility that
has to be checked.

> 
> > I'd love to see you harangue Microsoft for personalised development and
> > support in the way you've been haranguing this list.
> 
> I have; some changes in NT were made because of my complaints.

Such as? And even if you can substantiate this, it's another so-what.
Changes are made to FreeBSD following user interaction. This process is
actually embedded in the FreeBSD development process (man 1 send-pr).

> 
> > And, after all is said and done, if your hardware is unsupported, so
> > what? It's very, very old. This isn't a fault or a defect; it's part of
> > the spec.
> 
> What spec?
> 
> I have fifty-year-old cameras that still work fine; there's no need to
> replace them every 18 months. 

And you can interface them directly with a recent computer? Non
sequitur, again. If you had a camera that was old enough to use film
stock that is no longer widely made, you'd have to cut your own.

>  Why should I have to replace computers
> every 18 months?

You don't. Why on earth do you say things like this?

> 
> > You can find LOTS of archaic hardware that is incompatible
> > with the latest versions of FreeBSD - or Apple Mac, or Linux, or (sit
> > down for this one) Windows.
> 
> You have yet to establish that any "archaic" aspect of the hardware is
> at the root of this problem, and in fact you don't actually know what
> the problem is.  There doesn't seem to be anyone here who actually knows
> anything about FreeBSD internals.  Does anyone ever read the code?

I'm not interested in establishing anything at all about your complaint.
I have no idea what your problem is, even less interest, and like almost
all the list subscribers, I have nothing to do with the FreeBSD project.

[...]

I've made enough completely obvious and self-evident responses. My mails
are for the record on this list and for no other purpose, so I'll leave
it at that.

Peter.