Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 23:26:47 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ? Message-ID: <1b0eb704-9322-9b7a-363b-7ad5b55ecf7b@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <20211126171350.bf976c035095e1d8ac5e43fa@bidouilliste.com> References: <20211126160454.3eb827365a02103169ab9adc@bidouilliste.com> <5b9baa6a-66ee-549d-a3e9-f6ea4e6e5016@grosbein.net> <20211126171350.bf976c035095e1d8ac5e43fa@bidouilliste.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
26.11.2021 23:13, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > Better as in it doesn't respect the specs ? People (except of programmers :-) do not work with specs, they work with real pieces of metal. sc(4) works out of the box and an upgrade does not ruin the system, so it is considered better. I was forced to deal with production system broken with 11.1->11.2 upgrade (it used vt(4) by default) and it was not fun. > You said yourself in this PR that we should blame the manufacturer. > Now if you want to work on making hw.vga.acpi_ignore_no_vga better in > loader based on the smbios info and some quirk table please go ahead. > But don't say that sc(4) is better because it works on buggy hardware > as it ignores some stuff. No, I will keep saying that compatibility with buggy hardware is better than lack of compatibility; at least in case we already have the compatibility and going to lose it. >> I'd like more FreeBSD developers respect POLA these days >> and take responds like "I've always used sc(4), it works for me don't touch it" seriously. >> >> Please, don't touch what works and works good. >> > > Why POLA ? > I'm asking for reasons to keep sc(4), how the hell is that POLA to ask > some questions ? Removal of sc(4) will astonish part of our user base. We should avoid it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1b0eb704-9322-9b7a-363b-7ad5b55ecf7b>