Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:11:50 -0500 From: Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay Message-ID: <7c2cf9b1abb85ee648b5764f9c7915f4@chrononomicon.com> In-Reply-To: <1181508865.20050322114009@wanadoo.fr> References: <20050321095647.R83831@makeworld.com> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEOAFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <1907678552.20050322101315@wanadoo.fr> <1111486000.751.221.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com> <1181508865.20050322114009@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 22, 2005, at 5:40 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Peter Risdon writes: > >> 2. Does a version of FreeBSD that is contemporary with NT and your >> machine (ancient, unsupported, like NT) drive this hardware OK? > > I don't know. Why should I have to run an eight-year-old version of > FreeBSD? Instead of a five year old version of Windows? :-) > Does every new version introduce regressions? UNIX still > supports dumb terminals that are thirty years old. Because dumb terminals are just smart serial modems? > Why shouldn't > FreeBSD support disks that are eight years old? Because those specs haven't been obsoleted? > My guess is that FreeBSD has _never_ supported this hardware correctly. > People have been complaining about it for years. Um...if the hardware wasn't working with FreeBSD, why did you install it, or try getting people to support it now that it's so old that most people aren't running it and you want a special effort devoted to getting it to work? >> You bet. Paid help is surely available. What you fail to realise is >> that >> nobody is under any obligation to give you such detailed and >> time-consuming help FOR FREE. > > So tell me again the advantage of open source, as opposed to > proprietary > software? No one is stopping you from doing the work yourself. You said it yourself that it just takes a huge amount of time to sit down and go through and comprehend. The advantage is that if you wanted to do it, you could. Or you can contract someone to do it for you. >> FreeBSD development follows the lines decided on by the development >> team, just like every OS in the world. If no developers choose to >> spend >> time fixing (non-destructive) issues for you, personally, then that's >> their choice. If that is their choice, it's a pretty good one. > > It's not the sort of choice that is conducive to widespread use of the > OS. Software developed by prima donnas answerable to no one makes > large > organizations nervous. They're not out to please just you. When they're obligated to do so, it's a job, not a hobby. They're not out to take over the business world. They're scratching an itch, or working for a principal or philosophy...try listening to Stallman's speeches on what Open Source means. >> I'd love to see you harangue Microsoft for personalised development >> and >> support in the way you've been haranguing this list. > > I have; some changes in NT were made because of my complaints. Out of curiosity...what changes? And did they give you credit? > I have fifty-year-old cameras that still work fine; there's no need to > replace them every 18 months. Why should I have to replace computers > every 18 months? Why did you replace the OS and stress out when it didn't fit your bill of needs? >> You can find LOTS of archaic hardware that is incompatible >> with the latest versions of FreeBSD - or Apple Mac, or Linux, or (sit >> down for this one) Windows. > > You have yet to establish that any "archaic" aspect of the hardware is > at the root of this problem, and in fact you don't actually know what > the problem is. Wow...take this much further and I'd suggest you find someone on the list that wants to really really prove you wrong you could arrange to have that person take the hardware and run the diagnostics for your and ship it back to you afterwards with their findings... > There doesn't seem to be anyone here who actually knows > anything about FreeBSD internals. Does anyone ever read the code? If I highlight it and click the symbol in the application's name menu, then services, then speech, then start speaking text, it reads it... :-) > The hardware ploy, in fact, is standard procedure in technical support > organizations. Oddly enough, for us the hardware solution is correct about 95% of the time after going through the list of things the "user didn't do" with the configuration. For a ploy it sure tends to be accurate. > You always suggest it's hardware, and insist that the > customer verify. If it's usually what actually had caused the problem, you're damned right they're going to suggest that be checked. Why devote the man-hours to debugging and reconfiguring if it's a cable that worked loose? > The more awkward and time-consuming it is, the better. > Some customers will give up rather than go through all the useless > procedures you suggest; then you can close the call. See, this is part of what's supposed to be natural selection in business. If you treat a customer like crap, you lose customers, and eventually go out of business, unless you're a monopoly. It's part of capitalism. If what you're suggesting were true and this system works, then they would go away. Obviously if you're in the minority experiencing horrendous issues with a particular company or group, then you're making a commotion over nothing as there are many other people that have been more than satisfied with their service. You're saying as a blanket statement that tech support is terrible. Well, then do something about it. If the market is truly that bad and the customer is truly as competent as you're giving them credit for then it should be no problem at all for you to start a tech support company that can beat the pants off everyone else. >> Maybe he was trying to help? That seems to have been a mistake. > > I don't need "help" from people who have no idea what they are talking > about. And replying like that will surely be conducive to getting other people to suggest things to help you. > I need help from someone who knows what's actually causing the > error and is motivated by something a bit more altruistic than denial. Or you just do what people suggested then post the results instead of just saying that their suggestion won't work because you're certain what the problem is and demand satisfaction with your solution. 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 to do to compensate them if they drop everything to do Y and find out it wasn't, in fact, their fault? Anything? When you make demands of people, they generally start expecting compensation for it. When you're taking advantage of other people's work, they generally expect some kind of payback, usually with something like encouragement or gratitude. The BSD team isn't out to displace Windows or "take down" Microsoft or take over the desktop or even make you in particular happy.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7c2cf9b1abb85ee648b5764f9c7915f4>