Professional Web Applications Themes

Adaptec AAC raid support - FreeBSD

Removed by Administrator...

  1. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    Removed by Administrator
    Theo Guest
    Moderated Post

  2. #2

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    > I'd love to have fully open stuff from all the RAID 

    Which is why you go onto public posting sites and slag me, instead of
    calling you your buddy Doug and saying "Hey, these guys have a point,
    and you really ought to sell it to Adaptec management, since you are
    the guy who can make this change, as you already told Theo and others
    four months previously that you were the guy that could".

    But no. Scott Long goes and slags the people who are taking a
    different approach.

    Scott, you do NOT stand for free software. You only stand for
    "whatever works".

    At least I am consistant in standing up for Free Software, and it
    has been working very well.

    I've freed up TONS of chipsets. What have you freed up lately? You
    work on RAID drivers, lots and lots of them, and you have not freed
    up ONE management interface.

    Why?

    I don't know. Has slagging me in public forums gotten you closer to
    opening up a RAID management interface?

    Nope.

    It has not. Was it fun?

    ps. When are you replacing the binary Atheros driver you have with the
    free one that we have reverse engineered? One that could be worked
    on by lots of people to make it better and better, unlike that .o
    file you ship.
    Theo Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    On Mar 19, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
    [ ... ]

    Sigh. Theo, there are lots of ways of interacting with other people:
    if you go out of your way to antagonize somebody, the result is
    generally not going to be positive. I think Scott is mature enough to
    continue to help other BSD projects-- including OpenBSD-- regardless,
    but this sort of thing:
     

    ....deliberately breaking OpenBSD's support for Adaptec hardware as some
    sort of ultimatum is a childish and self-destructive action. I hope
    the other OpenBSD committers veto any such action as being
    counterproductive and harmful to your users.

    Otherwise, you're likely to discover that most people choose to run an
    OS which works with the hardware they have, rather than sticking with
    OpenBSD.

    --
    -Chuck

    Charles Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    The OpenBSD community doesn't want help for closed utilities and
    drivers. All we want is doentation. No source, no
    binary-only-cannot-distrubute drivers and utilities, just enough
    doenatation for which to write their drivers, and support
    oursevles. No one has been able to answer us on how releasing just
    doentation would lose them so much business that it's worth losing
    all this business.

    Jason

    On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:21:19 -0700, Scott Long <org> wrote: 
    >
    > If the OpenBSD driver is buggy, then ask for help. I don't normally
    > monitor the OpenBSD mailing lists and I don't run it at home, so I have
    > no idea what the state of it is. I do, however, answer email from
    > developers from other projects who contact me. The hardware is tricky
    > to get right and there are bugs in different cards and different
    > firmware versions that often need to be worked around. It's all
    > doented in my driver, and I'm happy to share my knowledge.
    >
    > Scott
    > [/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]
    Jason Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    It's not a binary driver, it's a 2-clause BSD licensed driver that
    contains full source. You said that the OpenBSD driver is unstable,
    so I offered to help. That has nothing to do with binary apps.
    Deleting it from the OpenBSD tree is always an option, of course.

    Scott

    Jason Crawford wrote: 
    >>
    >>If the OpenBSD driver is buggy, then ask for help. I don't normally
    >>monitor the OpenBSD mailing lists and I don't run it at home, so I have
    >>no idea what the state of it is. I do, however, answer email from
    >>developers from other projects who contact me. The hardware is tricky
    >>to get right and there are bugs in different cards and different
    >>firmware versions that often need to be worked around. It's all
    >>doented in my driver, and I'm happy to share my knowledge.
    >>
    >>Scott
    >>
    >> 
    >>
    >>[/ref][/ref]

    Scott Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    > you guys want to produce fully open and unenbered stuff. That's 

    Actually Scott it's rather simple,

    As long as projects are willing to have someone sign an NDA
    and be a shill for the vendors, you end up with vendors who wish to hide
    everything behind an NDA and produce binary only stuff. I as a user
    don't want that, and plain and simple, I just bought 27 LSI cards for
    that reason - I don't want to wait for non-free support to show up, and
    I don't want to have to wedge in some binary only thing after the fact.
    I want it to work with the OS, and be installed with it.

    When vendors have the option to close their product and have
    some few designated souls who will act as their shills and put in a
    non-free layer for a free os, then they don't release docs, and everyone
    suffers with poor support - with a driver that doesn't work by default
    in the OS, because it can't be included. With a driver that isn't
    redistributable in commercial spinoffs, because it can't be included.
    With a driver that I can't install onto, because it can't be included
    on the install sets. Basically, the binary only closed source nda stuff
    s, just like the altheros driver.

    I don't see supporting a verdor making a decision to NDA their
    product by finding ways to sneak non-free support in as productive,
    Actually, I see that this harms the free community, and harms it an
    awful lot. because now this vendor instead of providing doentation
    so the free community can truly have community support for this product,
    gets to pay lip service to the free os world and say "sure we are
    supported by free operating systems" when really they aren't.

    Involving the user community makes sure the user community
    knows what the score is, and knows what products to buy (case in point,
    my recent purchase of 27 LSI adapters, rather than Adaptec). I think
    letting the user community believe that a company is fully supportive
    of free operating systems when they really are not is dishonest to the
    user community, and s them in the end when they make bad purchasing
    decisions.

    I think a company has every right to have a closed source,
    binary only driver. I think the user community has the right to know
    about that, ask for better, and if they don't like it, know to vote
    with their feet. I for one don't want to see a situation where I can't
    install an OS on a scsi controller without resorting to 3rd party
    special license packages, or at least, not on a controller I've paid
    good money for.

    -Bob
    Bob Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    > It's not a binary driver, it's a 2-clause BSD licensed driver that 

    The driver is free, but the tool is a binary. The interface "tunnel"
    is coded in the driver, so that the "closed binary" tool can talk
    through to the card. The messages exchanged are not doented,
    either.

    Same thing.

    You are saying

    There are open bits

    and I am saying

    There are closed bits

    This whole thing is about the closed bits, not about the open bits.


    Why do you keep apologizing for Adaptec, and attacking our efforts?

    Theo Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    Even a working driver without any management utilities is not what I
    would want to run on a production server. I need to be able to find
    out what is wrong with the RAID setup, if anything, state of all the
    disks, etc... which I cannot do without rebooting. And I fail to see
    how letting a community write their own management utility buy just
    releasing some doentation could hurt in any way. Please, someone
    answer me, how is not releasing JUST DOENATION, to let a community
    support themselves, AND BUY YOU'RE HARDWARE, worth losing all this
    business.

    Jason


    On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:29:36 -0700, Scott Long <org> wrote: [/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]
    Jason Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    > It's not a binary driver, it's a 2-clause BSD licensed driver that 

    From

    http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/pds.cgi?ports/sysutils/aaccli

    Sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli
    Sorry, did not find the sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli

    No source!

    Let's look closer

    http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/aaccli/Makefile

    MASTER_SITES= http://download.adaptec.com/raid/ccu/freebsd/
    DISTNAME= 5400s_fbsd_cli_v10
    EXTRACT_SUFX= .zip

    ...

    RESTRICTED= "May not be redistributed in binary form"
    NO_CDROM= yes

    So there is a file somewhere that is a .zip file. It may not be put
    onto the official FreeBSD CDs (so obviously not OpenBSD CDs either)

    That's not really free is it.

    Let's look closer

    % ftp http://download.adaptec.com/raid/ccu/freebsd/5400s_fbsd_cli_v10.zip
    Trying 216.200.68.139...
    Requesting http://download.adaptec.com/raid/ccu/freebsd/5400s_fbsd_cli_v10.zip
    100% |************************************************* ***********| 565 KB 00:03
    Successfully retrieved file.
    % unzip 5400s_fbsd_cli_v10.zip
    Archive: 5400s_fbsd_cli_v10.zip
    inflating: TRANS.TBL
    inflating: aaccli-1.0_0.tgz
    % tar xvfz aaccli-1.0_0.tgz
    +CONTENTS
    +COMMENT
    +DESC
    +POST-INSTALL
    bin/aaccli
    % file bin/aaccli
    bin/aaccli: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1, for FreeBSD 4.4, statically linked, not stripped


    That's a binary. Where is the source?


    Why do you keep talking about some Management binary?
    Theo Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    > Sigh. Theo, there are lots of ways of interacting with other people: 

    No, Scott is the person standing in the way of us and the RAID
    vendors by --

    1) insulting our (often very successful efforts) to free things --
    in public forums

    2) by signing NDA's with vendors so that those vendors who then
    come to believe that we should be signing NDA's too.

    3) by not insisting at all that vendors open things at least a
    bit, Scott is not like Bill Paul or others who have opened
    up a lot of hardware, but is a lot more like Sam Leffler who
    has perpetuated this (and today, FreeBSD has one 802.11g/a
    driver -- and it uses binary bits).
     
    >
    > ...deliberately breaking OpenBSD's support for Adaptec hardware as some
    > sort of ultimatum is a childish and self-destructive action. I hope
    > the other OpenBSD committers veto any such action as being
    > counterproductive and harmful to your users.[/ref]

    Counter productive? About 6 years ago we did this with Qlogic because
    their firmware images were not free enough to ship in our releases,
    and after 6 months of wasting our time and being stalemated, we
    informed Qlogic and our user community (as well as YOUR user
    community) that we were removing the support for their controllers. A
    few days later the firmware was free.

    But now Scott --- one of your leading developers, and a previous Adaptec
    employee --- goes public and says that our efforts should not be assisted.

    What's in it for him?
     

    We have no problem. People run non-free software all the time, such
    as Windows or the FreeBSD binary-only aaccli.

    It does not fit our principles though. But Scott feels that is reason
    to slag us.
    Theo Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: 
    >
    > From
    >
    > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/pds.cgi?ports/sysutils/aaccli
    >
    > Sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli
    > Sorry, did not find the sources for ports/sysutils/aaccli
    >
    > No source![/ref]

    See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/aac

    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 74199 Sep 22 2003 aac.c
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 14939 Apr 8 2003 aac_cam.c
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1554 Apr 30 2002 aac_cam.h
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2495 Sep 19 2001 aac_compat.h
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 18740 Jan 11 2003 aac_debug.c
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 9665 Sep 2 2003 aac_disk.c
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6670 Sep 19 2001 aac_ioctl.h
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2846 Mar 28 2003 aac_linux.c
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 8894 Mar 31 2004 aac_pci.c
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4040 Dec 3 2001 aac_tables.h
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 37646 Apr 8 2003 aacreg.h
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 17746 Apr 8 2003 aacvar.h

    % less aac.c
    /*-
    * Copyright (c) 2000 Michael Smith
    * Copyright (c) 2001 Scott Long
    * Copyright (c) 2000 BSDi
    * Copyright (c) 2001 Adaptec, Inc.
    * All rights reserved.
    *
    * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    * are met:
    * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
    the
    * doentation and/or other materials provided with the
    distribution.
    *
    * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS''
    AND
    * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
    * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
    PURPOSE
    * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
    LIABLE
    * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
    CONSEQUENTIAL
    * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
    GOODS
    * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
    * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
    STRICT
    * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
    ANY WAY
    * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
    OF
    * SUCH DAMAGE.
    *
    * $FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/aac/aac.c,v 1.9.2.16 2003/09/17 09:11:40
    scottl Exp $
    */

    /*
    * Driver for the Adaptec 'FSA' family of PCI/SCSI RAID adapters.
    */
    [ ... ]

    --
    -Chuck

    Charles Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    > I personally don't care about Adaptec anymore, but I do care about the 

    No, you don't vilify Doubg, but instead, you prefer to vilify me on
    public posting sites like osnews.com

    Great, Scott, just great.


    You don't know the difference between free software and binary
    software.
    Theo Guest

  13. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    Removed by Administrator
    Bob Guest
    Moderated Post

  14. #14

    Default Fwd: Adaptec AAC raid support

    Sorry, forgot you guys too!


    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Jason Crawford <com>
    Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:51:08 -0500
    Subject: Re: Adaptec AAC raid support
    To: Scott Long <org>
    Cc: Aaron Glenn <com>, Adam <com>,
    Theo de Raadt <openbsd.org>, org,
    "Richardson, Doug" <com>


    So is this Adaptec's official stance? They don't care about a
    community that aquires for over 1,800 Adaptec raid controllers? I
    believe that's only AAC raid controllers, not to mention all the other
    ones Adaptec offers. If they don't care about us, then I've officially
    closed my doors perminetly on Adaptec, and will NEVER buy another
    Adaptec product. I will also do everything in my power to make sure
    any company I work for NEVER buys one either. Why should I care about
    a hardware vendor that doesn't care about me, the customer? So long
    Adaptec.

    Jason


    On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:25:11 -0700, Scott Long <org> wrote: 
    > >
    > >
    > > We go along willingly, thank you.
    > >
    > > When I deploy something in production I do my very best not to
    > > compromise and settle. Yeah, compromise is a part of life...blah blah.
    > > Why should I compromise when there are alternatives? Why should I
    > > continue to buy and use Adaptec products when there are alternatives?
    > > Why does Adaptec think it can get away with simply ignoring customers?
    > > Are we asking for the moon here? Other companies don't have to hide
    > > behind NDA's on simple things like RAID management software - why does
    > > Adaptec?
    > >
    > >
    > > aaron.glenn[/ref]
    >
    > Why do you think Adaptec should care about an OS that only has a small
    > fraction of a market share compared to Windows and Linux, and a leader
    > who likes to antagonize everyone? Not that FreeBSD is much bigger, but
    > I'm thrilled that they let me work on the driver and port the apps. I
    > would have been happy to share if asked.
    >
    > Scott
    >
    >[/ref]
    Jason Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    Theo, I'd like to make a comment as a new user in this community:

    I think BSD is great. I don't care what flavor you're talking about; I
    think they're great. I use FreeBSD, but I have great respect for OpenBSD
    and the others, and it was a hard choice deciding which to run.

    However, when I see TOP_FREEBSD_MEMBER_1 saying "TOP_OPENBSD_MEMBER_1 is
    full of crap", and then TOP_OPEN_BSD_MEMBER_1 comes back and says "How
    dare you" and starts antagonizing TOP_FREEBSD_MEMBER_1 (on the FreeBSD
    mailing list, in fact; in full view of everyone, instead of privately),
    it makes me wonder, how the hell is this community ever going to get
    taken seriously? Heck, how's it going to keep going if the top members
    are volatile, vitriolic children who can't keep personal attacks out of
    what should be a purely technical or philosophical debate?

    So, for love of all that's civil, do you think you could tone it down a
    bit, or at least take your personal hatred of each other out of a public
    mailing list where it has no place?

    Yeah, I know, "You're new here, aren't you </rimshot>"
    Bnonn Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

     

    A driver without the management portion of it is really
    crippled, it's incomplete, at that point, why run it? you're just
    asking to get hosed at the wrong time.

    While I appreciate the offer to help fix the half driver,
    we need the other half for it to be really something we should
    be including in GENERIC and telling users they should buy and run

    -Bob
    Bob Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    Charles Swiger wrote: 
    >
    > ...deliberately breaking OpenBSD's support for Adaptec hardware as some
    > sort of ultimatum is a childish and self-destructive action. I hope the
    > other OpenBSD committers veto any such action as being counterproductive
    > and harmful to your users.
    >
    > Otherwise, you're likely to discover that most people choose to run an
    > OS which works with the hardware they have, rather than sticking with
    > OpenBSD.[/ref]

    Well, I have to step up here...

    As a developer, I totally support Theo's threat to remove support for
    aac(4). If the hardware cannot be functionally used with all it's
    features, we cannot tell we support it. Especially when there are still
    bugs impeding reliability and that we cannot guarantee on improving it
    because we don't have any supporting doentation.

    Concerning the driver removal for release, I just did that for FireWire
    support because I didn't want to lie to our users. As it was unreliable
    and that it didn't support a minimum set of devices, I preferred
    removing that unmaintained code...
    This doesn't mean it will never be supported, but just not now.

    For aac(4), if we don't get more than distant future promises, why
    should we tempt our users in buying some hardware that could make them
    loose fortunes in data because they will not be notified of disk failures ?
    We don't have to take that responsibility...

    \\Thierry
    Thierry Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: 
    >
    > No, Scott is the person standing in the way of us and the RAID
    > vendors by --
    >
    > 1) insulting our (often very successful efforts) to free things --
    > in public forums
    >
    > 2) by signing NDA's with vendors so that those vendors who then
    > come to believe that we should be signing NDA's too.[/ref]

    Scott is or was under NDA with Adaptec. Scott certainly is not in a
    position to give away all of Adaptec's internal doentation.
    Frankly, I doubt even the CEO of Adaptec would be free to simply give
    away all of their internal docs-- Adaptec undoubtedly has NDA
    obligations with their partners, chip suppliers, and so forth, which
    constrains what they can make public.

    None of this should be surprising.
    None of this means that Scott wants you to sign NDAs.

    It may be the case that _Adaptec_ wants an NDA before releasing the
    information you've asked for, in which case you can accept or refuse to
    do so as you please. Scott != Adaptec.
     

    Yes, well, I prefer the former approach myself, but I am not going to
    complain that Sam has written a wireless driver using binary firmware
    rather than one that is completely open. I appreciate the work he's
    done, even if I would like to see a completely open series of wireless
    drivers.
     
    >
    > Counter productive? About 6 years ago we did this with Qlogic because
    > their firmware images were not free enough to ship in our releases,
    > and after 6 months of wasting our time and being stalemated, we
    > informed Qlogic and our user community (as well as YOUR user
    > community) that we were removing the support for their controllers. A
    > few days later the firmware was free.[/ref]

    Getting into a fight and winning is better than getting into a fight
    and losing.

    However, perhaps you might consider that if you can obtain what you
    want without getting into needless conflicts, we'd all spend our time
    doing more productive things than squabbling.
     

    It must be a conspiracy, huh? A paranoic could come up with all sorts
    of nefarious reasons, but the truth is probably much more prosaic.
     
    >
    > We have no problem. People run non-free software all the time, such
    > as Windows or the FreeBSD binary-only aaccli.
    >
    > It does not fit our principles though. But Scott feels that is reason
    > to slag us.[/ref]

    I very much doubt that Scott was "slagging you" in reaction to
    OpenBSD's desire to remain completely pure open source.

    I hope you and the OpenBSD developers can get the information you need
    to work with all of the hardware that your project wants to support.
    But the hardware vendors aren't obligated to meet your demands, any
    more than you are obligated to sign an NDA that you don't want to sign.

    --
    -Chuck

    Charles Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    The fact that the management utiltiy it uses is closed
    binary-only-can't-distrubute type of utility, means it can't be used
    by anyone who really cares about stability of their system,
    development, or who just loves freedom. And won't be used by this
    community which accounts for over 1,800 adaptec AAC raid controllers
    alone, along with probably lots of other Adaptec hardware that won't
    be upgraded to future Adaptec prodcuts.


    On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:30:55 -0700, Scott Long <org> wrote: 
    > >
    > >
    > > Actually Scott it's rather simple,
    > >
    > > As long as projects are willing to have someone sign an NDA
    > > and be a shill for the vendors, you end up with vendors who wish to hide
    > > everything behind an NDA and produce binary only stuff. I as a user
    > > don't want that, and plain and simple, I just bought 27 LSI cards for
    > > that reason - I don't want to wait for non-free support to show up, and
    > > I don't want to have to wedge in some binary only thing after the fact.
    > > I want it to work with the OS, and be installed with it.
    > >
    > > When vendors have the option to close their product and have
    > > some few designated souls who will act as their shills and put in a
    > > non-free layer for a free os, then they don't release docs, and everyone
    > > suffers with poor support - with a driver that doesn't work by default
    > > in the OS, because it can't be included. With a driver that isn't
    > > redistributable in commercial spinoffs, because it can't be included.
    > > With a driver that I can't install onto, because it can't be included
    > > on the install sets. Basically, the binary only closed source nda stuff
    > > s, just like the altheros driver.
    > >
    > > I don't see supporting a verdor making a decision to NDA their
    > > product by finding ways to sneak non-free support in as productive,
    > > Actually, I see that this harms the free community, and harms it an
    > > awful lot. because now this vendor instead of providing doentation
    > > so the free community can truly have community support for this product,
    > > gets to pay lip service to the free os world and say "sure we are
    > > supported by free operating systems" when really they aren't.
    > >
    > > Involving the user community makes sure the user community
    > > knows what the score is, and knows what products to buy (case in point,
    > > my recent purchase of 27 LSI adapters, rather than Adaptec). I think
    > > letting the user community believe that a company is fully supportive
    > > of free operating systems when they really are not is dishonest to the
    > > user community, and s them in the end when they make bad purchasing
    > > decisions.
    > >
    > > I think a company has every right to have a closed source,
    > > binary only driver. I think the user community has the right to know
    > > about that, ask for better, and if they don't like it, know to vote
    > > with their feet. I for one don't want to see a situation where I can't
    > > install an OS on a scsi controller without resorting to 3rd party
    > > special license packages, or at least, not on a controller I've paid
    > > good money for.
    > >
    > > -Bob[/ref]
    >
    > What part of the FreeBSD AAC driver is closed, embered, or otherwise
    > non-free?
    >
    > Scott
    >
    >[/ref]
    Jason Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Adaptec AAC raid support

    > What part of the FreeBSD AAC driver is closed, embered, or otherwise 

    The bits that do management.

    Therefore, the bits that let it do what RAID controllers are meant to do.

    Can you fully operate an aac(4) card -- 100% of it's abilities, on a
    FreeBSD machine, without using a binary only tool downloaded from the
    Dell web site?

    Are you being obtuse on purpose?

    Why don't you admit it. FreeBSD relies on non-free binary code for
    Adaptec raid management.

    You can't even put it onto a FreeBSD distribution CD.

    Why do you keep discussing the free stuff, and distracting everyone
    from the non-free bits?

    Is it because you used to work for Adaptec? Are you paid to distract
    people from the non-free code?
    Theo Guest

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Adaptec 7902- Raid -Support Under FreeBSD 5.3
    By Amandeep Pannu in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 24th, 06:24 PM
  2. VIA VT6421 PCI Raid support
    By michael@liquidteam.com in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 22nd, 12:09 AM
  3. New Install of Win 2k Server on Adaptec SCSI Raid Card
    By Falkirk in forum Windows Server
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 15th, 07:24 AM
  4. Adaptec raid 2100S Unix 5.05
    By Robert Keidel in forum SCO
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 7th, 03:05 PM
  5. RAID 0+1 with ADAPTEC 1200A on Debian Woody
    By Alexis de BRUYN in forum Debian
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 28th, 07:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139