In message <865zvkpphn....@next.des.no>, =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rg rav?= w rites: > Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> writes: > > I know our code is full of workarounds and theirs probably too. The > > question is should we? IMO no. > > Unfortunately, the world is imperfect and does not care about your > opinion.
Correct. I know that too well. > 90% of the hardware we run on deviates from the spec in some > way or another and requires workarounds in the kernel. We even have a > whole system of quirks for disks and USB devices. Libfetch contains > workarounds for buggy HTTP servers. OpenSSH has hundreds of lines of > code devoted to identifying the server and selecting workarounds to > apply. Without those workarounds, FreeBSD would not be a viable piece > of software. Wishing they weren't needed is a waste of time and energy. Well, the patch isn't a hackish as some workounds. This probably doesn't warrant a MK_option however since it changes the default, a mention in the man page should be made. I'm still of the opinion that a management solution would be better, which I'm sure RH is taking. I've been in this business long enough to know that it's a miracle that any of this stuff works. Much of it is held together with bubble gum and string. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <c...@freebsd.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
