From nobody Fri Nov 26 16:26:47 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5D618A1DDF for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:27:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4J10WS6gk8z4SMy for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:27:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (root@eg.sd.rdtc.ru [62.231.161.221] (may be forged)) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 1AQGQwPN051671 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:26:59 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: manu@bidouilliste.com Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 1AQGQv4h069031 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Nov 2021 23:26:58 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ? To: Emmanuel Vadot References: <20211126160454.3eb827365a02103169ab9adc@bidouilliste.com> <5b9baa6a-66ee-549d-a3e9-f6ea4e6e5016@grosbein.net> <20211126171350.bf976c035095e1d8ac5e43fa@bidouilliste.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <1b0eb704-9322-9b7a-363b-7ad5b55ecf7b@grosbein.net> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 23:26:47 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20211126171350.bf976c035095e1d8ac5e43fa@bidouilliste.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT No description available. * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4J10WS6gk8z4SMy X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N 26.11.2021 23:13, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > Better as in it doesn't respect the specs ? People (except of programmers :-) do not work with specs, they work with real pieces of metal. sc(4) works out of the box and an upgrade does not ruin the system, so it is considered better. I was forced to deal with production system broken with 11.1->11.2 upgrade (it used vt(4) by default) and it was not fun. > You said yourself in this PR that we should blame the manufacturer. > Now if you want to work on making hw.vga.acpi_ignore_no_vga better in > loader based on the smbios info and some quirk table please go ahead. > But don't say that sc(4) is better because it works on buggy hardware > as it ignores some stuff. No, I will keep saying that compatibility with buggy hardware is better than lack of compatibility; at least in case we already have the compatibility and going to lose it. >> I'd like more FreeBSD developers respect POLA these days >> and take responds like "I've always used sc(4), it works for me don't touch it" seriously. >> >> Please, don't touch what works and works good. >> > > Why POLA ? > I'm asking for reasons to keep sc(4), how the hell is that POLA to ask > some questions ? Removal of sc(4) will astonish part of our user base. We should avoid it.