Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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, wouldn't I be kinda screwed? I presumably would not be able to use the built in BIOS management software since there's no x86 to execute it and I assume the bootable management CDROM will not be bootable on a SPARC? The thought of rebooting a machine to check and deal with the health of an array is bad enough, but if I had to move the card and disks to another machine with an x86 in it would be beyond ridiculous. I use and have mostly used in the past UltraSPARC and macppc in addition to x86 with OpenBSD. Wouldn't management open source code or documentation be my best option for expensive cards which I would be willing to buy if I could actually know about and be proactive with the arrays health? Shane J Pearson ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 this (and today, FreeBSD has one 802.11g/a |driver -- and it uses binary bits). | | Yes, well, I prefer the former approach myself, but I am not going to | complain that Sam has written a wireless driver using binary firmware | rather than one that is completely open. I appreciate the work he's | done, even if I would like to see a completely open series of wireless | drivers. There's a problem with this approach. Vendors will see the efforts of developers using binary-only stuff. And it sends a message : These guys can use our stuff, they will buy our products, and we do not have to give out documentation. This makes it harder on developers and on users than need be. But since the vendor has seen that what they've done so far (releasing binary-only stuff, eg a linux-only program that can run on your BSD system via linux-emu (but only if you run on i386)) works for us, why should they then supply more information/documentation ? What is in it for them ? It works, doesn't it ? Why give the vendor such a hard time, they did their job, see this-and-that project can work it out, why can't you ? It's just like Windows. You buy hardware, run Windows, but have no idea what's going on. The vendor supplies the driver and all is well. However, we have an open source operating system. We can see the internals of the system, we can go in ourselves and fix bugs. We can take the code and port it to other architectures, port it to other operating systems, do whatever we want. This is what we want to do. We do not want to be tied into software we can not examine ourselves. Otherwise, why run BSD ? Why run Linux ? There's Windows for you, it comes with drivers so you do not have to write the code yourself, so you can not be bothered to read the code, to take it and port it or fix its bugs or adapt it to suit your needs. I decided long ago to use open source software. The longer I use it, the more I value the freedom open source software gives me. I therefore appreciate open sourced drivers. And I appreciate the time it takes the developers of my operating system to ask vendors for documentation, then take that documentation and use it to write those drivers. What value is there in trying to support a vendor that is unwilling to share the documentation the developers need to write drivers ? They don't support us, why should we support them ? It's sad that I spend money on hardware I later find is not supported. And of course, I would like to use this hardware rather sooner than later. But I would prefer that support to be open source. If that's not possible, then I'll just go support another vendor who truly supports open source. I'll toss out the unsupported hardware, tell my friends, family and co-workers not to buy stuff from that company and endorse the vendor that is willing to open up their stuff. This grass roots approach has turned out to be pretty succesful in the OpenBSD world. We now have a whole lot of drivers for wireless cards where we were unable to use most cards a year ago. Vendors have learned that they can make more sales if they open up their documentation so they are happy. The wireless card I bought last year now works, so I am happy. Others can take the code and make it work on their systems (hardware architecture/operating system) so they can be happy. I feel that this is in large parts due to Theo's approach (and the other developers) to this issue, so I thank them for it. At least now I know what RAID controller not to buy. Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd PS: that completely open series of wireless drivers you talked about is now available at your local OpenBSD mirror. Feel free to take it and port it to your prefered system. -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ pgpkLjBr1cPsX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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...? You've read that NDA and you know just what it says and what it covers? Prove it! You've failed to address the point. Do you claim that Adaptec is in a position to ignore an NDA they have with a company like Intel or Dell? The point is they obviously don't have an NDA with Intel since the programming docs for the i860 are open already. (at least the don't have an NDA that covers this aspect of their relationship, which is all we care about) 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 even a shred of evidence to justify them. As for your comments about my ethics, we can resume that discussion after you provide some evidence to show that your words are based in fact rather than empty claims made up on the spot to suit your argument. If you cannot or will not provide proof, Ted, attacking the credibility of others is rank hypocrisy. -- -Chuck PS: 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. You and others have asked why Adaptec isn't free to give you all of their internal documentation, and you've gotten an answer. If you don't like it or if you refuse to understand the circumstances, that's your problem, not mine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 use of it's own programming documentation. And you know this, because...? You've read that NDA and you know just what it says and what it covers? Prove it! You've failed to address the point. Do you claim that Adaptec is in a position to ignore an NDA they have with a company like Intel or Dell? The point is they obviously don't have an NDA with Intel since the programming docs for the i860 are open already. (at least the don't have an NDA that covers this aspect of their relationship, which is all we care about) 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 even a shred of evidence to justify them. Speaking of wild assertions with no evidence, why exactly do you keep making up rediculous excuses for a company that hates you? Why do you think that adaptec is special and had to sign NDAs with intel and dell(?!) to make the same products with the same chips that other vendors clearly didn't have to sign NDAs to make? If you understood the subject at hand, you would realize how rediculous your fairy tales are. There is absolutely no reason that adaptec cannot release documentation for their hardware. Nobody even needs to know how the intel chip works, just how to speak to the adaptec firmware. Adaptec doesn't want you to buy their hardware, and your reaction is to try to justify that stupidity for them, since they can't do it? If you like being shit on that's up to you, but don't tell us that we should like it too, or try to justify why adaptec thinks its customers are toilets. Adam ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 even a shred of evidence to justify them. Speaking of wild assertions with no evidence, why exactly do you keep making up rediculous excuses for a company that hates you? Good example! You've come up with another wild assertion. Adaptec doesn't hate me. Why would that company know me personally, much less have a strong negative opinion? Why do you think that adaptec is special and had to sign NDAs with intel and dell(?!) to make the same products with the same chips that other vendors clearly didn't have to sign NDAs to make? 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 NDA agreements which would prevent those companies from making every single internal document available to the public. There is absolutely no reason that adaptec cannot release documentation for their hardware. Nobody even needs to know how the intel chip works, just how to speak to the adaptec firmware. Let's pretend you're right, just for the sake of argument. Let's say that Adaptec could release all of their docs. You've given them an ultimatum, and they've said no. I've dealt with a few people who have told me do it my way, or else. I've chosen the or else part without any regret whatsoever: I make my own decisions, nobody else, and the people who have tried to control my decisions have gotten exactly nothing from me as a result. Nor will they, ever. Adaptec doesn't want you to buy their hardware, 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. Besides, I'm quite sure you're wrong: Adaptec wants me and other potential customers to buy their products, just as any other hardware vendor would. and your reaction is to try to justify that stupidity for them, since they can't do it? If you like being shit on that's up to you, but don't tell us that we should like it too, or try to justify why adaptec thinks its customers are toilets. You remind me of someone I knew once that went off the deep end into paranoid delusions. I once tried to explain to that person that, no, nobody was spying on me, or on him either. I think someone spying on me would be bored, quite frankly. Children learn to accept no in the process of growing up. They learn to deal with the world not giving them anything and everything the child might demand, the moment it is demanded. To use your crude metaphor, I tolerate-- not admire-- 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 than like ill-bred, spoiled children throwing temper tantrums when told no. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 they have demonstrated a serious lack of judgment. Consider: if Adaptec is bound to the sort of NDAs that you suggest, they'd be unable to sell to the military or NASA or other big institutions with RD departments that would want exactly what Theo is asking for himself. If true, it's just another nail in Adaptec's coffin. Cheers, b PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 is being discusssed is on the fringe, but people in this fringe circle buy or are involved in the purchases for a LOT of hardware. Much like if Cisco fucks up and someone brings note of it to NANOG. Then Cisco jumps. If Adaptec does not jump now, Adaptec is retarded.) Could be getting too late already. People don't forget so easy when they hear that hardware from vendor X doesn't work. Also, those of us who care about free software now associate Adaptec with problems. I have no pity for Adaptec. They have made their own bed. -Rick ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 NDA agreements which would prevent those companies from making every single internal document available to the public. Then you have no idea what you are talking about. Ask them, there is nothing special about their products that requires an NDA between them and their partners. The aren't saying they can't release the docs because of NDAs, so why are you making up such a rediculous excuse for them? You've given them an ultimatum, and they've said no. I've dealt with a few people who have told me do it my way, or else. I've chosen the or else part without any regret whatsoever: I make my own decisions, nobody else, and the people who have tried to control my decisions have gotten exactly nothing from me as a result. Nor will they, ever. No, they haven't said anything. Do you have even a basic grasp of what is going on? Adaptec was asked for info, they said we will stall for a long time and maybe give you something that might be close to what you want someday. So Theo is asking for Adaptec's customers to tell them that this matters. If Adaptec chooses to say no, then that's fine. They can lose all the business they want. In the mean time, everyone who wasted their money on adaptec hardware is free to tell adaptec that they are losing customers. I'm sorry if you feel that corporations should be shielded from critisism from their customers, but that's not how the world works. 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 info required to use their hardware. That prevents people from using it. So they obviously don't want people to buy their hardware. Either that or they don't realize its costing them money to be stupid like this, which is the entire point of this, demonstrating to them that this will cost them money. You remind me of someone I knew once that went off the deep end into paranoid delusions. I once tried to explain to that person that, no, nobody was spying on me, or on him either. I think someone spying on me would be bored, quite frankly. You remind me of an asskisser that thinks apologizing for, and making excuses for others will get you favour in some way. I doubt adaptec will give you anything for making retarded excuses for them that don't even make sense, so you can stop. If adaptec has a reason why they won't let people use their hardware, they can tell their customers what that reason is, they don't need you making up excuses. Children learn to accept no in the process of growing up. They learn to deal with the world not giving them anything and everything the child might demand, the moment it is demanded. And adults learn that businesses like money, and showing businesses how they will lose money by making certain decisions can effect those decisions. Maybe you should take some more time to understand what is actually happening instead of making snide remarks about what you wrongly percieve is happening. Adam ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 info required to use their hardware. That prevents people from using it. So they obviously don't want people to buy their hardware. This... [ ... ] And adults learn that businesses like money, and showing businesses how they will lose money by making certain decisions can effect those decisions. Maybe you should take some more time to understand what is actually happening instead of making snide remarks about what you wrongly percieve is happening. ...and this contradict each other. 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 exactly what Adaptec wants. If you want to draw valid conclusions, you need to start with valid premises. More precisely, if you assert A implies B, and A is shown to be false, you have demonstrated absolutely nothing about B. Of course, before you get to the point of being able to derive inferential conclusions using first-order logic, you need to be coherent enough to put together an argument which does not claim that A and not A are true at the same time. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adaptec AAC raid support
-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, 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 single internal document available to the public'. That is your own strawman. People do ask, however, that Adaptec makes enough documentation available to know when what commands to set to the chipset, and when to expect what to be returned. Especially if they themselves have not solved all bugs Let's pretend you're right, just for the sake of argument. Let's say that Adaptec could release all of their docs. Same deal; nobody ever asked they release 'all of their docs'. That is just your own twist. Besides, I'm quite sure you're wrong: Adaptec wants me and other potential customers to buy their products, just as any other hardware vendor would. In that case, Adaptec better get their act together. But I can assure you, and your Adaptec buddies, that, having followed this crazy discussion for too long, that I will never ever hereafter advise my boss to buy Adaptec any more. Not that they will feel the pinch, as I am just a small fish; but their attitude stinks up to high heaven. And yours too, I might add. Children learn to accept no in the process of growing up. News-flash: sometimes the customer says 'no' too; I hope they are grown-up enough to deal with that reality, too. :) They learn to deal with the world not giving them anything and everything the child might demand, the moment it is demanded. And if you want children to play with your toys, then you should tell them how they work! Otherwise, pretty soon you'll be sitting there all alone, with your big box of hardware, and all kids shunning you like the plague. /RANT - Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 single internal document available to the public'. That is your own strawman. People do ask, however, that Adaptec makes enough documentation available to know when what commands to set to the chipset, and when to expect what to be returned. Especially if they themselves have not solved all bugs I didn't create a strawman argument, you can go read what what was said yourself. Please refer to this exchange between Theo and Scott in Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED], which ended with: No, I can't now and never could before give out docs, but I've always been happy to help, review code, point out bugs, etc. Why is it that Scott cannot release the docs being referred to here? I'll give you a hint: what is a three-letter word which limits an employee from releasing information proprietary to his current or former employer? Theo demanded information from Adaptec and from Scott. He got told no. [ At least Theo seems to understand the situation, or to use his own words: Noone thought to talk to you. You are, I am sure, under a non-disclosure agreement with Adaptec, and I am sure you would therefore not give us documentation. We are quite used to FreeBSD and Linux people signing NDA's by now ] -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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, then? According to your words, that's exactly what Adaptec wants. Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. Nobody is trying to convince people not to buy adaptec hardware. Adaptec has convinced people themselves. Those people are just informing Adaptec of that fact. Why are you so desperate to try to stop other people's efforts to obtain information? Nobody is asking you to do anything. You are free to use whatever you want. Just stop spreading lies and misinformation about other people's efforts that you clearly don't understand. Adam ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 exactly what Adaptec wants. Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. I can't make sense of nonsense, but that proves nothing about my reading skills. You've done a careful job of excerpting prior context away to avoid demonstrating the contradiction your words show. Do you recognize the author who inspired by remark about A and not A? Who was it that said Non-contradiction...A is A? Nobody is trying to convince people not to buy adaptec hardware. Adaptec has convinced people themselves. Those people are just informing Adaptec of that fact. And dropping AAC support from OpenBSD 3.7 has nothing to do with it...? Such a claim is disingenuous and dishonest. Why are you so desperate to try to stop other people's efforts to obtain information? I hope open source projects obtain more information from hardware vendors. I oppose efforts to force people to make choices they would not willingly make themselves. That includes the right of a company to keep some information private if they so choose. Nobody is asking you to do anything. You are free to use whatever you want. Just stop spreading lies and misinformation about other people's efforts that you clearly don't understand. First you say you aren't asking me to do anything, yet two sentences later you try to tell me to stop doing something you claim I'm doing. Contradicting yourself again? Hypocracy isn't one of your prettier failings, Adam. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 than like ill-bred, spoiled children throwing temper tantrums when told no. snip / Adam, all -- 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 the right to shit on the misc list. Trolls are not interested in understanding the opposite party's point of view or resolving outstanding questions, they're interested in scoring points and keeping you occupied -- like in somebody's sig here, it's like mud-wrestling a pig: You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it. We defeat the British Empire by ignoring it. Our only weapon is our refusal. rdr on misc proto smtp from cswiger to any recipient - gnaa.us Thanks and regards, Jens Ropers www.ropersonline.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 the right to shit on the misc list. Trolls are not interested in understanding the opposite party's point of view or resolving outstanding questions, they're interested in scoring points and keeping you occupied -- like in somebody's sig here, it's like mud-wrestling a pig: You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it. Point of fact: I've never posted an unsolicited message to an OpenBSD list. I'm responding to threads which appear in my inbox because Theo and others have decided to cross-post between [EMAIL PROTECTED] and freebsd-questions@freebsd.org. In fact, Theo has started cross-posting additional threads, and he has rejected Tomas Quintero's simple request that he stop changing Subject: headers-- see Message-ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- in which he asserts that this discussion is entirely useful, and that: Try and keep your subjects together so I can archive them more easily and not be forced to read over more. If anything, this sort of email belongs entirely on your misc lists, not the freebsd lists. It belongs whereveer there are people who care about being able to have drivers for their hardware. I don't read [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I'm not the one starting new threads. Your objections to trolling are well-taken, but directed at the wrong person. If you acknowledge these facts, a retraction would be accepted. If you disagree with the facts as presented, I suggest asking a disinterested third-party and gaining a second opinion. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 you know this, because...? You've read that NDA and you know just what it says and what it covers? Are you really stupid or are you just pretending to be really stupid? Do you even know what an NDA is for? An NDA prevents someone from talking about what are regarded as trade secrets. In the case of Adaptec supplying Dell with controllers, Dell does not have trade secrets that they would be giving to Adaptec. Instead, Adaptec would be the one presenting the 'trade secrets' to Dell in the form of programming info, thus Adaptec would be issuing the NDA to Dell, not the other way around. If you cannot understand this then there's no point in discussing it further with you, as you quite obviously have no idea what an NDA is. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 end user to pick which card they want to buy. You can not go back and undone support for something you have listed! Sorry. Besides not having raid management, the driver is rather buggy. You know, over the years that I worked for Adaptec and worked on the FreeBSD AAC driver, lots of other people contacted me for help with making their AAC driver work with their OS. Strangely, not once did you or anyone else from OpenBSD contact me. Nate perhaps did. But why should we know that an NDA-singing FreeBSD person is our contact, when over the years, even the people at Adaptec did not tell us so? I would have been happy to help. Heck, I might have even ported the management app (AACCLI, not a GUI, btw) for you like I did for FreeBSD. Barring that, I would have been happy to show you how to do the linux compat shims for the driver so that you could use the Linux AACCLI on OpenBSD. But no, you never contacted me. We do not want a binary tool. Neither our developers, nor our users. We like free software. I think your whole rant here is bunk. You're more concerned about petty bullying and showing everyone how important you are. Your treatment of Doug is downright shameful, and I plan to call him and discuss it Monday morning. If Adaptec puts out an SDK later this year then good for them, but I highly doubt that it will be as a result of your antics. You could have had good AAC support years ago if you had just bothered to look around and use your resources, but instead you chose not to. Delete the driver and screw your users over some more. Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 slag me, instead of calling you your buddy Doug and saying Hey, these guys have a point, and you really ought to sell it to Adaptec management, since you are the guy who can make this change, as you already told Theo and others four months previously that you were the guy that could. But no. Scott Long goes and slags the people who are taking a different approach. Scott, you do NOT stand for free software. You only stand for whatever works. At least I am consistant in standing up for Free Software, and it has been working very well. I've freed up TONS of chipsets. What have you freed up lately? You work on RAID drivers, lots and lots of them, and you have not freed up ONE management interface. Why? I don't know. Has slagging me in public forums gotten you closer to opening up a RAID management interface? Nope. It has not. Was it fun? ps. When are you replacing the binary Atheros driver you have with the free one that we have reverse engineered? One that could be worked on by lots of people to make it better and better, unlike that .o file you ship. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 projects-- including OpenBSD-- regardless, but this sort of thing: 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 their customers via us. Maybe they can repair this horrid situation enough that we will once again support their controllers by the time OpenBSD 3.8 ships in November. ...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. Otherwise, you're likely to discover that most people choose to run an OS which works with the hardware they have, rather than sticking with OpenBSD. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 releasing just documentation would lose them so much business that it's worth losing all this business. Jason On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:21:19 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Crawford wrote: The problem is that the AAC driver doesn't work. My 3.6-stable dell poweredge server with that raid controller crashes at least once a week because of the raid controller driver. There is nothing wrong with fighting for something that you want, and neither you nor Doug have been that helpful. All Doug did was give Theo the run-around by saying, don't worry, we'll be coming out with all new stuff! Which he neglected to mention that they wouldn't be opening documentation for either, at least enough to write a stable driver and management utility. Adaptec would not be losing any money for just releasing enough docs to let someone else write their own driver and management utility TO USE ADAPTEC'S HARDWARE. They'd be generating more business. This attitude so far has been quite productive, the OpenBSD community has gotten many wireless firmware's and drivers completely open, not to mention Theo getting the FSF award. I'd say that is pretty damn productive. Jason If the OpenBSD driver is buggy, then ask for help. I don't normally monitor the OpenBSD mailing lists and I don't run it at home, so I have no idea what the state of it is. I do, however, answer email from developers from other projects who contact me. 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 knowledge. Scott On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:08:06 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adam wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:34:09 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have been happy to help. Heck, I might have even ported the management app (AACCLI, not a GUI, btw) for you like I did for FreeBSD. Barring that, I would have been happy to show you how to do the linux compat shims for the driver so that you could use the Linux AACCLI on OpenBSD. But no, you never contacted me. Does everyone who's worked at adaptec have such big problems with reading comprehension? Nobody wants a maybe working, cludgy, binary only tool. How would giving the developers something they don't want be considered helping? Adam I can't see how the All Or Nothing attitude here is productive. Good, 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, pissing him off really won't produce results. Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights by depriving them of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything that you want? 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. Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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: 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 releasing just documentation would lose them so much business that it's worth losing all this business. Jason On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:21:19 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Crawford wrote: The problem is that the AAC driver doesn't work. My 3.6-stable dell poweredge server with that raid controller crashes at least once a week because of the raid controller driver. There is nothing wrong with fighting for something that you want, and neither you nor Doug have been that helpful. All Doug did was give Theo the run-around by saying, don't worry, we'll be coming out with all new stuff! Which he neglected to mention that they wouldn't be opening documentation for either, at least enough to write a stable driver and management utility. Adaptec would not be losing any money for just releasing enough docs to let someone else write their own driver and management utility TO USE ADAPTEC'S HARDWARE. They'd be generating more business. This attitude so far has been quite productive, the OpenBSD community has gotten many wireless firmware's and drivers completely open, not to mention Theo getting the FSF award. I'd say that is pretty damn productive. Jason If the OpenBSD driver is buggy, then ask for help. I don't normally monitor the OpenBSD mailing lists and I don't run it at home, so I have no idea what the state of it is. I do, however, answer email from developers from other projects who contact me. 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 knowledge. Scott On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:08:06 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adam wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:34:09 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have been happy to help. Heck, I might have even ported the management app (AACCLI, not a GUI, btw) for you like I did for FreeBSD. Barring that, I would have been happy to show you how to do the linux compat shims for the driver so that you could use the Linux AACCLI on OpenBSD. But no, you never contacted me. Does everyone who's worked at adaptec have such big problems with reading comprehension? Nobody wants a maybe working, cludgy, binary only tool. How would giving the developers something they don't want be considered helping? Adam I can't see how the All Or Nothing attitude here is productive. Good, 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, pissing him off really won't produce results. Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights by depriving them of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything that you want? 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. Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 the tool is a binary. The interface tunnel is coded in the driver, so that the closed binary tool can talk through to the card. The messages exchanged are not documented, either. Same thing. You are saying There are open bits and I am saying There are closed bits This whole thing is about the closed bits, not about the open bits. Why do you keep apologizing for Adaptec, and attacking our efforts? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 write their own management utility buy just releasing some documentation could hurt in any way. Please, someone answer me, how is not releasing JUST DOCUMENATION, to let a community support themselves, AND BUY YOU'RE HARDWARE, worth losing all this business. Jason On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:29:36 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Scott Jason Crawford wrote: 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 releasing just documentation would lose them so much business that it's worth losing all this business. Jason On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:21:19 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Crawford wrote: The problem is that the AAC driver doesn't work. My 3.6-stable dell poweredge server with that raid controller crashes at least once a week because of the raid controller driver. There is nothing wrong with fighting for something that you want, and neither you nor Doug have been that helpful. All Doug did was give Theo the run-around by saying, don't worry, we'll be coming out with all new stuff! Which he neglected to mention that they wouldn't be opening documentation for either, at least enough to write a stable driver and management utility. Adaptec would not be losing any money for just releasing enough docs to let someone else write their own driver and management utility TO USE ADAPTEC'S HARDWARE. They'd be generating more business. This attitude so far has been quite productive, the OpenBSD community has gotten many wireless firmware's and drivers completely open, not to mention Theo getting the FSF award. I'd say that is pretty damn productive. Jason If the OpenBSD driver is buggy, then ask for help. I don't normally monitor the OpenBSD mailing lists and I don't run it at home, so I have no idea what the state of it is. I do, however, answer email from developers from other projects who contact me. 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 knowledge. Scott On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:08:06 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adam wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:34:09 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have been happy to help. Heck, I might have even ported the management app (AACCLI, not a GUI, btw) for you like I did for FreeBSD. Barring that, I would have been happy to show you how to do the linux compat shims for the driver so that you could use the Linux AACCLI on OpenBSD. But no, you never contacted me. Does everyone who's worked at adaptec have such big problems with reading comprehension? Nobody wants a maybe working, cludgy, binary only tool. How would giving the developers something they don't want be considered helping? Adam I can't see how the All Or Nothing attitude here is productive. Good, 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, pissing him off really won't produce results. Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights by depriving them of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything that you want? 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. Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 ports/sysutils/aaccli Sorry, did not find the sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli No source! Let's look closer http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/aaccli/Makefile MASTER_SITES= http://download.adaptec.com/raid/ccu/freebsd/ DISTNAME= 5400s_fbsd_cli_v10 EXTRACT_SUFX= .zip ... RESTRICTED= May not be redistributed in binary form NO_CDROM= yes So there is a file somewhere that is a .zip file. It may not be put onto the official FreeBSD CDs (so obviously not OpenBSD CDs either) That's not really free is it. Let's look closer % ftp http://download.adaptec.com/raid/ccu/freebsd/5400s_fbsd_cli_v10.zip Trying 216.200.68.139... Requesting http://download.adaptec.com/raid/ccu/freebsd/5400s_fbsd_cli_v10.zip 100% || 565 KB 00:03 Successfully retrieved file. % unzip 5400s_fbsd_cli_v10.zip Archive: 5400s_fbsd_cli_v10.zip inflating: TRANS.TBL inflating: aaccli-1.0_0.tgz % tar xvfz aaccli-1.0_0.tgz +CONTENTS +COMMENT +DESC +POST-INSTALL bin/aaccli % file bin/aaccli bin/aaccli: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1, for FreeBSD 4.4, statically linked, not stripped That's a binary. Where is the source? Why do you keep talking about some Management binary? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 of thing: No, Scott is the person standing in the way of us and the RAID vendors by -- 1) insulting our (often very successful efforts) to free things -- in public forums 2) by signing NDA's with vendors so that those vendors who then come to believe that we should be signing NDA's too. 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 this (and today, FreeBSD has one 802.11g/a driver -- and it uses binary bits). 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 their customers via us. Maybe they can repair this horrid situation enough that we will once again support their controllers by the time OpenBSD 3.8 ships in November. ...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. Counter productive? About 6 years ago we did this with Qlogic because their firmware images were not free enough to ship in our releases, and after 6 months of wasting our time and being stalemated, we informed Qlogic and our user community (as well as YOUR user community) that we were removing the support for their controllers. A few days later the firmware was free. But now Scott --- one of your leading developers, and a previous Adaptec employee --- goes public and says that our efforts should not be assisted. What's in it for him? Otherwise, you're likely to discover that most people choose to run an OS which works with the hardware they have, rather than sticking with OpenBSD. We have no problem. People run non-free software all the time, such as Windows or the FreeBSD binary-only aaccli. It does not fit our principles though. But Scott feels that is reason to slag us. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/pds.cgi?ports/sysutils/aaccli Sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli Sorry, did not find the sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli No source! See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/aac -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 74199 Sep 22 2003 aac.c -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 14939 Apr 8 2003 aac_cam.c -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1554 Apr 30 2002 aac_cam.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2495 Sep 19 2001 aac_compat.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 18740 Jan 11 2003 aac_debug.c -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 9665 Sep 2 2003 aac_disk.c -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6670 Sep 19 2001 aac_ioctl.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2846 Mar 28 2003 aac_linux.c -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 8894 Mar 31 2004 aac_pci.c -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4040 Dec 3 2001 aac_tables.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 37646 Apr 8 2003 aacreg.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 17746 Apr 8 2003 aacvar.h % less aac.c /*- * Copyright (c) 2000 Michael Smith * Copyright (c) 2001 Scott Long * Copyright (c) 2000 BSDi * Copyright (c) 2001 Adaptec, Inc. * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF * SUCH DAMAGE. * * $FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/aac/aac.c,v 1.9.2.16 2003/09/17 09:11:40 scottl Exp $ */ /* * Driver for the Adaptec 'FSA' family of PCI/SCSI RAID adapters. */ [ ... ] -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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. Adaptec isn't one person, it isn't Doug Richardson or any other single individual. They do make a whole lot of stupid mistakes and close doors on opportunities, but there is no reason to vilify Doug for it. No, you don't vilify Doubg, but instead, you prefer to vilify me on public posting sites like osnews.com Great, Scott, just great. You don't know the difference between free software and binary software. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
...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 remove AAC support from GENERIC, because users know what is in GENERIC is supposed to be stable and a good candidate for use. I've got AAC's. They aren't at the moment. they die, and you can't do anything with the raid management without rebooting, and Adaptec has shown no signs of releasing documentation so that situation can be corrected. Sure, there's a free driver, and a non-free management interface, so it's only half a driver. Pretending to have a production system using a raid card that with no supportable management interface so you have to reboot to fix anything is like buying birth control pills in packs of 20. Pretty soon you're going to take a good fucking on a day you really can't afford it. Period. As such AAC isnt' any more broken than it ever was. OpenBSD just chooses not to encourage users to purchase a non-supportable card by including support for it in the GENERIC kernel. Are you saying it's more honest to leave unstable and incomplete support in there? People who wish to use it anyway can always compile it in. Otherwise, you're likely to discover that most people choose to run an OS which works with the hardware they have, rather than sticking with OpenBSD. Or choose to replace the hardware that isn't supportable by the OS they want to run. Thank you LSI and Dell. LSI cards seem to work fine. -Bob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 TOP_FREEBSD_MEMBER_1 saying TOP_OPENBSD_MEMBER_1 is full of crap, and then TOP_OPEN_BSD_MEMBER_1 comes back and says How dare you and starts antagonizing TOP_FREEBSD_MEMBER_1 (on the FreeBSD mailing list, in fact; in full view of everyone, instead of privately), it makes me wonder, how the hell is this community ever going to get taken seriously? Heck, how's it going to keep going if the top members are volatile, vitriolic children who can't keep personal attacks out of what should be a purely technical or philosophical debate? So, for love of all that's civil, do you think you could tone it down a bit, or at least take your personal hatred of each other out of a public mailing list where it has no place? Yeah, I know, You're new here, aren't you /rimshot ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 their customers via us. Maybe they can repair this horrid situation enough that we will once again support their controllers by the time OpenBSD 3.8 ships in November. ...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. Otherwise, you're likely to discover that most people choose to run an OS which works with the hardware they have, rather than sticking with OpenBSD. Well, I have to step up here... As a developer, I totally support Theo's threat to remove support for aac(4). If the hardware cannot be functionally used with all it's features, we cannot tell we support it. Especially when there are still bugs impeding reliability and that we cannot guarantee on improving it because we don't have any supporting documentation. Concerning the driver removal for release, I just did that for FireWire support because I didn't want to lie to our users. As it was unreliable and that it didn't support a minimum set of devices, I preferred removing that unmaintained code... This doesn't mean it will never be supported, but just not now. For aac(4), if we don't get more than distant future promises, why should we tempt our users in buying some hardware that could make them loose fortunes in data because they will not be notified of disk failures ? We don't have to take that responsibility... \\Thierry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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, pissing him off really won't produce results. Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights by depriving them of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything that you want? 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. Actually Scott it's rather simple, As long as projects are willing to have someone sign an NDA and be a shill for the vendors, you end up with vendors who wish to hide everything behind an NDA and produce binary only stuff. I as a user don't want that, and plain and simple, I just bought 27 LSI cards for that reason - I don't want to wait for non-free support to show up, and I don't want to have to wedge in some binary only thing after the fact. I want it to work with the OS, and be installed with it. When vendors have the option to close their product and have some few designated souls who will act as their shills and put in a non-free layer for a free os, then they don't release docs, and everyone suffers with poor support - with a driver that doesn't work by default in the OS, because it can't be included. With a driver that isn't redistributable in commercial spinoffs, because it can't be included. With a driver that I can't install onto, because it can't be included on the install sets. Basically, the binary only closed source nda stuff sucks, just like the altheros driver. I don't see supporting a verdor making a decision to NDA their product by finding ways to sneak non-free support in as productive, Actually, I see that this harms the free community, and harms it an awful lot. because now this vendor instead of providing documentation so the free community can truly have community support for this product, gets to pay lip service to the free os world and say sure we are supported by free operating systems when really they aren't. Involving the user community makes sure the user community knows what the score is, and knows what products to buy (case in point, my recent purchase of 27 LSI adapters, rather than Adaptec). I think letting the user community believe that a company is fully supportive of free operating systems when they really are not is dishonest to the user community, and screws them in the end when they make bad purchasing decisions. I think a company has every right to have a closed source, binary only driver. I think the user community has the right to know about that, ask for better, and if they don't like it, know to vote with their feet. I for one don't want to see a situation where I can't install an OS on a scsi controller without resorting to 3rd party special license packages, or at least, not on a controller I've paid good money for. -Bob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 asking for driver specs, then they are welcome to come ask me for info. My point is that I'm offering direct help in this area. My suspicion is that political goals are more important than making the driver work. A driver without the management portion of it is really crippled, it's incomplete, at that point, why run it? you're just asking to get hosed at the wrong time. While I appreciate the offer to help fix the half driver, we need the other half for it to be really something we should be including in GENERIC and telling users they should buy and run -Bob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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-- including OpenBSD-- regardless, but this sort of thing: No, Scott is the person standing in the way of us and the RAID vendors by -- 1) insulting our (often very successful efforts) to free things -- in public forums 2) by signing NDA's with vendors so that those vendors who then come to believe that we should be signing NDA's too. 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 undoubtedly has NDA obligations with their partners, chip suppliers, and so forth, which constrains what they can make public. None of this should be surprising. None of this means that Scott wants you to sign NDAs. It may be the case that _Adaptec_ wants an NDA before releasing the information you've asked for, in which case you can accept or refuse to do so as you please. Scott != Adaptec. 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 this (and today, FreeBSD has one 802.11g/a driver -- and it uses binary bits). Yes, well, I prefer the former approach myself, but I am not going to complain that Sam has written a wireless driver using binary firmware rather than one that is completely open. I appreciate the work he's done, even if I would like to see a completely open series of wireless drivers. ...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. Counter productive? About 6 years ago we did this with Qlogic because their firmware images were not free enough to ship in our releases, and after 6 months of wasting our time and being stalemated, we informed Qlogic and our user community (as well as YOUR user community) that we were removing the support for their controllers. A few days later the firmware was free. Getting into a fight and winning is better than getting into a fight and losing. However, perhaps you might consider that if you can obtain what you want without getting into needless conflicts, we'd all spend our time doing more productive things than squabbling. But now Scott --- one of your leading developers, and a previous Adaptec employee --- goes public and says that our efforts should not be assisted. What's in it for him? It must be a conspiracy, huh? A paranoic could come up with all sorts of nefarious reasons, but the truth is probably much more prosaic. Otherwise, you're likely to discover that most people choose to run an OS which works with the hardware they have, rather than sticking with OpenBSD. We have no problem. People run non-free software all the time, such as Windows or the FreeBSD binary-only aaccli. It does not fit our principles though. But Scott feels that is reason to slag us. I very much doubt that Scott was slagging you in reaction to OpenBSD's desire to remain completely pure open source. I hope you and the OpenBSD developers can get the information you need to work with all of the hardware that your project wants to support. But the hardware vendors aren't obligated to meet your demands, any more than you are obligated to sign an NDA that you don't want to sign. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 AAC raid controllers alone, along with probably lots of other Adaptec hardware that won't be upgraded to future Adaptec prodcuts. On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:30:55 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob Beck wrote: 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, pissing him off really won't produce results. Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights by depriving them of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything that you want? 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. Actually Scott it's rather simple, As long as projects are willing to have someone sign an NDA and be a shill for the vendors, you end up with vendors who wish to hide everything behind an NDA and produce binary only stuff. I as a user don't want that, and plain and simple, I just bought 27 LSI cards for that reason - I don't want to wait for non-free support to show up, and I don't want to have to wedge in some binary only thing after the fact. I want it to work with the OS, and be installed with it. When vendors have the option to close their product and have some few designated souls who will act as their shills and put in a non-free layer for a free os, then they don't release docs, and everyone suffers with poor support - with a driver that doesn't work by default in the OS, because it can't be included. With a driver that isn't redistributable in commercial spinoffs, because it can't be included. With a driver that I can't install onto, because it can't be included on the install sets. Basically, the binary only closed source nda stuff sucks, just like the altheros driver. I don't see supporting a verdor making a decision to NDA their product by finding ways to sneak non-free support in as productive, Actually, I see that this harms the free community, and harms it an awful lot. because now this vendor instead of providing documentation so the free community can truly have community support for this product, gets to pay lip service to the free os world and say sure we are supported by free operating systems when really they aren't. Involving the user community makes sure the user community knows what the score is, and knows what products to buy (case in point, my recent purchase of 27 LSI adapters, rather than Adaptec). I think letting the user community believe that a company is fully supportive of free operating systems when they really are not is dishonest to the user community, and screws them in the end when they make bad purchasing decisions. I think a company has every right to have a closed source, binary only driver. I think the user community has the right to know about that, ask for better, and if they don't like it, know to vote with their feet. I for one don't want to see a situation where I can't install an OS on a scsi controller without resorting to 3rd party special license packages, or at least, not on a controller I've paid good money for. -Bob What part of the FreeBSD AAC driver is closed, emcumbered, or otherwise non-free? Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 binary only tool downloaded from the Dell web site? Are you being obtuse on purpose? Why don't you admit it. FreeBSD relies on non-free binary code for Adaptec raid management. You can't even put it onto a FreeBSD distribution CD. 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? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adaptec AAC raid support
their FreeBSD Adaptec drivers are performing on their hardware, you don't get this rosy picture that you seem to like to paint. Both of them posted problems in the FreeBSD questions forum recently and I didn't see you responding to either of them. It is inexcusable for a hardware vendor to not provide programming specs. PC hardware has always been sold in the past based on marketing and positioning, for all the bake-offs and such that are held claiming one chipset is better than another, the market leaders in hardware are the ones that cut OEM deal after OEM deal. That is how Adaptec got as big as they are, and there's been plenty of times in the past that their competitors have had faster and better product. And their competitors have spent the enormous sums to reverse-engineer the Adaptec products anyway to find out all the go-fast tricks. Denying programming specs does not in any way help to shield their hardware secrets from competitors, all it does it make it impossible to write open source drivers, and it hides any dumb mistakes they made in designing their hardware. Adaptec has a LONG way to go before they are a friend of the Open Source movement. Ted Mittelstaedt Author, The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/ -Original Message- 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 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 the tool is a binary. The interface tunnel is coded in the driver, so that the closed binary tool can talk through to the card. The messages exchanged are not documented, either. Same thing. You are saying There are open bits and I am saying There are closed bits This whole thing is about the closed bits, not about the open bits. Why do you keep apologizing for Adaptec, and attacking our efforts? ___ 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: Adaptec AAC raid support
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, without using a binary only tool downloaded from the Dell web site? Are you being obtuse on purpose? Why don't you admit it. FreeBSD relies on non-free binary code for Adaptec raid management. Yes, I admit this. And people thank me all the time for it. You can't even put it onto a FreeBSD distribution CD. 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 and refusing help. Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adaptec AAC raid support
-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 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 undoubtedly has NDA obligations with their partners, chip suppliers, and so forth, which constrains what they can make public. This is bullcrap. Adaptec is quite obviously the single largest customer of any of those chip partners. If they told those partners they wern't going to sign an NDA those partners would say How high do you want me to jump, sir But the hardware vendors aren't obligated to meet your demands, This is also bullcrap. The hardware vendors are obligated to support THEIR customers who have bought product from them. Some of those customers want to run OpenBSD. Therefore the hardware vendors are obligated to get off their fat asses and work with the OpenBSD people regardless of how they may personally like or dislike 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: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 a pretty big mistake over the last 6 months by not letting us talk to whoever pulls the strings. He said I was talking to the person who could and would change things. So you are talking out of your ass, Scott. There is no personal attack happening against Doug Richardson. We have simply found the conduit for users to express their grievances. As they say: The best customer is the one who complains. Well I have done the discovery process to find out where the customers can complain. To Doug Richardson. Not to some front line Adaptec apologist who cannot add up the controllers being mentioned and realize that 1,800 controllers so far is a hell of a lot of money, and that now that this is being discussed in public, they had better solve this. And how many more people have learned from this and will avoid Adaptec products? (perhaps these circles where it is being discusssed is on the fringe, but people in this fringe circle buy or are involved in the purchases for a LOT of hardware. Much like if Cisco fucks up and someone brings note of it to NANOG. Then Cisco jumps. If Adaptec does not jump now, Adaptec is retarded.) Scott, do you own Adaptec stock? I just cannot explain why you would attack me, and apologize for Adaptec's behaviour. Are you on drugs? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adaptec AAC raid support
-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 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 TOP_FREEBSD_MEMBER_1 saying TOP_OPENBSD_MEMBER_1 is full of crap, and then TOP_OPEN_BSD_MEMBER_1 comes back and says How dare you and starts antagonizing TOP_FREEBSD_MEMBER_1 (on the FreeBSD mailing list, in fact; in full view of everyone, instead of privately), it makes me wonder, how the hell is this community ever going to get taken seriously? If this didn't happen, Bnonn, every once in a while I WOULDN'T take EITHER of them seriously. Yeah, I know, You're new here, aren't you /rimshot :-) Everyone is new every once is a while. The fact that both of them care enough to get mad about it proves that they have what it takes to sit down and produce something usable. The people that don't care enough to get riled up, are the kinds of clock-punchers who's work will never amount to anything. Why do you think that Microsoft's stuff is so poor? Most of the people working there care about personal job security, health insurance, compensation, sabatticals and other perks first. The actual products they are working on come far down on the list in importance. That is why you will never see a Microsoft developer make these kinds of personal attacks on a mailing list. They simply don't really give a damn. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 resources that are available to them. By attacking my efforts, you are telling them that the aaccli you worked on is the best they are going to get, and that participating with what I am doing is foolish. That's quite different than cancelling developer work and threatening to remove a driver due to a political dispute. The driver is not shipping because traction must be gained against a vendor who you are apologizing for. Freedom isn't about coercing others to believe the same things that I believe. Freedom is something one fights for. Freedom is not something that just happens. Freedom is something that happens when someone puts their toes out there, with a stance, an attempt, a struggle. Freedom is not something that happens when Scott long makes apologies for Adaptec and slags Theo on public sites ... when Theo decides to use his project to take action against non-freedom from a vendor. I am trying to do something to create greater freedom. You are not helping with my effort. Nor are you are not standing on the sidelines. You're FIGHTING ME. You are on Adaptec's closed side. I personally don't care about Adaptec anymore, but I do care about the people there. More than you care about getting the best freedom for FreeBSD or *BSD, or about the *other* people in the FreeBSD who might want that effort. No. You would rather stand up for the people at Adaptec. 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. Then help me. Don't slag me. Adaptec isn't one person, it isn't Doug Richardson or any other single individual. They do make a whole lot of stupid mistakes and close doors on opportunities, but there is no reason to vilify Doug for it. Then help me. I am not vilifying Doug. Doug said we should go through him. Now he's getting mails from people, because he said we should go THROUGH HIM. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 believe the same things that I believe. Actually Scott, there's exactly the problem. While I'm sure you think that providing a binary only management tool helps FreeBSD users who have this hardware, I think it's rather the opposite. Let me put it in another light: Let's say an ethernet card vendor closes off and puts under NDA the interface to their card's control mechanisms. you can have a free driver to recieve and send packets, but in order to set an address, or configure the card, you can't use ifconfig, you have to use a proprietary binary only program that can't be included with the OS, and doesn't work on anything but i386. Would having support in there for that particular ethernet card, and encouraging users to buy more of them really be helping FreeBSD users in the long run, or hurting them? Or perhaps it would it be helping the vendor's lawyers to have ammunition to keep documentation from being released, and hurting the user community in the long run. -Bob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 users to use the resources that are available to them. By attacking my efforts, you are telling them that the aaccli you worked on is the best they are going to get, and that participating with what I am doing is foolish. That's quite different than cancelling developer work and threatening to remove a driver due to a political dispute. The driver is not shipping because traction must be gained against a vendor who you are apologizing for. Freedom isn't about coercing others to believe the same things that I believe. Freedom is something one fights for. Freedom is not something that just happens. Freedom is something that happens when someone puts their toes out there, with a stance, an attempt, a struggle. Freedom is not something that happens when Scott long makes apologies for Adaptec and slags Theo on public sites ... when Theo decides to use his project to take action against non-freedom from a vendor. I am trying to do something to create greater freedom. You are not helping with my effort. Nor are you are not standing on the sidelines. You're FIGHTING ME. You are on Adaptec's closed side. I personally don't care about Adaptec anymore, but I do care about the people there. More than you care about getting the best freedom for FreeBSD or *BSD, or about the *other* people in the FreeBSD who might want that effort. No. You would rather stand up for the people at Adaptec. 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. Then help me. Don't slag me. Then I'll return to my original statement and say that you never sought out my help. I don't follow OpenBSD, but I would have been happy to lend whatever help I could with resources and contacts if you had contacted me long ago. Adaptec isn't one person, it isn't Doug Richardson or any other single individual. They do make a whole lot of stupid mistakes and close doors on opportunities, but there is no reason to vilify Doug for it. Then help me. I am not vilifying Doug. Doug said we should go through him. Now he's getting mails from people, because he said we should go THROUGH HIM. It's your standard tactic of, hey everyone, so-and-so isn't meeting my demands on my timeline, so here's his email adress! Go and mailbomb him! I think that Doug is doing everything that he can right now to satisfy not only OpenBSD, but everyone. However, it takes time, and just because he's not meeting your timeline doesn't mean that he's giving you the run around or that you should start making silly threats that will only hurt your users. I'm done with this thread. A closed binary managmeent app isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing. I worked on it because I knew the compromises I could make at the time and I wanted to give the FreeBSD community something for it. I don't have infinite time and resources to fight the noble causes like Theo does, and I think that cooperation and comprise are better in the long run than constant conflict. If Theo or anyone else wants help on making the kernel driver better, let me know. If they want to help Adaptec follow through on it's stated plan to release suitable tools in the near future, then stop antagonizing them and making silly threats. The shouting and the threats and all the other tripe reflect poorly on everyone, whether you choose to see it or not, and _that's_ what I oppose in Theo, not his passion for openness. Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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, they don't meet the goals of open source, but they meet the goals of getting the job done. If not having the source is a problem, then that's your choice and you don't have to use it. But why deprive people of a choice, like Theo wants. Freedom is about choice. FreeBSD users... watch how Scott argues against free software.. and cc's the person at Adaptec who he says we should not be mailing... oh boy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 undoubtedly has NDA obligations with their partners, chip suppliers, and so forth, which constrains what they can make public. This is bullcrap. Adaptec is quite obviously the single largest customer of any of those chip partners. If they told those partners they wern't going to sign an NDA those partners would say How high do you want me to jump, sir You've a habit of confusing your opinions with factual data. While the process can be entertaining, you should be aware that it greatly inhibits the quality of your arguments. Tell me, who is bigger, Intel or Adaptec? 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. If you disagree, show me data proving otherwise, rather than hand-waving. But the hardware vendors aren't obligated to meet your demands, This is also bullcrap. The hardware vendors are obligated to support THEIR customers who have bought product from them. Some of those customers want to run OpenBSD. Therefore the hardware vendors are obligated to get off their fat asses and work with the OpenBSD people regardless of how they may personally like or dislike them. Hardware vendors publish software compatibility lists. They have an obligation to support their products on the systems they claim to support. They have no obligation to support their products when used on systems they do not claim to support. Of course, customers should avoid doing business with vendors who don't work with open standards, or provide adequate support for the systems those customers want to run. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
I'm done with this thread. A closed binary managmeent app isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing. I worked on it because I knew the compromises I could make at the time and I wanted to give the FreeBSD community something for it. I don't have infinite time and resources to fight the noble causes like Theo does, and I think that cooperation and comprise are better in the long run than constant conflict. If Theo or anyone else wants help on making the kernel driver better, let me know. If they want to help Adaptec follow through on it's stated plan to release suitable tools in the near future, then stop antagonizing them and making silly threats. The shouting and the threats and all the other tripe reflect poorly on everyone, whether you choose to see it or not, and _that's_ what I oppose in Theo, not his passion for openness. That's what you oppose? And then just moments earlier you send a mail (shown below) in which you SPECIFICALLY cc the people at Adaptec, and you SPECIFICALLY oppose freedom? Scott Long, you do not believe in either openness or freedom. This is a sad sad day for FreeBSD. -- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:50:51 -0700 From: Scott Long [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 of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything that you want? Granted, I don't use RAID on any system at the moment, and haven't used Adaptec products in the past. But I would hardly consider having to halt the machine to even check the status of the array ``stuff that works.'' Would you be happy flying in a plane in perfect mechanical condition...except that all diagnostic gauges (fuel level, oil pressure and temperature, fire detectors, hydraulic pressure, etc.) only worked when the plane was stationary on the ground? Would you go on a transoceanic flight in such a plane? All I can say is that I'm damned thankful Adaptec doesn't make aircraft equipment, if this is what they think of as ``stuff that works.'' And if this *were* aircraft equipment we were talking about, would you still be chiding people for being pinned down by political beliefs on the subject? This discussion is doing nothing but proving two things: A) Adaptec is suffering from an astounding lack of professionalism; and ii) Theo's pride of craftsmanship is something sorely lacking in the rest of the computing world. Cheers, b 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, they don't meet the goals of open source, but they meet the goals of getting the job done. If not having the source is a problem, then that's your choice and you don't have to use it. But why deprive people of a choice, like Theo wants. Freedom is about choice. Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adaptec AAC raid support
-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 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? Dell? The PERC 4 is an AMI device, Dell doesen't make chipsets they are an assembler. The amr driver supports it and is open, so obviously there was never an NDA there. And as for the i860, there's tons of programming docs on the Internet out there for it, once again, it's already open. But the hardware vendors aren't obligated to meet your demands, This is also bullcrap. The hardware vendors are obligated to support THEIR customers who have bought product from them. Some of those customers want to run OpenBSD. Therefore the hardware vendors are obligated to get off their fat asses and work with the OpenBSD people regardless of how they may personally like or dislike them. Hardware vendors publish software compatibility lists. They have an obligation to support their products on the systems they claim to support. They have no obligation to support their products when used on systems they do not claim to support. There is a difference between legally obligated and morally obligated. You were originally speaking on moral obligation, then switched to legal obligations. Naturally, if Adaptec claims support where none exists, that is fraud. But if Adaptec customers want to use their products on OpenBSD, that is still an obligation, while it may not be a legal one, it is definitely a moral one. Or are you arguing in favor of scrapping the customer is always right idea? All the people arguing with Theo against pulling AAC support from OpenBSD's generic kernel are doing so based on a moral obligation that they feel Theo has to his users, you cannot argue that he has a moral obligation and Adaptec does not. If anything, the moral obligation on Adaptec to work with OpenBSD is far higher than the moral obligation on Theo to work with Adaptec, because the Adaptec customers have paid Adaptec, the OpenBSD customers haven't paid Theo. Of course, customers should avoid doing business with vendors who don't work with open standards, or provide adequate support for the systems those customers want to run. But customers also should tell those vendors why they are avoiding them, too. And vendors should state specifically why they refuse to support certain platforms. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 and refusing help. Scott Scott, Not that it matters, since I seriously doubt *YOU* pull any strings at adaptec, but in our efforts to open up hardware documentation and firmare interfaces, we have help squash bugs (very real and nasty bugs) in the firmware of more than one hardware device. In other words, the vendor got $2500/hour debugging help for free... --Toby. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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? Dell? The PERC 4 is an AMI device, Dell doesen't make chipsets they are an assembler. The amr driver supports it and is open, so obviously there was never an NDA there. Maybe I was thinking of the PERC 3, then-- this one: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:2:1: class=0x010400 card=0x00d11028 chip=0x00021028 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Dell Computer Corporation' device = 'PowerEdge 3/Di Expandable RAID Controller' class= mass storage subclass = RAID [ ... ] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:4:0: class=0x01 card=0x00c51028 chip=0x00c59005 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Adaptec Inc' device = 'RAID Subsystem HBA' class= mass storage subclass = SCSI [EMAIL PROTECTED]:4:1: class=0x01 card=0x00c51028 chip=0x00c59005 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Adaptec Inc' device = 'RAID Subsystem HBA' class= mass storage subclass = SCSI And as for the i860, there's tons of programming docs on the Internet out there for it, once again, it's already open. You've failed to address the point. Do you claim that Adaptec is in a position to ignore an NDA they have with a company like Intel or Dell? But the hardware vendors aren't obligated to meet your demands, This is also bullcrap. The hardware vendors are obligated to support THEIR customers who have bought product from them. Some of those customers want to run OpenBSD. Therefore the hardware vendors are obligated to get off their fat asses and work with the OpenBSD people regardless of how they may personally like or dislike them. Hardware vendors publish software compatibility lists. They have an obligation to support their products on the systems they claim to support. They have no obligation to support their products when used on systems they do not claim to support. There is a difference between legally obligated and morally obligated. You were originally speaking on moral obligation, then switched to legal obligations. I never made a particular distinction as to the nature of the obligation. Your claim that I switched positions is dishonest and deserves retraction. Naturally, if Adaptec claims support where none exists, that is fraud. But if Adaptec customers want to use their products on OpenBSD, that is still an obligation, while it may not be a legal one, it is definitely a moral one. Or are you arguing in favor of scrapping the customer is always right idea? You've created this strawman argument, answer it yourself. All the people arguing with Theo against pulling AAC support from OpenBSD's generic kernel are doing so based on a moral obligation that they feel Theo has to his users, you cannot argue that he has a moral obligation and Adaptec does not. I'm not interested in sophistry about Theo's moral obligations to OpenBSD users. The basis for my position is simply one of does the system work better after the change? The AAC driver now in OpenBSD evidently works well enough that thousands of OpenBSD users would be critically affected by its removal. I'm perfectly willing to disagree with people who feel that breaking OpenBSD is a constructive action, and all the egocentric posturing does nothing to hide the nature of this change. Quite the contrary, in fact. I would never choose to do business either with Theo or with you, to be very honest. I don't think I could rely on you to act sensibly even in your own best interest, much less be reliable acting together in a mutually beneficial partnership. There's not much else I can say, and I'm not really interested in arguing with other people over their opinions-- you can believe anything you want to, even if it fails a reality check-- so I'll stop here. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 sure as hell isn't choice. I'd like to choose what management software I use, driver I use, etc... which I cannot do with this binary-only solution. There isn't really different kinds of freedom, freedom is freedom, I should be free to chose what management utility I use just like what card I use, which you have taken away by supporting a vendor's choice to lock up their customers. You, sir, do not support freedom of choice, and it appears that Adaptec doesn't either. On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:40:01 -0700, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Goren wrote: On 2005 Mar 19, at 1:50 PM, Scott Long wrote: Do you ask for the blueprints to the plane before you get onboard? If I own the plane, I expect to have all official service manuals, bulletins, etc. The FAA expects me to have them, too, or else I'm in *deep* trouble. Do you really think that, for example, Southwest Airlines doesn't have the schematics to every Boeing 737 they fly? That an experienced airline mechanic doesn't know about as much about the planes as the engineers who designed them--if not more? I'm saying that resources are out there that will allow OpenBSD users to manage their RAID arrays RIGHT NOW. No, they don't meet the goals of open source, but they meet the goals of getting the job done. No, they don't. You've already admitted that Adaptec firmware is full of bugs. Why shouldn't we assume that the binary-only crap you're trying to push on us isn't full of the same? Oh bullshit. I didn't say anything like that. Here's a shocker OpenBSD has bugs! And so does FreeBSD! And so does the Space Shuttle guidance system. Next time you try to put word in my mouth, try a little harder at it. Jackass. I run OpenBSD not just because it's Free, but because its quality outshines everything else. That quality is a direct result of Theo and his friends being able to write, or at least tinker with, the code WITH NO RESTRICTIONS. You offer us a compromise, not just of our freedom, but of the stability of our systems and the security of our data. Why should we accept either? I offer freedom of choice. This has gone about in the direction that I figured it would. I don't speak for Adaptec, and I never have. I've supported them in the past, and I support the friendships that I have there now. If the goals of OpenBSD are political purity of software openness, that's wonderful. Take your freedom of choice and do what you want with it. Stop going around screaming and yelling and acting like a 3 year old because others won't give you stuff that you think you deserve. Scott ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 that will allow OpenBSD users to manage their RAID arrays RIGHT NOW. No, they don't meet the goals of open source, but they meet the goals of getting the job done. If not having the source is a problem, then that's your choice and you don't have to use it. But why deprive people of a choice, like Theo wants. Freedom is about choice. FreeBSD users... watch how Scott argues against free software.. and cc's the person at Adaptec who he says we should not be mailing... oh boy 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. Jason ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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. FUD check: FreeBSD works quite well with RAID products from 3ware, Promise, and Highpoint to my direct knowledge, as well as Adaptec's, and I've seen dmesg's on had accounts on systems using Mylex and LSI controllers. I am not as sure about the Qlogic and DPT brands. Things aren't perfect-- I lost a 4-disk * 120GB RAID-10 array on a HPT-370 about a year ago, and was very fortunate to have had good backups, but I can't truly blame FreeBSD's ATA/RAID implementation, since I'd used the HPT BIOS to do the rebuild rather than atacontrol. Next time I'll buy a 3ware or Promise card, though, not use a MB-based HPT controller... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 develop/use a different management utility. This is not FUD, but fact. An unacceptable fact. Talking about how other raid controllers work with FreeBSD too has nothing to do with what I said, except that they too are binary-only no-free-documenation vendors at this point as well. On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:15:20 -0500, Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. FUD check: FreeBSD works quite well with RAID products from 3ware, Promise, and Highpoint to my direct knowledge, as well as Adaptec's, and I've seen dmesg's on had accounts on systems using Mylex and LSI controllers. I am not as sure about the Qlogic and DPT brands. Things aren't perfect-- I lost a 4-disk * 120GB RAID-10 array on a HPT-370 about a year ago, and was very fortunate to have had good backups, but I can't truly blame FreeBSD's ATA/RAID implementation, since I'd used the HPT BIOS to do the rebuild rather than atacontrol. Next time I'll buy a 3ware or Promise card, though, not use a MB-based HPT controller... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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, add a feature, or just experiment, as well as just develop/use a different management utility. You made the assertion that Scott was doing something to lock FreeBSD users into only one option for a RAID card. This assertion is nonsense, so obviously so that it is clearly FUD. You have also made the assertion that FreeBSD users are forever locked into using a binary-only solution from Adaptec to manage AAC hardware. This assertion is also untrue. I've seen one or two people talk with Scott on the FreeBSD lists about creating an open source replacement to the binary-only management tool. It's probably a lot of work, and it will be ready when the work gets done, or not, depending on their time, interest, and motivation. In the meantime, people can use the binary management tool just fine, or they can revert to using the BIOS directly if they don't want to run the binary tool. This is not FUD, but fact. An unacceptable fact. Unacceptable to whom? I can't remember seeing *anyone* complain about this matter over the past three years, so it's demonstrably not a problem for any noticable fraction of the FreeBSD userbase. You claim otherwise? Prove it! Cite Message-id from the FreeBSD mailing lists prior to this thread. Don't be bashful when it comes to showing evidence to back up your words -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 ago. I am certainly not the only FreeBSD user who has reason to thank Scott Long for the endless hours of unpaid work he has given to me personally. He is certainly one of the most decent and competent individuals it has been my good fortune to encounter. Leaving OpenBSD and moving to FreeBSD was like a breath of fresh air. Not only because, finally, hardware I had purchased that was listed in the the OpenBSD 'hardware compatibility list' finally did work, but because the FreeBSD community was really is a community and genuinely interested in helping out their user base. Scott Long is particularly outstanding in this regard. I remember the OpenBSD list and support very well, and didn't really need this recent reminder. Thanks for the memories and all that, but why don't you guys go back where you belong? Regards, sdb -- [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: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 sooner. He has successfully helped Adaptec lock it's customers, including FreeBSD users into using their binary-only management utility. Just becasue there are efforts from him that he wants to write an open source version, doesn't mean the user community has more choice. It still doesn't. Still locked to Adaptec's binary only version. If he had started a movement to make their docs open a long time ago, none of this would be neccessary now, and the users wouldn't be locked to ONLY ONE MANAGEMENT UTILITY that ISN'T FREE. He's about freedom of choice, yet helped to keep future choices harder to get. Jason On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:06:17 -0500, Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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, add a feature, or just experiment, as well as just develop/use a different management utility. You made the assertion that Scott was doing something to lock FreeBSD users into only one option for a RAID card. This assertion is nonsense, so obviously so that it is clearly FUD. You have also made the assertion that FreeBSD users are forever locked into using a binary-only solution from Adaptec to manage AAC hardware. This assertion is also untrue. I've seen one or two people talk with Scott on the FreeBSD lists about creating an open source replacement to the binary-only management tool. It's probably a lot of work, and it will be ready when the work gets done, or not, depending on their time, interest, and motivation. In the meantime, people can use the binary management tool just fine, or they can revert to using the BIOS directly if they don't want to run the binary tool. This is not FUD, but fact. An unacceptable fact. Unacceptable to whom? I can't remember seeing *anyone* complain about this matter over the past three years, so it's demonstrably not a problem for any noticable fraction of the FreeBSD userbase. You claim otherwise? Prove it! Cite Message-id from the FreeBSD mailing lists prior to this thread. Don't be bashful when it comes to showing evidence to back up your words -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 FreeBSD users find unacceptable, at least supposedly. The complete lack of evidence you've provided so far to support your assertion is underwhelming. I don't care if you look at the mailing lists, Usenet postings, web sites, or anything else that can be independently confirmed. Your words alone lack credibility. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 from his users, is just shoking to me, and the fact that you seem to support that is also shocking. The lack of support, and indeed fighting on this subject is so surprising to me. I would think a Free operating system would support freedom, but it appears that all freebsd users just want to do away with it instead, to get something that works good enough instead of real freedom, more than just freedom of choice. On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:26:21 -0500, Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 FreeBSD users find unacceptable, at least supposedly. The complete lack of evidence you've provided so far to support your assertion is underwhelming. I don't care if you look at the mailing lists, Usenet postings, web sites, or anything else that can be independently confirmed. Your words alone lack credibility. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 knowledge. I used to think good things of Adaptec hardware, and always figured they'd be at the top of any list I ever put together should I need to buy RAID hardware. This one paragraph has all but convinced me that I'd be nuts to do so. First, we have an ex-employee stating that the stuff is ``tricky'' and full of bugs. Not something I want to trust critical data to. Next, that different cards and different firmware versions have bugs that ``often need to be worked around'' also does not inspire confidence. If Adaptec *knows* about these bugs, why is it left to the driver to fix? Why hasn't it been fixed *IN*THE*FIRMWARE*? Finally, we learn that these bugs are semi-public knowledge...but that Adaptec is *STILL* refusing to provide the information necessary to work around them. Instead, you have to hope that their ex-employees follow through with offers to share their knowledge. Those are three serious strikes. Any one of them would be a probable deal-breaker for me. While I'm sure nobody's perfect...surely there are other vendors who produce products which aren't so buggy in the first place, who fix their bugs once they find them, and warn people what to look out for? Frankly, if Mr. Long is providing an accurate description of the quality of Adaptec products--and, after all, he used to work there, so he should know--then I'd say that Theo would be nuts *not* to pull support from them. After all, why should OpenBSD get blamed for Adaptec's crap? Cheers, b [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of PGP.sig] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adaptec AAC raid support
-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: 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 as for the i860, there's tons of programming docs on the Internet out there for it, once again, it's already open. You've failed to address the point. Do you claim that Adaptec is in a position to ignore an NDA they have with a company like Intel or Dell? The point is they obviously don't have an NDA with Intel since the programming docs for the i860 are open already. (at least the don't have an NDA that covers this aspect of their relationship, which is all we care about) The original point you were attempting to make, as I understand it, is that any of Adaptec's chip suppliers could have placed Adaptec under an NDA which would have forced Adaptec to then place an NDA on anyone wanting to write drivers for their products. The point I made was that Adaptec is such a large customer and represents such a large amount of money in sales to any chip vendor, that if any chip vendor of Adaptec's attempted to force Adaptec into an NDA, Adaptec would simply tell them if the NDA was a requirement they would just go buy silicone from someone else who wasn't insistent on an NDA. The supplier would then have a choice of losing millions in sales or not forcing Adaptec to sign an NDA. I think it's obvious that no supplier would force an NDA, and given Adaptec's size today, it's obvious that no current vendor supplying them has them under such a thing for this reason. Despite what you seem to think, companies on the whole always seek to avoid signing NDAs as they just give people grounds to sue them. I'm not interested in sophistry about Theo's moral obligations to OpenBSD users. The basis for my position is simply one of does the system work better after the change? The AAC driver now in OpenBSD evidently works well enough that thousands of OpenBSD users would be critically affected by its removal. I'm perfectly willing to disagree with people who feel that breaking OpenBSD is a constructive action, and all the egocentric posturing does nothing to hide the nature of this change. Quite the contrary, in fact. Well I think Theo's point is that OpenBSD is already broken by the introduction of this incomplete driver, and his action to remove it is rather fixing the problem, not breaking anything. I would never choose to do business either with Theo or with you, to be very honest. I don't think I could rely on you to act sensibly even in your own best interest, much less be reliable acting together in a mutually beneficial partnership. I couldn't possibly do business with anyone who does not have a moral compass of any sort. The people who run their business purely on what they term sensible mutually beneficial interest or whatever terms you seem to use, are dangerous. In a blink of an eye if conditions change, they are screwing their customers and their partners. I *I* ever agreed to work with you in a partnership, I would complete the term of the partnership, even if it became non-mutually beneficial before the agreed on end came about. That is far more than you can say to me. There comes a time in any business where you are faced with a decision of do you do the right thing, or do you do the convenient thing? Theo feels that leaving AAC in is the convenient thing, not the right thing. He has a strong philosophical, moral, argument for this. I disagree with some of the foundation of this argument, but I think that it IS a consistent, moral argument. I do happen to agree that whether or not thousands of OpenBSD users would be affected by AAC's removal is less important than OpenBSD not rewarding vendors like Adaptec who don't provide programming docs. If leaving AAC in there does reward a vendor who isn't doing the right thing, then yes, pull it out. I don't agree that leaving it in is rewarding Adaptec, but I do agree that IF it were so, that pulling AAC is the right thing to do. People like yourself who seem to distain doing business with a moral compass are the same ones that make decision after decision that makes you slide further and further down the slope. So, they leave in AAC because a few thousand users would be affected. Then, what do they say to the next vendor that comes along who wants them to include one of their own proprietary drivers? Keep that up and pretty soon the entire driver set in the operating system is binary proprietary drivers, and you have lost control of the distribution. Theo is putting down his foot now, before things get that bad. This I
