On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:04:45AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> >Additionally, hardware support is not as good as from, say, Linux. Or
> >even FreeBSD. And if the hardware is not supported, an OpenBSD box
> >doesn't do a whole lot of good.
>
> Really?
>
> So having a crappy or blobbed driver is better than having nothing?
> I disagree vehemently .
>
> Give me something that works or nothing at all. I prefer to not be
> surprised by "it sort of works for the developer of the driver".
>
> I find this statement rather misleading and wonder why people keep
> parroting it.
Hey, me too. But I've heard more than once, here and elsewhere, that
people don't want to use OpenBSD because some piece of hardware they
have is not supported.
That said, *I* agree with you. Still, if given a box that did not run
OpenBSD for some reason - like an unsupported RAID card and a true need
for RAID - and no means to replace it, there would be little other
recourse than to 'not run OpenBSD', which is what the title is all
about.
I'm not saying that having a blobbed driver in-tree would be an
improvement - however, a machine that runs is likely to be an
improvement over one that doesn't, at least for a while (because, as
pointed out, bugs like blobs).
Joachim
