Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 21 Mar 2021 14:25:53 -0400
From:      Jerry <>
Subject:   Re: OS to replace FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:14:07 -0400, Aryeh Friedman stated:
>On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 12:07 PM Jerry <> wrote:
>> >Why should they?!?!?
>> >
>> >The reasons for "why should they" are:
>> >1. There is an almost infinite number of combinations of hardware
>> >that one can find out there and most of them are like the person
>> >you are replying to edge cases that effect very few people (as
>> >witnessed by you can't find anyone with a close enough system that
>> >is willing to actually do the work to test any fixes on... so this
>> >leaves two options: a) you stop complaining and help actually fix
>> >the bug, b) you switch OS's.... either way stop publically whining
>> >about stuff you refuse to help with in an way and if you switch
>> >OS's this is the wrong forum to do it in -- in short STFU)
>> >
>> >2. They *DO* list hardware that is *KNOWN* to be 100% compatible and
>> >working with the base system if you are not using one of the listed
>> >components then you are venturing into unknown territory and any
>> >problems are on you to report and or help fix... if you decide to go
>> >this route then you have no one except yourself to blame when you
>> >run into "some assembly required" situations and likely you are one
>> >the few people that can help fix it... yet you refuse to... again
>> >STFU =20
>> I have no problem with them listing every system they know to be 100%
>> companionable. However, logistically, I believe the to be a
>> impractical. I think the possibility of them actually testing every
>> possible controller, et cetera under every conceivable environment
>> to be absurd. All they really need to do is compile a list of known
>> units with incompatibility issues, post them and then keep them
>> updated.=20
>Again why should they if the issue is an open and actively being
>investigated bug report.   The purpose of such a list is for things the
>have decided not to support and any device that claims support for
>function X but does not quite meet the standard (as implemented in the
>kernel) is then by definition a bug that needs to be looked into.
>The bug you are complaining about *IS* being actively looked into and
>thus does not belong on the "we don't support list".
>So once again you are wasting your time and everyone else's time by
>barking up a tree that doesn't exist (and should not exist).   So
>either switch to another OS or help solve the issue your complaining
>about.   Neither option is really the territory of -questions@ so once
>again STFU.

You are a complete asshole. The simple fact the the controller in
question, and here I am assuming it is the controller, does not
function correctly under FreeBSD, versions >=3D 11.x, but apparently does
function under other OSs, is prima facie proof that it is not supported.

I have seen zero proof that anyone is actively working on this
phenomenon. The fact the the bug was first reported over a year ago
would seem to indicate that it is not attracting any attention. The
fact that it did work once under older versions reinforces my belief
that someone screwed up the code in the newer versions.


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>