Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:35:46 -0600 From: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <20010409163545.B72259@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <000701c0c0e7$f6b4db40$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>; from "Ted Mittelstaedt" on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 04:26:47AM References: <20010408175333.B117005@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> <000701c0c0e7$f6b4db40$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 04:26:47AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Duke Normandin [mailto:01031149@3web.net] > > > >So...is it fair to say that given the multitude of junk hardware in > >active use, that M$ and perhaps Linux have done an outstanding job in > >1. writing relatively stable drivers for this so-called crap, and 2., > >dove-tailing same with their perhaps not-so-stable kernel(s)? As well, > >that this whole discussion is really about quality and availablity of > >junk-hardware drivers? > > > Many's the time I've seen people complain that FreeBSD didn't support > their pet Wonkulating Gronkulator and that Linux did - and after you > get into it with them, it always seems to come out in the discussion that > their Wonkulating Gronkulator card costs $14, and the card that FreeBSD > _does_ support that does the same thing, costs $25. (and is technically > a better card) The way I read your parapraph I can only conclude that Linux et al *do* support more $14 cards as an accomodation to the cheaps bastards out there, than does FreeBSD. It goes w/o saying that FreeBSD *does* support the same functionalities -- but only those of higher quality / or those that the developers happen to favor. > >True enough! However, in your vast experience, what percentage of the > >current and future Unix users do you suppose can afford the quality of > >basic and peripheral hardware that commercial houses opt for -- and more > >importantly, that the FreeBSD top-level folks *seem* to have deemed to be > >the only type that drivers would be written for? > > > > You got it backwards, actually. In my experience it's precisely the > commercial houses, large companies that are purchasing 500 desktop systems > at a time, for example, that will chintz and scrape to save a nickel. > The problem is that these folks (mostly) are too dumb to see that if they > save $200 per machine and get a system that's garbage-grade, that over the > life of that system it's going to cost far more than $200 additional in > frustrated technician time to fix up. Are you telling me (us) that most private computer users, intent on learning and *using* Unix, go out and buy the very best equipment that is available? They don't simply go to Future Shop etc, and look for the "best bang for their buck"? > >Your comments above, IMHO, support your previous suggestion that this > >whole issue revolves around certain strategic marketing decisions that > >have been made. Something to the effect that -- we'll aim at being the > >best server platform possible, and to hell with catering to the desktop > >users with their paeon junk hardware. If they're clued-in enough to get > >with the program and come up to standards, then it'll work for them, up > >to a point. Otherwise, piss on em! Am I being unfair? > > > > I think that actually this more closely describes the actual fact than > most people would like, but I think your being very unfair with this > as an attitude characterization. If what I suggested above "more closely describes the actual fact than most people would like", then I supposed I lucked-in and guessed correctly. The facts then, seem to suggest a certain attitude, but like to indicate below, there may be more issues involved. I can understand completely though. You want to play with our little hobby OS? -- fine use it and love as is! That's an attitude -- and perfectly justified. I guess that *I* need to know this before making a decision, that's all. > For starters, no developer that writes a device driver WANTS to write crappy > code. After all, your name is prominently splashed all over the code, I > can't think of a worse way to be known in this business than to have your > name attached to a device driver that gives people problems. I agree! I'm sure that there has never been a conscious decision made to write buggy or ill-conceived code. My comments above in no way implied as much. > So, what happens invariably is that the developer sits down, and writes the > driver, and tests it with as many devices as he can get. Naturally, this is > someone who takes his computing very seriously, he or she isn't going to own > any crap hardware. Furthermore, most of his or her friends that are running > FreeBSD and would be inclined to test his code, well they are serious people > too and they don't own crappy hardware. > So, everyone blesses the driver as good, and next FreeBSD release it shows > up. Shortly after that a flood of complaints come in from users that have > devices that aren't compliant, and develop problems. > > Now, the developer at this point could say "screw you it works on all this > tested stuff, buy one of the tested devices". > I have to say, that when the items are really, really cheap, (like > soundcards, for example) and the price differences are a few dollars, this > may be a perfectly valid attitude to have. > > But, most developers sift through the complaints and try to find > commonalities. Say the driver is for a network card chipset, well the > developer finds that 90% of the complaints are from 1 manufacturer's card > that uses this chipset - well, the developer most likely will obtain one of > these cards and test against it and fix the driver. But, will he then go on > and fix the problems in the remaining 10% of complaints? Would it be a good > use of time for him to fix them? It depends! If 100% of the complaints represents only 10% of the possible NICs commonly in use, then fixing 90% of the complaints isn't saying a whole hell of a lot, is it? > To clarify what I was saying - the $64 question is this: Is the market > demanding a SOLUTION to a problem, or are they demanding a SPECIFIC > APPLICATION PROGRAM AS THE SOLUTION to a problem? > > Microsoft has built an industry trained to think that there's only ONE > solution to their particular problem. So, if the end users are programmed > into this - and they happen to be demanding a buggy program - then > you may need to do Bad Things to the operating system to support > this buggy program. > > Of course the first step to solving this is to convince the end users that > they can use MANY DIFFERENT solutions to their problem - they aren't > married to Microsoft's answer, nor to anyone else's answer. Exactly.... "they aren't married to Microsoft's answer,.."! It just seems to me that if FreeBSD is interested in being "one" of the solutions for the desktop-only/mostly crowd, then steps should be taken to accomodate W/O compromising kernel integrity in any way. > >Sure...Like you said marketing; marketing, marketing! Those Linux folks > >aren't stupid either I suppose. I'm sure that they also recognize the > >preponderance of the junk hardware that's being used both in private and > >corporate settings - globally. So it's my guess that they are trying to > >make the best out of a not-so-good fact of life, by writing the best > >drivers possible for as much junk as possible -- in order to win over as > >many new converts as possible, to the "Unix way". Isn't *that* what it > >should be about -- at least to some degree? > > > > But, your missing something - the "UNIX Way" is to use the best tool for the > job, not to ram a hammer in there for all solutions. Therefore, why use a > substandard tool (ie: substandard computer hardware) to solve your > problems? Now, this is a new one for me! I've never heard it said that the above was a prerequisite for using Unix. As a matter of fact, in my visits to the Open/Net/FreeBSD sites, nowhere have I read anything on using *only* quality components. > You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. If Linux bends over > backward to support every last little junk device, then they are basically > saying "Hey everyone, there's no standards to uphold in the computer > industry, just use whatever junk you want and the software guys will sort it > all out later" This is just like what Windows is doing. So, I have to say, > if Linux is going to be this much like Windows, then why run Linux when you > can run Windows? > > >I agree with this completely. FreeBSD is evolving. Having lurked on this > >list for almost 1.5 years now, my sense that if FreeBSD was once looked > >upon by some of the original developers as simply an enjoyable hobby, it > >certainly should not be seen as *only* that anymore -- not if FreeBSD is > >to grow and spread. > > I don't think that it is seen as that anymore, and hasn't been seen as that > for a long time now. I think the issue really is not _whether_ it's > spreading, but _how_ and _where_ it's spreading. > > This is going to sound somewhat snobbish, but it's in our interest to see > that FreeBSD is used by the "right people". We don't want to have the > majority of FreeBSD users comprised of people that never contribute one > second of their time, or one dime of their money back to the project, or to > other FreeBSD users. We also don't want to bring on a huge raft of newbies > that have no patience for any software program that requires them to use > their brains to understand and use it. > > I always think of this whenever someone suggests shit-canning > /stand/sysinstall in favor of some GUI-based X-Windows installation program. > Well, the graphical install programs are nice, and are easy enough so that > anyone can use. But, what's the point of making the OS install so simple > and easy - once the FreeBSD system is installed and reboots up to a login > prompt, what are they supposed to do then? Sooner or later they have to > start thinking, they might as well start thinking when they start installing > the OS!! > I think that we now are finally getting to the core issue of this desktop/server FreeBSD/Linux deal. If FreeBSD exists to perform primarily* as a server platform - period -- *then it should be marketed as such. Why? Because *all* peripheral support is, by-and-large, developed for, tested on and limited to server-grade quality stuff. It should then be plainly emphasized that FreeBSD is *NOT* an appropriate OS for deployment on run-of-the-mill, Microsoft-grade hardware. In the spirit of professional good-will, A referal to some of the Linux sites could then be given. As well, it should be again plainly emphasized that FreeBSD is *NOT* an appropriate OS for most folks wanting to migrate from a Windows/Mac platform, as the level of computer literacy and competence required to successfully install the OS, hardware peripherals, software, etc, far exceeds that of the average Joe. Like you say above, the potential FreeBSD user could then be advised to stay with Windows or be directed to Linux. Fair enough -- I'd say! Ted...I suspect that this thread is pissing off just a few folks out there. The questions I asked were not meant to denegrate FreeBSD, the developers, or their valiant efforts. I may have issues with some aspects of FreeBSD, but my respect for the whole ball of wax has never waned. I'm still in the throes of learning my way around Unix. I haven't yet made a decision between a flavor of Linux or an incarnation of BSD. This discussion has been enlightening and informative, but I think that it would serve no further good to continue publically. Please email me privately with any further comments/suggestions. -- -duke Calgary, Alberta, Canada To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010409163545.B72259>