| |||||||||||||
totally unfounded, which is par for the course with Theototally unfounded, which is par for the course with TheoPosted Jun 13, 2007 18:39 UTC (Wed) by davem (subscriber, #4154)In reply to: exactly by qu1j0t3 Parent article: Jonathan Schwartz replies to Linus regarding ZFS and GPLv3
No, it's totally unfounded.
If you actually _LOOK_ the full hypervisor mode of the chip
Theo is just jerking everyone's chain because he didn't get
Theo is about manipulating people and making things seem the
(Log in to post comments)
totally unfounded, which is par for the course with Theo Posted Jun 13, 2007 18:48 UTC (Wed) by davem (subscriber, #4154) [Link] And having read his comments more carefully, he's even more full ofit.
Linux does support the v215 unlike his comments state, the PCI-E
arch/sparc64/kernel/pci_fire.c
FreeBSD has a driver too, I think they beat me by like a day or
Theo prefers to complain and be difficult, rather than deal with
well, somebody should inform Theo Posted Jun 13, 2007 19:06 UTC (Wed) by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786) [Link] Somebody should let Theo know then, that all the information he wants is readily available. An email should do it.
Since Jonathan's apparently taken to "open letters" to specific individuals, maybe his next blog post will address misunderstandings about Sun's total openness of documentation.
(I also want to see the one that begins, "Dear Steve, I am sorry for spilling the beans about ZFS in Leopard. I had no idea you were so secretive about product plans. I hope this hasn't soured a beautiful friendship, love, Jon.")
well, somebody should inform Theo Posted Jun 13, 2007 19:31 UTC (Wed) by davem (subscriber, #4154) [Link] The hardware docs for the PCI-E chip aren't available, but theprogramming is pretty damn clear from the Niagara hypervisor sources, the T1000 and T2000 Niagara systems have the same exact PCI-E controller as the UltraSPARC-IIIi systems Theo is moaning about (v215, Ultra45, etc.)
And he could easily look at the Linux or FreeBSD drivers, both
I don't have the docs either, yet I was able to write a driver.
Instead of complaining, I used the information available, did
The main point is that Theo could be quiet and add support to
And it is this abrasiveness that backfires on him and his projects.
Companies are reluctant to cooperate with him, because all he
well, somebody should inform Theo Posted Jun 14, 2007 0:18 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > The main point is that Theo could be quiet and add support to> OpenBSD if he wanted to, but it's his choice to be abrasive.
Theo isn't that badly informed. He says OpenBSD *has* support, and he
For all I know Theo's "reverse engineering" is the same process as your "a
The only factually incorrect claim he made in his comment to Schwarz' blog
posturing? Posted Jun 14, 2007 12:24 UTC (Thu) by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786) [Link] What's wrong with the posture that hardware vendors should publish interoperability information if they want complete and timely operating system support?
Furthermore, nobody else is applying such pressure, and chipmakers appear too dim (monopoly effect, I guess) to induce this simple fact alone. We should praise Theo, not bury him.
posturing? Posted Jun 15, 2007 0:06 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > We should praise Theo, not bury him.
Theo has a very good argument to make in favour of hardware vendors
*However*, in some instances (here with Sun, and a few months ago with the
Complete, detailed and accurate hardware documentation may be a
Content-Type: text/plain,format=flowed Posted Jun 15, 2007 0:10 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
Ok, format=flowed does have its uses sometimes.
|
|||||||||||||