Robert Cates wrote:
> I take my hardware
> and my OS (preferably NetBSD) very seriously, and it really bothers me
> to hear and see these other OSes doing better and coming along faster
> than NetBSD.  

But I don't understand the point in complaining?  No one needs to point
out to you that it's a volunteer project, right?  

> I'm sorry, but wasn't the Foundation just asking for
> money/donations some weeks ago?  Did it sound like the Foundation was in
> a bit of trouble, kind of hurting, or was it just me?  

Separate issue.  The Foundation doesn't write code.[1]  The plea was
plead, the dollars donated, and the hardware purchased:  

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-announce/2005/07/19/0000.html

> I know documentation
> for (new) hardware is a problem, and I would not be at all surprised if
> certain parties have certain agreements with certain other parties to
> provide documentation/etc. solely to that party

'Tis true, but how to get invited to certain parties?  The hardware boys
increasingly decide that their specs are a trade secret.  Or maybe it's
always been like that: we never did get framebuffer specs for most VAX
workstations, or for some VAX disk controllers.  Or for pretty much any
mid-size anything from IBM.  If someone doesn't want you to run on his
hardware, he can make it pretty difficult.  

Linux's popularity pulls the other way, but it's a double- or maybe
triple-edged sword.  What support Linux gets from vendors normally comes
in the form of GPL or binary-only modules, neither of which are useful to
NetBSD for obvious technical and legal reasons.  If I were a manufacturer,
I'd bet that better drivers sell more hardware.  I'd put my driver code in
the public domain and try to get it published on page one of The New York
Times.  But maybe that's one reason I'm not a manufacturer. 

> but I for one am bothered
> by the state and pace of which NetBSD is coming along (especially when
> the driver for the BCM5751 has been in NetBSD-current since sometime
> last year)!

I don't know anything about this particular driver.  All things being
equal, developers will choose documented hardware, so I would expect the
number of people set up to work on this one is pretty limited.  

If I may say so, though, I think your complaint is misdirected.  In all
fairness and with no insult intended, your real problem is you.  You chose
to buy hardware from a manufacturer that chooses not to publish the
specifications.  Then you are surprised when said hardware is not
supported.  Why?  Why not choose a product more friendly to our cause?  

When your dollars and your words are at cross purposes, you can bet the
seller will pay closer attention to your dollars.  

--jkl

[1] Of course, foundation members often write code, but TNF's job is to
manage the affairs of the non-profit corporation.