Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay

[Anthony Atkielski]

Peter Risdon writes:

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

No, I'm just running FreeBSD 5.3.  It has nothing to do with Windows.

> 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.

That is your guess.

Personally, I decided not to guess, so I actually looked it up on
Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility List for Windows 2000. My machine is
still there. See

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/whql/hcl/win2000hcl.txt

and look for the HP Vectra XU 6/200 PPro (2p).

> Because your hardware is 8 years old. Obvious, obvious,
> obvious.

Uh-huh.  See above.  Care to try again?

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

You don't have to actively maintain code for hardware platforms that are
not changing.  If eight-year-old code worked with eight-year-old
hardware eight years ago, it will still work with the same hardware
today.  You don't have to remove it or "maintain" it.

UNIX is a prime example of this, since it contains decades-old code that
still works, if you can find the hardware to exercise it.

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

That's not true.  I've been there and done that.  You don't have to
change anything.  Code doesn't wear out.  If it worked then, it will
work now.

Only incompetent system programmers have problems with this, since their
code is so convoluted that they cannot change anything anywhere without
breaking something somewhere else.  Fortunately, they tend to get weeded
out of the pool in time.

> That's the sort of completely uninformed guess that has been pissing
> people off.

Well, no.  I researched the problem, and people have been complaining
about it for a long time.  Google is your friend.  Instead of getting
pissed off, you might want to actually look something up.  I'm not the
first person with problems like this by any means, but it looks like
nobody has ever addressed them.  Lots of people in denial, though, and
that part obviously hasn't changed.

> 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.

That's not an advantage.  Nobody can dive into source code that way.
That's not the way operating systems are built.

> It's a choice made by Microsoft too and it hasn't brought them
> to their knees.

No.  Microsoft sets goals and developers meet the goals or find
employment elsewhere.  The company's objective is to make money, not to
pander to overgrown teenagers who are too immature to work effectively
in a cooperative engineering environment.  Those are the ones who never
get into Microsoft in the first place.  While the company is not
completely free of developers who are convinced that butter wouldn't
melt in their mouth, their developers are still a lot better than you
find in many other companies ... which is one reason why they make so
much money.

> Such as?

As I recall, the company planned to fix some problems by requiring an
upgrade and I made it clear that an upgrade would not be acceptable to
the customer base, and eventually they backed down.

> Changes are made to FreeBSD following user interaction. This process is
> actually embedded in the FreeBSD development process (man 1 send-pr).

I'd like to get the bugs fixed first, before considering changes.

> And you can interface them directly with a recent computer?

Cameras don't need computers.

> 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.

The film stock used in these cameras is still made today, and is
available at every drugstore.

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

If you think eight years is old for a computer, then clearly you believe
that computers must be replaced at regular and frequent intervals.

I don't see any reason to do that.  This old machine still runs just
fine; why would I replace it?

> I'm not interested in establishing anything at all about your complaint.

So I've surmised.

> I have no idea what your problem is ...

I agree.  Now if only someone who actually knew what he was talking
about and were interested in helping out would reply.

-- 
Anthony