SoftModems works (well, almost) perfectly under Windows. Some of these
works under Linux. SoftModems is the best, because they are cheap and
works under Windows. The FreeBSD is puny OS just because they lack support
of Software modem.
The thing is as worth as much you paid for it. If Silicon Image made BUGGY
hardware, we should do just two things:
1. (the way we walked) Mark it as BROKEN. Perhaps we should document it,
BUT... If things don't work, READ the manual, at last...
2. (the way linux walked) Try to make some QUIRKS to avoid problems for
performance. The QUIRKS count will grow and some time later the NORMAL
controller become QUIRK.
Even if we choose second way, there will be a lot of rocks at Soren's
side, that "Goddamn, I've purchased SiI3112 card, WD Raptor, why the my
config DAMN slow comparing with, say, config with ICH... DAMN, fix
this IMMEDIATELY".
Sincerely, Maxim M. Kazachek
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, J. T. Farmer wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 09:31 AM 10/08/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Also, I've yet to see a developer commit on the list that they WILL fix it
if
such a controller board is forthcoming (and will return the board when
they're
done) - I've got two of these cards here (choose between Adaptec and
Bustek)
and would be happy to UPS one to someone IF I had a firm commitment that
6.x
would NOT go out without this being addressed and that the board would be
returned to me when work was complete.
You demand to see support for this chipset fixed, yet, you cant pony up a
measly hundred bucks to donate the card to the developer who is not being
paid to develop anything.
Why? It was claimed that the code was developed to support this chipset.
Was that done in the dark, without hardware? And why must it be a
hardware donation? Karl has offered access to the hardware. Asking to
get it back afterwards is a reasonable thing. If the developer wants to
keep the card as part of a verification hardware suite, then they should
open their mouth and say so. I suspect that Karl, and many other people,
would be more forthcoming with such donations if 1.) They were asked
in a reasonable manner, 2.) The hardware in question have not already
been listed as working under 5.x, and 3.) They had some assurance that
the problem would be fixed.
And finally, the problem has been reported in 5.4 and apparently in
6.0-Beta _not _only_ for the SII chipset & SATA, but also for some
of the Intel ICH chipsets. And others, such as myself, are seeing the
same problem with plain PATA drives and controllers that are listed
as being supported by the ata driver.
In my case, a vanilla, OLD but working Via KT266A/8235 chipset MB
_will_not_boot an install kernel unless booted in safe mode. I don't have
the resources to just give away hardware or buy replacements, just to
run FreeBSD as my desktop/development machine. It runs WinXP and
Linux just fine. However I _want_ to run FreeBSD. Part of the that
machine's rational is so that I can contribute in my areas of interest
(sound & video editing/production tools, documentation). I chose to
install 5.4, the PRODUCTION version, because I did not want any
surprises, did not want to be hacking a basic system functions.
At what point do I give up and just reformat the FreeBSD partition
and either release it to use with WinXP or install Linux? Now mind
you, I've used FreeBSD, as a production platform, since 2.0.X. I've
survived a fair number of "bumps." But I'm at the point that I really
want the things that are claimed to work to just work. I continue to
run my servers under 4.X because or all the upheaval in 5.0/5.1/etc.
But 5.4 was supposed to have those teething problems behind it.
And the so far the only answer I get is try the ATA MkIII patches for
a partial fix, move to 6.0 for a real solution.
So when will 6.X really be Stable? Yes, I understand that the RE is
working on getting 6.0 out the door. But what users are trying to tell
you is that we need an answer for these problems. If the production
release is broken for certain hardware, say so. If FreeBSD developers
would rather work on big hairy server oriented problems, then say so.
If we have to run beta code to get old hardware to work, then say so.
Then we can make a choice as to what we run or try to use. If
no one is interested in making FreeBSD work on the vanilla hardware
that is out there, then say so. If FreeBSD is only going to run on
expensive hand picked hardware (the Sun approach) then say so.
Those of us who want to switch desktops and light duty servers
to FreeBSD will give up and move to Linux. OR back to WinXP.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Farmer Owner & CTO GoldSword Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-691-6498 Knoxville TN
Consulting, Design, & Development of Networks & Software
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
