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
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
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 works
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 when I
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 box with
, and lower CPU usage with the Intel EtherExpress
Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD (and Solaris x86 for that matter). Are there
better cards out there that I should be looking at?
3C905
I disagree. The if_fxp driver is far superior to the if_xl driver. In other
OS's your mileage may vary.
DB
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 built up a
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 started showing up on
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 10:58 PM 01/24/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
In article
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[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
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
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 porting
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
At 10:58 PM 01/24/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
In article
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you write:
I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
useful in it. Historically the Linux
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 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
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
Novell
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
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you write:
I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and
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:
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 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...
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...
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 shipment we
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 shipment we
In article
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[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
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 "chock full", and
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'
To
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 doesn't
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
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
marketing your
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] 82557
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 it wrt.
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
Has the issue with the new rev intel parts been resolved yet?
Dennis
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Has the issue with the new rev intel parts been resolved yet?
Dennis
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
At 12:51 PM 3/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
Dennis wrote:
At 08:45 PM 3/20/00 -0800, David Greenman wrote:
I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
driver been updated recently?
Not to fix the problem that you are reporting. The solution might be as
simple as
Dennis wrote:
At 12:51 PM 3/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
Dennis wrote:
Shoot me for using an available resource.
Shoot you for wasting a resource that could better spend their time
developing FreeBSD instead of answering questions for people to lazy
or stupid to look for themselves.
At 08:45 PM 3/20/00 -0800, David Greenman wrote:
I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
driver been updated recently?
Not to fix the problem that you are reporting. The solution might be as
simple as adding another PHY identifier to the list of supported ones. I
Dennis wrote:
Ok. Thanks. Mr. Peters thinks that I should spend a half day searching for,
installing and testing the "latest driver" (of course latest depends on
where you happen to download it from), when it seems to me that asking the
developers if a particuar issue has been corrected is a
Dennis wrote:
At 08:45 PM 3/20/00 -0800, David Greenman wrote:
I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
driver been updated recently?
Not to fix the problem that you are reporting. The solution might be as
simple as adding another PHY identifier to the
Well its gone from cdrom.com which is where i usually get it
ftp://ftp.freesoftware.com/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/3.4-STABLE/
is just a packages directory. cdrom.com redirects you to
freesoftware.com...just FYI.
Dennis
At 11:49 AM 3/18/00 -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
Dennis wrote:
Is
Dennis wrote:
Well its gone from cdrom.com which is where i usually get it
cdrom.com has not been the correct location for a *long* time (like 4+
years!). The proper hostname is ftp.freebsd.org - that hasn't changed
and the paths there are still perfectly valid.
Cheers,
-Peter
To
I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
driver been updated recently?
DB
At 11:49 AM 3/18/00 -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
Dennis wrote:
Is there a version of the fxp driver that works with intels latest boards
without giving the "unsupported PHY" message? All the
I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
driver been updated recently?
Not to fix the problem that you are reporting. The solution might be as
simple as adding another PHY identifier to the list of supported ones. I need
to find some time to sit down with one of
It's also the case that there's never been anything in the
release/3.x-STABLE or release/4.x-STABLE directories except a package
link since those directories are there only for sysinstall, they're
not for humans to go to and browse. Humans looking for actual source
code for these branches should
Dennis wrote:
I hope your happy,
I'll be happier when you stop FUD'ing two separate FreeBSD development
lists with your bleating about this driver.
but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
driver been updated recently?
Define "updated" and "recently". On which code branch?
Is there a version of the fxp driver that works with intels latest boards
without giving the "unsupported PHY" message? All the boards we get lately
have this problem, and it seems that the 3.4 stuff is been virtually wiped
from the ftp site.
Dennis
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
Dennis wrote:
Is there a version of the fxp driver that works with intels latest boards
without giving the "unsupported PHY" message? All the boards we get lately
have this problem, and it seems that the 3.4 stuff is been virtually wiped
from the ftp site.
Yeah, right:
ftp pwd
257
At 01:25 AM 10/21/99 +, you wrote:
On 20 Oct 1999 17:42:58 -0400, in sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers you wrote:
Running a late 3.2-stable, im getting
fxp0: warning: unsupported PHY, type = 0, addr = 0
the card has a GD82559 Intel part on it
Is there an updated version of the driver
49 matches
Mail list logo
