Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:31:17 +1000 From: Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors Message-ID: <1229229078.18610.80.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20081212212931.F5072@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <1228733482.4495.14.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20081211103742.21621a6d@gom.home> <20081211190951.GB845@comcast.net> <20081211113257.405a082c@gom.home> <20081211202023.GC845@comcast.net> <20081211134622.15c81ecd@gom.home> <20081212002813.GD32300@kokopelli.hydra> <20081211170011.777236f8@gom.home> <20081212015814.GB32982@kokopelli.hydra> <20081212120437.B3687@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212181258.GE36348@kokopelli.hydra> <ghuau9$juk$1@ger.gmane.org> <20081212203202.H4803@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212150228.520ad7f8@scorpio> <20081212212931.F5072@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 21:35 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> NVidia MUST INCLUDE full documentation of their hardware. > >> this is normal - hardware manufacturer produces hardware, programmers > >> do make support for it. > >> > >> what is common today isn't normal. > > > > I honestly have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. > > exactly what i wrote. the problem is that people like You (and millions > others) are willing to buy product without any documentation. > > if you think they do this to hide their hardware secrets you are wrong. > See x86 instruction set - does it reveal how Intel or Amd made their > processor so fast? no! > > They do this to hide their hardware faults that way - that's the true > reason they do this. > > With new hardware produced every year it MUST be buggy and certainly there > are thousands of hardware bugs. > > with "secret" drivers - they can easily hide them. AFAIK at least half of > their driver code are to do workaround of their hardware bugs. Actually that sounds like a very close approximation of what is going on. It explains why cpu usage can go up some times during use. What I can't equate with is why its acceptable for intel to do the same... check if_iwi and its "firmware". No other wifi device (that I'm aware of- at least they'd be in the minority anyway) works this way. The excuse is fcc regs- I doubt that... And before anyone defends intel: I've spent a lot of time wasted on making their stupid nics to work in windows, I usually just flick em and put in a rl nic. The cpus are shit as well- I've had no end of trouble with them, plus too hot, power hungry etc. Alas, finding a decent notebook with an alternative has been to no avail...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1229229078.18610.80.camel>