Subject: Re: ZFS
To: Garrett D'Amore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Timo Schoeler <email@example.com>
Date: 09/02/2006 18:34:41
thus Garrett D'Amore spake:
> Timo Schoeler wrote:
>> thus Bill Studenmund spake:
>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 03:17:15PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>>>> I don't see a "discussion" happening here - you are just trying to
>>>>> belittle and shout people down,
>>>> i) i'm not shouting anybody down (makes me interested in your
>>>> definition of 'shouting' or 'shouting down'), ii) people != you,
>>>> plurar vs. singular.
>>> It sure seems you are. Your response to disagreement is to continue
>>> speaking forcefully
>> sure. i do have my opinion (here: wrt blobs).
>> there are dozens, if not hundreds of subscribers of the mailing list
>> that obviously inherently agree with blobs being evil. otherwise they
>> would respond (even if it'd be only a fraction of them, you could see
>> some emails) to this thread.
> I contend that this is a false assumption. I had not responded to this
> point, simply because the tone of discussion had left one of productive
> reasoning, and I didn't see any reason to get involved.
entering the discussion earlier might have saved the 'tone of
discussion' from losing 'productive reasoning'.
> Of course I would prefer to have _source_, but I also recognize there
> are cases for binary blobs. I believe ath(4) is one such case. I've
> worked with another WIFI architecture that used blobs as well, and it
> worked out okay.
> My biggest complaint with blobs is lack of portability, but in at least
> one case (ath(4)) the supplier has gone out of his way to make sure the
> blob is available for any platform that might have the hardware.
> I totally disagree with any stance we take that prevents binary blobs
> from being used with the operating system. It will prevent NetBSD from
> being used in a number of scenarios going forward.
> If folks want NetBSD to thrive, the best way to do so is not to go
> around trying to piss off vendors.
they piss themselves off.
> We represent such a tiny percentage
> of marketshare that most vendors won't think twice over blowing us off.
> That would make contributions like my recent radeonfb contribution
> (which was developed from NDA docs and sources, and had to have ATI's
> approval to be open sourced) much, much harder.
> There, I've said my piece on the matter, and I will probably not say
> anything else on it. But don't take my silence as agreement with your
> position, please.
sure, no problem.
as it becomes clear where NetBSD stands and its goals, maybe the
projects goals might need a revision? :)
Timo Schoeler | http://riscworks.net/~tis | firstname.lastname@example.org
RISCworks -- Perfection is a powerful message
ISP | POWER & PowerPC afficinados | Networking, Security, BSD services
GPG Key fingerprint = B5F6 68A4 EC45 C309 6770 38C4 50E8 2740 9E0C F20A
Frankie says: Relax