[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernt Hansson writes:
Your machine is NOT on the HCL list.
The lnc(4) driver supports the following adapters:
If the Ethernet card on the machine is supported, this implies that
the machine is supported (otherwise why mention the card?).
The lnc driver is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin McCann writes:
then stop complaining to a list of 'kiddies', and use that.
MS doesn't support FreeBSD.
Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
Bullshit, Anthony!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/SharedSourceCLI/
...Microsoft built the Shared Source
On 31 Mar Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
Please, control yourself Ted. It's /so/ quite lately ;-)
--
dick -- http://nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 4.11 ++ FreeBSD 5.3
+ Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin McCann writes:
then stop complaining to a list of 'kiddies', and use that.
MS doesn't support FreeBSD.
Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
Bullshit, Anthony!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/SharedSourceCLI/
...Microsoft built the
Anthony Atkielski skrev:
Someone must be running my machine, since it is mentioned on the 5.3
compatibility list.
Your machine is NOT on the HCL list.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Bernt Hansson writes:
Your machine is NOT on the HCL list.
The lnc(4) driver supports the following adapters:
* Novell NE2100
* Novell NE32-VL
* Isolan AT 4141-0 (16 bit)
* Isolan BICC
* Isolink 4110 (8 bit)
* Diamond HomeFree
* Digital DEPCA
* Hewlett Packard
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
Bullshit, Anthony!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/SharedSourceCLI/
...Microsoft built the Shared Source CLI to compile and run on FreeBSD
Unix as well as Windows XP...
See my comment on FreeBSD being supported on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
Yes, they do - I've got a Compaq professional workstation on my desk
at work which has a modded microcode in an Adaptec 2940U adapter card
(I know it's modded because the card will not work in any other
non-Compaq system, even where
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
The main point I've been trying to make is that just because FreeBSD's
drivers don't support whatever modification has been made in the Adaptec
code on the Vectra, does not mean that the FreeBSD driver is broken
or has a bug in it.
When something doesn't work, it's
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:23:46 +0200
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
The key point here, though, is that Windows apparently works correctly
with the firmware, whatever changes that firmware may contain.
FreeBSD does not. Therefore FreeBSD is broken.
Wrong. Windows does /not/ work correctly with the
dick hoogendijk writes:
Wrong. Windows does /not/ work correctly with the firmware if you let it
use it's own drivers (like FreeBSD does). /Both/ OS's choke then!
Sorry, but that's incorrect. For eight years I ran a completely standard
retail version of Windows NT on the machine, straight off
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
The main point I've been trying to make is that just because FreeBSD's
drivers don't support whatever modification has been made in the Adaptec
code on the Vectra, does not mean that the FreeBSD driver is broken
or has a bug in it.
When something
Chris writes:
I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq tweakes
in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken?
Because it works with Windows NT.
If MS does not support or have a driver for so-and-so app or hardware,
does it also mean Windows is broken?
No, but if
On Mar 27, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
Tell that to the MS developers then - perhaps they will listen to you.
Done.
What did they say?
Tell them to stop producing bloated code.
I've tried, but that is both a tendency of many developers (especially
PC developers) and a
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq tweakes
in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken?
Because it works with Windows NT.
If MS does not support or have a driver for so-and-so app or hardware,
does it also mean
On Mar 28, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris Warren writes:
I'm not an NT fan myself, but from reading your past posts, it seems
to
do everything you need far better than freebsd. Why not just stick
with
NT/2k? Just curious.
I wanted to diversify my experience.
In arguing?
On Mar 28, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
Yay! *claps*
Isn't that what Ted has been telling you to an extent - that it's the
HP/Compaq microcode in the drivers?
No. He and most other people have been trying to convince me that it's
defective hardware, and not a
On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq
tweakes
in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken?
Because it works with Windows NT.
If a machine with a gig of memory runs fine under DOS but actually has
a
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Chris wrote:
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq tweakes
in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken?
Because it works with Windows NT.
This whole thread is about ridiculous.
Does it work in XP? Does it
Bart Silverstrim writes:
What did they say?
MS developers are much like most other developers: it's never their
fault.
Isn't that how many FOSS projects get started...do some task more
efficiently and better?
FOSS?
Nope, but it sure makes it a lot simpler! Actually it helps hamper
Chris writes:
Ok - I'm about to set the game point and win this one. Anthony, you of
all people know that with NT 4, you have learned that one MUST read the
HCL (Hardware Compatability List) BEFORE you try to install. That being
said, you also know that if it aint on the HCL, you're SOL
Bart Silverstrim writes:
In arguing?
In operating systems, or more specifically, UNIX versions. I considered
installing Solaris, but it won't fit on my disks. I tried installing
Mandrake, but it refused to get past the splash screen on installation.
At least FreeBSD installed, although it
Bart Silverstrim writes:
I think, correct me if I'm wrong Ted (et al), that he's saying the
microcode in the hardware was modified, thus has a bug proprietary to
the HP implementation of that controller, and the driver/interface in
NT either didn't get the error or was *ignoring* the error,
Bart Silverstrim writes:
If a machine with a gig of memory runs fine under DOS but actually has
a bad big of memory hardware near the 512 meg address range, it would
probably still run flawlessly for a very very long time...
This machine has 384 MB of very expensive RAM, and all of it was
Duo writes:
Does it work in XP?
Probably, but I'm not going to spend hundreds of euro to find out for
sure.
Does it work in Linux?
I don't know. Mandrake seems to have a problem. I didn't try any of
the other 23,441 distros of Linux.
Does it work on an Apple Friggin IIe?
?
Point is, I
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:25:34PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
My point was that FreeBSD doesn't work on the machine. I wanted to know
why. I still don't know why it doesn't work on the machine. Apparently
nobody here really knows how FreeBSD works.
So you keep saying. It probably is
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
Ok - I'm about to set the game point and win this one. Anthony, you of
all people know that with NT 4, you have learned that one MUST read the
HCL (Hardware Compatability List) BEFORE you try to install. That being
said, you also know that if it aint on
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bart
Silverstrim
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:51 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay
In this case, the OS is defective, because it's
Chris writes:
No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH the
modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not.
Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative
humidity, and atmospheric pressure as well?
Again - I doubt that that perticulare Adaptec WITH
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 20:50 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH the
modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not.
Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative
humidity, and atmospheric
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
He is saying that the microcode was modified and that we speculate that
the mods contain a bug proprietary to the HP implementation of that
controller.
What makes it a _bug_? Why would the modified firmware contain a bug
... but not FreeBSD?
Or had whatever extra
Or had whatever extra code was needed for the microcode mods.
Yes, or approached the hardware in a way that made the modifications
irrelevant.
And how do you write software that will be able to communicate with
hardware, irrelevent of what changes have been made to that hardware?
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH the
modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not.
Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative
humidity, and atmospheric pressure as well?
Be realistic Anthony -
Is there any way you guys could take this idiotic conversation off-list?
It's a complete waste time for the vast majority of us.
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
What did they say?
MS developers are much like most other developers: it's never their
fault.
From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was
bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD
Martin McCann writes:
And how do you write software that will be able to communicate with
hardware, irrelevent of what changes have been made to that hardware?
The hardware and software must agree on a minimum set of standards.
--
Anthony
___
Chris writes:
Be realistic Anthony - you know full well that if an item is not listed,
its not supported.
But it _is_ listed.
And unsupported is not synonymous with doesn't work.
If' it's not listed - it's not supported - isnt that what MS drills into
its user base?
Only if they call for
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
I think, correct me if I'm wrong Ted (et al), that he's saying the
microcode in the hardware was modified, thus has a bug proprietary to
the HP implementation of that controller, and the driver/interface in
NT either
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
If a machine with a gig of memory runs fine under DOS but actually has
a bad big of memory hardware near the 512 meg address range, it would
probably still run flawlessly for a very very long time...
This machine has
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Duo writes:
Does it work on an Apple Friggin IIe?
?
Apple IIe? you've never heard of it?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH
the
modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not.
Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative
humidity, and atmospheric pressure as well?
Are
Bart Silverstrim writes:
From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was
bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD people were
immature children.
They do a much better job than the FreeBSD project does, no doubt about
that.
Is this evidence to the contrary,
Bart Silverstrim writes:
It's deduction.
It can't be. There's nothing to deduct from.
Tell me again what those messages said, exactly?
Really? I have a free program running on my NT machines, ntpdate I
believe is the name, that just hammers the registry with requests
constantly. I'd
On Mar 29, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
He is saying that the microcode was modified and that we speculate
that
the mods contain a bug proprietary to the HP implementation of that
controller.
What makes it a _bug_? Why would the modified firmware contain a
Bart Silverstrim writes:
That's nice. I wasn't talking about NT there. I was talking about
DOS.
I'm not running anything named DOS.
Command line, popular before Windows but after CP/M...maybe
you've heard of it?
I used to run a few operating systems by that name.
They're trying to help
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Apple IIe? you've never heard of it?
I used to use one. I've never heard of the Friggin variant, though.
--
Anthony
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Bart Silverstrim writes:
If it doesn't say, the list is referring to the generic
off-the-f'ing-shelf version.
I _have_ the generic, off-the-shelf version of this PC.
Very good. And if you take one of them whining about a problem, they
point at the list and say, Tough Sh*t.
No, they don't.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Are you really this obtuse or do you just play you are on the Internet?
You are dealing with someone who feels he is more right than anyone else
in the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD.
He drops his so called credentials (ive been in the biz for (fill in the
On Mar 29, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
It's deduction.
It can't be. There's nothing to deduct from.
Your description of the problem.
Tell me again what those messages said, exactly?
Can't. I didn't tell you the first time.
Really? I have a free program
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Um...because it took an adapter that generically had worked, but after
modifying it didn't?
It was referenced by an OS that generically worked, but then did not
after the modification of the adapter.
Note that it has not been established that any particularity of the
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
If it doesn't say, the list is referring to the generic
off-the-f'ing-shelf version.
I _have_ the generic, off-the-shelf version of this PC.
Very good. And if you take one of them whining about a problem, they
point at the list and say,
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
If it doesn't say, the list is referring to the generic
off-the-f'ing-shelf version.
I _have_ the generic, off-the-shelf version of this PC.
Very good. And if you take one of them whining about a problem, they
point at the list and say,
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Your description of the problem.
My description of the problem is very sparse, and even I did not reach
those conclusions.
It shouldn't be hammering the registry. It is. The system doesn't
seem to care, doesn't report any problem.
So why is it a problem?
I only
Can you guys please take this discussion off line.
Thanks!
--Nick
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 29 Mar Bart Silverstrim wrote:
You should go out and reinstall Windows on that server and leave this
list in peace.
He won't do that. I told this weeks ago. He comes off on this shit he
writes. You won't win this game. Why? 'Cause all of you use arguments
and Anthony simply is /not/ He
On 29 Mar Bart Silverstrim wrote:
You should go out and reinstall Windows on that server and leave this
list in peace.
He won't do that. I told this weeks ago. He comes off on this shit he
writes. You won't win this game. Why? 'Cause all of you use arguments
and Anthony simply is
as to why the damn slab
allocator is so dreadfully slow.
-Original Message-
From: Jerry McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dick Hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:50:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re
More supurb technical analysis from that wiz, Jerry. Nicely
done!
Glad you appreciated it.
jerry
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
Duo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, I think we should all do ourselves a favor, and kill this
thread.
I know it will be hard, Anthony will try really hard to say something
even
stupider, in a vain attempt to make us want to reply...but, there are
a
plethora of other things we could
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 22:16 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Martin McCann writes:
And how do you write software that will be able to communicate with
hardware, irrelevent of what changes have been made to that hardware?
The hardware and software must agree on a minimum set of standards.
I'm not that interested in running Linux. Linux is for kids.
This pretty much sums up your attitute. Most people on this list use the
right tool for the right job, they are not interested in labeling a
piece of code for 'adults' or for 'children'. I am sure IBM, SUN, and
plently of other
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was
bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD people were
immature children.
They do a much better job than the FreeBSD
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:03 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
It's deduction.
It can't be. There's nothing to deduct from.
Exactly, because you have time and time again refused to put any effort
into deducing anything. It, as you have said, is the fault of the
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:13 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
That's nice. I wasn't talking about NT there. I was talking about
DOS.
I'm not running anything named DOS.
Command line, popular before Windows but after CP/M...maybe
you've heard of it?
I
No, I was referring to the additional modularity and stability made
possible by the additional abstraction of a HAL.
Please explain this to me - I have had a lot of experience in OS design,
and would like you, who obviously from you remarks, have extensive OS
design knowledge, point out to
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:25 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Um...because it took an adapter that generically had worked, but after
modifying it didn't?
It was referenced by an OS that generically worked, but then did not
after the modification of the adapter.
In a final effort to resolve this issue -
It is widely agreed that anthony's issue lies in a custom chipset for
his hardware.
It is widely agreed that anthony is not willing to put any effort into
trying to verify this.
If is widely belivied that the person who could answer these queries
Martin McCann writes:
That is how standards work, and when a piece of hardware goes beyond
those standards either through design or mis-implementation, who is to
blame?
The hardware designer. But it has not been established that that is
happening here. Perhaps the hardware is not adhering
Martin McCann writes:
This pretty much sums up your attitute. Most people on this list use the
right tool for the right job, they are not interested in labeling a
piece of code for 'adults' or for 'children'.
The same is true for me. But there isn't anything I want or need to do
right now
Martin McCann writes:
then stop complaining to a list of 'kiddies', and use that.
MS doesn't support FreeBSD.
If you have never encountered the term FLOSS, you are not the open
source user you claim to be, it is a common term.
I've probably encountered it, I just didn't retain it. The IT
Martin McCann writes:
So, you start by demanding your individual problem is resoloved by a
list who has no responsibility to the upkeep of the software that has
given you issue?
I haven't demanded anything, I've simply asked.
You have repeated this time and time again. No-one is argueing
Martin McCann writes:
Please explain this to me - I have had a lot of experience in OS design,
and would like you, who obviously from you remarks, have extensive OS
design knowledge, point out to me how a HAL makes an OS inherintly more
stable than a system that writes its drivers for a
Martin McCann writes:
I doubt many people here would request a feature for MS, have it
granted, then forget what that feature was.
I have never considered it an especially significant event.
Well, you are showing many user traits, and not many sys admin traits.
I'm both a user and a
Martin McCann writes:
Therefore, in order to keep this list a sane and useful resource, I
would suggest that if anyone feels like answering anthonys queries, they
do it to his personal email address, so the rest of us might get on with
other issues ...
Why were your previous eight replies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
And to test with just one disk on the controller, specifically the
Seagate, but also with just the Quantum, to eliminate a possible bad
interaction between the disks and to eliminate possible incompatible
firmware in either of the disks to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
But the ahc() driver -is- bug free. It's not bug free when it's
running on modified hardware, but it's fine when it's running with
unmodded hardware.
It's also free of bugs if it's never called.
And you are criticizing others for
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
Or more likely - they never lost their second Seagate drive like you
did and never had HP send out a Quantum replacement?
I never lost a drive on the machine. I added a second drive after
purchasing it.
How could it be an OS bug if nobody else is seeing it on normal
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
Or more likely - they never lost their second Seagate drive like you
did and never had HP send out a Quantum replacement?
I never lost a drive on the machine. I added a second drive after
purchasing it.
How could it be an OS bug if nobody else
Chris writes:
Yay! *claps*
Isn't that what Ted has been telling you to an extent - that it's the
HP/Compaq microcode in the drivers?
No. He and most other people have been trying to convince me that it's
defective hardware, and not a deficiency of the operating system.
But defective
On Mon, 2005-28-03 at 16:21 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
But defective hardware is hardware that fails to do its job, and these
drives have done their jobs under Windows NT for eight years.
I'm not an NT fan myself, but from reading your past posts, it seems to
do everything you need far
Chris Warren writes:
I'm not an NT fan myself, but from reading your past posts, it seems to
do everything you need far better than freebsd. Why not just stick with
NT/2k? Just curious.
I wanted to diversify my experience.
--
Anthony
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by normal systems, but clearly there is
something about this system that FreeBSD is not written to handle.
Yay! *claps*
Isn't that what Ted has been telling you to an extent - that it's the
HP/Compaq microcode in the drivers?
I think
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
In a case like this it is very likely a BSD driver issue - why,
because the FreeBSD driver author could not test with every
custom-modified microcode when he wrote the driver. There is no list
out there of every computer company who has had a source license to
the
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
Actually it was a waste to you because you don't want to try anything,
but it wasn't a waste to others on the list.
It was a waste to me because nobody knows what the problem is or how to
fix it, and the only suggestions I got were that the hardware was
failing, which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
In a case like this it is very likely a BSD driver issue - why,
because the FreeBSD driver author could not test with every
custom-modified microcode when he wrote the driver. There is no list
out there of every computer company who has had a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
Actually it was a waste to you because you don't want to try
anything, but it wasn't a waste to others on the list.
It was a waste to me because nobody knows what the problem is or how
to fix it, and the only suggestions I got were that the
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
You also pay Microsoft for their stuff - makes a big difference ...
The rest of FreeBSD seems to have been written without any checks from
me.
... my guess if you contacted the ahc() developer and offered to pay
him the cost of an NT server license he would be more
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
If I have to worry about hurting the developer's delicate feelings,
maybe a new developer might be a good idea. I hoped to stop having to
deal with schoolkids when I got out of school. Good developers feel
morally obligated to deliver bug-free code and don't have to be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case if you meet the driver author halfway and don't approach
it like it's his driver that's broken, but rather that your hardware
isn't exactly compliant, (regardless of what you really believe) you
won't be put into the anal insertion category.
If I have to
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
And to test with just one disk on the controller, specifically the
Seagate, but also with just the Quantum, to eliminate a possible bad
interaction between the disks and to eliminate possible incompatible
firmware in either of the disks to that of the Adaptec
Chris writes:
Tell that to the MS developers then - perhaps they will listen to you.
Done.
Tell them to stop producing bloated code.
I've tried, but that is both a tendency of many developers (especially
PC developers) and a marketing imperative.
Code that allows every 12 year-old on the
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
But the ahc() driver -is- bug free. It's not bug free when it's running
on modified hardware, but it's fine when it's running with unmodded
hardware.
It's also free of bugs if it's never called.
Your complaint sounds somewhat like the guy who bought a 68 Mustang
No, I'll be told that as long as I'm dealing with children instead of
adults.
this is around the fith time recently you have either insinuated or
outright claimed that the participants of this mailing list are all
immature children. And yet you return time and time again asking for
help.
On Mar 22 at 17:05, Anthony Atkielski said:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
--
And when people are saying that it's more likely X but you insist it's Y
and you don't want to take the time to do Y because there are others
who should be more competent with it, what are you going
Colin J. Raven writes:
How much time have you lost _just_ within the context of this thread
alone?
Not very much, although it was virtually a total waste.
Everyone has attempted - with great diligence and considerable patience
- to *help* you.
Most have spent a lot of bandwidth on ad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I shouldn't have risen to this, but it's already gone from the
realms of
the sublime to the utterly absurd.
Colin,
After going back and forth on this problem for weeks, Anthony finally
posted the microcode version that his Adaptec controller is using. This
microcode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colin J. Raven writes:
How much time have you lost _just_ within the context of this thread
alone?
Not very much, although it was virtually a total waste.
Actually it was a waste to you because you don't want to try anything,
but it wasn't a waste to others on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris writes:
Your legacy hardware finally gave up the ghost...
Uh, no. The production server is about 90 days old, and state of the
art. The drives are brand new.
That is right around the time that brand new drives fail, if they are
going to, that is.
Modern
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:23:36 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris writes:
Your legacy hardware finally gave up the ghost...
Uh, no. The production server is about 90 days old, and state of the
art. The drives are brand new.
That is right
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
That is right around the time that brand new drives fail, if they are
going to, that is.
Well, I got a replacement drive today, so if this one fails, I have
another one standing by. I'll need to see more clear indications that
the drive is actually in trouble before
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
