Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.ysu.edu!odin.oar.net!malgudi.oar.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!EU.net!sun4nl!dataweb.net!Leiden.NL.net!Utrecht.NL.net!news.iaf.nl!news.es.iaf.nl!yedi!wilko From: wilko@yedi.iaf.nl (Wilko Bulte) Subject: Re: Does 2.1R support 4x ATAPIs? Organization: Private FreeBSD site - Arnhem, The Netherlands Message-ID: <Dvtz1s.sy@yedi.iaf.nl> References: <4tp20n$ao9@maui.cc.odu.edu> <SCOTT.96Aug2131630@crux.dcs.qmw.ac.uk> <avg.839238744@news.cwi.nl> <SCOTT.96Aug6125416@crux.dcs.qmw.ac.uk> <avg.839413150@news.cwi.nl> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 17:53:52 GMT Lines: 43 avg@cwi.nl (Annius Groenink) writes: >scott@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Scott Mitchell) writes: >>In article <avg.839238744@news.cwi.nl> I <avg@cwi.nl> write: >>> Nah, no offense, but it's not that; BSD 2.1 is just a little bit >>> crappier than Linux! The supplied kernels screw up completely with >>> CDROMs. Very bad advertising! Which is b*llshit when stated in a generic fashion like this. I'm using FreeBSD for years now with CDROMs (SCSI ones) and they work just fine. >>Hello? IIRC, the last CD that I recieved clearly stated that the >>driver was *alpha quality*, as in "use at your own risk". Perhaps you >>meant to say "Honest advertising"? Happily though it works for me and >>plenty of other people. >This should have been mentioned at the site where I punched in my >credit card number to order the CD! It certainly wasn't. The >impression made there was one of a reasonably mature system. >Maybe honest advertising always implies bad advertising. I hope not. Send your CD back to Walnut Creek and ask a refund. They do that you know. >>Slagging off the whole OS on the basis of one flaky driver is a little >>extreme don't you think? FreeBSD is produced by volunteers who don't >>have time to support every piece of brain-damaged hardware that >>exists out there. >Maybe I was exaggerating; but I don't think that a standard IDE CDROM >is `a piece of brain-damaged hardware'. The CDROM I was talking about >simply _doesn't contain any_ driver for an IDE CDROM as master on the >second channel (or whatever). So it does not match your hardware. Stay with Linux if that pleases you more. Return the CD for a refund. And stop whining. Wilko