Hi folks,
I've decided to get myself a wireless card to have an opportunity
to play with wireless w/o being limited by Intel's licenses and iwi
firmware. I looked at http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#37, then
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39. From 3.7 I retained ral(4)
and ath(4), but
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
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
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
If you have trouble finding ral wireless, Wim's site has ral MiniPCI
cards. Just buy an adapter for PCI and you're good to go...
www.kd85.com ( he is overseas, but it's worth the wait.)
On 4/4/07, Vincent GROSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/4/07, Marius ROMAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ral(4)
Yes, good choice. I've had great success with ral(4) supported wireless pci
and pcmcia cards i.e. from edimax ew-7608pg/7628ig (cheap cards i know but it
works for what i need!)
Vincent GROSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/4/07, Marius ROMAN wrote:
ral(4) because it's better supported.
On
I have both ath and ral, ral is almost alway lower strength but better
supported.
ath is better strength but it is buggy at best in g mode.
Sam Fourman Jr.
On 4/4/07, Obiozor Okeke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, good choice. I've had great success with ral(4) supported wireless pci
and
7 matches
Mail list logo
