On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Daniel Ouellet <dan...@presscom.net> wrote: > On 6/5/10 10:56 PM, Neal Hogan wrote: >> >> I had not determined that. . . I did not see where somebody's HDDs >> were interpreted differently. > > Hi Neal, > > It's not the HHD that is interpreted differently, it's the changes and > improvement to the controller that is better supported in 4.7 then before. > > Look at the DMESG again and you will see it. > > The way to think about it if I may suggest an analogy is like for network > cards. There is a hell of a lots of them that are n2000 compatible, but they > are not all the same. Over time if you design a driver that take advantage > of some feature of your network card, then it may well not be seen as n2000 > compatible anymore but as it's real hardware design. > > So, before you had your controller using a compatible mode if you want to > access your drive, but then it was improve and you get additional feature, > speed and all. > > Or would you have prefer that OpenBSD didn't work at all with your > controller, meaning not even offering you the possibility of using a > different driver that allow you to use your hardware. I suspect that you > wouldn't have not wanted the possibility of using your computer right? Or am > I wrong? > > Your system benefit from improvement now that wasn't there before. So be > happy and use it instead of seeing it as a flaw and raise objection to it. > > But you can also tell me to get lost and that's fine too. But that's the > logic you should take the improvement as. > > There is always improvement to the system at each release. > > Example of this, today I watch the presentation on mdocml and to be honest I > was very surprise to learn that the roff, troff, nroff, what ever variations > of *off was a real turn off! (;> It include no less the 700 files in base, > 200K lines of code and around 50K line of C++ alone, etc and obviously is > all GPL. All sooner or later will go and is already in the system now and > much faster by a factor of 60 or so in speed and <10K lines of code, meaning > 200K down to 10K or 20 time smaller. > > So, following your logic they shouldn't do these then? > > I think it's much better to keep going and at that rate every improvement > like this reduce bugs, improve security and all. Even if thee isn't any bug > known yet, logic dictate that no matter what, less code reduce the chances > of bugs and all. > > So, be happy that your system got better and do not need to be use in > compatible mode now if you want to thin about it that way. > > If you keep complaining about improvement, well, you may one day not get any > at all, then what!? Be grateful for what you got and be happy that your > systen work better now then it was a few months ago.
Thanks for the response, Daniel. I want you and the rest of the community to be assured that I was not complaining. I'm happy about the improvements, but was shocked to see the difference and was unsure how to deal with it. I apologize if I came across as a whiner. -Neal
