On 4/4/07, Marius ROMAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ral(4) because it's better supported.
On 4/4/07, Nick ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/4/07, Vincent GROSS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) what is the R.E. level of ath(4) ? fully understood, mainly understood ?
> >
> > 2) Is Atheros still reluctant to disclose documentation for its chips ?
> >
> > 3) If 1)=fully and 2)=reluctant, what should I pick between ath(4) and
ral(4) ?
>
> ral(4). I have ath(4) because I got it from a big box store, but I'm
> ashamed. Don't support stupid vendors, give your money elsewhere.
>
As you are conforting me in my final decision, let's go for ral(4).
Thanks folks.
--
Vincent GROSS
