28-Mar-2024 10:57 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 85 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 85]
[Forum] PegBSDANN.lu
Posted on 30-Jun-2004 01:16 GMT by Parfeit85 comments
View flat
View list
BSD on Peg? Dale Rahn? What's the latest news? from his site here http://www.dalerahn.com/~drahn/ we link to here http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=108028112117093&w=2

I would like to know when/if Dale is going to be paid?
PegBSD : Comment 1 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Henning Brauer on 30-Jun-2004 02:32 GMT
There is no interest from OpenBSD's side to invest a single second into supporting a platform whoms vendor screwed one of our developers so much. It is extremely unlikely that OpenBSD/pegasos, which was quite functional when we deleted it, is ever revived.
Efforts from the NetBSD crowd have been stopped too apparently.
PegBSD : Comment 2 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 30-Jun-2004 03:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Henning Brauer):
Judging from the comments posted on OpenBSD mailing lists and forums such as the Daily Daemon, it seems most of those people simply came to a conclusion based on the story from Dale Rahn and Theo de Raadt and other people even more tangentially involved, without hearing Genesi's side of it at all. There's no question that Dale got a bad deal, but when Genesi's funds crunch came, things were bad for a bunch of people and it apparently was hard to shuffle anybody to the front of the line. The problem was compounded by what look like middle-management screwups along the way. Dale did actually receive several thousand dollars during extremely lean times for Genesi, though.

For a more complete overview of the situation, I suggest checking out Phoenix's OpenBSD Wrap-up where there are links to counterbalancing statements by Paul Adams and others.

Genesi did go into the situation with maybe undue optimism that it would continue to have the level of developer funds it had been enjoying, and it was naive or misinformed about OpenBSD's intolerance for NDAs. On its side, while Dale Rahn was generally more than reasonable, Theo de Raadt came across as hysterical prima donna, poisoning the dialog with insults and willing to come to hard conclusions based on faulty assumptions (all in IMHO, looking at the public statements). Needless to say, it was a learning experience, one of the central lessons being that there isn't really demand for the OpenBSD/PPC solution that Genesi had in mind originally.

-- gary_c
PegBSD : Comment 3 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 04:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Henning Brauer):
Let's see. Theo the rat got thrown out of FreeBSD, he is a Nazi of his own project OpenBSD and his own dog doesn't want to play with him. His reputation wherever he shows up is basicly non-existing. After all why should one of their developer feel screwed up ? After all OpenBSD as the name implies is an OPEN SOURCE operating system. So where the fuck is the difference if you write drivers in your fucking spare time or if you write drivers getting paid ? The only difference is the money. Nothing about the driver itself so what justifies it to have the Pegasos support removed from OpenBSD again ? What whould have been if some free volunteer would have written that support and would have add it to OpenBSD ? Getting in a shitty circumstance and feeling screwed is one thing, screwing all the users who like to run OpenBSD on their Pegasos is even more retarded.
PegBSD : Comment 4 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 30-Jun-2004 05:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Anonymous):
>So where the fuck is the difference if you write drivers in your fucking spare time or if you write drivers getting paid ?

The difference, I'd guess, is that the dude was _promised_ to be paid. Haven't followed the case so I don't know if he got paid or not.
Judging by his behaviour, not.

But in general, I agree with you.
PegBSD : Comment 5 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 30-Jun-2004 05:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Henning Brauer):
"Efforts from the NetBSD crowd have been stopped too apparently."

What do you mean with "apparently"? As far as I know, the NetBSD people are fully aware that this Pegasos platform is an oddball and that they cannot count on documentation from Genesi and friends. Also from what I know, only a couple of NetBSD developers have bought Pegasos-II quite recently, and have done it using their own money.
PegBSD : Comment 6 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 30-Jun-2004 05:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Anonymous):
What the OpenBSD team decides to do with the OpenBSD sources is entirely up to them, just because something is open source doesnt mean that it is public domain, copyrights are still there. And if my memory serves me right, the Open in OpenBSD refers to the developer model they use, a more open developer model than NetBSD used at the time they forked. Just because something has "Open" in the name doesnt imply that it is open source :)
PegBSD : Comment 7 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 30-Jun-2004 05:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Anonymous):
The difference is that this was not spare time. Spare time indicates evenings, weekends, hobbyist-alike activity.

What happened was someone took 'the job', as requested, then did'nt get paid. Big difference. This is not about open source, this is about employing someone to do something for you, just like you requested, then lying to them, and not paying them, and knowing you were not going to be able to pay them, and still not telling them.
PegBSD : Comment 8 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 30-Jun-2004 05:56 GMT
"Genesi could not provide the information requested by OpenBSD without violating a confidentiality agreement with one of our suppliers, Marvell."

Every northbridge has it own bug ... hey wait ... it's not a bug it's a feature ... time will tell if this can be sorted out by HW fix. ;-)
PegBSD : Comment 9 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 06:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (AdmV0rl0n):
The point is that many people work on open bsd and many of them do it within their spare time, for fun, to make sure it's available for as many architectures as possible and by any means maybe get something in return from those who benefit from your work. The point is that GENESI indeed paid these developers by sending them Hardware. From my knowledge GENESI sent over 5 Pegasos II machines to them and some cash as well unfortunately later on they weren't able to pay anymore.

But let's assume a different case now. Say someone would have written Pegasos II support in his spare time without payment (as hundrets of volunteer people do on Linux or other Systems already). Writing a driver doesn't mean you necessarily need to get paid for it, it mostly means to make the Plattform available on other architectures as well. E.g. making some tiny changes there and here and voila get the stuff running.

Sure not getting paid is one thing, deleting and removing the stuff that already works is another one. Not to mention that they received Hardware which they were able to keep too. If they want so much more money and plenty of that then they shouldn't work on an open source operating system in first case. Maybe their job in a true company would have been a better decision where you get your monthly payment and done. This here was a offer from GENESI to have someone skilled work on Pegasos II support (a normal PowerPC chrp architecture - no magic).

Apropos documentations. What documentations do you want for a CHRP PowerPC system ? The chips used inside might be licensed by GENESI by signing an NDA themselves before using them. So when they signed an NDA then they can't hand over documentations to developers. But honestly even Linux has Pegasos II support due to the normal CHRP code found inside. It wouldn't have been a problem to throw the one or other eye in that code and see how things have been done.

The only reason for Theo the Rat and his minions to scream up so loud was to throw dust and shit towards GENESI. There is still NO and I mean absolutely NO justification to have the Pegasos II support removed from OpenBSD. If the author feels so cheated and so offended then he could have stopped writing it and might have hand over the maintainance of that code to someone else who improves it.

Once again you see the so good [MODERATED - CK] mentality of some open source zealots. No life, no skills, no true work with payment.
PegBSD : Comment 10 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris on 30-Jun-2004 06:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (priest):
It was about Giga Ethernet.
PegBSD : Comment 11 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Hagge on 30-Jun-2004 06:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (gary_c):
I have a huge demand for BSD on the peg, it would be a selling point for me. (and for a friend of mine intrested in buying more than one pegasos.)

I simply don't like any of the linux distributions, allthought there are 1000s, debian is ok but packages is way to old, and i wouldn't touch rpm with a stick... so that leaves me with gentoo but in that case it's just as much work as with BSD so why not stick with something which works =P
PegBSD : Comment 12 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Hagge on 30-Jun-2004 06:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Anonymous):
"Theo the rat got thrown out of FreeBSD"

I don't know about this the rat, bot the Theo I'm thinking of got, more or less, thrown out of NetBSD, not FreeBSD.
PegBSD : Comment 13 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Hagge on 30-Jun-2004 06:32 GMT
And in the end I would prefer to have FreeBSD running, but NetBSD is the most obvious one and MUST get running since it runs on anything else. I'm sure they would make a NetBSD/Pegasos if FreeBSD run on it.

Fix it ;/
PegBSD : Comment 14 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Senex on 30-Jun-2004 06:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Hagge):
Maybe DragonFly BSD could be gained for the Pegasos?

http://distrowatch.com/01724
PegBSD : Comment 15 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 06:52 GMT
When will there be OpenBSD for the AmigaONE?
PegBSD : Comment 16 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 06:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Anonymous):
There is NO AmigaONE. When will you people realize that it's just a Teron-Cx + Amiga sticker ?
PegBSD : Comment 17 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 07:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Anonymous):
> There is NO AmigaONE. When will you people realize that it's just
> a Teron-Cx + Amiga sticker ?

Teron + Amiga sticker = Amiga One

Teron + April + Pegasos sticker = Pegasos 1

But there is no AmigaOS for Pegasos. If you know that you should also know why people prefer Amiga One. You should realize that people wants real AmigaOS not MorphOS.
PegBSD : Comment 18 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 07:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Anonymous):
When will there be Amiga stickers for the Teron?
PegBSD : Comment 19 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Leo on 30-Jun-2004 07:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Anonymous):
"The point is that GENESI indeed paid these developers by sending them Hardware."

You don't pay people by sending hardware. You pay people by giving a SALARY...

Leo.
PegBSD : Comment 20 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Leo on 30-Jun-2004 07:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Anonymous):
"The point is that GENESI indeed paid these developers by sending them Hardware."

You don't pay people by sending hardware. You pay people by giving a SALARY...

Leo.
PegBSD : Comment 21 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 07:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Anonymous):
Can't be, my Pegasos I had on-board sound and firewire. ;-)
PegBSD : Comment 22 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 08:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Anonymous):
It also had an optical digital sound out and it was a lot smaller. Actually it is almost as small as the A1 Lite is supposed to be, well except for a couple of centimeters in one direction to make room for the the PCI and AGP slots, which the A1 Lite misses (and no - despite the size, this does not make the Pegasos a "Teron Mini").
PegBSD : Comment 23 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 08:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Anonymous):
Get some sense of reality dude, 'cause this ain't no conspiricy theory or anything.
They removed the Peg-II after one of their developers got mistreated AND! because there is no way they can write a proper functioning driver for BSD with the documentation available to them.

Basicly, even if they wanted to, they couldn't support the Peg-II because of the lack of documentation.

If Marvell for instance were to remove the NDA & give free access to the docs, then the Peg-II would be supported sooner or later.
PegBSD : Comment 24 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 08:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Anonymous):
The A1's are based on the therons, i don't know if there are differences between both, but personally i fail to see the importance of it, they can market their stuff anyway they want.
PegBSD : Comment 25 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 08:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Amon_Re):
A1 = Teron + Custom Firmware. Copy the Firmware to a regular Teron and it is an A1. At least technically - in practice you would have to add some Amiga Inc tax for the name and pay the Eyetech price. It would be nice to be able to say that it has Amiga Stickers but no where does it say Amiga in any way.
PegBSD : Comment 26 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 30-Jun-2004 08:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Anonymous):
"A1 = Teron + Custom Firmware. Copy the Firmware to a regular Teron and it is an A1."

Who has a "regular Teron" to try this experiment? How many "regular Teron" boards have been sold, as opposed to AmigaOnes ?
PegBSD : Comment 27 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 08:39 GMT
Here's the latest news and screenshot:

http://www.bq.fi/freebsd.jpg
PegBSD : Comment 28 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 08:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Don Cox):
They were sold as Linux only boards by dealers too. It was cheaper.
http://tiw-pro.web.internet.telia.com/~1698137/Amigaone/top.html
PegBSD : Comment 29 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 09:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Don Cox):
> How many "regular Teron" boards have been sold, as opposed to AmigaOnes ?

I hope that not a single one has been sold as "Linux only", since those users in that case has been extremely screwed because of the non working Linux situation on that motherboard. That board is totally unusable for serious Linux usage. I hope that OS4 developers finds workarounds for the most critical things that does not reduce performance too much, or the future Amiga will be dead before its boarn.
PegBSD : Comment 30 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 30-Jun-2004 09:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Anonymous):
muah! =)
PegBSD : Comment 31 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 30-Jun-2004 09:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (brotheris):
And most people can live fine without the gigabit ethernet support, however - genesi involved themselves into a deal where OpenBSD with GB ethernet support was the selling point. Tough.

And the GB ethernet support for linux.. didnt it come just recently? :)
PegBSD : Comment 32 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 30-Jun-2004 09:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Anonymous):
Do you have any idea what kind of code was removed? Considering that the Pegasos is a PREP/CHRP/POP.. how much specific pegasos code do you think there ever was to delete? :)
PegBSD : Comment 33 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 30-Jun-2004 09:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Amon_Re):
> because there is no way they can write a proper functioning driver for BSD with > the documentation available to them.

Oh, come on... the only missing thing was firewire and, even then, linux has support for it. Looking at linux's sources doesn't make you go to hell, ya know?
PegBSD : Comment 34 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 09:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
>What do you mean with "apparently"? As far as I know, the NetBSD people are fully >aware that this Pegasos platform is an oddball and that they cannot count on >documentation from Genesi and friends.

Humm ?
You don't "need" the NorthBridge specific documentation. Almost everything is done by the OpenFirmWare. Look at the Pegasos II Linux 2.6.x patch. It's tiny, and fix some Linux bug (the chrp port wasn't PCI domain aware ...). And there is no NB specific code!
For the others chip (VIA southBridge, sound codec, VIA FireWire ...), there are opensource drivers everywhere as these chipset are very common.

About, the GigaBit driver you don't "really really" need the documenation. All the register set and code can be found in the Linux kernel.
Really, stop saying stupid stuff when you don't know what you are speaking about...


>Also from what I know, only a couple of >NetBSD developers have bought >Pegasos-II quite recently, and have done it using their own money.

Well, some teasing:
People are allowed to buy a Pegasos II! incredible !!
I'm disappointed I though only a limited number of people were allow to do so!


Bye
PegBSD : Comment 35 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 30-Jun-2004 09:34 GMT
http://www.openbsd.org/pegasos.html
PegBSD : Comment 36 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 09:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Amon_Re):
>Basicly, even if they wanted to, they couldn't support the Peg-II because of the >lack of documentation.

Humm ?
Arg, see comment 34!

You do NOT need the Marvell doc!!!!

Bye
PegBSD : Comment 37 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 10:11 GMT
Latest theron screenshots:
http://www.jngabi.go.ro/foto/theron.htm
http://just-free-teens.com/celebs/CharlizeTheron-2b/
http://www.house-o-celebs.com/ctheo2.html
PegBSD : Comment 38 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 30-Jun-2004 10:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Fabio Alemagna):
> thing was firewire

Sorry, I meant GigaBit ethernet. Dunno where firewire came from :-o
PegBSD : Comment 39 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 30-Jun-2004 10:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Anonymous):
Question: why don't YOU develop the BSD ports? Since you have the in-depth knowledge to decide exactly what they need and don't need, and also the understanding of the systems to know that what information is available is sufficient for them to achieve the results required for acceptable BSD standards, surely you have everything you need to do the work yourself.

It's easy to flame away under an anon identity, taking no responsibility either for your claims or your insults. It's far less easy to deliver, and then stand by and support that which you have delivered.

Politics and personalities aside, the BSD debacle is Genesi's doing entirely. They wanted to list as many operating systems as possible that would run on the Pegasos, and they did whatever it took to get projects started, including promising funds which were not theirs to spend. Then the baloon burst and the blame game began. Maybe BSD would have been ported to Pegasos in good time anyway, without any developments funds or direct support from manufacturers. But Genesi couldn't wait. They were greedy and bit off much more than they could chew.

When they are not paid to port something, the BSD teams have the right to decide for themselves which platforms are worth their time and effort and which are not. Anyone who doesn't like their decisions can either stump up the development funds, write an unofficial port themselves or STFU. Asking people to give up their free time to work on supporting a company which doesn't have any respect for them is idiotic in the extreme.
PegBSD : Comment 40 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 10:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Bill Hoggett):
I'm not speaking about the money part which is another matter.

I just point that you don't need any specific doc to port any operating system on the Pegasos (I or II). As there is no "secret" chip on this computer. Most of the stuff are pre configured by the OFW...
Believe it or not..

Bye
PegBSD : Comment 41 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Tcheko on 30-Jun-2004 11:14 GMT
Hello @all,

Pegasos port is still available at this place (binary files):

http://sunsite.rediris.es/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/pegasos/

I am seeking for the CVS pegasos tree source. There must be a tape where the pegasos 3.5 branch is saved somewhere on Internet!
PegBSD : Comment 42 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 30-Jun-2004 11:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Anonymous):
The need part can be subjective.

For an unrelated example, take the ATI and nVidia drivers for Linux. The ATI drivers are built on (supposedly incomplete) reference information from ATI or from reverse engineering existing drivers. The latter normally work better because the ATI supplied info is reputed to suck big time. The nVidia drivers are written by nVidia themselves, The result of this is that despite ATI holding the lead in graphics cards for the last two or three years, ATI cards have been a poor choice for any Linux user looking for fully working 3D acceleration. This remains the case to this day.

To get back on topic: yes, it may be possible to use Linux drivers as reference for developing BSD drivers, but that doesn't guarantee that the resulting drivers can live up to the levels of reliability or robustness required by any particular BSD distribution. The only way to achieve full results is with accurate and complete information from the manufacturers. Lacking this, the results can vary from very good to unacceptable when using other methods, and that may mean the drivers would be too unreliable to be accepted into a distribution.

Just because something is free doesn't mean it has to be shoddy.
PegBSD : Comment 43 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 12:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Bill Hoggett):
>Just because something is free doesn't mean it has to be shoddy.
I agree.

But have your ever see a Linux version optimized for a NorthBridge ??

Graphic cards, sound card, NIC adapter requiere full documentation in order to have a fully/optimzed driver.

Honnestly, BSD guys, OpenBeOS guys.. can if they want port their OS on Pegasos I or II. The payement issue is not related at all with the technical part.

Bye
PegBSD : Comment 44 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by corpse on 30-Jun-2004 13:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Hagge):
"debian is ok but packages is way to old"

packages in unstable are generally fairly recent unless something major has changed that requires lots of work the packaging or that the application no longer fits the DFSG i.e. XFree86

Debians filesystem layout is also fairly good with installing from source and I think all auto-tooled builds detect the right "local" paths and install there instead of into the main debian paths.

Upgrading software when there isn't any real need to is also a bad idea.
PegBSD : Comment 45 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 30-Jun-2004 13:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
What the OpenBSD team decides to do with the OpenBSD sources is entirely up to them, just because something is open source doesnt mean that it is public domain, copyrights are still there. And if my memory serves me right, the Open in OpenBSD refers to the developer model they use, a more open developer model than NetBSD used at the time they forked. Just because something has "Open" in the name doesnt imply that it is open source :)

This is something of a misunderstanding of both the project's goals and the actual license the software is released under. OpenBSD is provided under the terms of the unencumbered BSD license (which isn't actually reproduced there, annoyingly enough, but remove the 'advertising clause'). It is not public domain, but the only obligations enforced are acceptance of the disclaimer and preservation of the notice.

If you have OpenBSD code in your hands, you can copy it, modify it, sell it, sit on it, tell it it's pretty or lock it in the bikeshed. 'Do as thou wilt,' just don't sue the authors over its fitness for a given purpose, misrepresent its origins, or make false claims ("The Regents of UC Berkeley think you should run out and buy OS X right now!").

If you don't, the OpenBSD project has no obligation to host the software for you to download. Dale has no obligation (under the license; you could always sue over contract performance, I'm sure) to hand over any unfinished code sitting on his disk that he wasn't paid to release. If this were a GPL project, not a BSD one, the case would be the same -- the GPL's restrictions only demand that source accompany binaries, so source-only distributions can be pulled at any time... and for either case, your rights to use (and modify, and distribute) the code if you have it remain intact.

All the code that was once available in project CVS is still free to use... if you can find a copy of it. Any code Dale may've shared with Genesi in private is also a-ok, *if* it bears the BSD terms... though I suppose you could confuse a court over it, since it's akin to a design agency shipping a case of beer to a client for review, with the package as-specified reading 'free beer.' (This does raise a point; a savvy contractor dealing with a potentially 'hostile' employer shouldn't open the license to his code until after he gets his paycheck.)

OpenBSD isn't out to, nor can they, revoke or control your license to use their software. They're out to provide what they hope (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't) to be a well-designed, highly secure implementation of a UNIX-like OS, one that anyone and everyone can derive from, under some of the freest terms on the planet.

Could they decide to give up and relicense under commercial terms tomorrow? Sure, but your BSD-licensed copy wouldn't be effected, and if they sued you over it, they'd be no more in the right than SCO.
PegBSD : Comment 46 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by corpse on 30-Jun-2004 14:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Anonymous):
"You do NOT need the Marvell doc!!!!"

If your going to port an OS,write a driver.. anything lowlevel you need the docs of everything involved. If firmware is doing part of the work you need the documentation for that aswell as that for anything the firmware is interacting with otherwise your pretty stuck if the firmware isn't doing it's job and you have to trace out what is happening to the exact detail.

Looking at someone else's port/driver is in no way a replacement for complete and detailed documentation. What if this port/driver only works by a complete fluke i.e. the kernel playing with something before the driver comes into play? Could take weeks to find out why things aren't working, in that time you haven't been paid and you have given the finger to your so-called employer.

If you do any CS course you will soon find out that documention is generally just as important as the final software or hardware and makes up a good share of the "final product".
PegBSD : Comment 47 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 30-Jun-2004 14:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Bill Hoggett):
Politics and personalities aside, the BSD debacle is Genesi's doing entirely.

Actually politics and personalities contributed quite a bit to the debacle, so I don't know how you can attribute responsibility at the same time you're discounting them.

They wanted to list as many operating systems as possible that would run on the Pegasos, and they did whatever it took to get projects started, including promising funds which were not theirs to spend.

No, the point was not to lists as many OSs as possible for the sake of quantity. Of course the more things going, the better, in terms of seeing what'll fly. But there was a specific project in mind for OpenBSD. And there's no indication that when Genesi offered Dale Rahn the contract, they knew there were no funds for it. From what I've read and been told, they operated in good faith. This isn't to say that there were no problems; there definitely were, but it doesn't all come down to malice in the end, as you seem to think.

Then the baloon burst and the blame game began. Maybe BSD would have been ported to Pegasos in good time anyway, without any developments funds or direct support from manufacturers. But Genesi couldn't wait. They were greedy and bit off much more than they could chew.

This is a rather silly characterization far removed from reality IMHO.

When they are not paid to port something, the BSD teams have the right to decide for themselves which platforms are worth their time and effort and which are not. Anyone who doesn't like their decisions can either stump up the development funds, write an unofficial port themselves or STFU. Asking people to give up their free time to work on supporting a company which doesn't have any respect for them is idiotic in the extreme.

This lack of respect is your projection, not Genesi's position as far as I know. Only respect toward de Raadt seems to have gotten tubed, it looks like, and that destruction was basically self-inflicted. When I read Paul Adams' comments to and about Dale Rahn for example, my impression is that there still is respect and at least the intention to make good. In any case, Genesi doesn't expect anything from OpenBSD at this juncture, and in fact is making it a point to steer clear of de Raadt.

-- gary_c
PegBSD : Comment 48 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 30-Jun-2004 14:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Anonymous):
But have your ever see a Linux version optimized for a NorthBridge ??

Who hasn't?
PegBSD : Comment 49 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 30-Jun-2004 14:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Anonymous):
"But have your ever see a Linux version optimized for a NorthBridge ??
You mean you haven't seen distributed kernels optimised for specific chipsets?

"Graphic cards, sound card, NIC adapter requiere full documentation in order to have a fully/optimzed driver."
That's right, they do. But how many modern boards supply these things built-in these days? Depending on the chipsets used, you may or may not need to optimise.

"Honnestly, BSD guys, OpenBeOS guys.. can if they want port their OS on Pegasos I or II. The payement issue is not related at all with the technical part."
You're missing the robustness point I made earlier. Yes, they could probably get something working. But if it only works badly or unreliably then they would not release it. The Pegasos I and II are platforms which do not warrant the effort at this stage - that's the simple truth. Combine that with the fact that the reliability of the results cannot be guaranteed, and you can see why it makes more sense to scrap the project for the time being. OpenBeOS (or Haiku, to give it its correct new name) is a different story. There is no finished project on any platform, so reliability and robustness are not an issue at this stage, but that is not the case with BSD.

The shouting matches and finger-pointing are just personality games. If the OpenBSD team said: "we are scrapping the project because Genesi have not honoured their deal and we have no other motivation to continue", do you think Genesi would have accepted that? I don't think so.
PegBSD : Comment 50 of 85ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 30-Jun-2004 14:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (gary_c):
And there's no indication that when Genesi offered Dale Rahn the contract, they knew there were no funds for it.

If I had to deal with the finances of a moderately-sized business, I'm not sure what I'd do, either... but you can't say that team isn't good at applied quantum mechanics. ;)
Anonymous, there are 85 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 85]
Back to Top