Hi Scott,
On 20 Mar 2005, at 7:43 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
% file bin/aaccli
bin/aaccli: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1, for
FreeBSD 4.4, statically linked, not stripped
Is there a SPARC version? Even for FreeBSD? If I wanted to use these
cards in one of my UltraSPARC machines,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:29:59PM -0500, Charles Swiger wrote:
| 3) by not insisting at all that vendors open things at least a
|bit, Scott is not like Bill Paul or others who have opened
|up a lot of hardware, but is a lot more like Sam Leffler who
|has perpetuated
On Mar 20, 2005, at 2:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[ ... ]
In that case Dell is a customer of Adaptec, not the other way around,
so any NDA that Dell might require for Adaptec to sign would not
have restricted Adaptec's use of it's own programming documentation.
And you know this, because...?
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:41:33 -0500, Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 20, 2005, at 2:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[ ... ]
In that case Dell is a customer of Adaptec, not the other way around,
so any NDA that Dell might require for Adaptec to sign would not
have restricted Adaptec's
On Mar 20, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Adam wrote:
Have you read the NDA between Adaptec and Intel?
If not, how do you know just what it does or does not cover?
Once again, you're making claims of fact about a document that you've
probably never seen.
I think you are making wild assertions and have not
On 2005 Mar 20, at 6:41 AM, Charles Swiger wrote:
While I haven't seen Adaptec's NDA agreements, I'd bet a stack of
nickels they exist and limit the information Adaptec is able to make
public.
This is a moot point.
If Adaptec has been foolish enough to bind their own hands in this
manner then
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:49:04PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[snip]
And how many more people have learned from this and will avoid
Adaptec products?
At least one, and that one will share his feelings with coworkers and friends
in the field you can be sure.
(perhaps these circles where it
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:17:10 -0500, Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think Adaptec is special. It's normal for companies to enter
into a NDA agreement with their partners, and I'd bet a dollar to a
donut that LSI, Promise, 3ware, and other vendors of RAID hardware also
have
On Mar 20, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Adam wrote:
Do you claim to speak for Adaptec? Your words are dangerously
ill-chosen if you do not work for Adaptec, because you are misleading
people about the company and about their products.
Quit being such a corporate apologist. They refuse to give out the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Charles Swiger
Sent: zondag 20 maart 2005 17:18
To: Adam
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd list; Theo de Raadt
Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
I'd bet a dollar to a donut that LSI, Promise
On Mar 20, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Mark wrote:
I'd bet a dollar to a donut that LSI, Promise, 3ware, and other
vendors of RAID hardware also have NDA agreements which would prevent
those companies from making every single internal document available
to the public.
RANT
Nobody ever asked they make 'every
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:27:13 -0500, Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pretend for a second that your first claim is actually correct, that
Adaptec does not want to sell hardware. Just what do you think you are
accomplishing by trying to convince people not to buy Adaptec hardware,
On Mar 20, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Adam wrote:
Pretend for a second that your first claim is actually correct, that
Adaptec does not want to sell hardware. Just what do you think you
are accomplishing by trying to convince people not to buy Adaptec
hardware, then? According to your words, that's
On 20 Mar 2005, at 17:17, Charles Swiger wrote:
snip /
You remind me of someone I knew once that went off the deep end into
paranoid delusions.
snip /
potty talk from a child that hasn't been toilet-trained, but it's
past time for you and Theo to grow up and start acting like adults,
rather
On Mar 20, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Jens Ropers wrote:
Lets please stop feeding this troll. I'll grant him that his bait is
cleverly constructed but that doesn't give him the right to degrade a
vital discussion to ad hominem attacks, rhetorical nitpicking and
all-out bickering. Nor does it give him
Charles Swiger wrote:
On Mar 20, 2005, at 2:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[ ... ]
In that case Dell is a customer of Adaptec, not the other way around,
so any NDA that Dell might require for Adaptec to sign would not
have restricted Adaptec's use of it's own programming documentation.
And
Theo de Raadt wrote:
While I understand what you want Theo lets not remove the support for
stuff that currently works. I just spent $349 on a Adaptec RAID card
for my home server and if the support is removed I will be very upset.
The drive is written. Leave it alone. Let it be up to the
I'd love to have fully open stuff from all the RAID
companies too, but I also want the users of FreeBSD to be able to use
the resources that are out there to their full advantage and not be
pinned down by my political beliefs on the subject.
Which is why you go onto public posting sites and
On Mar 19, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[ ... ]
Sigh. Theo, there are lots of ways of interacting with other people:
if you go out of your way to antagonize somebody, the result is
generally not going to be positive. I think Scott is mature enough to
continue to help other BSD
The OpenBSD community doesn't want help for closed utilities and
drivers. All we want is documentation. No source, no
binary-only-cannot-distrubute drivers and utilities, just enough
documenatation for which to write their drivers, and support
oursevles. No one has been able to answer us on how
It's not a binary driver, it's a 2-clause BSD licensed driver that
contains full source. You said that the OpenBSD driver is unstable,
so I offered to help. That has nothing to do with binary apps.
Deleting it from the OpenBSD tree is always an option, of course.
Scott
Jason Crawford wrote:
It's not a binary driver, it's a 2-clause BSD licensed driver that
contains full source. You said that the OpenBSD driver is unstable,
so I offered to help. That has nothing to do with binary apps.
Deleting it from the OpenBSD tree is always an option, of course.
The driver is free, but
Even a working driver without any management utilities is not what I
would want to run on a production server. I need to be able to find
out what is wrong with the RAID setup, if anything, state of all the
disks, etc... which I cannot do without rebooting. And I fail to see
how letting a community
It's not a binary driver, it's a 2-clause BSD licensed driver that
contains full source. You said that the OpenBSD driver is unstable,
so I offered to help. That has nothing to do with binary apps.
From
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/pds.cgi?ports/sysutils/aaccli
Sources for
Sigh. Theo, there are lots of ways of interacting with other people:
if you go out of your way to antagonize somebody, the result is
generally not going to be positive. I think Scott is mature enough to
continue to help other BSD projects-- including OpenBSD-- regardless,
but this sort
On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
It's not a binary driver, it's a 2-clause BSD licensed driver that
contains full source. You said that the OpenBSD driver is unstable,
so I offered to help. That has nothing to do with binary apps.
From
I personally don't care about Adaptec anymore, but I do care about the
people there. If LSI or whoever else can provide better support, then
that's fine with me. I do however have quite a bit of experience in
knowing how things work at Adaptec and knowing what compromises can be
made.
...deliberately breaking OpenBSD's support for Adaptec hardware as some
sort of ultimatum is a childish and self-destructive action. I hope
the other OpenBSD committers veto any such action as being
counterproductive and harmful to your users.
Horsecookies. What was done was
Theo, I'd like to make a comment as a new user in this community:
I think BSD is great. I don't care what flavor you're talking about; I
think they're great. I use FreeBSD, but I have great respect for OpenBSD
and the others, and it was a hard choice deciding which to run.
However, when I see
Charles Swiger wrote:
On Mar 19, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Those controllers will not be supported in OpenBSD 3.7 in May. If
Adaptec wishes them to be supported in a future release, they had
better come and make amends. We are sick of supporting the hardware
of vendors who shit on
you guys want to produce fully open and unencumbered stuff. That's
wonderful. But why is it so important to go around screaming and
yelling about it and alientating those who do try to help? Let me
tell you, Doug is about the most positive and supportive guy you'll
ever have at Adaptec,
Sorry, I got suckered into a side argument about why the kernel driver
in OpenBSD sucks. Yes, the management app is closed, but the driver is
open. And if the OpenBSD driver sucks and people want it to stop
crashing and don't want to go beating their heads against the wall at
Adaptec
On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Sigh. Theo, there are lots of ways of interacting with other people:
if you go out of your way to antagonize somebody, the result is
generally not going to be positive. I think Scott is mature enough to
continue to help other BSD projects--
The fact that the management utiltiy it uses is closed
binary-only-can't-distrubute type of utility, means it can't be used
by anyone who really cares about stability of their system,
development, or who just loves freedom. And won't be used by this
community which accounts for over 1,800 adaptec
What part of the FreeBSD AAC driver is closed, emcumbered, or otherwise
non-free?
The bits that do management.
Therefore, the bits that let it do what RAID controllers are meant to do.
Can you fully operate an aac(4) card -- 100% of it's abilities, on a
FreeBSD machine, without using a
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Theo de Raadt
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 12:35 PM
To: Scott Long
Cc: Jason Crawford; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Adam;
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
It's not a binary driver, it's a 2-clause
Theo de Raadt wrote:
What part of the FreeBSD AAC driver is closed, emcumbered, or otherwise
non-free?
The bits that do management.
Therefore, the bits that let it do what RAID controllers are meant to do.
Can you fully operate an aac(4) card -- 100% of it's abilities, on a
FreeBSD machine,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Swiger
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 1:30 PM
To: Theo de Raadt
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Scott Long; Sean Hafeez;
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
Scott
I'll heartily agree that there is little reason for any company to
keep information like this closed.
Yet you are not helping.
But going around making personal
attacks on company employees that don't give you the cookie you want
is pretty shitty too.
Then I guess that Doug Richardson made
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bnonn
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 12:59 PM
To: FreeBSD Questions Mailing List
Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
Theo, I'd like to make a comment as a new user in this community:
I think BSD
I'm not stuffing anything down anyone's throats.
You are insulting me on public lists.
You are, thus, also telling your users not to bother your beloved
Adaptec.
You're telling them what the binary which you worked on is the best
they are going to get.
I'm enabling FreeBSD
users to use the
I'm not stuffing anything down anyone's throats. I'm enabling FreeBSD
users to use the resources that are available to them. That's quite
different than cancelling developer work and threatening to remove a
driver due to a political dispute. Freedom isn't about coercing others
to
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I'm not stuffing anything down anyone's throats.
You are insulting me on public lists.
You are, thus, also telling your users not to bother your beloved
Adaptec.
You're telling them what the binary which you worked on is the best
they are going to get.
I'm enabling FreeBSD
Do you ask for the blueprints to the plane before you get onboard? Do
you demand that Ford or GM give you the source to the fuel ingector
computer before you get into a car? I'm saying that resources are out
there that will allow OpenBSD users to manage their RAID arrays RIGHT
NOW. No,
On Mar 19, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Scott is or was under NDA with Adaptec. Scott certainly is not in a
position to give away all of Adaptec's internal documentation.
Frankly, I doubt even the CEO of Adaptec would be free to simply give
away all of their internal docs-- Adaptec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ben Goren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
Ben Goren wrote:
On 2005 Mar 19, at 1:08 PM, Scott Long wrote:
Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights
by depriving them
-Original Message-
From: Charles Swiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 2:21 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Theo de Raadt; freebsd list
Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
I don't think Adaptec dictated terms to Intel vis-a-vis the i860
On Saturday, March 19, Scott Long wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Why do you keep discussing the free stuff, and distracting everyone
from the non-free bits?
Is it because you used to work for Adaptec? Are you paid to distract
people from the non-free code?
No, but you're paranoid
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I don't think Adaptec dictated terms to Intel vis-a-vis the i860 chips
used for hardware parity computation on some of their RAID cards, for
example. I don't think Adaptec dictated terms to Dell vis-a-vis the
PERC 4 series, either.
Whaat?
You don't offer freedom of choice, what you offer is a binary-only
solution, THAT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION, for that card. If you really did
stand for freedom of choice, then you would have started pushing to
open documentation way before this. Locking your users into only one
way of doing something
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:19:13 -0700, Theo de Raadt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you ask for the blueprints to the plane before you get onboard? Do
you demand that Ford or GM give you the source to the fuel ingector
computer before you get into a car? I'm saying that resources are out
there
On Mar 19, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
FreeBSD users.. also watch how Scott claims he is about freedom of
choice, yet proceeded to lock you into only one option for a RAID
card, which would seem to be anti-choice... and being pro-choice would
have pushed for open docs a long time ago.
I fail to see how this FUD check email has anything to do with the
fact that Scott locked all freebsd users to Adaptec's binary-only
management utility, which means the user IS NOT FREE to change
something on it to either work better, fix a bug, add a feature, or
just experiment, as well as just
On Mar 19, 2005, at 7:20 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
I fail to see how this FUD check email has anything to do with the
fact that Scott locked all freebsd users to Adaptec's binary-only
management utility, which means the user IS NOT FREE to change
something on it to either work better, fix a bug,
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 19:01, Jason Crawford wrote:
FreeBSD users.. also watch how Scott claims he is about freedom of
choice, yet proceeded to lock you into only one option for a RAID
card, which would seem to be anti-choice... and being pro-choice would
have pushed for open docs a long time
So something is only unacceptable if it has been previously talked
about on a freebsd mailing list? Wow that's one big ego there. If it
was acceptable, none of this would be happening, but it is. And it
would be A LOT easier to write an open source driver if Scott had
pushed to open the docs
On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
So something is only unacceptable if it has been previously talked
about on a freebsd mailing list? Wow that's one big ego there. If it
was acceptable, none of this would be happening, but it is. [ ... ]
You are the one making claims about what
I never claimed that it was freebsd users that found it unacceptable.
If you'll read my email, instead of just brushing through it, you'll
see there isn't a part where I say, this is unacceptable to freebsd
users. The fact that someone claims to support freedom of choice, and
then removes choice
Well spoken, Ben.
Very well spoken.
On 2005 Mar 19, at 1:21 PM, Scott Long wrote:
The hardware is tricky
to get right and there are bugs in different cards and different
firmware versions that often need to be worked around. It's all
documented in my driver, and I'm happy to share my
Charles Swiger wrote:
On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Sorry, did not find the sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli
See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/aac
Yep, definitely not the sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli.
- Marsh J. Ray
-Original Message-
From: Charles Swiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 3:43 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Theo de Raadt; freebsd list
Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
Maybe I was thinking of the PERC 3, then-- this one
61 matches
Mail list logo
