From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 1 23:26:11 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335B8106566B; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 23:26:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53E38FC1C; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 23:26:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m31NPxYl042552; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.14.1/8.13.4/Submit) id m31NPwM1042551; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:25:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200804012325.m31NPwM1042551@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Martin Fouts" References: <20080330231544.A96475@localhost> <200803310135.m2V1ZpiN018354@apollo.backplane.com> <200803312125.29325.qpadla@gmail.com> <200803311915.m2VJFSoR027593@apollo.backplane.com> <200803312006.m2VK6Aom028133@apollo.backplane.com> <200803312254.m2VMsPqZ029549@apollo.backplane.com> <200804011733.m31HXF6e039649@apollo.backplane.com> <200804012014.m31KEvTJ041049@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Christopher Arnold , arch@freebsd.org, qpadla@gmail.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Flash disks and FFS layout heuristics X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:26:11 -0000 :Although Apple is getting much hype about the sophistication of the :iPhone, we've been shipping convergent devices of that complexity for :some time now. Apple have better industrial design, but they're not :doing anything, other than the touch screen, that we haven't already :done. : :You are now *starting* to understand the level of complexity of CE :embedded devices. How condescending you are. Just remember, you started this frackas. I can't believe it, you actually think you know more about embedded design then I do! What a laugh. I don't know a thing about you, and you clearly don't know a thing about me. Here's a hint: When you don't know you shouldn't assume. :Actually, Matt, it's you, by trying to solve a complex embedded systems :problem as if it were a 'degenerate' large scale systems problem, who :are "being silly." You keep handing me crowbars when I need a scapel. Oooh. complex.... biiig word. What bullshit. You think these problems are complex? Embedded systems these days are nearly complete single-chip microcomputers running hacked up but nearly complete operating systems containing 95% off-the-shelf software, much of it open source, and much of it provided to the developer on a shiny platter, with a fully operational SDK and HDK and FPGA logic around the core cpu. All in one chip. These days 'embedded' means you are sporting a completely functional linux operating system in a two chip solution with virtually no external parts required beyond those needed for the connectors. And it's all now written in C or C++ or whatever the hell language you want to write it in. It's crazy easy to do embedded development work these days. No more difficult then writing software on a full blown PC. I'm sorry, but if that is your idea of complex then its roughly equivalent to my idea of ridiculously easy. -Matt Matthew Dillon