[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bernt Hansson writes:
>
>> Your machine is NOT on the HCL list.
>
> "The lnc(4) driver supports the following adapters:
>
>
> If the Ethernet card on the machine is supported, this implies that
> the machine is supported (otherwise why mention the card?).
The lnc driver
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
>
> Bullshit, Anthony!
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/SharedSourceCLI/
>
> "...Microsoft built the Shared Source CLI to compile and run on FreeBSD
> Unix as well as Windows XP..."
See my comment on FreeBSD being support
Bernt Hansson writes:
> Your machine is NOT on the HCL list.
"The lnc(4) driver supports the following adapters:
* Novell NE2100
* Novell NE32-VL
* Isolan AT 4141-0 (16 bit)
* Isolan BICC
* Isolink 4110 (8 bit)
* Diamond HomeFree
* Digital DEPCA
* Hewlett Packard
Anthony Atkielski skrev:
Someone must be running my machine, since it is mentioned on the 5.3
compatibility list.
Your machine is NOT on the HCL list.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questio
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin McCann writes:
then stop complaining to a list of 'kiddies', and use that.
MS doesn't support FreeBSD.
Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
Bullshit, Anthony!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/SharedSourceCLI/
"...Microsoft built the
On 31 Mar Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
Please, control yourself Ted. It's /so/ quite lately ;-)
--
dick -- http://nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 4.11 ++ FreeBSD 5.3
+ Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Martin McCann writes:
>
>> then stop complaining to a list of 'kiddies', and use that.
>
> MS doesn't support FreeBSD.
>
Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
Bullshit, Anthony!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/SharedSourceCLI/
"...Microsoft built the Shared So
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
>> Yes, they do - I've got a Compaq professional workstation on my desk
>> at work which has a modded microcode in an Adaptec 2940U adapter card
>> (I know it's modded because the card will not work in any other
>> non-Compaq system, even where
Martin McCann writes:
> Therefore, in order to keep this list a sane and useful resource, I
> would suggest that if anyone feels like answering anthonys queries, they
> do it to his personal email address, so the rest of us might get on with
> other issues ...
Why were your previous eight replies
Martin McCann writes:
> I doubt many people here would request a feature for MS, have it
> granted, then forget what that feature was.
I have never considered it an especially significant event.
> Well, you are showing many user traits, and not many sys admin traits.
I'm both a user and a sysad
Martin McCann writes:
> Please explain this to me - I have had a lot of experience in OS design,
> and would like you, who obviously from you remarks, have extensive OS
> design knowledge, point out to me how a HAL makes an OS inherintly more
> stable than a system that writes its drivers for a pa
Martin McCann writes:
> So, you start by demanding your individual problem is resoloved by a
> list who has no responsibility to the upkeep of the software that has
> given you issue?
I haven't demanded anything, I've simply asked.
> You have repeated this time and time again. No-one is argueing
Martin McCann writes:
> then stop complaining to a list of 'kiddies', and use that.
MS doesn't support FreeBSD.
> If you have never encountered the term FLOSS, you are not the open
> source user you claim to be, it is a common term.
I've probably encountered it, I just didn't retain it. The IT
Martin McCann writes:
> This pretty much sums up your attitute. Most people on this list use the
> right tool for the right job, they are not interested in labeling a
> piece of code for 'adults' or for 'children'.
The same is true for me. But there isn't anything I want or need to do
right now
Martin McCann writes:
> That is how standards work, and when a piece of hardware goes beyond
> those standards either through design or mis-implementation, who is to
> blame?
The hardware designer. But it has not been established that that is
happening here. Perhaps the hardware is not adhering
In a final effort to resolve this issue -
It is widely agreed that anthony's issue lies in a custom chipset for
his hardware.
It is widely agreed that anthony is not willing to put any effort into
trying to verify this.
If is widely belivied that the person who could answer these queries
conc
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:25 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim writes:
>
> > Um...because it took an adapter that generically had worked, but after
> > modifying it didn't?
>
> It was referenced by an OS that generically worked, but then did not
> after the modification of the ada
> No, I was referring to the additional modularity and stability made
> possible by the additional abstraction of a HAL.
>
Please explain this to me - I have had a lot of experience in OS design,
and would like you, who obviously from you remarks, have extensive OS
design knowledge, point out to
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:13 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim writes:
>
> > That's nice. I wasn't talking about NT there. I was talking about
> > DOS.
>
> I'm not running anything named DOS.
>
> > Command line, popular before Windows but after CP/M...maybe
> > you've heard of
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:03 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim writes:
>
> > It's deduction.
>
> It can't be. There's nothing to deduct from.
Exactly, because you have time and time again refused to put any effort
into deducing anything. It, as you have said, is the fault of the
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim writes:
>
> > From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was
> > bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD people were
> > immature children.
>
> They do a much better job than the Fre
> I'm not that interested in running Linux. Linux is for kids.
>
This pretty much sums up your attitute. Most people on this list use the
right tool for the right job, they are not interested in labeling a
piece of code for 'adults' or for 'children'. I am sure IBM, SUN, and
plently of other hi
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 22:16 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Martin McCann writes:
>
> > And how do you write software that will be able to communicate with
> > hardware, irrelevent of what changes have been made to that hardware?
>
> The hardware and software must agree on a minimum set of stan
Duo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, I think we should all do ourselves a favor, and kill this
> thread.
> I know it will be hard, Anthony will try really hard to say something
> even
> stupider, in a vain attempt to make us want to reply...but, there are
> a
> plethora of other things we
>
> More supurb technical analysis from that wiz, Jerry. Nicely
> done!
>
Glad you appreciated it.
jerry
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[
heir heads as to why the damn slab
allocator is so dreadfully slow.
-Original Message-
From: Jerry McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dick Hoogendijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: freebsd-questions
Sent: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:50:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.R
>
> On 29 Mar Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> > You should go out and reinstall Windows on that server and leave this
> > list in peace.
>
> He won't do that. I told this weeks ago. He comes off on this shit he
> writes. You won't win this game. Why? 'Cause all of you use arguments
> and Anthony simpl
On 29 Mar Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> You should go out and reinstall Windows on that server and leave this
> list in peace.
He won't do that. I told this weeks ago. He comes off on this shit he
writes. You won't win this game. Why? 'Cause all of you use arguments
and Anthony simply is /not/ He tal
Can you guys please take this discussion off line.
Thanks!
--Nick
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> Your description of the problem.
My description of the problem is very sparse, and even I did not reach
those conclusions.
> It shouldn't be hammering the registry. It is. The system doesn't
> seem to care, doesn't report any problem.
So why is it a problem?
> I on
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
If it doesn't say, the list is referring to the generic
off-the-f'ing-shelf version.
I _have_ the generic, off-the-shelf version of this PC.
Very good. And if you take one of them whining about a problem, they
point at the list and say,
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
If it doesn't say, the list is referring to the generic
off-the-f'ing-shelf version.
I _have_ the generic, off-the-shelf version of this PC.
Very good. And if you take one of them whining about a problem, they
point at the list and say,
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> Um...because it took an adapter that generically had worked, but after
> modifying it didn't?
It was referenced by an OS that generically worked, but then did not
after the modification of the adapter.
Note that it has not been established that any particularity of the
On Mar 29, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
It's deduction.
It can't be. There's nothing to deduct from.
Your description of the problem.
Tell me again what those messages said, exactly?
Can't. I didn't tell you the first time.
Really? I have a free program run
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Are you really this obtuse or do you just play you are on the Internet?
You are dealing with someone who feels he is "more" right than anyone else
in the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD.
He drops his so called "credentials" (ive been in the biz for (fill in the
y
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> If it doesn't say, the list is referring to the generic
> off-the-f'ing-shelf version.
I _have_ the generic, off-the-shelf version of this PC.
> Very good. And if you take one of them whining about a problem, they
> point at the list and say, "Tough Sh*t."
No, they d
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> Apple IIe? you've never heard of it?
I used to use one. I've never heard of the Friggin variant, though.
--
Anthony
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questio
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> That's nice. I wasn't talking about NT there. I was talking about
> DOS.
I'm not running anything named DOS.
> Command line, popular before Windows but after CP/M...maybe
> you've heard of it?
I used to run a few operating systems by that name.
> They're trying to
On Mar 29, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
He is saying that the microcode was modified and that we speculate
that
the mods contain a bug proprietary to the HP implementation of that
controller.
What makes it a _bug_? Why would the modified firmware contain a b
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> It's deduction.
It can't be. There's nothing to deduct from.
Tell me again what those messages said, exactly?
> Really? I have a free program running on my NT machines, ntpdate I
> believe is the name, that just hammers the registry with requests
> constantly. I'd
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was
> bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD people were
> immature children.
They do a much better job than the FreeBSD project does, no doubt about
that.
> Is this evidence to the contrar
On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH
the
modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not.
Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative
humidity, and atmospheric pressure as well?
Are
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Duo writes:
Does it work on an Apple Friggin IIe?
?
Apple IIe? you've never heard of it?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
If a machine with a gig of memory runs fine under DOS but actually has
a bad big of memory hardware near the 512 meg address range, it would
probably still run "flawlessly" for a very very long time...
This machine has
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
I think, correct me if I'm wrong Ted (et al), that he's saying the
microcode in the hardware was modified, thus has a bug proprietary to
the HP implementation of that controller, and the driver/interface in
NT either di
Chris writes:
> Be realistic Anthony - you know full well that if an item is not listed,
> its not supported.
But it _is_ listed.
And "unsupported" is not synonymous with "doesn't work."
> If' it's not listed - it's not supported - isnt that what MS drills into
> its user base?
Only if they ca
Martin McCann writes:
> And how do you write software that will be able to communicate with
> hardware, irrelevent of what changes have been made to that hardware?
The hardware and software must agree on a minimum set of standards.
--
Anthony
___
fr
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
What did they say?
MS developers are much like most other developers: it's never their
fault.
From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was
bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD pe
Is there any way you guys could take this idiotic conversation off-list?
It's a complete waste time for the vast majority of us.
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu
__
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH the
modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not.
Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative
humidity, and atmospheric pressure as well?
Be realistic Anthony -
> > Or had whatever extra code was needed for the microcode mods.
>
> Yes, or approached the hardware in a way that made the modifications
> irrelevant.
And how do you write software that will be able to communicate with
hardware, irrelevent of what changes have been made to that hardware?
_
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> He is saying that the microcode was modified and that we speculate that
> the mods contain a bug proprietary to the HP implementation of that
> controller.
What makes it a _bug_? Why would the modified firmware contain a bug
... but not FreeBSD?
> Or had whatever extr
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 20:50 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Chris writes:
>
> > No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH the
> > modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not.
>
> Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative
> humidity, and atmospher
Chris writes:
> No - NOT the PC - the hardware that's in question. The Adaptec WITH the
> modified code. I'm willing to bet, it's not.
Should I check for restrictions on chipset temperature, relative
humidity, and atmospheric pressure as well?
> Again - I doubt that that perticulare Adaptec WITH
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bart
> Silverstrim
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:51 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay
>
>
>
&g
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
Ok - I'm about to set the game point and win this one. Anthony, you of
all people know that with NT 4, you have learned that one MUST read the
HCL (Hardware Compatability List) BEFORE you try to install. That being
said, you also know that if it aint on the
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:25:34PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> My point was that FreeBSD doesn't work on the machine. I wanted to know
> why. I still don't know why it doesn't work on the machine. Apparently
> nobody here really knows how FreeBSD works.
So you keep saying. It probably
Duo writes:
> Does it work in XP?
Probably, but I'm not going to spend hundreds of euro to find out for
sure.
> Does it work in Linux?
I don't know. Mandrake seems to have a problem. I didn't try any of
the other 23,441 "distros" of Linux.
> Does it work on an Apple Friggin IIe?
?
> Point
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> If a machine with a gig of memory runs fine under DOS but actually has
> a bad big of memory hardware near the 512 meg address range, it would
> probably still run "flawlessly" for a very very long time...
This machine has 384 MB of very expensive RAM, and all of it wa
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> I think, correct me if I'm wrong Ted (et al), that he's saying the
> microcode in the hardware was modified, thus has a bug proprietary to
> the HP implementation of that controller, and the driver/interface in
> NT either didn't get the error or was *ignoring* the err
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> In arguing?
In operating systems, or more specifically, UNIX versions. I considered
installing Solaris, but it won't fit on my disks. I tried installing
Mandrake, but it refused to get past the splash screen on installation.
At least FreeBSD installed, although it won
Chris writes:
> Ok - I'm about to set the game point and win this one. Anthony, you of
> all people know that with NT 4, you have learned that one MUST read the
> HCL (Hardware Compatability List) BEFORE you try to install. That being
> said, you also know that if it aint on the HCL, you're SOL *S
Bart Silverstrim writes:
> What did they say?
MS developers are much like most other developers: it's never their
fault.
> Isn't that how many FOSS projects get started...do some task more
> efficiently and "better"?
FOSS?
> Nope, but it sure makes it a lot simpler! Actually it helps hamper
>
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Chris wrote:
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq tweakes
in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken?
Because it works with Windows NT.
This whole thread is about ridiculous.
Does it work in XP? Does it wo
On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq
tweakes
in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken?
Because it works with Windows NT.
If a machine with a gig of memory runs fine under DOS but actually has
a
On Mar 28, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
Yay! *claps*
Isn't that what Ted has been telling you to an extent - that it's the
HP/Compaq microcode in the drivers?
No. He and most other people have been trying to convince me that it's
defective hardware, and not a deficiency
On Mar 28, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris Warren writes:
I'm not an NT fan myself, but from reading your past posts, it seems
to
do everything you need far better than freebsd. Why not just stick
with
NT/2k? Just curious.
I wanted to diversify my experience.
In arguing?
___
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq tweakes
in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken?
Because it works with Windows NT.
If MS does not support or have a driver for so-and-so app or hardware,
does it also mean Wind
On Mar 27, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
Tell that to the MS developers then - perhaps they will listen to you.
Done.
What did they say?
Tell them to stop producing bloated code.
I've tried, but that is both a tendency of many developers (especially
PC developers) and a
Chris writes:
> I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq tweakes
> in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken?
Because it works with Windows NT.
> If MS does not support or have a driver for so-and-so app or hardware,
> does it also mean Windows is broken?
No, but i
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
The main point I've been trying to make is that just because FreeBSD's
drivers don't support whatever modification has been made in the Adaptec
code on the Vectra, does not mean that the FreeBSD driver is "broken"
or "has a bug" in it.
When someth
dick hoogendijk writes:
> Wrong. Windows does /not/ work correctly with the firmware if you let it
> use it's own drivers (like FreeBSD does). /Both/ OS's choke then!
Sorry, but that's incorrect. For eight years I ran a completely standard
retail version of Windows NT on the machine, straight off
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:23:46 +0200
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> The key point here, though, is that Windows apparently works correctly
> with the firmware, whatever changes that firmware may contain.
> FreeBSD does not. Therefore FreeBSD is broken.
Wrong. Windows does /not/ work correctly with th
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> The main point I've been trying to make is that just because FreeBSD's
> drivers don't support whatever modification has been made in the Adaptec
> code on the Vectra, does not mean that the FreeBSD driver is "broken"
> or "has a bug" in it.
When something doesn't work,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "normal" systems, but clearly there is
>> something about this system that FreeBSD is not written to handle.
>>
>
> Yay! *claps*
>
> Isn't that what Ted has been telling you to an extent - that it's the
> HP/Compaq microcode in the driver
Chris Warren writes:
> I'm not an NT fan myself, but from reading your past posts, it seems to
> do everything you need far better than freebsd. Why not just stick with
> NT/2k? Just curious.
I wanted to diversify my experience.
--
Anthony
___
free
On Mon, 2005-28-03 at 16:21 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> But defective hardware is hardware that fails to do its job, and these
> drives have done their jobs under Windows NT for eight years.
I'm not an NT fan myself, but from reading your past posts, it seems to
do everything you need far
Chris writes:
> Yay! *claps*
>
> Isn't that what Ted has been telling you to an extent - that it's the
> HP/Compaq microcode in the drivers?
No. He and most other people have been trying to convince me that it's
defective hardware, and not a deficiency of the operating system.
But defective ha
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
Or more likely - they never lost their second Seagate drive like you
did and never had HP send out a Quantum replacement?
I never lost a drive on the machine. I added a second drive after
purchasing it.
How could it be an OS bug if nobody else i
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> Or more likely - they never lost their second Seagate drive like you
> did and never had HP send out a Quantum replacement?
I never lost a drive on the machine. I added a second drive after
purchasing it.
> How could it be an OS bug if nobody else is seeing it on norm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
>> But the ahc() driver -is- bug free. It's not bug free when it's
>> running on modified hardware, but it's fine when it's running with
>> unmodded hardware.
>
> It's also free of bugs if it's never called.
>
And you are criticizing others fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
>> And to test with just one disk on the controller, specifically the
>> Seagate, but also with just the Quantum, to eliminate a possible bad
>> interaction between the disks and to eliminate possible incompatible
>> firmware in either of the di
>
> No, I'll be told that as long as I'm dealing with children instead of
> adults.
this is around the fith time recently you have either insinuated or
outright claimed that the participants of this mailing list are all
immature children. And yet you return time and time again asking for
help. W
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> But the ahc() driver -is- bug free. It's not bug free when it's running
> on modified hardware, but it's fine when it's running with unmodded
> hardware.
It's also free of bugs if it's never called.
> Your complaint sounds somewhat like the guy who bought a 68 Mustang
Chris writes:
> Tell that to the MS developers then - perhaps they will listen to you.
Done.
> Tell them to stop producing bloated code.
I've tried, but that is both a tendency of many developers (especially
PC developers) and a marketing imperative.
> Code that allows every 12 year-old on the
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> And to test with just one disk on the controller, specifically the
> Seagate, but also with just the Quantum, to eliminate a possible bad
> interaction between the disks and to eliminate possible incompatible
> firmware in either of the disks to that of the Adaptec contr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> In any case if you meet the driver author halfway and don't approach
>> it like it's his driver that's broken, but rather that your hardware
>> isn't exactly compliant, (regardless of what you really believe) you
>> won't be put into the anal insertion category.
>
> If
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> If I have to worry about hurting the developer's delicate feelings,
maybe a new developer might be a good idea. I hoped to stop having to
deal with schoolkids when I got out of school. Good developers feel
morally obligated to deliver bug-free code and don't have to be
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> You also pay Microsoft for their stuff - makes a big difference ...
The rest of FreeBSD seems to have been written without any checks from
me.
> ... my guess if you contacted the ahc() developer and offered to pay
> him the cost of an NT server license he would be more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
>> Actually it was a waste to you because you don't want to try
>> anything, but it wasn't a waste to others on the list.
>
> It was a waste to me because nobody knows what the problem is or how
> to fix it, and the only suggestions I got were t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
>> In a case like this it is very likely a BSD driver issue - why,
>> because the FreeBSD driver author could not test with every
>> custom-modified microcode when he wrote the driver. There is no list
>> out there of every computer company who
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> Actually it was a waste to you because you don't want to try anything,
> but it wasn't a waste to others on the list.
It was a waste to me because nobody knows what the problem is or how to
fix it, and the only suggestions I got were that the hardware was
failing, which
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> In a case like this it is very likely a BSD driver issue - why,
> because the FreeBSD driver author could not test with every
> custom-modified microcode when he wrote the driver. There is no list
> out there of every computer company who has had a source license to
> th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Colin J. Raven writes:
>
>> How much time have you lost _just_ within the context of this thread
>> alone?
>
> Not very much, although it was virtually a total waste.
>
Actually it was a waste to you because you don't want to try anything,
but it wasn't a waste to othe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I shouldn't have risen to this, but it's already gone from the
> realms of
> the sublime to the utterly absurd.
Colin,
After going back and forth on this problem for weeks, Anthony finally
posted the microcode version that his Adaptec controller is using. This
microc
Colin J. Raven writes:
> How much time have you lost _just_ within the context of this thread
> alone?
Not very much, although it was virtually a total waste.
> Everyone has attempted - with great diligence and considerable patience
> - to *help* you.
Most have spent a lot of bandwidth on ad ho
On Mar 22 at 17:05, Anthony Atkielski said:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
--
And when people are saying that it's more likely X but you insist it's Y
and you don't want to take the time to do Y because there are others
who should be more competent with it, what are you going
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> That is right around the time that brand new drives fail, if they are
> going to, that is.
Well, I got a replacement drive today, so if this one fails, I have
another one standing by. I'll need to see more clear indications that
the drive is actually in trouble before
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:23:36 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Chris writes:
> >
> >> Your legacy hardware finally gave up the ghost...
> >
> > Uh, no. The production server is about 90 days old, and state of the
> > art. The drives are brand new.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris writes:
>
>> Your legacy hardware finally gave up the ghost...
>
> Uh, no. The production server is about 90 days old, and state of the
> art. The drives are brand new.
That is right around the time that brand new drives fail, if they are
going to, that is.
Mode
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
