I don't run Linux to run a non-free operating system, and I find OpenOffice to be a vital part of my distribution. Java, I'm afraid, is not open. A reliance on Java is not a good thing, even if the Java bindings for UNO are much cleaner than the C++ counterparts.
That's just stupid. Firstly, they couldn't make them do this. Secondly, what the hell has drinking a can of beer, juice or water at the end of the day got to do with work?!
Yeah, I'm aware of the fact that RAID management involves all these things. Clearly the product manager was under the impression that the OpenBSD project wanted GUI support. He states it in two emails to the list - they're all in the archives. This shows a clear lack of understanding of what was needed and wanted.
However, your post is pretty informative. I only wish I could mod you up...
Did you bother to read? The parent poster said "moral obligation", not legal obligation. And we're talking about getting documentation for a RAID controller for goodness sake! This is a server product, not a desktop product. Are Adaptec serious about people who need to run servers?
As another poster pointed out, you pulled that 90% figure out of your arse. Secondly, the fact that BSD may or may not have huge marketshare is hardly the point here. The point is that Adaptec appears to have an issue with providing documentation for (of all thing) AAC RAID! Exactly how hard can it be? Perhaps at this point I should quote part of Doug Anderson's reply?
"We here at Adaptec are doing all we can to provide you as much documentation as we possibly can in the timeframe that makes the most sense for both of us....and we had provided you documentation before on our driver, but what you are seeking now is more source information regarding our GUI management, etc..."
Some choice quotes:
"as much documenation as we possibly can in the timeframe that makes the most sense for both of us" (four months?)
"what you are seeking now is more source information regarding our GUI management" - sorry? OpenBSD wants GUI management information? Am I missing something here?
You say "We have to be realistic here and realize that we have to make it worth it for companies like Adaptec to support Linux or in this case, OpenBSD. Adaptec isn't interested in OpenBSD because it's not in their best financial interest, despite their best intentions." Well, from their email:
"I can understand you seeking this, as you as well as many other flavors of Linux/Unix are looking for the same thing...and though we would like to support "all" of the various flavors of these new operating systems, we can't do so in an economic fashion, as support for "all" of these varying flavors is just not possible..."
Why not? They aren't looking for specific support for ONE operating system. They are looking for documentation that explains how the hardware ticks. This has nothing to do with operating specific information: the operating system DEVELOPERS will work this out THEMSELVES, they don't want an Adaptec supplied driver!!! I would suggest that, by Adaptec's own admission if "you [OpenBSD] as well as many other flavors of Linux/Unix are looking for the same thing" then the OpenBSD project is not the only one having issues with Adaptec documentation and that the Theo has been the one to make the biggest stink about it so far. Then we get this: "We are coming out with an entire new rev of our firmware with the upcoming SAS/SATA-2 release in the July timeframe, and our plan is to provide a Software Development Kit (SDK), which will be generic in nature, and will have the documentation in hand that will help you to do the work on your side to continue to expand the support for Adaptec products in your OpenBSD OS...." So what?!? Are they saying that to get existing hardware working they have to wait till July AND OpenBSD users will have to update their existing firmware? What sort of response is this??? What's wrong with providing documentation for the existing hardware? Which leads me to an interesting point. You say that "Everyone on here expects companies to spend millions in development and bend over backwards for their own purposes.", which is correct. If companies spend millions in development, they spend it because they want their customers and potential customers to get the most benefit from their products, and thus keep buying from them. That a company would spend millions on development and then drag the chain on documentation is, to put it frankly, pathetic and more than a little stupid.
It never happened! It was just a figment of Theo's imagination!
Did you ever consider that this was done temporarily to stop a flow of negative email to this particular managers email account - and then the account was reenabled? I guess not.
Sorry, but it appears that the poster totally missed the point. Theo appears to want documentation. They didn't get it. They got palmed by Adaptec, who tried to appeared to state that OpenBSD is just another flavour of Linux (thus missing the point - I guess that Doug Richardson isn't terribly technical and probably better at marketing - doubtful considering his email reply - than understanding the BSD marketplace) and also, as Theo stated, want support.
Exactly how hard is it to provide decent documentation so that developers can create drivers? I guess in this case it's quite difficult.
Oh, and another bugbear. I used to work for a certain printer company. Whenever someone mentioned even documentation for Linux (*gasp*!) they'd immediately think that the person wanted support. As it turned out the head company eventually got a clue, but it took a long time for the organisation in Australia to even provide a link for documentation. There was a most definite anti-Unix bent. When OS X came out certain colleagues nearly had a heart attack. I once heard one of them say that "historically Unix hardware support sucks". OK, I digress, but this rant felt good.
The operating system is responsible for the direct control and management of hardware and basic system operations. If you look up any decent definition of what an operating system is, you'll find that it is a lower layer that includes the kernel (say for instance William Stallings book on Operating Systems). Application software uses the operating system.
You're thinking of a distribution. I suggest you check your facts next time.
If they find that the placebo effect is biochemical, will this invalidate medical experiments that use placebos? I was under the impression that they used placebos as a comparison to the real drugs used.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't you use emerge later though?
Someone mod up the parent post.
I don't run Linux to run a non-free operating system, and I find OpenOffice to be a vital part of my distribution. Java, I'm afraid, is not open. A reliance on Java is not a good thing, even if the Java bindings for UNO are much cleaner than the C++ counterparts.
That's just stupid. Firstly, they couldn't make them do this. Secondly, what the hell has drinking a can of beer, juice or water at the end of the day got to do with work?!
If that's the case, charge the fucker.
The phrase "Open Source" has been around for a long time, and is fair buzzword safe.
Very insightful.
That same off-topic thing was said before.
LOL!
In other words, Mac users are the cause of OS X insecurity. Sounds about right.
Yeah, I'm aware of the fact that RAID management involves all these things. Clearly the product manager was under the impression that the OpenBSD project wanted GUI support. He states it in two emails to the list - they're all in the archives. This shows a clear lack of understanding of what was needed and wanted.
However, your post is pretty informative. I only wish I could mod you up...
Would you get more of a chance of getting documentation from IBM then? Maybe Theo should pester them instead of Adaptec...
Please provide examples of binary drivers in the Linux kernel that are officially endorsed by Linus Torvalds. Thanks.
Who said anything about vendors supplying drivers? They don't want drivers! They want documentation!
Did you bother to read? The parent poster said "moral obligation", not legal obligation. And we're talking about getting documentation for a RAID controller for goodness sake! This is a server product, not a desktop product. Are Adaptec serious about people who need to run servers?
Perhaps at this point I should quote part of Doug Anderson's reply?
Some choice quotes:
You say "We have to be realistic here and realize that we have to make it worth it for companies like Adaptec to support Linux or in this case, OpenBSD. Adaptec isn't interested in OpenBSD because it's not in their best financial interest, despite their best intentions." Well, from their email:
Why not? They aren't looking for specific support for ONE operating system. They are looking for documentation that explains how the hardware ticks. This has nothing to do with operating specific information: the operating system DEVELOPERS will work this out THEMSELVES, they don't want an Adaptec supplied driver!!! I would suggest that, by Adaptec's own admission if "you [OpenBSD] as well as many other flavors of Linux/Unix are looking for the same thing" then the OpenBSD project is not the only one having issues with Adaptec documentation and that the Theo has been the one to make the biggest stink about it so far.
Then we get this:
"We are coming out with an entire new rev of our firmware with the upcoming SAS/SATA-2 release in the July timeframe, and our plan is to provide a Software Development Kit (SDK), which will be generic in nature, and will have the documentation in hand that will help you to do the work on your side to continue to expand the support for Adaptec
products in your OpenBSD OS...."
So what?!? Are they saying that to get existing hardware working they have to wait till July AND OpenBSD users will have to update their existing firmware? What sort of response is this??? What's wrong with providing documentation for the existing hardware?
Which leads me to an interesting point. You say that "Everyone on here expects companies to spend millions in development and bend over backwards for their own purposes.", which is correct. If companies spend millions in development, they spend it because they want their customers and potential customers to get the most benefit from their products, and thus keep buying from them. That a company would spend millions on development and then drag the chain on documentation is, to put it frankly, pathetic and more than a little stupid.
It never happened! It was just a figment of Theo's imagination!
Did you ever consider that this was done temporarily to stop a flow of negative email to this particular managers email account - and then the account was reenabled? I guess not.
Sorry, but it appears that the poster totally missed the point. Theo appears to want documentation. They didn't get it. They got palmed by Adaptec, who tried to appeared to state that OpenBSD is just another flavour of Linux (thus missing the point - I guess that Doug Richardson isn't terribly technical and probably better at marketing - doubtful considering his email reply - than understanding the BSD marketplace) and also, as Theo stated, want support.
Exactly how hard is it to provide decent documentation so that developers can create drivers? I guess in this case it's quite difficult.
Oh, and another bugbear. I used to work for a certain printer company. Whenever someone mentioned even documentation for Linux (*gasp*!) they'd immediately think that the person wanted support. As it turned out the head company eventually got a clue, but it took a long time for the organisation in Australia to even provide a link for documentation. There was a most definite anti-Unix bent. When OS X came out certain colleagues nearly had a heart attack. I once heard one of them say that "historically Unix hardware support sucks". OK, I digress, but this rant felt good.
The operating system is responsible for the direct control and management of hardware and basic system operations. If you look up any decent definition of what an operating system is, you'll find that it is a lower layer that includes the kernel (say for instance William Stallings book on Operating Systems). Application software uses the operating system.
You're thinking of a distribution. I suggest you check your facts next time.
No worries about doing anything useful for any lengthy period of time either.
Someone mod the parent up?
Nope. This is correct.
So why use a placebo at all? Why not just measure what happens to them without the placebo?
If they find that the placebo effect is biochemical, will this invalidate medical experiments that use placebos? I was under the impression that they used placebos as a comparison to the real drugs used.
I feel like I'm in an episode of StarGate.