[Wolves] Remember that HPT372 RAID thing I was on about?

Dan wolves at mailman.lug.org.uk
Wed Nov 6 11:59:00 2002

Aquarius wrote:

> Dan spoo'd forth:
> >Luckily the device numbers *are*
> >contained within a readable header in the download so I could simply
> >change the device number of the 372A to that of the 374 - now it's
> >recognised as two 372As, and actually works suprisingly well.

> *cough* hack! *cough*

:)  Felt quite good, actually.  I do miss C.

I just wish I'd been able to do it properly.  Actually looking at lspci 
it seems the chip is recognised as two devices anyhow, so that could 
possibly be what the HPT374 really is - essentially two 372As bolted 
together in silicon.

> >Needless to say, Highpoint are not high on my list of favourite
> >companies at the moment.  Still, at least they do support Linux to an
> >extent I suppose.
> I'm unclear whether making bitchy noises at or about them will (a) let
> them know that what they're providing isn't up to the challenge (good)
> or (b) encourage them to just drop support as too complex (bad). RMS
> would definitely take view a, in that if you're doing bad support and
> hearing complaints makes you drop it altogether then maybe the free
> software community doesn't need you anyway. On the other hand, someone
> who considers themselves a realist would go for (b) and not say
> anything. I'm inclined to suggest that a minor mail to them explaining
> your problems, without making any accusations, might help, because they
> could well be genuinely unaware of this problem and might leap to fix
> it. Actually fixing the problem and sending them the patch would be
> better, but you can't do that if it's binary -- if you're feeling
> particularly narked about it then tell the Open Source Foundation about
> how Highpoint are using the words in vain and see if that helps...?

I'm actually a little unclear on this - I think their interpretation is 
that you can modify the source *as supplied* however you want, making 
what I did legal, and the words they are using probably not even in the 
letter of the law let alone the spirit.

However, what is to stop me from, say, reverse-engineering the 
binary-only library which it says is distributed under the GPL?

Or would that just piss them off?  :)