Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On 2012.11.18 09:58, Gary Kline wrote: I probably should cc the hardward guys about this. first, see if it geta any traction here, tho. my tech guy got me a Delll 3010 that has an improved [[meaning screwed up]] BIOS with some hardware mess called the UEFI. Trying to get ssh to work *bi-directionally* i royally f'ked up my installation for well over 27 hours. ssh still fails to connect going in to my new tao; but this time I know what to avoid. my question is simple: of what use is this new/improved POS setup? im sure its the same for every flavor of unix. my view is that it mjust makes using non-windozw that much more painful. gary Gary, UEFI is more than a modified BIOS, it's something to get rid of the BIOS altogether. It's the x86 BIOS that arguably deserves much more to be called a screwed up POS, as it carries with it 30 years worth of legacy weirdness, kludges to go around them in modern systems, and a whole catalog of vendor-specific bugs and non-compliant implementations. UEFI was designed to solve a bunch of problems for manufacturers and advanced users, I'm not so sure that it deserves so much heat. What I'm sure of, is that there's no relationship between your new machine's UEFI and your ssh issues. I'm also sure that this has nothing to do with FreeBSD. Best of luck getting your work done on your new machine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:49:46 +0100, Lucas B. Cohen wrote: On 2012.11.18 09:58, Gary Kline wrote: I probably should cc the hardward guys about this. first, see if it geta any traction here, tho. my tech guy got me a Delll 3010 that has an improved [[meaning screwed up]] BIOS with some hardware mess called the UEFI. Trying to get ssh to work *bi-directionally* i royally f'ked up my installation for well over 27 hours. ssh still fails to connect going in to my new tao; but this time I know what to avoid. my question is simple: of what use is this new/improved POS setup? im sure its the same for every flavor of unix. my view is that it mjust makes using non-windozw that much more painful. gary Gary, UEFI is more than a modified BIOS, it's something to get rid of the BIOS altogether. It's the x86 BIOS that arguably deserves much more to be called a screwed up POS, as it carries with it 30 years worth of legacy weirdness, kludges to go around them in modern systems, and a whole catalog of vendor-specific bugs and non-compliant implementations. UEFI was designed to solve a bunch of problems for manufacturers and advanced users, I'm not so sure that it deserves so much heat. The positive aspects you've mentioned about UEFI, the potential to solve problems originating back to half-baked solutions and hacks on BIOS level are well mentioned. Still I fear that UEFI will not bring them to reality. Instead it will be worse. Allow me to provide just one example: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html As the title suggests, there are many more. :-) What I'm sure of, is that there's no relationship between your new machine's UEFI and your ssh issues. That sounds possible, but still UEFI _can_ be used to interfere with any level of the machine, as far as I know. As it is somehow a kind of micro-OS, it can surely detect network traffic and motify or deny it if desired. There are many aspects of security that can be realized with UEFI. Avoiding uncertified traffic could be one of them. Still in _this_ particular case I would not assume UEFI to be the source of the problem. I'm also sure that this has nothing to do with FreeBSD. FreeBSD's ssh implementation (client and server) usually are simple to set up, providing a good out of the box experience. Checking settings on both sides, using the -vvv option or maybe even using tcpdump or Wireshark to examine the traffic could help to spot the problem. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100 Polytropon articulated: Allow me to provide just one example: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100 Polytropon articulated: Allow me to provide just one example: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence. That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI behaviour in modern BIOS as well, or manufacturers intendedly going their way to limit hardware in what it can do or what it will support. It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and make it worse. The article mentions legacy boot to restore a somewhat normal behaviour... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100 Polytropon articulated: Allow me to provide just one example: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence. That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI behaviour in modern BIOS as well, or manufacturers intendedly going their way to limit hardware in what it can do or what it will support. It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and make it worse. The article mentions legacy boot to restore a somewhat normal behaviour... The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X, but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required. In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE. You might say this was enabling vendors to provide buggy systems, but as long as FreeBSD is small it does not have the power to affect vendors. Insisting on correctness from vendors has no effect when it is FreeBSD doing the insisting. It is only when FreeBSD is more widely used that it can adopt the role of enforcing standards on vendors, and it can not become widely used if it starts insisting on standards prematurely. daniel feenberg -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Daniel Feenberg feenb...@nber.org wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100 Polytropon articulated: Allow me to provide just one example: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/**20187.htmlhttp://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence. That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI behaviour in modern BIOS as well, or manufacturers intendedly going their way to limit hardware in what it can do or what it will support. It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and make it worse. The article mentions legacy boot to restore a somewhat normal behaviour... The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X, but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required. In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE. The above paragraph is completely meaningless , because neither *BSD , nor Linux is a marginal operating system . Please see http://www.top500.org/statistics/list/ Select from this Operating System Family where in world's 500 super computers , Windows is on ONLY 3 computers , the rest is almost Linux 469 , Unix 20 , BSD-based 1 computers and others . http://www.asus.com/Static_WebPage/OS_Compatibility/ http://www.asus.com/websites/global/aboutasus/OS/Linux.pdf contains Linux distributions supported in ASUS desktop boards . Some trade marked servers excluded , Linux and *BSD run on many server hardware . By not considering these and then saying that *BSD and Linux should follow foot steps of some one is not acceptable . The problem is there is NO any compatible hardware list for FreeBSD maintained continuously . Another problem is vendors are not supplying manuals about their hardware for whatever the reason is which is making to write drivers for them nearly impossible . In such cases , the users should seek compatible hardware without entrapped into proprietary to one operating system hardware . You might say this was enabling vendors to provide buggy systems, but as long as FreeBSD is small it does not have the power to affect vendors. Insisting on correctness from vendors has no effect when it is FreeBSD doing the insisting. It is only when FreeBSD is more widely used that it can adopt the role of enforcing standards on vendors, and it can not become widely used if it starts insisting on standards prematurely. daniel feenberg -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Daniel Feenberg feenb...@nber.org wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100 Polytropon articulated: Allow me to provide just one example: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/**20187.htmlhttp://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X, but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required. In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE. The above paragraph is completely meaningless , because neither *BSD , nor Linux is a marginal operating system . Please see http://www.top500.org/statistics/list/ Select from this Operating System Family where in world's 500 super computers , Windows is on ONLY 3 computers , the rest is almost Linux 469 , Unix 20 , BSD-based 1 computers and others . http://www.asus.com/Static_WebPage/OS_Compatibility/ http://www.asus.com/websites/global/aboutasus/OS/Linux.pdf contains Linux distributions supported in ASUS desktop boards . Some trade marked servers excluded , Linux and *BSD run on many server hardware . It isn't what vendors should care about. I agree they should care about FreeBSD. But by and large they don't. Arguing that they should serves no purpose. They have poor moral character, that is why they don't care and also why they are impervious to argument, except from large customers. The handful of server vendors that are exceptions do not detract from the force of my argument. daniel feenberg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
Polytropon articulated:
Allow me to provide just one example:
More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html
That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing
exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an
oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence.
I heard from my technician last night--on his way East for the
week. he send the URL for an 18MB file {from Dell} all about
this new paradigm. --like I've got the time to much around with
that much detail... .
someone, I think down-queue said something about the UEFI having
been designed to make it all the more difficult to drop on FBSD
[or anything *except* Doze. my tech echoed the same thing 8 days
ago when he dropped off the box.
I'm sure by now the BIOS has been hacked beyond reason--especially
with the 64-bit versions. Still, if I were designing a new BIOS
that supported the vast majority of my users [DOZE], I would use
every last trick I could dream of to strongly =discourage= anything
but Windows.
That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI
behaviour in modern BIOS as well, or manufacturers
intendedly going their way to limit hardware in what
it can do or what it will support.
Exactly; not to put to fine a point on this, but this is where I
smell greed as part of the picture/rationale.
It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and
that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and
make it worse.
The article mentions legacy boot to restore a somewhat
normal behaviour...
ha! I tried the legacy route for hours without success. only when
I selected the UEFI did things start to work. and then, upon reboot,
I got the string Cand Find Boot Sector; press any key to reboot
nutshell, I'll scan thru the 18meg file that I have the pointer to.
but will probably ask for a less-featureful model.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
--
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix
Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:30:44AM -0500, Daniel Feenberg wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Daniel Feenberg feenb...@nber.org wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100 Polytropon articulated: Allow me to provide just one example: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/**20187.htmlhttp://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X, but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required. In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE. The above paragraph is completely meaningless , because neither *BSD , nor Linux is a marginal operating system . Please see http://www.top500.org/statistics/list/ Select from this Operating System Family where in world's 500 super computers , Windows is on ONLY 3 computers , the rest is almost Linux 469 , Unix 20 , BSD-based 1 computers and others . I'll take a bow, or part-of, for the BSD computer. Maybe I shouldn't. 1/500 is nothing to put on my tombstone:-) http://www.asus.com/Static_WebPage/OS_Compatibility/ http://www.asus.com/websites/global/aboutasus/OS/Linux.pdf contains Linux distributions supported in ASUS desktop boards . Some trade marked servers excluded , Linux and *BSD run on many server hardware . It isn't what vendors should care about. I agree they should care about FreeBSD. But by and large they don't. Arguing that they should serves no purpose. They have poor moral character, that is why they don't care and also why they are impervious to argument, except from large customers. The handful of server vendors that are exceptions do not detract from the force of my argument. daniel feenberg answer me this, daniel or anybody else:: isn't there a very small group who is devoted to creating a 100% open/free hardware and software? maybe 64-bit only to start? most of us who are still alive and contributing *something* might be interested in this. forget where I read it, but unless I was dreaming, it was for real and would fit the OPen-* model... . gary -- Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon 2012-11-19 07:55:16 UTC-0500, Daniel Feenberg (feenb...@nber.org) wrote: The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows uses. In a world where Windows drivers are rarely well-documented, let alone open source? I suspect what you suggest is easier said than done... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:27:52 -0800, Gary Kline wrote: answer me this, daniel or anybody else:: isn't there a very small group who is devoted to creating a 100% open/free hardware and software? maybe 64-bit only to start? most of us who are still alive and contributing *something* might be interested in this. Even though it's not x86, this might be interesting as it is _really_ open: http://cubieboard.org/ You can freely obtain schematics, dimensions, components... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:46:45AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:27:52 -0800, Gary Kline wrote: answer me this, daniel or anybody else:: isn't there a very small group who is devoted to creating a 100% open/free hardware and software? maybe 64-bit only to start? most of us who are still alive and contributing *something* might be interested in this. Even though it's not x86, this might be interesting as it is _really_ open: yeah, but I NEED x86 http://cubieboard.org/ You can freely obtain schematics, dimensions, components... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... -- Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:35:15 -0800, Gary Kline wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:46:45AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:27:52 -0800, Gary Kline wrote: answer me this, daniel or anybody else:: isn't there a very small group who is devoted to creating a 100% open/free hardware and software? maybe 64-bit only to start? most of us who are still alive and contributing *something* might be interested in this. Even though it's not x86, this might be interesting as it is _really_ open: yeah, but I NEED x86 In this case, I think there are no really free technical concepts or projects - too much lawyer blah and patents of swinging on a swing. :-( However, paying attention _what_ to buy can save from a lot of troubles; read prior to buying is well invested time if you want your devices to be compliant to existing standards and will therefor be compatible to FreeBSD. This usually applies to printers, wireless networking gear, and USB shenanigans. With FreeBSD development on ARM, there might be future niche markets where non-x86 hardware will be more popular even for today's normal PC use. Electrical energy is becoming more expensive, and the throwaway mentality is growing stronger (cf. Jevons paradox), so cheaper devices, usually created in the ARM realm could become a significant factor. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Anybody use the Dell 3010??
I probably should cc the hardward guys about this. first, see if it geta any traction here, tho. my tech guy got me a Delll 3010 that has an improved [[meaning screwed up]] BIOS with some hardware mess called the UEFI. Trying to get ssh to work *bi-directionally* i royally f'ked up my installation for well over 27 hours. ssh still fails to connect going in to my new tao; but this time I know what to avoid. my question is simple: of what use is this new/improved POS setup? im sure its the same for every flavor of unix. my view is that it mjust makes using non-windozw that much more painful. gary -- Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
