Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Daniel Feenberg <feenberg at nber.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote:
>
>  On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
>>> Polytropon articulated:
>>>
>>>  Allow me to provide just one example:
>>>>
>>>>         More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
>>>>         http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/**20187.html<http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing
>>> exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an
>>> oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence.
>>>
>>
>> That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI
>> behaviour in "modern" BIOS as well, or manufacturers
>> intendedly going "their way" to limit hardware in what
>> it can do or what it will support.
>>
>> It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and
>> that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and
>> make it worse.
>>
>> The article mentions "legacy boot" to restore a somewhat
>> "normal" behaviour...
>>
>>
> The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive
> in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is
> to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows
> uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X,
> but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature
> X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't
> be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required.
> In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as
> Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE.
>


The above paragraph is completely meaningless , because neither *BSD , nor
Linux
is a marginal operating system .

Please see

http://www.top500.org/statistics/list/


Select from this "Operating System Family"
where in world's 500 super computers , Windows is on ONLY 3 computers , the
rest is
almost Linux 469 , Unix 20 , BSD-based 1 computers and others .

http://www.asus.com/Static_WebPage/OS_Compatibility/
http://www.asus.com/websites/global/aboutasus/OS/Linux.pdf
contains Linux distributions supported in ASUS desktop boards .

Some trade marked servers excluded , Linux and *BSD run on many server
hardware .

By not considering these and then saying that *BSD and Linux should follow
foot steps
of some one is not acceptable .

The problem is there is NO any compatible hardware list for FreeBSD
maintained continuously .

Another problem is vendors are not supplying manuals about their hardware
for whatever the reason is which is making to write drivers for them nearly
impossible .
In such cases , the users should seek compatible hardware without entrapped
into proprietary to one operating system hardware .



>
> You might say this was "enabling" vendors to provide buggy systems,
> but as long as FreeBSD is small it does not have the power to affect
> vendors. Insisting on correctness from vendors has no effect when
> it is FreeBSD doing the insisting. It is only when FreeBSD is more
> widely used that it can adopt the role of enforcing standards on
> vendors, and it can not become widely used if it starts insisting
> on standards prematurely.
>
> daniel feenberg
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Polytropon
>> Magdeburg, Germany
>> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
>> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
>>
>

Thank you very much .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk