On Friday, 26 January 2001 at 9:47:38 -0500, Jim Sander wrote:
>>> Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they think something is
>>> wrong with the card.
>
>> Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD
>
>These cards work well in our many 3.x and 4.x systems.
>
>But I just buil
At 11:43 AM 01/26/2001, Aleksandr A.Babaylov wrote:
>Mike Wade writes:
> > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
> > > Performance isn't even the main thing. As I said earlier, it's plain
> > > bloody unreliable. Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they
> > > think something is wrong wi
At 09:47 AM 01/26/2001, Jim Sander wrote:
> > > Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they think something is
> > > wrong with the card.
>
> > Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD
>
>These cards work well in our many 3.x and 4.x systems.
>
>But I just built up a Redhat 6.2
At 08:51 AM 01/26/2001, Mike Wade wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
>
> > Performance isn't even the main thing. As I said earlier, it's plain
> > bloody unreliable. Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they
> > think something is wrong with the card. They were surprised whe
Mike Wade writes:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Performance isn't even the main thing. As I said earlier, it's plain
> > bloody unreliable. Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they
> > think something is wrong with the card. They were surprised when I
> > reported that it
> > Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they think something is
> > wrong with the card.
> Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD
These cards work well in our many 3.x and 4.x systems.
But I just built up a Redhat 6.2 box with one, and all seemed to be
working fine, but
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
> Performance isn't even the main thing. As I said earlier, it's plain
> bloody unreliable. Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they
> think something is wrong with the card. They were surprised when I
> reported that it works without any problems
On Thursday, 25 January 2001 at 12:54:17 -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
>> At 10:58 PM 01/24/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>>> In article
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> you write:
>
>>I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and s
David Greenman wrote:
>
> >>I don't know what list you are looking at, but the download list that
> >> I was
> >>looking at did not include SCO, Unixware or any other Unix variant except
> >>Linux.
> >
> >This is the list.
> >
> >NDIS2, NDIS3, NDIS4 and NDIS5 drivers
> >
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:00:47PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> The case with the intel driver is the "ASSumption" that
> its been done correctly and that the procedures for using the functions
> available are correct.
Bahwhahahahah. Right. Yeah, right.
--
Jonathan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [
At 12:48 PM 01/25/2001, David Greenman wrote:
> >>I don't know what list you are looking at, but the download list that
> >> I was
> >>looking at did not include SCO, Unixware or any other Unix variant except
> >>Linux.
> >
> >This is the list.
> >
> >NDIS2, NDIS3, NDIS4 and NDIS5 drivers
> >
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 10:58 PM 01/24/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >In article
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >you write:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
> > >> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pr
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 01:24 PM 01/25/2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> > > If they have a published, freely distributable driver for linux. why would
> > > you have to sign an NDA to port it to FreeBSD?
> >
> >You don't. But reverse engineering isn't always complete.
>
>
> there
At 01:24 PM 01/25/2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > If they have a published, freely distributable driver for linux. why would
> > you have to sign an NDA to port it to FreeBSD?
>
>You don't. But reverse engineering isn't always complete.
there is a difference between "reverse engineering" and por
> If they have a published, freely distributable driver for linux. why would
> you have to sign an NDA to port it to FreeBSD?
You don't. But reverse engineering isn't always complete.
I should know- having gone through hell for the Gigabit NIC for *BSD... mostly
reverse engineered from the Lin
At 10:58 PM 01/24/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>In article
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>you write:
> >
> >>
> >> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
> >> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally
> sucked and
> >> > was chalk-full of magic n
>>I don't know what list you are looking at, but the download list that
>> I was
>>looking at did not include SCO, Unixware or any other Unix variant except
>>Linux.
>
>This is the list.
>
>NDIS2, NDIS3, NDIS4 and NDIS5 drivers
> Novell Netware* Client 3.11, 3.12
At 08:52 PM 01/24/2001, David Greenman wrote:
> >David Greenman wrote:
> >>
> >> >supporting it if someone ported it over to freebsd? they have drivers for
> >> >just about every other major OS except BSD. it would be nice if the
> driver
> >> >was updated BEFORE cards and MBs that dont work star
> On Wednesday, 24 January 2001 at 21:07:45 -0800, Matt Jacob wrote:
> >>
> >> I've come in in the middle of this discussion, so maybe there's
> >> something I don't know, but on the same hardware and running FreeBSD,
> >> I had no problems. Why should we want to replace the driver with
> >> so
On Wednesday, 24 January 2001 at 21:07:45 -0800, Matt Jacob wrote:
>>
>> I've come in in the middle of this discussion, so maybe there's
>> something I don't know, but on the same hardware and running FreeBSD,
>> I had no problems. Why should we want to replace the driver with
>> something which
>
> I've come in in the middle of this discussion, so maybe there's
> something I don't know, but on the same hardware and running FreeBSD,
> I had no problems. Why should we want to replace the driver with
> something which doesn't work well?
There's been a hint of 'vendor supported'
T
On Wednesday, 24 January 2001 at 17:08:16 -0500, Dennis wrote:
>
>>
>>>I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
>>> useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally sucked and
>>> was chalk-full of magic numbers being anded and ored.
>>
>> That's "ch
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
>
>>
>> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
>> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally sucked and
>> > was chalk-full of magic numbers being anded and ored.
>>
>>That's "chock full", and you
>David Greenman wrote:
>>
>> >supporting it if someone ported it over to freebsd? they have drivers for
>> >just about every other major OS except BSD. it would be nice if the driver
>> >was updated BEFORE cards and MBs that dont work started showing up on the
>> >loading dock. Every time I get a
David Greenman wrote:
>
> >supporting it if someone ported it over to freebsd? they have drivers for
> >just about every other major OS except BSD. it would be nice if the driver
> >was updated BEFORE cards and MBs that dont work started showing up on the
> >loading dock. Every time I get a shipm
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Greenman writes:
>
>> "drivers for every major OS"? They have drivers for Windows, Window/NT,
>>and Linux. Of those Linux is the closest to FreeBSD, but that's like saying
>that a penguin is similar to a human because they are both mammals.
>
>Pinguins are
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Greenman writes:
> "drivers for every major OS"? They have drivers for Windows, Window/NT,
>and Linux. Of those Linux is the closest to FreeBSD, but that's like saying
that a penguin is similar to a human because they are both mammals.
Pinguins are birds..
>> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
>> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally sucked and
>> > was chalk-full of magic numbers being anded and ored.
>>
>>That's "chock full", and you're confusing the Becker driver (bad) with
>>the
>
> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally sucked and
> > was chalk-full of magic numbers being anded and ored.
>
>That's "chock full", and you're confusing the Becker driver (bad) with
>the In
>
> 2) I don't have any boards that don't work correctly.
>
I have several. If you send me your surface-mail address, I can ship one to
you.
Kees Jan
You are only young once,
but you can stay immature all your life.
To Unsubscribe: s
>Primarily for two reasons: 1) I didn't know that Intel had released Linux
> driver source, and 2) I don't have any boards that don't work correctly.
I don't either, anymore, sorry. 8(
>I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
> useful in it. Historically the
>> I guess they changed their
>> policy on the part. I've tested the linux driver with the new part on the
>> supermicro board and it works, so the driver is reasonably up to date.
>
>The source-available Intel driver does actually look pretty good. I
>don't know why David has failed to track
> >I think he's refering to the 82559 manual. It is available from Intel to
> >developers, but only with an NDA. For various reasons, I can't sign an NDA
> >for that information without putting myself in legal jeopardy. That has always
> >been true, but I was able to obtain the [now older] 825
At 01:38 PM 12/19/2000, David Greenman wrote:
> >> Your stupidity is also is emphasized by the fact that no major
> manufacturer
> >> has supported drivers for freebsd. Intel wont even help by providing
> docs.
> >> Bravo. What a WIN for the freebsd community. You've done a tremendous job
> >> m
34 matches
Mail list logo
