From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Oct 25 12:22: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C54152B6 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06993 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:21:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id VAA16251 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:21:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9821522F for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 12:21:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA05790; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:21:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14719; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:21:06 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:21:06 -0600 Message-Id: <199910251921.NAA14719@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: Nate Williams , Warner Losh , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Racing interrupts In-Reply-To: References: <199910251915.NAA14613@mt.sri.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Feh. Okay, maybe a cheapshot. Sorry. But the argument "Things are just > fine the way they are and users will cope" pushes my buttons a bit... I didn't agree that 'things are just fine the way they are', I simply stated that too often the standard approach to the problem is to state 'your hardware is broken, fix it'. I don't like this stand (although have used it myself on many occasions), but I suspect it will be the solution that is found, given the lack of resources. Are you willing to spend the time to design/develop a working error handling system for FreeBSD? Standing on the sidelines and stating that it's broken w/out spending any resources to make it better is a bigger crime in my opinion than not having the system in the first place.... Nate > > > On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > > > > It's alot easier to use the standard FreeBSD approach to the problem. > > > > "You've got broken hardware, fix it and FreeBSD will work better." :( > > > > > > Then FreeBSD will never be a serious server solution, and I for one would > > > quit wasting my time on a Linux wannabe. > > > > Linux wannabe? Cheap shot, and completely uncalled for, especially > > since Linux is no better at this than FreeBSD, and often-times *MUCH* > > worse. > > > > > > > > Nate > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message