Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:19:33 -0700 From: Darrin Chandler <dwchandler@stilyagin.com> To: User Freebsd <freebsd@hub.org> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Message-ID: <20060726201933.GH5284@jeeves.stilyagin.local> In-Reply-To: <20060726164622.Q17979@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060726032544.4CA2643D70@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <20060726123204.C17979@ganymede.hub.org> <ef10de9a0607260944w6d83a327sa9c15faf30dd071d@mail.gmail.com> <20060726153515.I17979@ganymede.hub.org> <20060726190108.GE5284@jeeves.stilyagin.local> <20060726164622.Q17979@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:48:52PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: > > My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd > rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they > require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use > Adaptec products ... > > Right now, I personally am being hurt more by having *nothing* from > Adaptec, binary or open, then I would be if they'd provide something > binary, since under 4.x, the Adaptec driver *was* rock solid, so I felt > pretty safe upgrading to 6.x, which turns out was not so smart a move ... > > How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, > for similar fears? Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of "consumer." You don't, so you're left in the cold. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD Users Group dwchandler@stilyagin.com | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060726201933.GH5284>