Subject: Re: My experience with the _RCs so far
To: None <email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: List Mail User <track@Plectere.com>
Date: 10/10/2004 02:52:34
As I said in an eariler post, booting with the device attached
DOES NOT WORK in all cases: I have a machine with a sigmaltel IrDA, which
will not configure at boot but will after the "dd" hack -- Also the same
machine (which has a Cardbus Adapter) will fail to configure an ath2 (a
Netgear 511T) AT BOOT, if I insert a SMC2335 into slot 0 ath "ath1" (with
the 511T in slot1) -- Again, the"dd" hack and re-insersion and the card works
(another PCI card is ath0). BTW, this machine has 1.5G of memory.
Basically, the statement that insertion before boot is a work-around
or "bypass" is simply false, however the "dd" or "malloc" methods do work!
>From port-i386-owner-track=Plectere.com@NetBSD.org Sat Oct 9 20:31:58 2004
>X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
>From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <email@example.com>
>To: Magnus Eriksson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Cc: Dave Huang <email@example.com>, port-i386@NetBSD.org
>Subject: Re: My experience with the _RCs so far
>In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:22:16 +0200."
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:31:07 -0400
>In message <Pine.NEB.4.58.0410100417300.23284@simak>, Magnus Eriksson writes:
>>> > How could "working USB" not be an important goal for such a major
>>> > version bump?
>>> How does NetBSD 2.0 not have "working USB"? Works for me... you're
>>> seriously overstating the issue.
>> Only because that's the impression it will make. People will be
>>plugging their cameras and MP3 players in and think that "USB is broken in
>>this version". Which is all I was meaning to say. I guess I wasn't very
>>clear about it.
>I agree that this is a nuisance. In fact, I've muttered about this for
>years. This is not a new problem in 2.0; it's been a problem for quite
>some time. Should it be fixed? Of course! Should it have been a
>priority for 2.0, instead of the things that were put in? That's much
>less obvious, especially since there's a simple bypass (booting with
>the USB drive attached).
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb