Re: NetGear FA310TX/tulip.c

mev0003@unt.edu
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:43:03 -0600 (CST)

On 24 Mar, david parsons spewed forth:
:: In article <linux.kernel.m10Q1Ey-0007U1C@the-village.bc.nu>,
:: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
:: >> was just wondering what keeps us from including that tulip.c in the
:: >> kernel as a driver for NetGear cards. Maybe as netgear.c? I was (just
:: .
:: .
:: .
::
:: >The current tulip driver handles all these various pseudo tulip abominations.
::
:: Out of curiosity, why do you refer to the Tulip clones as
:: `abominations'? I'm running a few of them in high-performance
:: network servers, and, with the netgear tulip.c they seem to be (on
:: the basis of performance and looking at error logs) about as nice as
:: I would want any ethernet card to be.
::
:: ____

I didn't know that the tulip.c was 'adjusted' already. I always just
copy NetGear's tulip.c over the one that comes with the kernel, and
compile away.

Personally, I'm with David. NetGear can hardly be classified as a
'pseudo tulip abomination'. NetGear makes some very high-quality
hardware, and I like them. Just because it doesn't say "DEC" on the
chip doesn't mean it's bad! ;) Which is kinda why I'd asked about a
separate driver. Heck, *my* NetGears don't even have any DEC chips on
them!

All in fun,

-- 
Matthew Vanecek
Studies in Business Computers at the University of North Texas
http://www.unt.edu/bcis
Visit my Website at http://people.unt.edu/~mev0003
*****************************************************************
For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow
except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...






-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/