On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 02:48:25AM -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:
Interestingly, I rebuilt world with the latest pccardd changes and,
suddenly, the 589D started working perfectly. Unfortunately, the
574BT doesn't work at all now. It appears to configure properly, but
it doesn't transmit or
Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Will Andrews writes:
: On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 02:48:25AM -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:
: Interestingly, I rebuilt world with the latest pccardd changes and,
: suddenly, the 589D started working perfectly. Unfortunately, the
: 574BT doesn't
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Will Andrews writes:
: On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 02:48:25AM -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:
: Interestingly, I rebuilt world with the latest pccardd changes and,
: suddenly, the 589D started working perfectly. Unfortunately, the
: 574BT doesn't work at all now. It
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frank Mayhar writes:
: Now I'm looking forward to the newcard cardbus support so I can finally use
: the 575BT which came with the laptop. (Tapping fingers impatiently. :-)
Hope you are tapping something soft :-) Wouldn't want you to hurt
yourself, or have others
On Monday, 17 January 2000 at 8:24:20 -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:
Sorry for the delay on this reply; I was going over some old email and
came across this only a week late.
Jonathan Chen wrote:
With what little pccard/ethernet programming experiences I've had, this
problem seems to be caused
Greg Lehey wrote:
The fact it's appearing with two different cards which work for other
people tends to point away from the cards and towards some common
factor, such as your laptop.
True.
Interestingly, I rebuilt world with the latest pccardd changes and,
suddenly, the 589D started working
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Frank Mayhar wrote:
Interestingly, I rebuilt world with the latest pccardd changes and,
suddenly, the 589D started working perfectly. Unfortunately, the
574BT doesn't work at all now. It appears to configure properly, but
it doesn't transmit or receive.
Ok, I need the
Sorry for the delay on this reply; I was going over some old email and
came across this only a week late.
Jonathan Chen wrote:
With what little pccard/ethernet programming experiences I've had, this
problem seems to be caused by the interrupt for the card getting lost
somewhere before getting
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jonathan Chen writes:
: "Fake IRQ must be 3". Now maybe the card requires it, or maybe the
: original author just didn't have anything on IRQ 3, I don't know. So, I'd
: suggest turning off com2 or whatever you have on irq3, -or- change the
: "fake irq" to something
On Friday, 7 January 2000 at 23:46:49 +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
In some email I received from Warner Losh, sie wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Josef Karthauser writes:
: My 3c589d works just fine now, along with suspend/resume :) (under 4.0).
The issue with the 3c589d is with its
[[ Moved to just current ]]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Greg Lehey writes:
: That may be the answer for Darren's problem. It's definitely not the
: case for the ones we have been discussing on -mobile.
There are definitely known issues with the ep0 driver. Right now it
doesn't interrupt
On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 09:26:45PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
[[ Moved to just current ]]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Greg Lehey writes:
: That may be the answer for Darren's problem. It's definitely not the
: case for the ones we have been discussing on -mobile.
There are definitely
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian Somers writes:
: Also, with a 3c589c, hot plugging is like playing Russian Roulette
: with five of the six chambers full at the moment. Just booting with
: a pccard inserted sometimes crashes the machine. I think most
: peoples view of the current pccard
Hi committers!
On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 11:44:06AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
And given that we've already slipped from December 15th, I think you
can treat this as a pretty hard deadline, to be further slipped only
grudgingly and in response to clear and dire need.
10 days, folks! Make
-On [2107 00:01], Poul-Henning Kamp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Ames writes:
On the other hand, there are *plenty* of things already in 4.0 that really
need to get out there and get a workout by a larger audience.
Delaying *them* is a big
At 4:14 PM -0800 2000/1/6, Randy Bush wrote:
my point is that we can only wait politely and appreciatively for the kame
folk to continue their work to a point where it is more fully rounded.
until then, we should not forget that other features are also driving the
4.0 release train.
On 07-Jan-00 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
It's a feature freeze, sorry. I still expect the loose-ends that are
in place as of that date to be tied up afterwards.
Doesn't this statement make the entire thread about IPv6 + PC-Card support
entirely moot? Feature freezes don't mean we can't improve
In some email I received from Randy Bush, sie wrote:
4.0-RELEASE sounds like it will start becoming available at about the same
time as other OS's make new releases *with* IPv6/IPSec. You work it out
whether or not FreeBSD will win or lose from those two being there or not
there.
In some email I received from Warner Losh, sie wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Josef Karthauser writes:
: My 3c589d works just fine now, along with suspend/resume :) (under 4.0).
The issue with the 3c589d is with its speed. It is falling back to
the timeout routine to send data
In freebsd-current [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that there is already quite a bit of
IPv6 and IPSec stuff in the tree. Most of the kernel stuff is there (albeit
seriously lacking documentation). To me this is not *too* critical right
now. I see the point for the
In some email I received from Poul-Henning Kamp, sie wrote:
[...]
In the meantime please enjoy:
NTFS filesytem
Netware support
Jail facility
Tons of new device drivers
Netgraph
etc, etc
Isn't that just that very incomplete list worth a
Whatever it is, results in ping times being 1000ms then 10ms then 1000ms
then 10ms...when it responds.
i.e. it's a mistake to use FreeBSD 3.x with the 3c589d.
FWIW, I'm using the 3c589d with 3.2-STABLE + PAO, and it's working just
fine.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yikes! Seems fifi got out of the cage again. How did she figure out
the combination for the lock
* From: David Greenman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* p.s. pardon the lack of capital letters but my paws can't quite reach
* the shift key and the alphabet keys at the same time
*
*If
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 05:48:09AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
Yikes! Seems fifi got out of the cage again. How did she figure out
the combination for the lock
I'm not sure, but I suspect she factored your private key. Maybe
if you didn't keep putting them in the INDEX commit logs...
...
I strongly suggest to not release 4.0 till the IPv6 import has been finished.
Beside the need for IPv6 it would be wrong to ship a release with a half-
complete implementation.
I expect every person that has made similiar statements here and bore
all the developers with the additional
Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
[complaining that people just complain instead of doing the work]
If you, the users, are not ready to do this, STOP asking those to be
the folks so described:
``We the willing have been doing so much with so little for so long
that we are now qualified to do
You know, the people reading this list are *not* the typical FreeBSD
users. The fact that releases occur at all is a concession to the
realities of the world - WCCDROM needs to pay it's bills by selling
CDROMs, and their business pressures require new updates on time and
to be as stable as
Doesn't this statement make the entire thread about IPv6 + PC-Card support
entirely moot? Feature freezes don't mean we can't improve those two areas,
right? Right? :-)
PC-card, perhaps, but I think IPv6 still needs "improvement" far less
that it needs significant integration. :)
- Jordan
I think you'd do far better to stop bitching and simply start helping.
The people I've heard yell the very loudest in this discussion are
also the people who:
a) Have not helped Yoshinobu Inoue to any great extent during his
calls for patch testing.
b) Have not volunteered to help with the
Personally, I think the timeline laid down - 25(?) days from now
until 4.0 release is too aggressive. Given that the announcement
(to me) seemed to be rather autocratic and possibly driven by
marketting factors ("we need 4.0 out now regardless" ?) than by
the general stability and
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Julian Elischer wrote:
I agree with this..
I think that 4.0 is clsoe but it's just not there yet.
I think it needs IPV6 to have reached a better milestone, and certainly
the stuff that warner is doing (and others) needs to be a little
further down the track.
I agree.
Curious , what is elischer.org ? 8)
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 02:32:47AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
Curious , what is elischer.org ? 8)
According to www.elischer.org, this is the temporary home page
for the Elischer family's internet enterprises and Family stuff.
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA of the
[EMAIL
At 5:25 AM -0500 2000/1/6, Donn Miller wrote:
I agree. Why rush 4.0-RELEASE out the door if it's "not there yet"? One
possibility is to make our 4.0-current something like 3.9-RELEASE, and
when everything has been added, release 4.0-RELEASE.
No, I disagree. There's too much in
On Thu, 6 Jan 100, Darren Reed wrote:
For what it's worth, I think releasing 4.0 *without* IPv6 support
is a mistake. Why ? Because in 12 months FreeBSD 5.0 will be
released *with* IPv6 support (I'd count IPv6 as being a big enough
change to signify a major release number change). If
I agree. Why rush 4.0-RELEASE out the door if it's "not there yet"? One
possibility is to make our 4.0-current something like 3.9-RELEASE, and
when everything has been added, release 4.0-RELEASE. 3.9-RELEASE would be
a lot like 4.0-REL, only with some missing parts (such as IPV6 you just
On 06-Jan-00 Andreas Klemm wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:55:06PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
More releases more often are better than indefinitely holding up
releases waiting for just that one last thing to be finished.
Second that. And to follow on that...
FreeBSD 4.0 will
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eivind Eklund writes:
: I believe putting down RELENG_4 without having a finished IPv6 and
: functional laptop support (I'm not sure what state this is in right
: now) would be a bad idea.
The laptop support is approx that of 3.x. The fe device is no longer
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:09:22AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eivind Eklund writes:
: I believe putting down RELENG_4 without having a finished IPv6 and
: functional laptop support (I'm not sure what state this is in right
: now) would be a bad idea.
The
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eivind Eklund writes:
: On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:09:22AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
: The laptop support is approx that of 3.x. The fe device is no longer
: supported as a pccard. The sn device has been added. The YE_DATA
: floppy device isn't supported, but
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:09:22AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
: I believe putting down RELENG_4 without having a finished IPv6 and
: functional laptop support (I'm not sure what state this is in right
: now) would be a bad idea.
The laptop support is approx that of 3.x. The fe device is
Hi,
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that there is already quite a bit of
IPv6 and IPSec stuff in the tree. Most of the kernel stuff is there (albeit
seriously lacking documentation). To me this is not *too* critical right
now. I see the point for the research community though.
Also,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alex writes:
: - Better laptop (PC card) support, possibly Cardbus (Warner Losh)
Won't happen by Jan 15th unless someone my boss comes into my office
today and tells me to work on nothing else except pccard/cardbus for
the next 9 days. The old pccard code will be
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 10:24:21AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
There are many people who use freebsd in the real world that have been counti
ng
on 4.0 including support for ipsec and ipv6, ipsec more importantly. We would
be willing to wait an additional couple of months for this
We are not going to repeat the 3.0 mess. IPV6 and IPSEC are important,
but not important enough to delay the already-delayed 4.0 release. 4.1
is not too late for these babies.
True... 4.1 is not too late. However a good part of IPv6 and IPSEC are
already present and the
(Note: trimmed to just the -current list.)
Matthew Dillon wrote:
On the other hand, there are *plenty* of things already in 4.0 that really
need to get out there and get a workout by a larger audience.
Delaying *them* is a big mistake.
On the _other_ other hand (:-), having
In some email I received from Matthew Dillon, sie wrote:
[...]
We are not going to repeat the 3.0 mess. IPV6 and IPSEC are important,
but not important enough to delay the already-delayed 4.0 release. 4.1
is not too late for these babies.
[...]
Well, let me put it this
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Ames writes:
On the other hand, there are *plenty* of things already in 4.0 that really
need to get out there and get a workout by a larger audience.
Delaying *them* is a big mistake.
*shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Josef Karthauser wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:00:46AM +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
btw, I completely agree with the need to have good pccard/pcmcia support.
For the first time there was a real reason for me to ditch FreeBSD on an
Intel platform box (my laptop)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frank Mayhar writes:
: On the _other_ other hand (:-), having pccard ep0 broken in 4.0-RELEASE is a
: mistake, IMHO. At the very _least_, the 589D's should work, and it would be
: Really Nice if the 574BTs worked, too. Of course, no one should expect full
: cardbus
FreeBSD releases. So thats moot. The point im trying to make is regardless
of the state IPv6 is in, leaving it out of a major release is a no no IMO.
If you believe this is really an issue, then you should be scolding the
KAME folks and not the rest of us. They knew when the deadlines were,
Yes, this is a very good point. Jordan, which is it?
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2000-Jan-07 01:43:09 +1100, Steve Ames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_FEATURE_ freeze is January 15th.
Not quite - Jordan specifically stated _CODE_ freeze (see the Subject:).
Maybe I
It's a feature freeze, sorry. I still expect the loose-ends that are
in place as of that date to be tied up afterwards.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
Start helping and stop asking. Now. Thank you.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* How do you think things "get included" in the OS? Do you think one
* just moves the KAME bits into a directory next to /usr/src, goes away
* for 24 hours to let them bits do their thing, and then comes back to
* find that nature has done the
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:17:52PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
Start helping and stop asking. Now. Thank you.
State specifically what is needed. Now. Thank you.
Part of the lack of help may be the result of people clueless as to where to
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:32:21PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
I don't know quite what makes you think that we came down in the last
shower of rain, but has it ever occurred to you that we're not
_completely_ stupid?
Sure it has. I think I'm not
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:17:52PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
Start helping and stop asking. Now. Thank you.
State specifically what is needed. Now. Thank you.
Part of the lack of help may be the result of people clueless as to
Do you _always_ assume that anyone other than yourself is a complete
moron?
Where did this and all that other stuff come from?
You have to ask this?
What makes you think that we don't want this code integrated, or
that we don't care about it? Have you bothered to actually read
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 07:04:16PM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -wk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -hm
^^^
Damnit! I've asked for some features in GCC, GNU grep, and GNU diff. I
want them *NOW* in time for 4.0-RELEASE. So where the fsck are
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:27:27PM -0800, fifi - the hamster - asami wrote:
dear mr. hubbard,
please do not insult hamsters. it doesn't work that way for hamsters
either. we are fully aware of our surroundings and plan our lives
accordingly. in fact, satoshi is out picking oranges now
Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
I don't know quite what makes you think that we came down in the last
shower of rain, but has it ever occurred to you that we're not
_completely_ stupid?
Do you _always_ assume that anyone other than yourself is a complete
moron? What makes you
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* How do you think things "get included" in the OS? Do you think one
* just moves the KAME bits into a directory next to /usr/src, goes away
* for 24 hours to let them bits do their thing, and then comes back to
* find that nature has done the
Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
I don't know quite what makes you think that we came down in the last
shower of rain, but has it ever occurred to you that we're not
_completely_ stupid?
Do you _always_ assume that anyone other than yourself is a complete
moron? What makes you
Mike Smith wrote:
In some email I received from Steve Ames, sie wrote:
*shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE actually being a
wide beta so that some code can get a workout. LAbel it beta and more people
will use it than currently do anyway. Any reason not to
And given that we've already slipped from December 15th, I think you
can treat this as a pretty hard deadline, to be further slipped only
grudgingly and in response to clear and dire need.
10 days, folks! Make 'em count.. :)
The code freeze will last for 15 days, during which time the 4.0
:This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
:
:--ms7B55930FA2AAFE9EE4D45CA1
:Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
:Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
:
:
:Stupid question: will the latest PAO stuff be integrated with 4.0?
:
:
:-dpg
67 matches
Mail list logo
