Re: Netgear FA410TX ....

[Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>]

> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > 
> > > Well maybe you are a millionaire, but for most people $59,99 is a waste
> > > if it does not work, and especially if it is _specifically mentioned_ on
> > > the hardware compatibility list on our OpenBSD website.
> > 
> > Hmm.  This might be a serious issue.
> > 
> > Perhaps, seeing as we cannot deal with the constant chipset changes
> > that some vendors like Netgear are making, we should simply remove i386.html
> > and not advertise any compatibility at all.
> 
> Well, would thyat be the solution ?  Perhaps if the list with
> compatibility explicitely mentions the chipset and exact naming it would
> still work; example: Netgear FA410TX works but not the 'C' version of
> it. if that would be mentioned, it would still be informative to all
> users.

How would we know that the C version didn't work?  How would we even know
that a C version shows up?

Normally we find out when someone rudely gets upset on our mailing
list about the fact that we didn't read Netgear or some other vendor's
minds.

> My point was (and is !) ment as a positive comment/contribution,

Yes, I suspect it was meant to be positive.

> my aim
> is to get OpenBSD (icl. website) better. It is not ment to just have
> comment. Removing th compatibility list is something I would prefer to
> keep on it, as a service to our OpenBSD users. 

Perhaps.  Perhaps next time you can think about how to make friends.

(I'm copying your style at the moment ;-)

> If this means somebody has to keep that part up to date on a regular
> basis, then I have no problem in doing that. (after all: if you have
> comment, not just comment but also contribute !)

We tend to do it ourselves.  However, if I recall, your original mail
didn't even state that C failed where non-C worked.  Our telepathy skills
are a bit lacking.