Re: Netgear FA410TX ....

[Aernoudt Bottemanne <Aernoudt.Bottemanne@Informix.com>]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
> 
> > 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?

End October (24) there have been a couple of postings about the 'c'
version. People having the same problems I now have.

> 
> 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.

:-)   But after has been posted, there are 2 ways to get going:

1. try to write the code to enable it
2. update the compatibility list
 
> > 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.

That is certainly my aim too !  Everybody reacts different, which does
not make it all that easy. I see (part of) my role on this planet as to
have fun, and make it a fun place for others (including Aaron :-)
 
> (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.

As above, there have been a couple postings, although I understand it is
difficult to keep track of everything. Just saw a response from Peter
Hansteen about the way the linux community solved it. Would that be
possible for us too ?

Cheers,
Aernoudt