| PegBSD : Comment 51 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by pixie on 30-Jun-2004 14:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 16 (Anonymous):
these kind of anonymous suck so hard, and suck so deep... |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 52 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 14:58 GMT | In reply to Comment 46 (corpse):
>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"
If you do some CS, you will quicly notice that doc can suck a lot, or that you end up with no doc and have to deal with OpenSource code...
I don't see why a OpenBSD port with no doc about either the Marvell or the ArticiaS (with April of course) would be unreliable.
If it isn't then the OFW doesn't do its job, and other OS will be affected too.
Bye |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 53 of 85 | ANN.lu |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 54 of 85 | ANN.lu |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 55 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by corpse on 30-Jun-2004 15:48 GMT | In reply to Comment 52 (Anonymous):
"If you do some CS, you will quicly notice that doc can suck a lot, or that you end up with no doc and have to deal with OpenSource code..."
You very rarely look at opensource code while doing CS unless you're involved in with it in your own time. Microsoft turned up once or twice to give talks/presentations on .NET at my university this year, and if you examine the modules of various CS courses hardly anything that could be called opensource is touched i.e. multimedia programming modules only cover DirectX. The only "opensource" code you will have to come in contact with is examples in mainly mircosoft refrences, that is unless you plan on stealing your code from opensource projects and presenting it as your own. However you will soon be found out when you're asked to present your documention and you don't have any ;). Most of the time the program/script/PCB etc is only worth 10%, the documention saying how and why it works is worth the other 90%.
"I don't see why a OpenBSD port with no doc about either the Marvell or the ArticiaS (with April of course) would be unreliable."
You would trust your hardware and data with code that's been developed by second guessing?
"If it isn't then the OFW doesn't do its job, and other OS will be affected too."
Let's say "other OS" has access to the documentation for everything and has worked fixes in for XYZ firmware fault in some random file of sourcecode. I bet the morphOS guys have all the info they need about *their* board, but what is OpenBSD chappy meant to do when XYZ isn't working as it should, or he doesn't know how he should work with it other than ask for documention? The guy was working for a specific board so its fair that he should know the complete in's and out's of the thing he's working on.
Let's say we have coder A that has version 2 of a card, he writes a driver that works for the card in his machine without documention. He doesn't know it but his driver won't work on version 1 cards because of a small extra routine that needs to be added to make the card ready, this routine is listed in the documentation but he can't get the documention so he doesn't know about this. Or let's say his motherboard( or it's bios/firmware) has a fault which is unique to it, this fault has been transparently fixed within his driver making it unoperable on other boards. This makes his driver a bit hit and miss, "it works on my setup".
Then we have the issue of time, it takes a lot longer to work things out from the end product or kludge something up from someone elses work than it does if you have detailed documents telling you everything about the thing your working with. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 56 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 16:17 GMT | In reply to Comment 25 (Anonymous):
And your point is....?
That it's unfair? That it's evil? That the bad men will take you away if you use it? The same can be said for those videocards for mac's, same cards, different firmware, 3 times as expensive... it's businness, don't like the product(s) then don't buy them, but for the love of all that is holy do NOT pretend to know with a fact that both boards are identical (excluding firmware).
If you were to buy a teron & A1 & compare them on a technical scale, then you would be saying something worth believing, right now your opinion is nothing more then flamebait.
(Alan said that the A1's were based on the terons & build to their requests, wether or not the chinese or taiwanese or whomever that build them deviated alot of the original design is moot) |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 57 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jun-2004 16:19 GMT | In reply to Comment 55 (corpse):
The question here is not: "Is it possible to write compelte/efficient driver without documentation?"
Because, I don't think it's possible. And what you do need the docs for many devices in order to make it work correctly. The gfx card driver on Linux are a perfect example. The same card on the same PC can boost under Windows and be dead slow on Linux (especially in 3D, or video decoding).
But, here, I'm speaking about the NB. And I say, that the OS should not have to touch any register of it. Because, all the configuration should have be done before by the firmware.
There is nothing to guess...
Of course, the OFW could be buggy (especially when you get non-public beta like it should have been the case for the OpenBSD guy), but that people doing that job have to deal with it.
All the rest can be done using standart stuff (RTAS, OFW tree...) and using well-known chipset driver (mainly VIA).
The only real problem I see, is the GB driver where you would indeed (IMO) need the doc. But, I think you can do a working driver based on the Linux one.
In the end, I suppose the OpenBSD buy gave up because he was not pay. If it's the case I can perfectly understand. If the gave up because of lack of doc of GB part then I don't.
Bye |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 58 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 16:20 GMT | In reply to Comment 33 (Fabio Alemagna):
Erm, no, the problem was the Gb port, and Dale explained why the linux code was useless to him for that. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 59 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 16:22 GMT | In reply to Comment 34 (Anonymous):
" 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..."
For starters, Dale himself explained why this route was not an option, and secondly, don't pretend to be an expert |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 60 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 16:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 36 (Anonymous):
Well, go ahead and prove it then, for now i'll take Dale's word over an anonymous entity. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 61 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 16:26 GMT | In reply to Comment 40 (Anonymous):
Well, i don't believe it, so i challenge you, port OpenBSD to it & make sure it's compliant to their standards, in the meanwhile i'll go watch some tv & laugh over your silly post. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 62 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 16:27 GMT | In reply to Comment 43 (Anonymous):
You clearly never looked into your kernel sources, or you'd know better then to post such shit. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 63 of 85 | ANN.lu |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 64 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Jun-2004 16:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 57 (Anonymous):
...
< The only real problem I see, is the GB driver where you would indeed (IMO) need the doc. But, I think you can do a working driver based on the Linux one. >
THAT WAS THE FREAKING PROBLEM YOU DUMBASS IDIOT |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 65 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 30-Jun-2004 17:27 GMT | In reply to Comment 47 (gary_c):
"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."
Did Genesi deliver their part of the agreement: yes/no. That's the only issue I'm looking at. Not part of the agreement, not <sort of, but did they or did they not deliver what they agreed to deliver and when they agreed to deliver it.
"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."
I never said it was malice. I said it was selfishness, which Genesi have demonstrated in buckets. Basically, as long as Genesi get what they want, everyone else can go and ... themselves. As to the funds, I believe Genesi made a lot of commitments with funds that were not guaranteed - such as money they were expecting from the Thendic France merger, which started to look a bit suspect when put under the microscope.
Pesonally, I always saw Genesi's generosity as "easy come, easy go", and felt that the way they were spending money led me to believe this money was raised through speculation rather than accumulation. And to me the push to get as many operating systems - even unfinished ones - to "support" Pegasos boards was very much a publicity stunt, as reflected by the inaccurate advertising of this support on Genesi's own site. (such as the way they counted different Linux distributions as separate operating systems to boost the actual overall number)
"This is a rather silly characterization far removed from reality IMHO."
Tell that to those who got used and discarded, often without thanks or even basic courtesy. Somehow I doubt they'd agree with you.
"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."
My projection would be that you are a Genesi mouthpiece, and therefore anything you say has to be seen in this light. You are an integral player in the blame-game tactic Genesi use to deflect from their own discarded responsibilities. de Raadt is a controversial character, who probably ought to shut up most of the time he feels like saying something, but de Raadt is not responsible for Genesi not honouring their agreements.
You can argue all you want, but I've seen and heard nothing credible to persuade me Genesi is anything except the dubious company I'd expect from any organisation run by that individual. I'm sorry, but I've increasingly formed the opinion that anything said by a Genesi employee is not to be believed unless it is independently verified. A bit like that bunch at Amiga Inc. really, as well as a few other "leading" individuals. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 66 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by MIKE on 30-Jun-2004 18:01 GMT | In reply to Comment 42 (Bill Hoggett):
Bill, ATI provides their own drivers for linux as well. http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html, the Gatos project provides many other useful utilities for ATI video cards under linux as well. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 67 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 30-Jun-2004 18:35 GMT | In reply to Comment 49 (Bill Hoggett):
"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.
I'm not sure what answer the question is supposed to imply, but... sure are a lot of integrated designs, these days.
Now, let's flash back to when the x86 scene was a free-for-all, both because it's a pretty good 'microcosm' of a market, and because it's such a 900 ton gorilla that it effects the way everyone approaches OS design on a given day.
That first machine from IBM was pretty staid, but soon after that, things went into chaos. No two clones were exactly alike; heck, some of them were just a little 'broken' on purpose to avoid the wrath of IBM. You had to squint at the little labels on the software boxes, and see if it claimed to work with Tandy or Compaq... then take it back when it didn't, or be surprised years later when it turned out that package you passed up would've run with no problems. Eventually, programmers got into the swing of things, manufacturers settled on 'safe' assumptions (like 80x25 displays), and life was good for a while... in time for the 286 to arrive and the MicroChannel war to heat up and fizzle out. Come the 386 and Windows, and suddenly everyone had to worry about direct hardware access again, with VGA on the rise, and chipset issues that the world probably never sorted out. (Raise your hand if you got your 386 working stably before it was completely obsolete?) Then the 486, and -- hit me baby one more time -- EISA, VL-Bus, PCI, new UARTs... and more standards emerged and entrenched, mostly at the mercy of Microsoft and whatever they'd best-supported in a particular release.
That final pattern carried on into the postmodern era (when processors stopped incrementing model numbers in units of 100), but *bamf,* here comes this Internet thing in full force. Suddenly, if Microsoft screws up, you can download a fix without hours of phone tag (that most people wouldn't have even thought to play), and Linux starts to get heard of.
Here comes the rub. Linux puts some extra pressure on Microsoft to be 'honest' (no letting that Via support slide in '98SE), but being monolithic, and suffering some usual *NIX growing pains, brings its own set of demands. Might want to keep a NE2000 around with your copy of vi... that WinModem of yours might even obey an open standard, but it's not one anyone wants to take the trouble to support (V.90/V.92 might be patent-encumbered, I'm not sure)... heck, maybe it's time to give up on those SCSI disks where you don't need them; they sure are great, but isn't it a pain to track down an install disk with a kernel built with the driver for your controller?
Now, it's been another quiet few years. AGP and PCI have been the standards, flaky solutions have been culled from the market, and the benefit of "many eyes" on code to support what's been a relatively immobile, slowly-'evolving' (vs... er, 'revolving,' in the sense of 'revolution') hardware space has made Linux something of a world-beater... while Microsoft has taken advantage, too, finally shipping a version of Windows that could stay up long enough to become completely riddled with worms and threaten the stability of the Internet as a whole.
Throw the Articia boards into the ring. Perfectly servicable hardware, perhaps, but requiring a different approach that some 'modern' hackers forgot could exist... and not offering an obvious benefit over the shiny-cased Macs same already struggled to bring up software on. "Hey," they shout, "We already did this, it's been better-tested, and we can't even afford your stuff anyway!" ("You sure you need support for that high-end [X]? I'd love one too, but all anyone can afford is [Y], so that's what the code's been shaken down for.")
So is all lost? No, it's a mistake to think that the popularity of all this free *NIX -- and the tragedy of the commons that comes with -- will stifle 'innovation' forevermore, even as its present incarnation is helping to keep x86 around that while longer. What has been done is to decouple the cycle of 'revolution' from the whims of the Gateses of the world (who, as Squid noted a while back, are beholden to shareholder value, and thus doomed to ever-shortening cycles of planned obsolescence), and throw it back in the hands of the users and developers who have to deal with the stuff on a daily basis. It's hard to get any work done if you have to upgrade your system every hour, and this new world order dictates that 'new' solutions must be better than the existing in every way obvious to a plurality of users. It sure raises the bar... and it sure can get boring to wait... and you can find yourself smashing your head against the wall if the crowd misses out on something going on behind the curtain... but it also ensures that, just maybe, most of the people are actually getting what they think they want, most of the time. For the minority of us who may or may not know better, it still gives us time to breathe before we next have to start over from scratch.
What the heck does that have to do with anything? If you haven't noticed, we're on a cusp. Suddenly the next few big things in x86 (and thus computing in general) are here at once... 64-bit chips (which may or may not prove essentially compatible), integrated memory controllers, PCI Express, Nth-generation GPUs, SATA/SAS, at least three different wireless technologies, and I expect those FB-DIMMs are going to start popping up once DDR2 fizzles, too. Now, everyone in x86land has already done a commendable job of supporting most of this, but there's a bit of a weakness on the roadmap... All those kids who voted ATI and nVidia to the top of the market are about to get bit by the practice of both to ship first and support later. Amidst all this, a schizophrenic Intel is about to start confusing the crap out of everyone by moving from MHz to AMD-incoherent model numbers... right before they start confusing everyone as to whether EM64T and AMD64 are suitably compatible... and the rough competetiveness of the G5 is at least reminding everyone there's another endianness out there.
Nobody should actually be thrown off their chosen cart (well, maybe IE users), but it's going to be a bumpy ride. What *will* happen is that people will be forced to face an array of hardware again, and make "issues" like the Articia's seem less alien and more part of expected diversity. At which point I'd hope we'd all have moved beyond G4s and registered PC133 anyway, but I've noticed some people warming up to that thought now that they've seen the new Prescott heatsinks. (Actually, I've had one Independent Party cry that the A1 and Peg scenes are both so insane, a day before he gave up and bought an iBook that seems to be working out so far.)
---
(Okay, what the heck does that have to do with the Pegasos? Well, nothing, per-se... The above situation can strengthen either platform so far as either platform feels better than getting screwed by nVidia.)
---
"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.
Obviously you've never tried to use a BSD (or Linux, or Windows)... ;) No, but really, it's not *unduly* hard to add a new arch to such trees. Most people won't bother trying to open a branch until something boots (or has a snowball's chance of booting), but it's less a matter of QA than sociology... Does the initial porter have commit access? Does he have the authority to add it? Do the people who do have the authority care one way or the other? Is it compartmentalized enough to go in cleanly? Is someone actually going to work on it or maintain it? (That last one is why the AmigaOne kernel has remained an island, perhaps, in concert with it maybe being unpossible to implement the A1 support in 2.4 in a way that doesn't step on others' toes... but I don't really want to slog through the CVSWeb right now to confirm or deny that assumption. Point being that Linux's make-a-patchset-and-try-try-again methodology makes life that extra bit 'interesting.')
If, for instance, Theo woke up one day and decided supporting the Z8000 should be a project goal, he'd carve out a directory in his personal tree, and pop it into CVS when he had a few files done, if only for the sake of backup. If someone jumped up at random and started demanding one, it'd be a different story. But with code to show, and following the snowball's-chance test, stranger things have happened.
The Peg port is gone fairly obviously because of the payment issue, combined with the fact that it was doomed 'forever' to be a crippled platform (until Marvell would cough up the spec)... whether or not a working Linux driver would've been enough, it was apparently incomplete. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 68 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Seehund on 30-Jun-2004 19:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 66 (MIKE):
> Bill, ATI provides their own drivers for linux as well.
And they're utter shite. I believe they were originally made by subcontractors in Germany, but ATI took further "development" in-house ("we are committed to this Lunix thing everybody's talking about") before these drivers got very far, and now each very rarely released update mainly consists of the occasional addition of a new chip ID or two, plus bazillions of new bugs, incompatibilities, and performance degradations.
The Radeon hardware is fabulous and truly does give the best bang for your buck - but so far only in Windows, and only with DirectX. (But hey, that's where I play most games! Though it'd be nice to for example actually be able to watch a frigging movie in Linux/X.org - i.e. have a working xv overlay...) |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 69 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Seehund on 30-Jun-2004 19:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 56 (Amon_Re):
"AmigaOne" is a trademark that one company has chosen to use for selling Teron motherboards, plus computers built on the same (the latter is probably where the evasive "based on Terons" nonsense originates from).
That's no opinion, and I don't think it's flamebait (unless someone thinks Terons and A1s *should* be different for whatever reason).
OK, maybe the Anon you replied to was baiting for flames: Contrary to what [s]he said, someone *does* put stickers saying "AmigaOne" on the Terons sold under this trademark. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 70 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 30-Jun-2004 22:47 GMT | Dale Rahn certainly didn't get a bad deal, if his own version is true.
In fact, he got a deal which would have paid him extremely well for a
fairly small job with very low commercial advantage for Genesi. I
don't know if he's trying to make the deal sound better than it was,
to give him a better position in the negotiations or if the agreement
was really the way he claims. Either way I don't care much and I don't
blame Dale Rahn in any way. It's clear that he wasn't paid as
promised, and he should be, even if that promise was a bit.. eh..
generous.
As for the "we didn't get any docs", I can't really judge Dale Rahn
again, as Gigabit support was one of the things he was supposed to
do. But I've heard a number of other people complain about this issue
in a way that makes absolutely no sense. These people have no problem
to see BSD ported to platforms which don't have any Gigabit support.
But because it exists on the Peg2 motherboard, they somehow thing it
would be morally offensive to support this hardware when they can't
get the docs for this particular feature. Presumably if you sent them
a board where the Gigabit hardware was broken, they'd happily support
it.. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 71 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by greenboy on 30-Jun-2004 23:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 65 (Bill Hoggett):
>And to me the push to get as many operating systems - even unfinished ones - to "support" Pegasos boards was very much a publicity stunt
Hey Bill,
Try not to think so poorly of all of us, huh? The guys I met at CES from Europe and worked with were good people. Just normal geeks, trying to do a good job, and build a new company. And those few of us who championed this and then were setting it all up, making the contacts, providing documentation, etc, it was very much an earnest enterprise - right up to the moment when those involved who were formally Thendic employees no longer had jobs. It was a mission we believed in.
And of COURSE BBRV saw additional advantages for marketing - which I think is is not all that evil - and not even UNUSUAL - when one wants to attract alliances and investments, and build a company and products. But marketing yap was not what got the multi-OS approach rolling. Those who proposed it and worked toward it believed in it for the benefits I have talked about here and elsewhere previously.
>as reflected by the inaccurate advertising of this support on Genesi's own site. (such as the way they counted different Linux distributions as separate operating systems to boost the actual overall number)
That was a marketing tangent that came later - and not by the same people, I think. I know I wasn't asked ... Again, a marketing approach that may seem like much else in the fluffy wonderful world of marketing, but hardly a deep sin.
Further thought: if we are to cast stones at the sins of others let us not judge too harshly or too scattershot - unless our bearded "brother" also owns the rock-selling concession ; } |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 72 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by gary_c on 30-Jun-2004 23:48 GMT | In reply to Comment 65 (Bill Hoggett):
"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."
Did Genesi deliver their part of the agreement: yes/no. That's the only issue I'm looking at. Not part of the agreement, not sort of, but did they or did they not deliver what they agreed to deliver and when they agreed to deliver it.
Are you speaking just about Dale Rahn's pay? If so, no, they did not and have not as far as I know squared things with him financially. But this is not the same issue as the completion of the OpenBSD port; this needs to be made clear. Where *that* issue's responsibilities lie are a completely different matter.
"... 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."
I never said it was malice. I said it was selfishness, which Genesi have demonstrated in buckets. Basically, as long as Genesi get what they want, everyone else can go and ... themselves.
I think this is an extreme description. "What Genesi wants" would be an impossible goal if the company truly acted as selfishly as you claim. Obviously a tech company is only as strong as its human resources. I think you are confusing dysfunctional management with deliberate screwing over of people.
As to the funds, I believe Genesi made a lot of commitments with funds that were not guaranteed - such as money they were expecting from the Thendic France merger, which started to look a bit suspect when put under the microscope.
Well, yeah, isn't hindsite wonderful? At the time, Genesi thought there was no reason not to count on the funds continuing.
Pesonally, I always saw Genesi's generosity as "easy come, easy go", and felt that the way they were spending money led me to believe this money was raised through speculation rather than accumulation.
Well, you wouldn't be in a position to know, really, unless you've had access to the financial records.
And to me the push to get as many operating systems - even unfinished ones - to "support" Pegasos boards was very much a publicity stunt, as reflected by the inaccurate advertising of this support on Genesi's own site. (such as the way they counted different Linux distributions as separate operating systems to boost the actual overall number)
I'm sure there was an element of that, but not anything as simpleminded as "publicity stunt". All the efforts seem to be sincere, as far as I know. I'm not aware of anyone who's not at least operating on the level of geek enthusiasm to do it because it'd be cool. And others even have more ambitious ideas in mind. Anyway, people recognize the public relations function of a web site, and you know companies like to show their products in the best light. Genesi doesn't just want the OS numbers high, it wants functional products and buyers.
"This is a rather silly characterization far removed from reality IMHO."
Tell that to those who got used and discarded, often without thanks or even basic courtesy. Somehow I doubt they'd agree with you.
Used and discarded? This is another loaded phrase that has more emotional content than reference to actual events. I can see why we have such a hard time seeing eye-to-eye on this. Really, you are not privy to the private correspondence in these cases, so bear in mind that your perceptions are incomplete.
"This lack of respect is your projection, not Genesi's position as far as I know...."
My projection would be that you are a Genesi mouthpiece, and therefore anything you say has to be seen in this light.
OK, and you are predisposed to assigning the worst possible motives to Genesi when you have only an outsider's awareness of the intentions of the people themselves, and you don't trust them when they try to dissuade you from that position. Looks like the end of meaningful conversation.
You are an integral player in the blame-game tactic Genesi use to deflect from their own discarded responsibilities.
Again you are confusing the issues. Genesi had and has the responsibility to make good on its obligations to employees and consultants. There's no argument there and, if you've read the statements I referenced originally, the intention to fulfil those obligations remains, but its realization hinges on profits brought by product sales so there's no quick solution. The demise of the OpenBSD port is due to a completely different but intertwined set of circumstances, and the responsibility here is much more complex. Again, check the first-hand statements to get clarification.
de Raadt is a controversial character, who probably ought to shut up most of the time he feels like saying something, but de Raadt is not responsible for Genesi not honouring their agreements.
The agreements regarding the OpenBSD port? Actually he has a significant responsibility.
You can argue all you want, but I've seen and heard nothing credible to persuade me Genesi is anything except the dubious company I'd expect from any organisation run by that individual.
I feel like the schoolmaster who needs to give you a quiz to see if you've actually read the assigned material. Anyway, so be it. Maybe my words aren't wasted on other readers.
I'm sorry, but I've increasingly formed the opinion that anything said by a Genesi employee is not to be believed unless it is independently verified.
That's up to you. It's true (or at least also my opinion) that there has been a fair amount of BS posted more to rankle than enlighten, PR spun to maximize effect, and people describing reality as they expect it to turn out rather than how it is. I'll grant you that. Where we differ is on the intentions and motives. This comes down to who you choose to believe, and I suppose nothing anyone says at this point will affect your opinion. I don't think "Genesi employees" (painting with a very broad brush there, aren't you?) are any less credible than anyone else in similar circumstances.
-- gary_c |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 73 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by gary_c on 30-Jun-2004 23:56 GMT | In reply to Comment 72 (gary_c):
Damn, I wish we had a preview. Here's the last of my post with the italics tags correct, I hope:
de Raadt is a controversial character, who probably ought to shut up most of the time he feels like saying something, but de Raadt is not responsible for Genesi not honouring their agreements.
The agreements regarding the OpenBSD port? Actually he has a significant responsibility.
You can argue all you want, but I've seen and heard nothing credible to persuade me Genesi is anything except the dubious company I'd expect from any organisation run by that individual.
I feel like the schoolmaster who needs to give you a quiz to see if you've actually read the assigned material. Anyway, so be it. Maybe my words aren't wasted on other readers.
I'm sorry, but I've increasingly formed the opinion that anything said by a Genesi employee is not to be believed unless it is independently verified.
That's up to you. It's true (or at least also my opinion) that there has been a fair amount of BS posted more to rankle than enlighten, PR spun to maximize effect, and people describing reality as they expect it to turn out rather than how it is. I'll grant you that. Where we differ is on the intentions and motives. This comes down to who you choose to believe, and I suppose nothing anyone says at this point will affect your opinion. I don't think "Genesi employees" (painting with a very broad brush there, aren't you?) are any less credible than anyone else in similar circumstances.
-- gary_c |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 74 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by greenboy on 01-Jul-2004 01:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 72 (gary_c):
Ahahahah - it's nefarious downtown Gary "The Mouthpiece" Cunningham, enjoying some pasta with other less-dapper ruffians, at the famed ANNatorium! Even when he isn't on retainer he won't squeal on the mob. Nuh-uh!
...Oops. Wrong movie. Wrong script. Wrong writer. And DAMN - if a director ever let a casting agent get away with that mistake they'd be in for some box office counterpoint ; }
Keepin' it surreal ; } |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 75 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 01-Jul-2004 05:40 GMT | In reply to Comment 69 (Seehund):
Actually, my point was, that unless someone were to take a teron & an A1 and compare them beyond looking at a picture, we don't know how alike or how different they are, and even if there is NO difference in the hardware, the teron & A1 are different in software (firmware).
I also don't see it as a bad thing that the A1 is simular/the same/based on the teron board, as this was a reference design meant to be used as a production model.
Cheers |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 76 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Don Cox on 01-Jul-2004 05:50 GMT | In reply to Comment 69 (Seehund):
"That's no opinion, and I don't think it's flamebait (unless someone thinks Terons and A1s *should* be different for whatever reason)."
I would tend to call the board by the name under which most have been sold. How many have been sold as "Teron"s ? My guess is less than 100.
I also think that you keep on using the name Teron specifically to annoy people - i.e. as flamebait. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 77 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by priest on 01-Jul-2004 13:27 GMT | In reply to Comment 10 (brotheris):
I know. ;-)
It made openBSD impossible on Marvell based HW.
Just like ArtisiaS "feature" makes almost every other os except AOS impossible on ArtisiaS based HW.
So, it's a bug. ;-) |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 78 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by priest on 01-Jul-2004 13:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 15 (Anonymous):
Why? AmigaOne is meant for AmigaOS. It would be insane to use it for running any other OS. OpenBSD guys could target Teron board without AOS dongle instead... |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 79 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by greenboy on 01-Jul-2004 16:49 GMT | In reply to Comment 77 (priest):
>It made openBSD impossible on Marvell based HW.
Arguably what makes/made it impossible was probably just a big, big attitude.
Fortunately for users who want wider hardware support on other OSEs often strongly considered as Open Source oasis, some developers do NOT have the attitude that signing a simple NDA will hurt them or cause Evil to flourish in the universe. Not all that is in use on those OSes is reverse-engineered. Perhaps it's not actually that uncommon or compromised even, to sign a not-especially-threatening NDA now and again ; } |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 80 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by hammer on 02-Jul-2004 02:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 1 (Henning Brauer):
Note that the blue camp can start yet another BSD fork.... |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 81 of 85 | ANN.lu |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 82 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by greenboy on 02-Jul-2004 05:28 GMT | In reply to Comment 80 (hammer):
>Note that the blue camp can start yet another BSD fork....
Most of them (us?) don't like camping that much. Not really outdoors types.
Though I do. I live near Glacier National Park and backpacking to tent near alpine chalets, and dream of Heidi growing up just enough to be discovered by Playboy Magazine. Mmmm, lederhosen and dirdnls. Poses with overflowing steins spilling lathering her warm pink skin. Mmmmm...*
*I don't know if I was awake when I typed this. |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 83 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 02-Jul-2004 05:50 GMT | In reply to Comment 77 (priest):
>It made openBSD impossible on Marvell based HW.
?
If I believe the OpenBSD pegasos page. OpenBSD was running on Pegasos II. So it's not really impossible ...
The main problem of OpenBSD/Pegasos is not the technical part is the human/money part.
>Just like ArtisiaS "feature" makes almost every other os except AOS impossible on >ArtisiaS based HW.
If I believe Linux PowerPC masters, on of the Articias _bugs_ concerns the Cache coherency supports. Any OS can work without cache coherency, it just very tricky to code...
But I'm sure will will discover other wonderful ArticiaS "feature" in the future!
>So, it's a bug. ;-)
ArticiaS: yes :-) |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 84 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 02-Jul-2004 12:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 65 (Bill Hoggett):
"" I never said it was malice. I said it was selfishness, which Genesi have demonstrated in buckets. Basically, as long as Genesi get what they want, everyone else can go and ... themselves. As to the funds, I believe Genesi made a lot of commitments with funds that were not guaranteed - such as money they were expecting from the Thendic France merger, which started to look a bit suspect when put under the microscope. ""
Bill, don't talk when you don't know ! I want argue with you but isn't the fault of Genesi if the merger never occured. It is because outside events that affected shareholders of both companies.
I can't remember so many people getting paid from their "amiga" work before Thendic start paying for those development !
Amiga never bring as much possiblities for the developement of PPC plateform since 96. Genesi did, and they are getting big partners involve in this growing success. Everythink takes times to be achieve, maybe Genesi went too fast but still here are the result... |
|
| PegBSD : Comment 85 of 85 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Darth_X on 03-Jul-2004 14:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 65 (Bill Hoggett):
> I'm sorry, but I've increasingly formed the opinion that anything said by a Genesi employee is not to be believed unless it is independently verified. A bit like that bunch at Amiga Inc. really, as well as a few other "leading" individuals.
Why are you here, and why do you post here then? :) |
|
| Anonymous, there are 85 items in your selection (but only 35 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 85] |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|
