RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
You turned this into a Microsoft issue. I didn't. Do you feel that the world is closing in around you, and that it's powered by windows? You probably surround yourself with UNIX based systems and dread the idea of a heterogeneous computing environment. -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:12 AM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:11 PM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Please explain? Because I like people to have an objective view when it comes to making technology decisions. Then start with yourself. You don't have an objective view. We've made bad technology work, and I've seen free software cost more than the most expensive Microsoft license. Yeah right. Maybe if you started discussing specific examples we might believe you, until then your just another parlor windbag. Too many variables are involved and anyone evangelizing a single system should be viewed with skepticism. And as I asked before, why are you pounding the drum for Microsoft since they evangelize a single system - theirs? Is this what you mean buy out of touch? by, not buy, although freudian slip there since buy is the word for this discussion. Ted -Original Message- From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:01 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Dude, I'm not a MS lackey. I just don't trust tech fanatics. They are on par with Hezbollah. You really are out of touch, aren't you. Chad -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:42 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions and FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ You just proved to the world your talking out your ass. Ted --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: I wanted to ask if there is some sort of channel whereby he could be given active support See a need, fill a need. Since you can clearly see the person wasn't given adequate information, then go ahead and give him the information. Unless people like you and me and the rest of us ordinary users take responsibility for these responses, a lot of them will fall through the cracks since the developers have limited time to answer them. Nobody ever complained about being given too much information. Ted Ok I did. lets see what happens Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
And on the subject, has anyone noticed this email from someone @Promise to the scsi mailing list? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2006-July/002543.html And, did you notice the followup to that message? It directed the poster to submit a PR with 'patch' for it. Unfortunately, the Email address in the message was mangled with an extra set of 'http://www.freebsd.org/send-pr.html' so I don't know if it got the job done. That annoyance is easy enough to figure out if anyone is of a mind. But it might turn away a sceptic who doesn't _really_ want to be informed. I don't know which category the original poster would be in. jerry -- Joao Barros ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Joao Barros wrote: And on the subject, has anyone noticed this email from someone @Promise to the scsi mailing list? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2006-July/002543.html I wanted to reply about this post but I'm hesitating because I know there are more people who talk than act and I can only talk because I wouldn't know how to act here. Still... Assuming it's genuine Promise are offering to supply a driver for FreeBSD. The responder points them to the send-pr doc (unfortunately with a broken link but that is not my point.) The reply is a typical laconic freebsd reply which would be sufficient for another freebsd user. However this is an offer which could possibly be considered gold dust since it is a hardware manufacturer offering to work with FreeBSD. I wanted to ask if there is some sort of channel whereby he could be given active support so that he doesn't just go away because he thinks nobody is particularly interested. Of course maybe someone has already responded off list in which case very sorry for the noise. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:11 PM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Please explain? Because I like people to have an objective view when it comes to making technology decisions. Then start with yourself. You don't have an objective view. We've made bad technology work, and I've seen free software cost more than the most expensive Microsoft license. Yeah right. Maybe if you started discussing specific examples we might believe you, until then your just another parlor windbag. Too many variables are involved and anyone evangelizing a single system should be viewed with skepticism. And as I asked before, why are you pounding the drum for Microsoft since they evangelize a single system - theirs? Is this what you mean buy out of touch? by, not buy, although freudian slip there since buy is the word for this discussion. Ted -Original Message- From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:01 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Dude, I'm not a MS lackey. I just don't trust tech fanatics. They are on par with Hezbollah. You really are out of touch, aren't you. Chad -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:42 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions and FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ You just proved to the world your talking out your ass. Ted --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
If your not an MS lacky then answer my original question - you claim that people who only believe there is one way to pound a nail are bad - then proceed to claim Microsoft NT is great - don't you see the disconnect here? You also didn't explain your rediculous claim that it retards technological growth for everyone when people are subjective. Ted - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:01 PM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Dude, I'm not a MS lackey. I just don't trust tech fanatics. They are on par with Hezbollah. -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:42 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions and FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ You just proved to the world your talking out your ass. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:15 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Please explain? Because I like people to have an objective view when it comes to making technology decisions. We've made bad technology work, and I've seen free software cost more than the most expensive Microsoft license. Too many variables are involved and anyone evangelizing a single system should be viewed with skepticism.. Is this what you mean buy out of touch? The comparison to Hezbollah. There is not one item to compare between tech fanatics and Hezbollah -- only contrast. I personally am not an Open Source (O.S.) weenie, and some folks are O.S. fanatics etc (usually you find these in the Linux fan-boy club but they probably exist everywhere) but I have yet to see a MS solution that was the best solution to a given problem. I have, plenty of times. MS is the best solution for an application program that won't run on any other platform than Windows. And there are some markets out there where there are no open-source applications for those markets at all. However it is a gigantic stretch for our friend here to claim that Windows is the best tool for the job in these situations, because such a claim gives the impression that there are competitive open source applications that are just not as good. When in reality, there are no open source competitive applications at all. In these situations, Windows isn't the best tool for the job, it's the -only- tool for the job. It is like claiming that your car is the fastest car in the world based on a race that only you entered. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
I wanted to ask if there is some sort of channel whereby he could be given active support See a need, fill a need. Since you can clearly see the person wasn't given adequate information, then go ahead and give him the information. Unless people like you and me and the rest of us ordinary users take responsibility for these responses, a lot of them will fall through the cracks since the developers have limited time to answer them. Nobody ever complained about being given too much information. Ted - Original Message - From: Chris Whitehouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joao Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:47 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Joao Barros wrote: And on the subject, has anyone noticed this email from someone @Promise to the scsi mailing list? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2006-July/002543.html I wanted to reply about this post but I'm hesitating because I know there are more people who talk than act and I can only talk because I wouldn't know how to act here. Still... Assuming it's genuine Promise are offering to supply a driver for FreeBSD. The responder points them to the send-pr doc (unfortunately with a broken link but that is not my point.) The reply is a typical laconic freebsd reply which would be sufficient for another freebsd user. However this is an offer which could possibly be considered gold dust since it is a hardware manufacturer offering to work with FreeBSD. I wanted to ask if there is some sort of channel whereby he could be given active support so that he doesn't just go away because he thinks nobody is particularly interested. Of course maybe someone has already responded off list in which case very sorry for the noise. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/31/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:15 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Please explain? Because I like people to have an objective view when it comes to making technology decisions. We've made bad technology work, and I've seen free software cost more than the most expensive Microsoft license. Too many variables are involved and anyone evangelizing a single system should be viewed with skepticism.. Is this what you mean buy out of touch? The comparison to Hezbollah. There is not one item to compare between tech fanatics and Hezbollah -- only contrast. I personally am not an Open Source (O.S.) weenie, and some folks are O.S. fanatics etc (usually you find these in the Linux fan-boy club but they probably exist everywhere) but I have yet to see a MS solution that was the best solution to a given problem. I have, plenty of times. MS is the best solution for an application program that won't run on any other platform than Windows. No that's called vendor lock-in. I make it a point to buy recommend software that will run on at least two different platforms. People who can code on multiple platforms are usually more experienced and produce better code and are more willing to port to other platforms and work with you. Here's my decision tree: Multi-platform FOSS, if none then: Multi-platform propriety, if none then: Uni-platform FOSS, if none then: Uni-platform propriety. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions and FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ You just proved to the world your talking out your ass. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Josh Paetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 2:11 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Friday 28 July 2006 23:56, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The people who are willing to be open minded will use a mix of tools from Microsoft and the rest of the world, and the people who are closed minded will use tools from Microsoft, and neither is going to pay any attention to whatever loudmouths are bandmouthing their choices. That's the way the world has worked in the past when IBM was king people did the same thing, and that's the way it will always work. You can stand up an be counted as an open minded person, or you can use NT and stand up to be counted with the closed minded people who only use Microsoft solutions. It's your choice. Ted I don't mean to troll at all but I have to point out that I've met a lot of closed minded people who will only use FBSD solutions. :) I know, it goes both ways. But, you can't get folks like the poster out of their sanctimonious ruts unless you shock some sense into them. I've held a mirror up to him so he can see that he's doing exactly what he's claiming in his holier-than-thou statement that everyone else shouldn't be doing. He can choose to continue to see himself as he thinks he is, or he can open the eyes of knowledge and see himself as he really is, and as the rest of us see him. The one thing about the folks that are FreeBSD bigots is that they usually aren't working as IT professionals, since the world demands even for the most close-minded IT professional that they must at least use some Windows even if in a periphery fashion. So, those bigots can't do much damage. But, there are quite a lot of Windows-only bigots out there who are working in a professional capacity. As long as those people are honest and tell everyone up front that they are Windows bigots, it's not a problem. But, the ones that claim that they are OS-agnostic, then always seem to use MS solutions because they are better or the best tool for the job those are the dishonest ones that do a great deal of damage. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job Actually, and this brings up another point ... there is nothing that stops VendorX from discontinuing their 'open policy' in 2 years either ... although one would hope that over the years, more would open, not less, it is possible ... Case in point: ICP Vortex *did* provide source drivers for FreeBSD up until FreeBSD 5.x, and then stop'd: http://www.icp-vortex.com/english/download/rz_neu/freebsd/frbsd_e.htm Chad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM To: Nikolas Britton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support *BSD. Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Darrin Chandler wrote: On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:16:55PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care, since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they didn't already believe ... Actually, this is a very valid point. A good approach would be to write to the vendor and tell them than you had considered their product and it looks good based on purely technical mertis, but you had to go with a competitors products due to availability of technical documentation. Frankly, the lost sales from FreeBSD will get lost in the noise for a company like Adaptec. However, a few dozen or a few hundred letters like above would carry a fair amount of weight. Leave out any attitude or flames. Just tell them their competitor made money instead of them. AMD has played pretty nice with specs, along with price and other things to be comptetitive. It's worked well for them. Has Intel changed because of this? You bet. In addition to lowering prices, they've begun to open specs. Yes! That's a win for everyone, even Intel, and Intel is beginning to suspect... Now, can we get Adaptec or Broadcom to follow suite? Maybe. Some companies are slow learners. Counting FreeBSD installs and telling them how many there are won't do nearly as much as 1 out of 1000 FreeBSD users writing them a letter telling them you bought from their competitors because of their policies. Bonus points if the competitor has been nipping at their heels lately. ;) Something like this is what the FreeBSD Foundation should co-ordinate ... not a 'letter writing campaign', but coming up with a well worded, professional form letter that we could use ... I, for one, am a terrible writer :( Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Dude, I'm not a MS lackey. I just don't trust tech fanatics. They are on par with Hezbollah. -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:42 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions and FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ You just proved to the world your talking out your ass. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Dude, I'm not a MS lackey. I just don't trust tech fanatics. They are on par with Hezbollah. You really are out of touch, aren't you. Chad -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:42 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions and FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ You just proved to the world your talking out your ass. Ted --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Please explain? Because I like people to have an objective view when it comes to making technology decisions. We've made bad technology work, and I've seen free software cost more than the most expensive Microsoft license. Too many variables are involved and anyone evangelizing a single system should be viewed with skepticism.. Is this what you mean buy out of touch? -Original Message- From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:01 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Dude, I'm not a MS lackey. I just don't trust tech fanatics. They are on par with Hezbollah. You really are out of touch, aren't you. Chad -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:42 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions and FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ You just proved to the world your talking out your ass. Ted --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Please explain? Because I like people to have an objective view when it comes to making technology decisions. We've made bad technology work, and I've seen free software cost more than the most expensive Microsoft license. Too many variables are involved and anyone evangelizing a single system should be viewed with skepticism.. Is this what you mean buy out of touch? The comparison to Hezbollah. There is not one item to compare between tech fanatics and Hezbollah -- only contrast. I personally am not an Open Source (O.S.) weenie, and some folks are O.S. fanatics etc (usually you find these in the Linux fan-boy club but they probably exist everywhere) but I have yet to see a MS solution that was the best solution to a given problem. Not that they don't exist, but the negatives of being trapped in a MS proprietary hell forever far outweigh any advantages over the long haul. I have personally seen to m any businesses who get trapped and cannot get out because of the proprietary nature of the data storage (file formats, etc), even when they want to. YMMV. Chad -Original Message- From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:01 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Dude, I'm not a MS lackey. I just don't trust tech fanatics. They are on par with Hezbollah. You really are out of touch, aren't you. Chad -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:42 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions and FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ You just proved to the world your talking out your ass. Ted --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Friday 28 July 2006 23:56, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The people who are willing to be open minded will use a mix of tools from Microsoft and the rest of the world, and the people who are closed minded will use tools from Microsoft, and neither is going to pay any attention to whatever loudmouths are bandmouthing their choices. That's the way the world has worked in the past when IBM was king people did the same thing, and that's the way it will always work. You can stand up an be counted as an open minded person, or you can use NT and stand up to be counted with the closed minded people who only use Microsoft solutions. It's your choice. Ted I don't mean to troll at all but I have to point out that I've met a lot of closed minded people who will only use FBSD solutions. :) -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:56 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? A predilection to evangelize tools that supports ones own belief in software superiority is what curtails our ability to move any platform forward. I would keep a hesitant eye on any individual that holds such fervent beliefs. Do you keep a hesitant eye on Microsoft, then? Since they are one of the biggest evangelizers of their own tools there is... I have old NT servers that have run Disney.com Apparently, not. for several years and have served us well. Technology is an enabler, not a divider. Too many people unknowingly adopt the later. This is just a load of dingos kidneys. Your no better than anyone else you are just spewing to sound superior. The best tool for the job why that is a loaded statement if there ever was one. There are precious few jobs out there that I can think of that there are not multiple, different tools for that many people use with equal success. In fact the only one that comes to mind is pulling the tilt steering wheel on a 80's-90's GM vehicle, since it uses a special tool that only SnapOn ever manufactured. One person's best tool is another person's junk tool. This is a subjective judgement if there ever was one. And there is really nothing wrong with it. Sorry if it offends your politically correct credentials (good example of why disney's quality has gone down the toilet in the last 20 years) but it does not harm anyone's ability to move any platform forward to have a bunch of vocal detractors out there. Everyone loves their platform of choice and it is perfectly OK for them to be as vocal as they like, and nobody is harmed for that happening. The people who are willing to be open minded will use a mix of tools from Microsoft and the rest of the world, and the people who are closed minded will use tools from Microsoft, and neither is going to pay any attention to whatever loudmouths are bandmouthing their choices. That's the way the world has worked in the past when IBM was king people did the same thing, and that's the way it will always work. You can stand up an be counted as an open minded person, or you can use NT and stand up to be counted with the closed minded people who only use Microsoft solutions. It's your choice. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:31 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job Chad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM To: Nikolas Britton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support *BSD. Amitabh
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 29, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Born, Clinton wrote: Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. As you are yourself Chad -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:56 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? A predilection to evangelize tools that supports ones own belief in software superiority is what curtails our ability to move any platform forward. I would keep a hesitant eye on any individual that holds such fervent beliefs. Do you keep a hesitant eye on Microsoft, then? Since they are one of the biggest evangelizers of their own tools there is... I have old NT servers that have run Disney.com Apparently, not. for several years and have served us well. Technology is an enabler, not a divider. Too many people unknowingly adopt the later. This is just a load of dingos kidneys. Your no better than anyone else you are just spewing to sound superior. The best tool for the job why that is a loaded statement if there ever was one. There are precious few jobs out there that I can think of that there are not multiple, different tools for that many people use with equal success. In fact the only one that comes to mind is pulling the tilt steering wheel on a 80's-90's GM vehicle, since it uses a special tool that only SnapOn ever manufactured. One person's best tool is another person's junk tool. This is a subjective judgement if there ever was one. And there is really nothing wrong with it. Sorry if it offends your politically correct credentials (good example of why disney's quality has gone down the toilet in the last 20 years) but it does not harm anyone's ability to move any platform forward to have a bunch of vocal detractors out there. Everyone loves their platform of choice and it is perfectly OK for them to be as vocal as they like, and nobody is harmed for that happening. The people who are willing to be open minded will use a mix of tools from Microsoft and the rest of the world, and the people who are closed minded will use tools from Microsoft, and neither is going to pay any attention to whatever loudmouths are bandmouthing their choices. That's the way the world has worked in the past when IBM was king people did the same thing, and that's the way it will always work. You can stand up an be counted as an open minded person, or you can use NT and stand up to be counted with the closed minded people who only use Microsoft solutions. It's your choice. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:31 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job Chad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM To: Nikolas Britton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Morons proliferate this list. -Original Message- From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:55 AM To: Born, Clinton Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 29, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Born, Clinton wrote: Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about. As you are yourself Chad -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:56 PM To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? - Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? A predilection to evangelize tools that supports ones own belief in software superiority is what curtails our ability to move any platform forward. I would keep a hesitant eye on any individual that holds such fervent beliefs. Do you keep a hesitant eye on Microsoft, then? Since they are one of the biggest evangelizers of their own tools there is... I have old NT servers that have run Disney.com Apparently, not. for several years and have served us well. Technology is an enabler, not a divider. Too many people unknowingly adopt the later. This is just a load of dingos kidneys. Your no better than anyone else you are just spewing to sound superior. The best tool for the job why that is a loaded statement if there ever was one. There are precious few jobs out there that I can think of that there are not multiple, different tools for that many people use with equal success. In fact the only one that comes to mind is pulling the tilt steering wheel on a 80's-90's GM vehicle, since it uses a special tool that only SnapOn ever manufactured. One person's best tool is another person's junk tool. This is a subjective judgement if there ever was one. And there is really nothing wrong with it. Sorry if it offends your politically correct credentials (good example of why disney's quality has gone down the toilet in the last 20 years) but it does not harm anyone's ability to move any platform forward to have a bunch of vocal detractors out there. Everyone loves their platform of choice and it is perfectly OK for them to be as vocal as they like, and nobody is harmed for that happening. The people who are willing to be open minded will use a mix of tools from Microsoft and the rest of the world, and the people who are closed minded will use tools from Microsoft, and neither is going to pay any attention to whatever loudmouths are bandmouthing their choices. That's the way the world has worked in the past when IBM was king people did the same thing, and that's the way it will always work. You can stand up an be counted as an open minded person, or you can use NT and stand up to be counted with the closed minded people who only use Microsoft solutions. It's your choice. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:31 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job Chad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM To: Nikolas Britton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
At 6:30 PM -0600 7/27/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years ... Good luck on figuring out what's best, anyway. IMHO, things are seldom so simple whether time passage is considered or not. -- Walter M. Pawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wump Research Company 676 River Bend Road, Roseburg, OR 97470 541-672-8975 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote: What we really need is score card to keep track of the good and bad companies. Someone with initiative could have this up and running in a day or less... After it's up we can put a BIG HONKING LINK on the FreeBSD main page. http://www.vendorwatch.org/index.php?title=Main_Page But, its also something I only recently found about, as a result of this thread ... The second thing everyone (All who use X) needs to do is get AMD to force ATI's hand into releasing documentation. This should not be hard to do because ATI's lead counsel is on the way out. Why not just by nVidia? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job these are FUD! always think positive and don't be a cynic. nobody knows what will happen two years from now, right? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Amitabh Kant wrote: I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support *BSD. And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care, since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they didn't already believe ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 28, 2006, at 1:25 PM, jan gestre wrote: On 7/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job these are FUD! There is nothing there that is FUD. always think positive and don't be a cynic. nobody knows what will happen two years from now, right? No, you can't, but often past history can predict pretty well how some companies will behave. If companies have a history of quickly dropping support etc then they probably will continue down that path. Of they provide open source drivers and commit back into the project, they will probably continue with that. Chad ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/29/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care, since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they didn't already believe ... The point where it hurts them is when I prefer stuffs having FreeBSD support even while purchasing/recommending hardware for windows. I do a lot consulting for companies which have a mix of BSD/Linux and Windows servers. This is more so in case of RAID cards for me, where I would go in for 3Ware rather than Promise or other brands. I must admit though that it is not always possible to follow this rule, but I amke it a point to follow it as closely as possible in the given circumstances. As somebody has already written earlier, one should pick the best tool for the job. But if I have a approximately similar performance options from two or more hardware, my choice would automatically go in for one that supports *BSD. Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 28, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Amitabh Kant wrote: On 7/29/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care, since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they didn't already believe ... The point where it hurts them is when I prefer stuffs having FreeBSD support even while purchasing/recommending hardware for windows. I do a lot consulting for companies which have a mix of BSD/Linux and Windows servers. This is more so in case of RAID cards for me, where I would go in for 3Ware rather than Promise or other brands. I must admit though that it is not always possible to follow this rule, but I amke it a point to follow it as closely as possible in the given circumstances. As somebody has already written earlier, one should pick the best tool for the job. But if I have a approximately similar performance options from two or more hardware, my choice would automatically go in for one that supports *BSD. There are practical reasons for this sort of policy, not just ideological. In two years, if you need to retarget a server from Windows to FreeBSD for a new project, then you can still use the equipment since you did you homework 2 years earlier. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:16:55PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care, since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they didn't already believe ... Actually, this is a very valid point. A good approach would be to write to the vendor and tell them than you had considered their product and it looks good based on purely technical mertis, but you had to go with a competitors products due to availability of technical documentation. Frankly, the lost sales from FreeBSD will get lost in the noise for a company like Adaptec. However, a few dozen or a few hundred letters like above would carry a fair amount of weight. Leave out any attitude or flames. Just tell them their competitor made money instead of them. AMD has played pretty nice with specs, along with price and other things to be comptetitive. It's worked well for them. Has Intel changed because of this? You bet. In addition to lowering prices, they've begun to open specs. Yes! That's a win for everyone, even Intel, and Intel is beginning to suspect... Now, can we get Adaptec or Broadcom to follow suite? Maybe. Some companies are slow learners. Counting FreeBSD installs and telling them how many there are won't do nearly as much as 1 out of 1000 FreeBSD users writing them a letter telling them you bought from their competitors because of their policies. Bonus points if the competitor has been nipping at their heels lately. ;) -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/28/06, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:16:55PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care, since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they didn't already believe ... Actually, this is a very valid point. A good approach would be to write to the vendor and tell them than you had considered their product and it looks good based on purely technical mertis, but you had to go with a competitors products due to availability of technical documentation. Frankly, the lost sales from FreeBSD will get lost in the noise for a company like Adaptec. However, a few dozen or a few hundred letters like above would carry a fair amount of weight. Leave out any attitude or flames. Just tell them their competitor made money instead of them. AMD has played pretty nice with specs, along with price and other things to be comptetitive. It's worked well for them. Has Intel changed because of this? You bet. In addition to lowering prices, they've begun to open specs. Yes! That's a win for everyone, even Intel, and Intel is beginning to suspect... Now, can we get Adaptec or Broadcom to follow suite? Maybe. Some companies are slow learners. Counting FreeBSD installs and telling them how many there are won't do nearly as much as 1 out of 1000 FreeBSD users writing them a letter telling them you bought from their competitors because of their policies. Bonus points if the competitor has been nipping at their heels lately. ;) I agree. but who do you send it to? If you send it to the wrong person (a worker bee for example) it may end up in the trash. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
And on the subject, has anyone noticed this email from someone @Promise to the scsi mailing list? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2006-July/002543.html -- Joao Barros ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Amitabh Kant [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:15 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? I agree. but who do you send it to? If you send it to the wrong person (a worker bee for example) it may end up in the trash. You always send stuff like that to the CEO. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Amitabh Kant [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:38 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:16:55PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care, since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they didn't already believe ... Actually, this is a very valid point. A good approach would be to write to the vendor and tell them than you had considered their product and it looks good based on purely technical mertis, but you had to go with a competitors products due to availability of technical documentation. Frankly, the lost sales from FreeBSD will get lost in the noise for a company like Adaptec. Depends on who sent the letters. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? A predilection to evangelize tools that supports ones own belief in software superiority is what curtails our ability to move any platform forward. I would keep a hesitant eye on any individual that holds such fervent beliefs. Do you keep a hesitant eye on Microsoft, then? Since they are one of the biggest evangelizers of their own tools there is... I have old NT servers that have run Disney.com Apparently, not. for several years and have served us well. Technology is an enabler, not a divider. Too many people unknowingly adopt the later. This is just a load of dingos kidneys. Your no better than anyone else you are just spewing to sound superior. The best tool for the job why that is a loaded statement if there ever was one. There are precious few jobs out there that I can think of that there are not multiple, different tools for that many people use with equal success. In fact the only one that comes to mind is pulling the tilt steering wheel on a 80's-90's GM vehicle, since it uses a special tool that only SnapOn ever manufactured. One person's best tool is another person's junk tool. This is a subjective judgement if there ever was one. And there is really nothing wrong with it. Sorry if it offends your politically correct credentials (good example of why disney's quality has gone down the toilet in the last 20 years) but it does not harm anyone's ability to move any platform forward to have a bunch of vocal detractors out there. Everyone loves their platform of choice and it is perfectly OK for them to be as vocal as they like, and nobody is harmed for that happening. The people who are willing to be open minded will use a mix of tools from Microsoft and the rest of the world, and the people who are closed minded will use tools from Microsoft, and neither is going to pay any attention to whatever loudmouths are bandmouthing their choices. That's the way the world has worked in the past when IBM was king people did the same thing, and that's the way it will always work. You can stand up an be counted as an open minded person, or you can use NT and stand up to be counted with the closed minded people who only use Microsoft solutions. It's your choice. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:31 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job Chad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM To: Nikolas Britton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support *BSD. Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
A predilection to evangelize tools that supports ones own belief in software superiority is what curtails our ability to move any platform forward. I would keep a hesitant eye on any individual that holds such fervent beliefs. I have old NT servers that have run Disney.com for several years and have served us well. Technology is an enabler, not a divider. Too many people unknowingly adopt the later. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:31 PM To: Born, Clinton Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job Chad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM To: Nikolas Britton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support *BSD. Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:48 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use Adaptec products ... No, that's not the way of Open Source. You cannot advocate binary only drivers for an open source OS, it is a slippery slope. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. It is philosophy bankrupt to demand binary support without the source code. You gave Adaptec a good shot - you gave them a chance to keep supporting you. They failed. It isn't your fault for upgrading, and it isn't FBSD's fault for changing so the binary blob doesen't work right anymore. How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, for similar fears? I usually go gradually on upgrading, so I'll see problems like this long before I've changed over any significant percent of my servers. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/27/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: - Original Message - From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Burying your head in the sand is a common method used by stupid people that have no answer to the truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want your employers to know that you've wasted man 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the performance characteristics of the hardware you've recommended. It must be thoroughly embarrassing. [snip] I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But I will point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't be. What the market wants is features, not speed. And that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on. Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes. But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1]. He does, but he is also right on this performance point. The truth can always be wrapped more palatably, but I think one of the differences between a system administrator and a user is that a user can't deal with the truth unless it's spoon fed in the nursery, an administrator should be approaching it as a professional, which means ignoring the irrelevant cheap demagogery and ignoring their own preconceptions of how things are supposed to work, and paying attention to the kernels of truth. I have to sort through giant piles of horseshit every time I look at the latest Cisco sales and marketing dreck, to find out what might be important in one of their new products, this isn't any different. And frankly I find the saccherine cloying marketingspeak to be far more disgusting and offensive then the lame kindergarden flames that Danial has so far been able to come up with. His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false. Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem. Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim. People including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results, then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant. So why even bother doing it anymore. But, you asked for it, you got it: Machine #1: Compaq 1600R, FBSD 6.1 Pentium 3 550Mhz freebsd-cvs# dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2006 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE #0: Thu Jun 1 17:23:18 PDT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERICNOUSBNOFIRE Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron (548.54-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x673 Stepping = 3 Features=0x383fbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA, CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR,SSE real memory = 671088640 (640 MB) avail memory = 647458816 (617 MB) MPTable: COMPAQ PROLIANT ioapic0: Changing APIC ID to 8 ioapic0: Assuming intbase of 0 ioapic0 Version 1.1 irqs 0-34 on motherboard kbd1 at kbdmux0 cpu0 on motherboard pcib0: MPTable Host-PCI bridge pcibus 0 on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pci0: display, VGA at device 11.0 (no driver attached) pcib1: MPTable PCI-PCI bridge at device 13.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 tl0: Compaq Netelligent 10/100 Proliant port 0x3800-0x380f irq 30 at device 7.0 on pci1 miibus0: MII bus on tl0 nsphy0: DP83840 10/100 media interface on miibus0 nsphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto tlphy0: ThunderLAN 10baseT media interface on miibus0 tlphy0: 10base2/BNC, 10base5/AUI tl0: Ethernet address: 00:50:8b:f1:82:17 sym0: 875 port 0x3000-0x30ff mem
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, for similar fears? We still have some old Compaq ML530 machines running FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p17. They provide essential web services, mainly authentication and MySQL databases. FreeBSD 5.x and 6.0 can't boot on this hardware because of ACPI related problems. I recently gave 6.1 a try and it works. The ACPI error is still there, but the system can bypass this problem and it runs fine. But since the services that the 4.x boxes provide are critical, I'm still not comfortable to switch them to 6.1. So for security reasons (4.x is getting old...) I've isolated the 4.x machines in their own DMZ. I'll wait for new hardware to replace these machines instead of upgrading them to another version of FreeBSD. David -- David Robillard UNIX systems administrator Oracle DBA CISSP, RHCE Sun Certified Security Administrator Montreal: +1 514 966 0122 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim. People including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results, then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant. So why even bother doing it anymore. No, testing is the only way to isolate the root cause and get it fixed. And there must be consensus that the testing methodology is in fact valid vs. the hypothesis. Without consensus on its validity, then yes, that test /is/ irrelevant and proves nothing. That's not a reason to forego pursuit of forming an accepted test methodology, and certainly not a reason to demonize those saying that a particular test is not valid. Saying so is just another hypothesis. I'm not saying there aren't problems (and I really don't think many others are either). I'm just saying that finding the root cause is not a simple matter, and that calling for consensus-approved tests and positing alternative theories isn't any kind of evasion, even if it seems on the face of it to question the very validity of the claim that there is a problem. Testing and the search for the real root cause actually must question the validity of the hypothesis and propose alternative explanations and tests. Otherwise the earth would still be flat, and we'd all be lucky to eat every day, much less work on computers! =) So, Occam's Razor just cuts and cuts and cuts, /because it has to/. Thus, anyone making a hypothesis has to be prepared to have umpteen other people attempt to shred all of their precious assumptions. Only assumptions that by consensus survive repeated attempts to shred them are actually considered to be valid. Trolls tend to cling to shredded assumptions as if they were still valid. They begin to regard the wielders of Occam's Razor as their enemies, and this causes conflict that is wholly unproductive. That's where the process really goes wrong in a big way, and the people who would be allies (in that they are in fact eager to test, isolate and fix any validated problem) will start to walk away. Shredded assumptions need to be abandoned and new testable assumptions need to be asserted. Then the shredding effort needs to start all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat until there is consensus that valid testing has in fact isolated the truth, because Occam's Razor just can't slice things any thinner. There is no other way. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:36 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim. People including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results, then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant. So why even bother doing it anymore. No, YES. Calling for testing is bullcrap. If you want to refute a statement then do your own damn testing. testing is the only way to isolate the root cause and get it fixed. And there must be consensus that the testing methodology is in fact valid vs. the hypothesis. Without consensus on its validity, then yes, that test /is/ irrelevant and proves nothing. That's not a reason to forego pursuit of forming an accepted test methodology, and certainly not a reason to demonize those saying that a particular test is not valid. Saying so is just another hypothesis. The above paragraph is all true. Your attaching a true paragraph to a false no with a comma in order to imbue a false statement (your no) with truthfulness. Basic debating tactic. I'm not saying there aren't problems (and I really don't think many others are either). OK, now your negating everything you just said? I'm just saying that finding the root cause is not a simple matter, I never said it was. and that calling for consensus-approved tests and positing alternative theories isn't any kind of evasion, even if it seems on the face of it to question the very validity of the claim that there is a problem. It is an evasion if all your doing is calling for testing and not doing even some very basic basic testing - like I did - to attempt to refute or support the statement. Testing and the search for the real root cause actually must question the validity of the hypothesis and propose alternative explanations and tests. Otherwise the earth would still be flat, and we'd all be lucky to eat every day, much less work on computers! =) Testing and the search for the root cause doesen't question the validity of the hypothesis, why don't you understand this? testing RESULTS are what question or support the validity of the hypothesis. Until you start doing the research, gathering facts, then your just blowing air up someone's ass. So, Occam's Razor just cuts and cuts and cuts, /because it has to/. Thus, anyone making a hypothesis has to be prepared to have umpteen other people attempt to shred all of their precious assumptions. Which they do by - what? Posting test results as I have done. Not by just lazily calling for test results Only assumptions that by consensus survive repeated attempts to shred them are actually considered to be valid. Trolls tend to cling to shredded assumptions as if they were still valid. They begin to regard the wielders of Occam's Razor as their enemies, and this causes conflict that is wholly unproductive. That's where the process really goes wrong in a big way, and the people who would be allies (in that they are in fact eager to test, isolate and fix any validated problem) will start to walk away. If they aren't interested in testing they are idiots. If a troll makes a claim like the newer versions of freeBSd are slower, and all these people who would be allies as you term them, already have test results they have made that prove the opposite, then it is fine for them to walk away. But, in this case, they don't. They just are walking away because they don't like the message or how it's presented. Shredded assumptions need to be abandoned and new testable assumptions need to be asserted. Then the shredding effort needs to start all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat until there is consensus that valid testing has in fact isolated the truth, because Occam's Razor just can't slice things any thinner. There is no other way. Fine, then start by shredding the assumption that the newer versions of FreeBSD are faster. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/27/06, Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Darrin Chandler wrote: Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of consumer. You don't, so you're left in the cold. I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product, then don't use it. Darrin is not missing the point. He is just making a different point, which is (for many people, including me) quite valid. Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are simply beating a dead horse here. If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost for the hardware vendor. They don't even _have_ to make a driver for their hardware. What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an open source driver with: ``Piss off! We have you the technical specs, so you can write your own. Our development and support costs would not be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.'' *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :) and if i may add, if they don't provide FreeBSD drivers for their products, its their loss, they won't earn anything from FreeBSD users coz we won't buy or stay away from their products. and i also think the reason they are discontinuing support for FreeBSD 6 onwards coz they feel we are just few and won't make a significant increase in their profit driven company, one way of making us heard is by letting them know how many we are, why not bombard them with request for support, IMO once they notice how many we are, i'm pretty sure they'll give in. just my 2 cents worth. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On 7/27/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: - Original Message - From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Burying your head in the sand is a common method used by stupid people that have no answer to the truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want your employers to know that you've wasted man 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the performance characteristics of the hardware you've recommended. It must be thoroughly embarrassing. [snip] I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But I will point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't be. What the market wants is features, not speed. And that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on. Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes. But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1]. He does, but he is also right on this performance point. The truth can always be wrapped more palatably, but I think one of the differences between a system administrator and a user is that a user can't deal with the truth unless it's spoon fed in the nursery, an administrator should be approaching it as a professional, which means ignoring the irrelevant cheap demagogery and ignoring their own preconceptions of how things are supposed to work, and paying attention to the kernels of truth. I have to sort through giant piles of horseshit every time I look at the latest Cisco sales and marketing dreck, to find out what might be important in one of their new products, this isn't any different. And frankly I find the saccherine cloying marketingspeak to be far more disgusting and offensive then the lame kindergarden flames that Danial has so far been able to come up with. His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false. Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem. Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim. People including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results, then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant. So why even bother doing it anymore. But, you asked for it, you got it: Machine #1: Compaq 1600R, FBSD 6.1 Pentium 3 550Mhz freebsd-cvs# dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2006 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE #0: Thu Jun 1 17:23:18 PDT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERICNOUSBNOFIRE Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron (548.54-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x673 Stepping = 3 Features=0x383fbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA, CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR,SSE real memory = 671088640 (640 MB) avail memory = 647458816 (617 MB) MPTable: COMPAQ PROLIANT ioapic0: Changing APIC ID to 8 ioapic0: Assuming intbase of 0 ioapic0 Version 1.1 irqs 0-34 on motherboard kbd1 at kbdmux0 cpu0 on motherboard pcib0: MPTable Host-PCI bridge pcibus 0 on motherboard pci0: PCI
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/27/06, jan gestre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/27/06, Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Darrin Chandler wrote: Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of consumer. You don't, so you're left in the cold. I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product, then don't use it. Darrin is not missing the point. He is just making a different point, which is (for many people, including me) quite valid. Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are simply beating a dead horse here. If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost for the hardware vendor. They don't even _have_ to make a driver for their hardware. What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an open source driver with: ``Piss off! We have you the technical specs, so you can write your own. Our development and support costs would not be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.'' *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :) and if i may add, if they don't provide FreeBSD drivers for their products, its their loss, they won't earn anything from FreeBSD users coz we won't buy or stay away from their products. and i also think the reason they are discontinuing support for FreeBSD 6 onwards coz they feel we are just few and won't make a significant increase in their profit driven company, one way of making us heard is by letting them know how many we are, why not bombard them with request for support, IMO once they notice how many we are, i'm pretty sure they'll give in. Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. What we really need is score card to keep track of the good and bad companies. Someone with initiative could have this up and running in a day or less... After it's up we can put a BIG HONKING LINK on the FreeBSD main page. The second thing everyone (All who use X) needs to do is get AMD to force ATI's hand into releasing documentation. This should not be hard to do because ATI's lead counsel is on the way out. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:50:57PM -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. What we really need is score card to keep track of the good and bad companies. Someone with initiative could have this up and running in a day or less... After it's up we can put a BIG HONKING LINK on the FreeBSD main page. It's not FBSD specific, but there's http://www.vendorwatch.org/, which is trying to do exactly that. They've got some good info, and I believe they would welcome any updates or info on companies that they don't have. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support *BSD. Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM To: Nikolas Britton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support *BSD. Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote: Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period! That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to replace it with something else... So making value judgments like tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is part of determining the best tool for the job Chad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM To: Nikolas Britton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID cards. On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open documentation. I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support *BSD. Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three servers that I've upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is 1 year old, the other two are 3 years old ... after getting everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could provide some very detailed traces, and core dumps, it looks like the problem is the one thing common between all three servers: the iir driver ... the two older machines are running Intel 0CH RAID controllers, the newer one an ICP Vortex card ... both were rock solid machines under 4.x ... I don't have lockups on my 6.0 server, but I confirm there is something strange with the iir driver. On dmesg.*, I can read iir0: Bus B: The SCSI controller successfully recovered from a SCSI BUS issue. The issue may still be present on the BUS. Check cables, termination, termpower, LVDS operation, etc iir0: SCSI-B, ID 3: MPI returned 0x0048 I have an INTEL SRCU42L raid board. Maybe that's REALLY a cable problem I have here? --- Philippe Lang Attik System smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Tamouh H. wrote: On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote: ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't support FreeBSD. We've already been over this once. Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3 and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and 4800/4805SAS driver back in April 06 up on their website. Their support could be a lot better, but these are new cards and new FreeBSD drivers... There is no storage manager aaccli like there was earlier :-( (maybe a Linux one, assuming there is one, will work like the Linux aaccli program works on FreeBSD?) I've 2130SLP and the drivers Adaptec posted caused server reboots almost immediately, the documentation were lacking (device name has changed which would cause a failed boot) and as you said aaccli is not working, not even the new linux ASM. On that point, do you still have the linux aaccli file ? I've been looking for it with no luck. Just updated the 2130SLP firmware and its no longer accepting the aaccli utility. Advise.stay away from Adaptec on FreeBSD and especially RAID controllers. Stupid question, but has anyone actually email'd Adaptec support? I'm having issue with the iir driver, I've email'd ICP Support about it, since its one of hte ICP Vortex cards that is causing the problem ... I got a response back to the effect of We do not officially support FreeBSD 6.x, but can you give us details on the problem ... How many ppl out there are running FreeBSD with an iir device? that includes the ICP/Adaptec cards, as well as Intel RAID controllers ... how many are running them on FreeBSD 6.x? How many are getting odd problems with their servers that they can't really trace to anywhere, but aren't posting about it either? The point is, if we keep acting as individuals, vendors will treat as unimportant ... if we start acting like an organization, and actually *lobby* these vendors for better support, maybe they will start to listen to us ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Philippe Lang wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three servers that I've upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is 1 year old, the other two are 3 years old ... after getting everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could provide some very detailed traces, and core dumps, it looks like the problem is the one thing common between all three servers: the iir driver ... the two older machines are running Intel 0CH RAID controllers, the newer one an ICP Vortex card ... both were rock solid machines under 4.x ... I don't have lockups on my 6.0 server, but I confirm there is something strange with the iir driver. On dmesg.*, I can read iir0: Bus B: The SCSI controller successfully recovered from a SCSI BUS issue. The issue may still be present on the BUS. Check cables, termination, termpower, LVDS operation, etc iir0: SCSI-B, ID 3: MPI returned 0x0048 I have an INTEL SRCU42L raid board. Maybe that's REALLY a cable problem I have here? have you tried changing the cable? if so, and it still happens, then its probably not a cable problem ... in my case, three servers and two different controllers all lock up since 6.x and all are running iir drivers ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/26/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Tamouh H. wrote: On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote: ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't support FreeBSD. We've already been over this once. Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3 and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and 4800/4805SAS driver back in April 06 up on their website. Their support could be a lot better, but these are new cards and new FreeBSD drivers... There is no storage manager aaccli like there was earlier :-( (maybe a Linux one, assuming there is one, will work like the Linux aaccli program works on FreeBSD?) I've 2130SLP and the drivers Adaptec posted caused server reboots almost immediately, the documentation were lacking (device name has changed which would cause a failed boot) and as you said aaccli is not working, not even the new linux ASM. On that point, do you still have the linux aaccli file ? I've been looking for it with no luck. Just updated the 2130SLP firmware and its no longer accepting the aaccli utility. Advise.stay away from Adaptec on FreeBSD and especially RAID controllers. Stupid question, but has anyone actually email'd Adaptec support? I'm having issue with the iir driver, I've email'd ICP Support about it, since its one of hte ICP Vortex cards that is causing the problem ... I got a response back to the effect of We do not officially support FreeBSD 6.x, but can you give us details on the problem ... How many ppl out there are running FreeBSD with an iir device? that includes the ICP/Adaptec cards, as well as Intel RAID controllers ... how many are running them on FreeBSD 6.x? How many are getting odd problems with their servers that they can't really trace to anywhere, but aren't posting about it either? The point is, if we keep acting as individuals, vendors will treat as unimportant ... if we start acting like an organization, and actually *lobby* these vendors for better support, maybe they will start to listen to us ... We need an Internet store that only stocks compatible hardware. It should include all the BSDs as well as Linux, Mac OS X, and any other non Microsoft OS. On the site they can just list whats compatible with what and customers can leave compatibility feedback. Other part requirements could be: * Open documentation. * No binary blob drivers. * Source code for company developed drivers. I would not limit the store to just parts that interact with the OS, I want everything needed to build a system; this includes desktops, workstations, rackmount servers, and embedded systems. I also want networking gear. If anyone knows of a vendor that already does this let me know. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:44:38AM -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote: We need an Internet store that only stocks compatible hardware. It should include all the BSDs as well as Linux, Mac OS X, and any other non Microsoft OS. On the site they can just list whats compatible with what and customers can leave compatibility feedback. Other part requirements could be: * Open documentation. * No binary blob drivers. * Source code for company developed drivers. I would not limit the store to just parts that interact with the OS, I want everything needed to build a system; this includes desktops, workstations, rackmount servers, and embedded systems. I also want networking gear. If anyone knows of a vendor that already does this let me know. This may be old news, but http://www.vendorwatch.org/ is making a good attempt at showing how well vendors are working with the open source / free software community. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Peter A. Giessel wrote: On 7/26/2006 07:35, User Freebsd seems to have typed: The point is, if we keep acting as individuals, vendors will treat as unimportant ... if we start acting like an organization, and actually *lobby* these vendors for better support, maybe they will start to listen to us ... We could also make it a point to support those who actually support us, such as 3ware, thus making it very profitable to continue to support FreeBSD and providing financial disincentive to those who don't support FreeBSD. The problem with this is where is the dis-incentive? those that aren't openly supporting us now don't believe they are losing any money from not supporting us ... What I'd like to see, as I've posted on advocacy as well, is #s to show to those that aren't openly supporting us know to show them that there is a market for them ... Supporting 3ware is good, but what if/when Adaptec buys them out ... Adaptec doesn't officially support FreeBSD, therefore, anyone they buy out would most likely change their policy accordingly ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote: * No binary blob drivers. This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out with a *supported* iir driver, but it was binary only, I'd be happy with that ... I just want to know that if I *have* a problem with a piece of hardware, that I can get support for it ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:36:51PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote: * No binary blob drivers. This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out with a *supported* iir driver, but it was binary only, I'd be happy with that ... I just want to know that if I *have* a problem with a piece of hardware, that I can get support for it ... A lot of people agree with you, but I'm not one of them. It's not about you being inconvenienced in this particular case. It's about choice, and vendors supporting the customers by providing *specs*. What if they provide a blob for FreeBSD but you decide you want to run NetBSD on a particular machine and there's no blob? Or much more likely: what if they provide a blob for Linux, but not for FreeBSD? Should they also provide a blob for Plan 9? If the specs are not open, then your choices are limited to what the vendor wants to develop and support. And that's likely to be Windows, and maybe Linux, and maybe maybe FreeBSD. OTOH, if the vendor opens the specs then good, solid drivers can be written for whatever platform. And ported. And if there's a problem it can be fixed. This even turns out to benefit people who don't give a hoot about whether something is free or open or not. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Peter A. Giessel wrote: On 7/26/2006 10:34, User Freebsd seems to have typed: Supporting 3ware is good, but what if/when Adaptec buys them out ... Adaptec doesn't officially support FreeBSD, therefore, anyone they buy out would most likely change their policy accordingly ... Not if they look at the sales and go, 2/3rd of their sales are FreeBSD... Companies are pretty reluctant to drop support for a majority of their users. How do they know that 2/3rd of their sales are FreeBSD? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Darrin Chandler wrote: On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:36:51PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote: * No binary blob drivers. This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out with a *supported* iir driver, but it was binary only, I'd be happy with that ... I just want to know that if I *have* a problem with a piece of hardware, that I can get support for it ... A lot of people agree with you, but I'm not one of them. It's not about you being inconvenienced in this particular case. It's about choice, and vendors supporting the customers by providing *specs*. What if they provide a blob for FreeBSD but you decide you want to run NetBSD on a particular machine and there's no blob? Or much more likely: what if they provide a blob for Linux, but not for FreeBSD? Should they also provide a blob for Plan 9? If the specs are not open, then your choices are limited to what the vendor wants to develop and support. And that's likely to be Windows, and maybe Linux, and maybe maybe FreeBSD. OTOH, if the vendor opens the specs then good, solid drivers can be written for whatever platform. And ported. And if there's a problem it can be fixed. This even turns out to benefit people who don't give a hoot about whether something is free or open or not. My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use Adaptec products ... Right now, I personally am being hurt more by having *nothing* from Adaptec, binary or open, then I would be if they'd provide something binary, since under 4.x, the Adaptec driver *was* rock solid, so I felt pretty safe upgrading to 6.x, which turns out was not so smart a move ... How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, for similar fears? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:48:52PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use Adaptec products ... Right now, I personally am being hurt more by having *nothing* from Adaptec, binary or open, then I would be if they'd provide something binary, since under 4.x, the Adaptec driver *was* rock solid, so I felt pretty safe upgrading to 6.x, which turns out was not so smart a move ... How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, for similar fears? Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of consumer. You don't, so you're left in the cold. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Darrin Chandler wrote: Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of consumer. You don't, so you're left in the cold. I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product, then don't use it. Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are simply beating a dead horse here. -- Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering. Doctor Who ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Darrin Chandler wrote: Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of consumer. You don't, so you're left in the cold. I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product, then don't use it. Darrin is not missing the point. He is just making a different point, which is (for many people, including me) quite valid. Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are simply beating a dead horse here. If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost for the hardware vendor. They don't even _have_ to make a driver for their hardware. What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an open source driver with: ``Piss off! We have you the technical specs, so you can write your own. Our development and support costs would not be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.'' *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost for the hardware vendor. They don't even _have_ to make a driver for their hardware. What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an open source driver with: ``Piss off! We have you the technical specs, so you can write your own. Our development and support costs would not be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.'' *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :) Obviously, everyone has their own take on the subject. The bottom line is that they, meaning the product or software developer, has a legal right to do with their product as they see fit. If their marketing choice does not coincide with yours, then find or create a product that you find more suitable. -- Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: - Original Message - From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Burying your head in the sand is a common method used by stupid people that have no answer to the truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want your employers to know that you've wasted man 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the performance characteristics of the hardware you've recommended. It must be thoroughly embarrassing. [snip] I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But I will point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't be. What the market wants is features, not speed. And that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on. Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes. But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1]. He does, but he is also right on this performance point. The truth can always be wrapped more palatably, but I think one of the differences between a system administrator and a user is that a user can't deal with the truth unless it's spoon fed in the nursery, an administrator should be approaching it as a professional, which means ignoring the irrelevant cheap demagogery and ignoring their own preconceptions of how things are supposed to work, and paying attention to the kernels of truth. I have to sort through giant piles of horseshit every time I look at the latest Cisco sales and marketing dreck, to find out what might be important in one of their new products, this isn't any different. And frankly I find the saccherine cloying marketingspeak to be far more disgusting and offensive then the lame kindergarden flames that Danial has so far been able to come up with. His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false. Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem. Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim. People including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results, then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant. So why even bother doing it anymore. But, you asked for it, you got it: Machine #1: Compaq 1600R, FBSD 6.1 Pentium 3 550Mhz freebsd-cvs# dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2006 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE #0: Thu Jun 1 17:23:18 PDT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERICNOUSBNOFIRE Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron (548.54-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x673 Stepping = 3 Features=0x383fbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA, CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR,SSE real memory = 671088640 (640 MB) avail memory = 647458816 (617 MB) MPTable: COMPAQ PROLIANT ioapic0: Changing APIC ID to 8 ioapic0: Assuming intbase of 0 ioapic0 Version 1.1 irqs 0-34 on motherboard kbd1 at kbdmux0 cpu0 on motherboard pcib0: MPTable Host-PCI bridge pcibus 0 on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pci0: display, VGA at device 11.0 (no driver attached) pcib1: MPTable PCI-PCI bridge at device 13.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 tl0: Compaq Netelligent 10/100 Proliant port 0x3800-0x380f irq 30 at device 7.0 on pci1 miibus0: MII bus on tl0 nsphy0: DP83840 10/100 media interface on miibus0 nsphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto tlphy0: ThunderLAN 10baseT media interface on miibus0 tlphy0: 10base2/BNC, 10base5/AUI tl0: Ethernet address: 00:50:8b:f1:82:17 sym0: 875 port 0x3000-0x30ff mem 0xc6ffdf00-0xc6ffdfff,0xc6fff000-0xc6ff irq 23 at device 9.0 on pci1
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:17 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Giorgos Keramidas wrote: If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost for the hardware vendor. They don't even _have_ to make a driver for their hardware. What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an open source driver with: ``Piss off! We have you the technical specs, so you can write your own. Our development and support costs would not be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.'' *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :) Obviously, everyone has their own take on the subject. The bottom line is that they, meaning the product or software developer, has a legal right to do with their product as they see fit. That isn't true. Once I buy their product they have absolutely no right to dictate how I use it, including if I want to reverse engineer it and write my own driver. That has been proven numerous times in courts of law. The problem here is that Adaptec is thinking that they have a right to control DISTRIBUTION of their product BEYOND THE POINT OF SALE. You see, if Adaptec releases a product that uses a blob, or obscured driver, whether it's for FreeBSD or Windows, they know that in all liklihood their product is going to last far longer than they want it to. Adaptec wants you to buy their product, use it in your current OS, then 2 years from now when you update OS's, they want you to toss their perfectly working product in the garbage and buy a new one from them. Lots of other manufacturers do this, Hewlett Packard is famous for it with their all-in-one products, that only run under the Windows OS, lots of those only have drivers for a few versions of Windows, and no driver was ever released for Windows XP. For another example I have a Sceptre SCSI flatbed scanner here that has a TWAIN driver for Windows NT 4 but not for Windows 2K. It's on my wife's system, fortunately she does not use it much but when she does want to use it, I have her system setup to dual-boot. Now you can pontificate all you want on the rights of companies to do this or that with their marketing. But I am not talking legal rights here. If companies only went by the book of what is legal, we would be awash in stock scams, and the SEC would be investigating thousands of CEO's every year. For example, how would you feel if you had a severe peanut allergy and you bought a jar of jelly then had a reaction because in the same factory that the food company packaged jelly, they packaged peanut butter? Some people have peanut allergies that are that severe - no food contact has to occur, simply the fumes from peanuts are enough to set it off. Well companies aren't legally required to disclose if they make a product in the same factory as where they make a peanut product - but they do, I just saw a warning like that on the side of Dairy Queen the other day. Today, it is recognized in the business community that there is such a thing as business ethics and that there are things that are legal to do but are not ethical to do. And most business don't do them, you would probably be surprised to know, simply because they aren't ethical. In just about all customers minds - cept perhaps yours - it isn't ethical for a company to force obsolescense. Hell, even Microsoft realized that with Windows 95. You can still download all the older Windows 95 patches from the Microsoft website if you know where to look, and they stopped supporting that OS years ago. Go look at the automobile industry. You can still buy parts for 20 year old card from the dealers, and 40 year old cars from the aftermarket - do you see the major automakers suing the aftermarket because the aftermarket makes Dexron transmission fluid available that I can use to keep my 1966 Torqueflight on the road? Or how about my wife and her canning stuff. Guess what - you can still buy jar rings and seals for 30 - 40 year old Mason jars. Are the companies that make Mason jars out there doing unethical things like releasing new styles of Mason jars every few years that use different sized mouths so you can't buy seals for them anymore? Bullshit! What Adaptec is doing is unethical. Adaptec used to claim they were doing it to keep competitors from stealing their secrets. Now all their major competitors don't exist anymore (bankrupt or bought by Adaptec). And the older Adaptec cards that are no longer viable products in the market, thus nobody would be interested in stealing their secrets - well why don't Adaptec release programming specs on those now? I don't buy new Adaptec products because of this. If I come across an Adaptec product in a used piece of gear I might try using it - sure. But if it doesen't work, (quite often) I discard it and move on. Until they stop
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Freminlins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:46 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Ted, On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386 and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386. How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release notes: Support for 80386 processors (the I386_CPU kernel configuration option) has been removed. Users running this class of CPU should use FreeBSD 5.*X* or earlier. Oops, forgot about that. Use 5.x then. The statement is that newer versions of FreeBSD are slower than older versions. The point was that this isn't relevant to 90% of users for reasons I already cited. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Oops, forgot about that. Use 5.x then. The statement is that newer versions of FreeBSD are slower than older versions. The point was that this isn't relevant to 90% of users for reasons I already cited. IMHO, I'm not so concerned about my servers being slower then older versions, but the fact that, in some cases, we seem to be going backwards are far as stability is concerned ... I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three servers that I've upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is 1 year old, the other two are 3 years old ... after getting everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could provide some very detailed traces, and core dumps, it looks like the problem is the one thing common between all three servers: the iir driver ... the two older machines are running Intel 0CH RAID controllers, the newer one an ICP Vortex card ... both were rock solid machines under 4.x ... If you check ICP Vortex's web site, you will actually find *vendor supported* drivers (and CLIs) for both fbsd4 and fbsd5 but nadda for 6 or 7 ... so, from looking at that, it looks like they have bail'd on the newer FreeBSDs ... So, for me, it isn't a performance issue, its what looks to be a shrinking hardware vendor support ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/25/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Oops, forgot about that. Use 5.x then. The statement is that newer versions of FreeBSD are slower than older versions. The point was that this isn't relevant to 90% of users for reasons I already cited. IMHO, I'm not so concerned about my servers being slower then older versions, but the fact that, in some cases, we seem to be going backwards are far as stability is concerned ... I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three servers that I've upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is 1 year old, the other two are 3 years old ... after getting everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could provide some very detailed traces, and core dumps, it looks like the problem is the one thing common between all three servers: the iir driver ... the two older machines are running Intel 0CH RAID controllers, the newer one an ICP Vortex card ... both were rock solid machines under 4.x ... If you check ICP Vortex's web site, you will actually find *vendor supported* drivers (and CLIs) for both fbsd4 and fbsd5 but nadda for 6 or 7 ... so, from looking at that, it looks like they have bail'd on the newer FreeBSDs ... So, for me, it isn't a performance issue, its what looks to be a shrinking hardware vendor support ... ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't support FreeBSD. We've already been over this once. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote: ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't support FreeBSD. We've already been over this once. Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3 and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and 4800/4805SAS driver back in April 06 up on their website. Their support could be a lot better, but these are new cards and new FreeBSD drivers... There is no storage manager aaccli like there was earlier :-( (maybe a Linux one, assuming there is one, will work like the Linux aaccli program works on FreeBSD?) So there is a very low level of support from Adaptec...They should really give their drivers to the project as part of the source and support them as well... That is why I am using Areca now. They seem to support both FreeBSD and Solaris 10 much better than Adaptec. I haven't bought an Adaptec card in 2 years though because their stuff gave me a lot of problems and didn't perform that well... Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote: ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't support FreeBSD. We've already been over this once. Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3 and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and 4800/4805SAS driver back in April 06 up on their website. Their support could be a lot better, but these are new cards and new FreeBSD drivers... There is no storage manager aaccli like there was earlier :-( (maybe a Linux one, assuming there is one, will work like the Linux aaccli program works on FreeBSD?) I've 2130SLP and the drivers Adaptec posted caused server reboots almost immediately, the documentation were lacking (device name has changed which would cause a failed boot) and as you said aaccli is not working, not even the new linux ASM. On that point, do you still have the linux aaccli file ? I've been looking for it with no luck. Just updated the 2130SLP firmware and its no longer accepting the aaccli utility. Advise.stay away from Adaptec on FreeBSD and especially RAID controllers. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Burying your head in the sand is a common method used by stupid people that have no answer to the truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want your employers to know that you've wasted man 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the performance characteristics of the hardware you've recommended. It must be thoroughly embarrassing. I have been busy with other things the last week so I missed this interesting thread, but I will still add my $0.02 cents. I've used FreeBSD since 1.0 and 386BSD before that. As for claims that the newer versions of FreeBSD are equal or faster than the older versions, that is simply absurd. The older versions of FreeBSD are faster, in many cases a lot faster. Why? Very simple, they are -smaller-. They take less core ram, their kernels are smaller, there is less code there. All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386 and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386. Only in the area of filesystem performance - such as if you have a system like a Usenet News system with many hundreds of thousands of files scattered over the disk, are the newer versions faster. But, the fact is we are (hopefully) not all building our servers on 80386's these days. When the cost of multi-gigahertz equipment is as low as it is, and the cost of even 2-3 year old single gigahertz name brand servers are so cheap, this discussion is really of no importance whatsoever. Historically in 95% of installations out there, the way they solve speed problems is to throw money at faster hardware. As a business owner it costs me less money to replace every last stick of server gear in my big business every 2 years than to pay for the insurance on the van out back that the delivery boy drives. Only in extremely esoteric and high end database centers and suchlike do they start to care about code optimization and speed. And I will wager that nobody on this list is running one of those installations. I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But I will point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't be. What the market wants is features, not speed. And that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Ted, On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386 and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386. How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release notes: Support for 80386 processors (the I386_CPU kernel configuration option) has been removed. Users running this class of CPU should use FreeBSD 5.*X* or earlier. Ted Frem. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/24/06, Freminlins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted, On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386 and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386. How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release notes: Support for 80386 processors (the I386_CPU kernel configuration option) has been removed. Users running this class of CPU should use FreeBSD 5.*X* or earlier. Use a i486 then... The point he's trying to make is still valid. This would be like running Windows 3.1 on a brand new Xeon 5100 dual-core CPU... sure it will run fast* but what the hell are you going to do with it? Play solitaire? * In are hypothetical situation Windows 3.1 is a 64-bit SMP aware OS, it's not in real life and this should help drive home the point ted is trying to make. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/24/06, Freminlins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nikolas, On 24/07/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be like running Windows 3.1 on a brand new Xeon 5100 dual-core CPU... sure it will run fast* but what the hell are you going to do with it? Play solitaire? You have this the wrong way round. The correct allusion would surely be something like imagine running XP on a 80386, not an old OS on new hardware. Old OSs don't always run at all on new hardware. I used the Inverse example for a reason. Anyway, I am sure that Ted can speak for himself. Don't worry, ted will... -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: - Original Message - From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Burying your head in the sand is a common method used by stupid people that have no answer to the truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want your employers to know that you've wasted man 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the performance characteristics of the hardware you've recommended. It must be thoroughly embarrassing. [snip] I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But I will point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't be. What the market wants is features, not speed. And that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on. Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes. But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1]. His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false. Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem. People with performance problems then /sometimes/ get upset (I think because the questioning and testing tends to assume they're wrong and they get defensive about it). The problem is, scientific testing of an assertion must try to prove the hypothesis is false, and must posit (and also try to disprove) any plausible alternative explanations. There's just no reason to get upset about that. Raising questions about a claim, and trying to explain an outcome's root cause by alternative hypotheses, is in fact the /required behavior/ of critical thinkers. When the OP of a performance problem does follow through with testing, and is willing to engage civilly in a logical debate, then generally there is a successful outcome to the thread. When the OP of a problem gets emotional about it and starts spouting cheap demagogy, then other users and developers quickly will walk away from the table. Walking away from trollery is in no way equivalent to these users and developers sticking their heads in the sand on the issue. It's the predictable response of critical thinkers who recognize demagogy as a tool of /antitruth/. Those who consistently use demagogy are always more interested in winning an argument than in finding the truth, and any critical thinker either sees right through the murk of BS being tossed at them or least has enough intuitive sense to recoil from it. And that is /the only reason/ why people ignore Danial. His brand of cheap demagogy is so potent that the smell of /antitruth/ emanates from his posts in a field so strong that it might as well be a physically repelling force. He might do better in politics or religion where these trollish debating tactics are the norm. But in a community of critical thinkers, the truthiness of demagogy will rarely find any traction at all. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: - Original Message - From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Burying your head in the sand is a common method used by stupid people that have no answer to the truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want your employers to know that you've wasted man 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the performance characteristics of the hardware you've recommended. It must be thoroughly embarrassing. [snip] I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But I will point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't be. What the market wants is features, not speed. And that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on. Writing as a USER on this list - I think that the Total Cost of Ownership is also an important consideration. I run FreeBSD because the user-machine combination is more efficient, even if the OS itself is slower - and I don't know about that. I escaped from Windows via Linux and settled here just when 5.0 came out. I really like the tools and the organization of the OS. More features is nice, more speed is nice, but I just like the way that it works. Warm kudos to the developers for that. Andrew -- Andrew Robinson Department of Mathematics and StatisticsTel: +61-3-8344-9763 University of Melbourne, VIC 3010 Australia Fax: +61-3-8344-4599 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Nikolas, On 24/07/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be like running Windows 3.1 on a brand new Xeon 5100 dual-core CPU... sure it will run fast* but what the hell are you going to do with it? Play solitaire? You have this the wrong way round. The correct allusion would surely be something like imagine running XP on a 80386, not an old OS on new hardware. Old OSs don't always run at all on new hardware. Anyway, I am sure that Ted can speak for himself. Frem. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/25/06, Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: - Original Message - From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Burying your head in the sand is a common method used by stupid people that have no answer to the truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want your employers to know that you've wasted man 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the performance characteristics of the hardware you've recommended. It must be thoroughly embarrassing. [snip] I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But I will point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't be. What the market wants is features, not speed. And that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on. Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes. But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1]. His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false. Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem. People with performance problems then /sometimes/ get upset (I think because the questioning and testing tends to assume they're wrong and they get defensive about it). The problem is, scientific testing of an assertion must try to prove the hypothesis is false, and must posit (and also try to disprove) any plausible alternative explanations. There's just no reason to get upset about that. Raising questions about a claim, and trying to explain an outcome's root cause by alternative hypotheses, is in fact the /required behavior/ of critical thinkers. When the OP of a performance problem does follow through with testing, and is willing to engage civilly in a logical debate, then generally there is a successful outcome to the thread. When the OP of a problem gets emotional about it and starts spouting cheap demagogy, then other users and developers quickly will walk away from the table. Walking away from trollery is in no way equivalent to these users and developers sticking their heads in the sand on the issue. It's the predictable response of critical thinkers who recognize demagogy as a tool of /antitruth/. Those who consistently use demagogy are always more interested in winning an argument than in finding the truth, and any critical thinker either sees right through the murk of BS being tossed at them or least has enough intuitive sense to recoil from it. And that is /the only reason/ why people ignore Danial. His brand of cheap demagogy is so potent that the smell of /antitruth/ emanates from his posts in a field so strong that it might as well be a physically repelling force. He might do better in politics or religion where these trollish debating tactics are the norm. But in a community of critical thinkers, the truthiness of demagogy will rarely find any traction at all. i thought the consensus was stop feeding the troll? so why is thread still alive :D ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
--- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc G. Fournier writes: the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be dropping support for it as well ... But companies like 3Ware and Areca are supporting it and from what I see on the lists, people are voting with their money in their favor. Mainly because they had drivers that required little modification from previous versions. Intel has a few other things on their plate, releasing more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry performance, so give them a break. How long are vendors supposed to wait for the FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance they've claimed that they can deliver? I know several network appliance vendors all stuck on FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step backwards performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will be the one. FreeBSD is the OS that cried WOLF, and the vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The infrastructure is so poor (in terms of process switching times and scheduler efficiencies), and they seem clueless on how to fix it. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
--- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc G. Fournier writes: the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be dropping support for it as well ... But companies like 3Ware and Areca are supporting it and from what I see on the lists, people are voting with their money in their favor. Mainly because they had drivers that required little modification from previous versions. Intel has a few other things on their plate, releasing more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry performance, so give them a break. How long are vendors supposed to wait for the FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance they've claimed that they can deliver? I know several network appliance vendors all stuck on FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step backwards performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will be the one. FreeBSD is the OS that cried WOLF, and the vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The infrastructure is so poor (in terms of process switching times and scheduler efficiencies), and they seem clueless on how to fix it. Must be a troll. FreeBSD performance is not what holds it back. It competes well with others out there. jerry DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
--- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled: --- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc G. Fournier writes: the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be dropping support for it as well ... But companies like 3Ware and Areca are supporting it and from what I see on the lists, people are voting with their money in their favor. Mainly because they had drivers that required little modification from previous versions. Intel has a few other things on their plate, releasing more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry performance, so give them a break. How long are vendors supposed to wait for the FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance they've claimed that they can deliver? I know several network appliance vendors all stuck on FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step backwards performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will be the one. FreeBSD is the OS that cried WOLF, and the vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The infrastructure is so poor (in terms of process switching times and scheduler efficiencies), and they seem clueless on how to fix it. Must be a troll. FreeBSD performance is not what holds it back. It competes well with others out there. jerry No it doesn't, Jerry. Even Robert Watson, who spends most of his time on performance issues, readily admits that - FreeBSD 6 is faster with 1 processor than 2 - FreeBSD 6 is slower with 1 processor than Freebsd 4.x The process switch times are 2-4x slower than on linux. Thats not 2-4%, thats 200-400% slower. Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. What's really frightening is that Dragonfly is going to shed the giant lock before Freebsd, and there's only one guy working on it. Its prima facie evidence that IQ isn't cumulative. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled: Just thought I should metion that this comes across as rude to me... but maybe that's just me! --- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc G. Fournier writes: the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be dropping support for it as well ... But companies like 3Ware and Areca are supporting it and from what I see on the lists, people are voting with their money in their favor. Mainly because they had drivers that required little modification from previous versions. Intel has a few other things on their plate, releasing more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry performance, so give them a break. How long are vendors supposed to wait for the FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance they've claimed that they can deliver? I know several network appliance vendors all stuck on FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step backwards performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will be the one. FreeBSD is the OS that cried WOLF, and the vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The infrastructure is so poor (in terms of process switching times and scheduler efficiencies), and they seem clueless on how to fix it. Must be a troll. FreeBSD performance is not what holds it back. It competes well with others out there. jerry No it doesn't, Jerry. Even Robert Watson, who spends most of his time on performance issues, readily admits that - FreeBSD 6 is faster with 1 processor than 2 - FreeBSD 6 is slower with 1 processor than Freebsd 4.x Would you mind providing a source for that information? I would not be at all surprised to hear that a FreeBSD 6.x dual-CPU set-up provides less than twice the performance as that of a single CPU FreeBSD 6.x set-up, but I will happily eat my own (mighty tasty) hat if a dual CPU FreeBSD 6.x set-up performs worse than a single FreeBSD 6.x set-up. That having been said, I tend to treat Robert Watson's word as gospel, but I'd like to see it in a form I can trust (honestly, no offense intended!) first (i.e., please provide a source for your information :-)). The process switch times are 2-4x slower than on linux. Thats not 2-4%, thats 200-400% slower. Could you provide me with a source here (Not trying to be rude, but I'd be really interested in reading about this)? Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Whilst I have trouble accepting these particular figures, I don't doubt that there is *some* overhead in dealing with multiple CPUs, from a kernel perspective. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. What's really frightening is that Dragonfly is going to shed the giant lock before Freebsd, and there's only one guy working on it. Please see http://www.dragonflybsd.org/about/team.cgi;. My maths ain't great (alright, it's terrible!) but I count more than one committer. I'm probably just misunderstanding what you're trying to say here... Its prima facie evidence that IQ isn't cumulative. DT Sorry if this appears stand-off-ish - I don't mean it do be! I do have a bias in favour of what I see as the best OS ever, though (better that MacOS 7.5.3, even! :-)) -- Nick Withers email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.nickwithers.com Mobile: +61 414 397 446 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
--- Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled: Just thought I should metion that this comes across as rude to me... but maybe that's just me! --- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc G. Fournier writes: the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be dropping support for it as well ... But companies like 3Ware and Areca are supporting it and from what I see on the lists, people are voting with their money in their favor. Mainly because they had drivers that required little modification from previous versions. Intel has a few other things on their plate, releasing more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry performance, so give them a break. How long are vendors supposed to wait for the FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance they've claimed that they can deliver? I know several network appliance vendors all stuck on FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step backwards performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will be the one. FreeBSD is the OS that cried WOLF, and the vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The infrastructure is so poor (in terms of process switching times and scheduler efficiencies), and they seem clueless on how to fix it. Must be a troll. FreeBSD performance is not what holds it back. It competes well with others out there. jerry No it doesn't, Jerry. Even Robert Watson, who spends most of his time on performance issues, readily admits that - FreeBSD 6 is faster with 1 processor than 2 - FreeBSD 6 is slower with 1 processor than Freebsd 4.x Would you mind providing a source for that information? I would not be at all surprised to hear that a FreeBSD 6.x dual-CPU set-up provides less than twice the performance as that of a single CPU FreeBSD 6.x set-up, but I will happily eat my own (mighty tasty) hat if a dual CPU FreeBSD 6.x set-up performs worse than a single FreeBSD 6.x set-up. That having been said, I tend to treat Robert Watson's word as gospel, but I'd like to see it in a form I can trust (honestly, no offense intended!) first (i.e., please provide a source for your information :-)). The process switch times are 2-4x slower than on linux. Thats not 2-4%, thats 200-400% slower. Could you provide me with a source here (Not trying to be rude, but I'd be really interested in reading about this)? Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Whilst I have trouble accepting these particular figures, I don't doubt that there is *some* overhead in dealing with multiple CPUs, from a kernel perspective. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. What's really frightening is that Dragonfly is going to shed the giant lock before Freebsd, and there's only one guy working on it. Please see http://www.dragonflybsd.org/about/team.cgi;. My maths ain't great (alright, it's terrible!) but I count more than one committer. I'm probably just misunderstanding what you're trying to say here... Its prima facie evidence that IQ isn't cumulative. DT Sorry if this appears stand-off-ish - I don't mean it do be! I do have a bias in favour of what I see as the best OS ever, though (better that MacOS 7.5.3, even! :-)) Robert Watson's own test, on freebsd-performance: I'll run some more diverse tests today, such as raw bandwidth tests, pps on UDP, and so on, and see where things sit. The reduced overhead should be measurable in cases where the test is CPU-bound and there's no clear benefit to more accurate timing, such as with TCP, but it would be good to confirm that. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge peppercorn:~/tmp/netperf/hz ministat *SMP x hz.SMP + vendor.SMP +--+ |xx x xx x xx x + + + + +++ + ++| | |___A| |_A___M| | +--+ N Min MaxMedian AvgStddev x 10 13715 13793 13750 13751.1 29.319883 + 10 13813 13970 13921 13906.5 47.551726 Difference at 95.0% confidence 155.4 +/- 37.1159 1.13009% +/- 0.269913% (Student's t, pooled s = 39.502) peppercorn:~/tmp/netperf/hz
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote: Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. Easy enough to avoid. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote: Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. Easy enough to avoid. Chad Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays with 2 processors, with little additional benefit (as other tests show). Easy enough to avoid. Are you people stupid or delusional? DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom wrote: --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote: Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. Easy enough to avoid. Chad Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays with 2 processors, with little additional benefit (as other tests show). Easy enough to avoid. SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors can do more work than FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor. That is a fact. Are you people stupid or delusional? No, and the data you posted did not support your allegations of performance either. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote: Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. Easy enough to avoid. Chad Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays with 2 processors, with little additional benefit (as other tests show). Could you please provide evidence of your assertion (or, at the very least, a link)? As I said before, I don't doubt that there's overhead in running an SMP FreeBSD system, but I strongly believe that this overhead is overcome by the advantages of running such a set-up on a multi-processor machine. That having been said, if you have evidence to the contrary I imagine there'd be many that would like to hear about it. Easy enough to avoid. Are you people stupid or delusional? Careful, mate. I tend to believe that it's wise, at least from a PR point of view, to assume you're in the wrong until proven otherwise. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. In the mean time, I suggest you adopt a more friendly tone: The people on this list are here to help you, but asserting that they're either stupid or delusional ain't gonna get you any help in a hurry. DT -- Nick Withers email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.nickwithers.com Mobile: +61 414 397 446 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Nick Withers wrote: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled: Just thought I should metion that this comes across as rude to me... but maybe that's just me! No, it's not you. Mr. Thom thoroughly obscures the fact that he has an occasional valid point to make by frequently hurling foul-smelling, flaming troll turds at anyone who dares to voice disagreement with him (or even anyone who in any other way presents an attractive target). Many list subscribers have long since permanently ignored him. Most folks are tolerant of differing opinions, and even of having their own assumptions challenged, but not tolerant of name calling and other forms of cheap demagogy which really have no place in the formulation of a cogent rational argument. As have writ others before me... please do not feed the troll. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom wrote: --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote: Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. Easy enough to avoid. Chad Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays with 2 processors, with little additional benefit (as other tests show). Easy enough to avoid. SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors can do more work than FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor. That is a fact. Are you people stupid or delusional? No, and the data you posted did not support your allegations of performance either. Chad I doubt you have the capacity to understand the tests, and as they say, you can't educate the woodchucks. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Burying your head in the sand is a common method used by stupid people that have no answer to the truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want your employers to know that you've wasted man 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the performance characteristics of the hardware you've recommended. It must be thoroughly embarrassing. --- Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Withers wrote: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled: Just thought I should metion that this comes across as rude to me... but maybe that's just me! No, it's not you. Mr. Thom thoroughly obscures the fact that he has an occasional valid point to make by frequently hurling foul-smelling, flaming troll turds at anyone who dares to voice disagreement with him (or even anyone who in any other way presents an attractive target). Many list subscribers have long since permanently ignored him. Most folks are tolerant of differing opinions, and even of having their own assumptions challenged, but not tolerant of name calling and other forms of cheap demagogy which really have no place in the formulation of a cogent rational argument. As have writ others before me... please do not feed the troll. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Danial Thom wrote: --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom wrote: SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors can do more work than FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor. That is a fact. Are you people stupid or delusional? No, and the data you posted did not support your allegations of performance either. Chad I doubt you have the capacity to understand the tests, and as they say, you can't educate the woodchucks. You can doubt all you want. The plain fact is you said things like 200-400% and the tests and commentary did not support that. You also inferred that a 2 CPU system in SMP mode would overall be able to do less work than a 1 CPU system in UP mode. Again, you have given no evidence that this is true and the stuff you quoted did not support that. It did say that there is overhead in the SMP code that makes things less efficient and that the overhead is more than comparable OSes, at least for the Sparc T1 stuff. You are the idiot, Mr. Thom. You may be intellectually smart but you are a blooming idiot when it comes to public discourse. And I will take the advice given earlier, to stop feeding the trolls -- you are a supreme troll. I may make 2 recommendations: #1 read How to win friends and influence people . Here is a quick synopsis. http://www.mrdata.net/Amazon/Carnegie/friends.htm #2 learn how to use your email program and to trim posts you reply to. signing off Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Danial Thom wrote: --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom wrote: SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors can do more work than FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor. That is a fact. Are you people stupid or delusional? No, and the data you posted did not support your allegations of performance either. Chad I doubt you have the capacity to understand the tests, and as they say, you can't educate the woodchucks. You can doubt all you want. The plain fact is you said things like 200-400% and the tests and commentary did not support that. You also inferred that a 2 CPU system in SMP mode would overall be able to do less work than a 1 CPU system in UP mode. Again, you have given no evidence that this is true and the stuff you quoted did not support that. It did say that there is overhead in the SMP code that makes things less efficient and that the overhead is more than comparable OSes, at least for the Sparc T1 stuff. You are the idiot, Mr. Thom. You may be intellectually smart but you are a blooming idiot when it comes to public discourse. And I will take the advice given earlier, to stop feeding the trolls -- you are a supreme troll. I may make 2 recommendations: #1 read How to win friends and influence people . Here is a quick synopsis. http://www.mrdata.net/Amazon/Carnegie/friends.htm #2 learn how to use your email program and to trim posts you reply to. Here's the deal, Chad. On this list, all the college-kid sysadmins tell me how great FreeBSD is, but on the freebsd-performance list, none of the developers refute my findings. If that doesn't tell you something, then you really don't have the capacity to comment on this or any other subject. You can't reason someone out of an idea not reasoned into, Chad. You have no foundation for your beliefs, so even prima facie evidence won't convince you. Its called being a fool. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote: Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers. There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at least not for a long time. So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. Easy enough to avoid. Chad Why would anyone want to enable SMP on a single CPU system anyway. That would prove nothing other than that someone doesn't know what SMP is. Statistics about stunts like that might help pad a student paper, but they don't reveal much of value. jerry --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 2006-07-13 11:31, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's the deal, Chad. On this list, all the college-kid sysadmins tell me how great FreeBSD is, but on the freebsd-performance list, none of the developers refute my findings. If that doesn't tell you something, then you really don't have the capacity to comment on this or any other subject. That's _not_ the impression I get from threads like: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2006-June/002043.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2006-June/002074.html These are, also, the only two threads in which your name appears since January 2004, so before throwing around accusations about the FreeBSD developers not answering your alleged performance findings -- of which there is absolutely NO evidence in the freebsd-performance list archives -- please consider that your false comments in a mailing list with a wide distribution, like freebsd-questions, are NOT doing any good to FreeBSD and have a big probability of being characterized as troll stuff. Having this in mind, and bearing in mind the many contributions of Chad to this list, which are of higher quality and in general contain text of a far greater signal/noise ratio, I'm not sure it is so fair of you to call people of this list college-kid sysadmins or to comment on Chad's capacity to comment on any subject. Nice troll, though... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Joao Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD-Questions Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:44 PM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On 6/28/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote: On 6/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [deleted] --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net Do you offer Xen hosting Chad?.. and back on topic... What's the point of iLO Marc? What's wrong with having your server text message your cell phone and then you ssh in and check what's wrong / fix it? If it's a hardware problem you'll have to show up anyways, right? If the server is 300KM from... no you don't want to. If the server is in another country for example...no you don't want to. If you have to pay extra for someone to reboot, put a cd, whatever on the machine, no you don't want to. Think this through outside your usual enviroment. I've supported and support those types of environments and it depends on the application. If the app is a critical cannot ever go down then you have redundant servers, and I don't care if it costs $$$ to get and keep a warm body there, your going to be spending that money. However, the vast majority of apps are NOT cannot ever go down apps, despite what a lot of the line managers in the organizations would have you believe about their pet projects. They can tolerate downtime if it only happens a once or twice a year, for example, even though they will scream about it, you just learn to ignore that. In those environments, if the server goes down hard and won't cold-boot, you FedEx one out there the next day and talk someone over the phone into plugging it in. And yes this can be rather expensive. That is why in those environments, people generally set them up so the servers -aren't- remotes, rather they just get better wan links. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message - From: Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote: Marc G. Fournier writes: settled on HP Proliant servers . The problem with HP, as I see it, is that they officially do not support freebsd.. I even sent an email to ask.. and the categorically stated that it is not supported. I would not want to standarize on something which is not guaranted will work in the future with FreeBSD. the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be dropping support for it as well ... This isn't true. The big problem is that Adaptec has kind of a lock on the SCSI market, because that market is a shrinking market and no company in it's right mind that isn't in SCSI now would start trying to get into it. And Adaptec has always been very unfriendly to releasing programming details, it's a corporate culture thing with them. Just look at a lot of their Linux stuff like their support for sata raid. They waste ten times the effort writing driver blobs and keeping them maintained than if they just released a sample source driver for their stuff and let the Linux maintainers use that as a base. And people reverse engineer their stuff all the time so it's not like it stays secret, not to mention they have bought out most of their competitors so it's not like anyone would have the resources to fuel a challenge to them. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
[deleted] In my case, it comes down to two words: remote administration ... HP is the only system I've yet found that has it integrated as part of the hardware ... You will also find hardware integrated remote administration inside IBM and Sun machines. They both run off residual power. So as long as a single power supply module has electricity in it, you have access to your machine via a CLI on a seperate IP. Even if the machine is powered-off. Sun even offers remote dial in over a modem onto their administration module. It's very good and I've been very happy with it over the years, both with IBM and Sun. But I can't say as much as the Dell admin module... The other selling point for me on HP was the 2.5 SAS drives ... our new servers have 4x72G SAS drives in a 1U space, which means I can do RAID1+0 SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives. They're great, really. But so far I've yet to see 15K rpm in 2,5 SAS form factor. David -- David Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Montreal: +1 514 966 0122 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 6/29/06, David Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other selling point for me on HP was the 2.5 SAS drives ... our new servers have 4x72G SAS drives in a 1U space, which means I can do RAID1+0 SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives. They're great, really. But so far I've yet to see 15K rpm in 2,5 SAS form factor. I'm talking out of my mouth here but maybe the extra storage density used in SAS compensates for the lack of 15K rpm. -- Joao Barros ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 6/29/06, Joao Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives. They're great, really. But so far I've yet to see 15K rpm in 2,5 SAS form factor. I'm talking out of my mouth here but maybe the extra storage density used in SAS compensates for the lack of 15K rpm. Well, there are two issues here: access time (rpm) and storage capacity (GB). The access time deals with rotational speed of the drives (rpm) while storage capacity (GB) does not care how fast the drive spins. The 15K rpm drives are nice to use when your application needs very fast access to your storage. On a busy mail server or database for instance. You won't need 15K rpm drives in a DNS server for example. As for storage capacity, it's not really that important for the SAS drives because you really don't need 72GB disks to install a UNIX operating system such as FreeBSD :) But it's still good to have the extra space for your application. But anyway, if you really need storage space, then a SAN is your best bet (assuming you can afford it, of course) EMC, Hitachi and StorageTek include so much cache (~256GB) in their boxes that the rotational speed of the drives is not that important in the end because most read/write operations are to/from this cache. Then again, your problem here is that FreeBSD is not supported by those machines. -- David Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Montreal: +1 514 966 0122 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 6/29/06, David Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/29/06, Joao Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives. They're great, really. But so far I've yet to see 15K rpm in 2,5 SAS form factor. I'm talking out of my mouth here but maybe the extra storage density used in SAS compensates for the lack of 15K rpm. Correction, it looks like the 15K rpm SAS drives finally exist. Hitachi has some: http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/menuitem.191a33649dd96d1d92b86b31bac4f0a0/ Cheers! David -- David Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Montreal: +1 514 966 0122 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:41 AM, David Robillard wrote: Well, there are two issues here: access time (rpm) and storage capacity (GB). The access time deals with rotational speed of the drives (rpm) while storage capacity (GB) does not care how fast the drive spins. There is a third and that is bit density. The reason that that is important is that it can compensate for a slower drive (rotational speed). If a fast drive with lower bit density has to rotate X rotation to get to the data, a higher bit density drive will usually have to rotate something less than X because the data is more dense. In simple terms (these numbers are made up to illustrate this and have no bearing on real numbers except that the concept holds: a fast RPM with lower bit density might have 1GB per cylinder and hence say 2/3 of a rotation might be needed to get data X. A higher density drive might have 6GB per cylinder so needs only, say 1/9 of a slower rotation to get to the same data). This was amply illustrated by some 500GB SATA benchmark I read that had it equaling some much faster RPM drives for access time with much lower bit density. Other factors play in here as well but hopefully you get the idea. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Marc G. Fournier writes: So, my question above, and a public call to -core, or anyone else: What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation? How about buying from vendors that specifically support FreeBSD. http://freebsdsystems.com http://ixsystems.com and surely others. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
