On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
>A guy in the down under (.au) sent me this driver. Aparently Adaptec
>developes their OpenSource driver privatly and only gives out copies to
>"special" customers.
You've never had to deal with Adaptec. I'd rather build my own SCSI
controller out of t
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> It might be a problem for places like Redhat, Suse, etc. that sell linux
>> distributions. Of course, the GPL has the same clause and no one's had
>> a problem with selling linux distributions so far.
>
>The GPL allows commercial sale. I threw the i2o sig s
> It might be a problem for places like Redhat, Suse, etc. that sell linux
> distributions. Of course, the GPL has the same clause and no one's had
> a problem with selling linux distributions so far.
The GPL allows commercial sale. I threw the i2o sig stuff at real lawyers
and they said 'avoid'
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Has anyone thought about including the DPT I2O driver in the main kernel?
>> The license in the files don't preclude doing this. Yeah, I'm more than
>
>They do. The i2o headers can only be distributed by someone who is an
>i2o sig member.
Have you read the
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>They do. The i2o headers can only be distributed by someone who is an
>i2o sig member.
Ah, here's the magic clause:
+ * This information is provided for the purpose of recompilation of the
+ * driver code provided by Distributed Processing Technology only. I
> It goes on to stipluate no "selling" the headers, leave the I2O SIG copyright
Selling covers distributing for money. I've been talking to them about using
the linux/i2o.h headers which are not so encumbered but heard nothing for
a month or so now
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Ricky Beam wrote:
> I used to have the respect for DPT. Well, there's one more fine company
> ruined.
I guess I caught the tail end of DPT being nice. When i got the card it
was highly recommended.
> The root problem is that you don't know what to do to get it working. Th
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> It goes on to stipluate no "selling" the headers, leave the I2O SIG copyright
>
>Selling covers distributing for money. I've been talking to them about using
>the linux/i2o.h headers which are not so encumbered but heard nothing for
>a month or so now
(well
> Has anyone thought about including the DPT I2O driver in the main kernel?
> The license in the files don't preclude doing this. Yeah, I'm more than
They do. The i2o headers can only be distributed by someone who is an
i2o sig member.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsub
http://www.rccacm.org/~driver/dpt1.14-2.2.16.tar.bz2
A guy in the down under (.au) sent me this driver. Aparently Adaptec
developes their OpenSource driver privatly and only gives out copies to
"special" customers.
It works in 2.2.16 and 2.2.17 :)) 6 months of hell has come (mostly) to
an end.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
>> Have you bothered tell us what that error is? I've not seen anything on
>> dpt's mail-list. (Which is where this should be discussed.)
>
>I've emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] (that's what the linuxi2oreadme.txt says to
>do for help) MANY times pleading for
> One of the primary reasons for use the DPT driver is to use the DPT RAID
> mananger. The Linux I2O code doesn't (currently) have that support. It
> could be added later, but someone's got to get the card to work with the
DPT don't do standard I2O block management. Linux supports the standard
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Ricky Beam wrote:
> This is true of _any_ binary module. That's why I never use binary modules.
That's why I don't want to use them either.
> Have you bothered tell us what that error is? I've not seen anything on
> dpt's mail-list. (Which is where this should be discusse
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
>> The driver should be on DPT's site. Im not sure on the current state with the
(The driver _IS_ on DPT's site. It always has been.)
>The driver directory is on thier web site. true. But it only works for
>specific versions of kernel's from RH. They
> kernel from RH (the only kernels they support according to the web page).
> I need to have at LEAST 2.2.16 for security resons. But they don't give a
> crap.
Someone posted the 2.2.16port of their driver URL to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If Linux can get the card working with they native i2o drivers
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Well. Since DPT rammed me in the ass with their "SmartRAID V" RAID I need
> > to buy a new RAID card. I don't know who to trust. I was told (about 1
> > year ago) that DPT was the Co. that liked/worked with the linux community.
> > Obviously they don't. I
> Well. Since DPT rammed me in the ass with their "SmartRAID V" RAID I need
> to buy a new RAID card. I don't know who to trust. I was told (about 1
> year ago) that DPT was the Co. that liked/worked with the linux community.
> Obviously they don't. I don't a driver for over $12,000 in RAID HW. So
Well. Since DPT rammed me in the ass with their "SmartRAID V" RAID I need
to buy a new RAID card. I don't know who to trust. I was told (about 1
year ago) that DPT was the Co. that liked/worked with the linux community.
Obviously they don't. I don't a driver for over $12,000 in RAID HW. So,
What R
18 matches
Mail list logo
