From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 5 08:36:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA18833 for current-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail13.digital.com (mail13.digital.com [192.208.46.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA18828 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:36:40 -0700 (PDT) From: garyj@frt.dec.com Received: from cssmuc.frt.dec.com (cssmuc.frt.dec.com [16.186.96.161]) by mail13.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV) with SMTP id LAA31754; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 11:20:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by cssmuc.frt.dec.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/14Nov95-0232PM) id AA25084; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:20:39 +0200 Message-Id: <9708051520.AA25084@cssmuc.frt.dec.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.4 10/10/95 To: current@freebsd.org Cc: isdn@muc.ditec.de In-Reply-To: Message from Stephen Roome of Tue, 05 Aug 97 15:00:59 BST. Reply-To: gjennejohn@frt.dec.com Subject: Re: ISDN drivers/cards Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 05 Aug 97 17:20:39 +0200 X-Mts: smtp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I can't let this go unanswered. It really got my dander up. steve@visint.co.uk writes: > I tried using bisdn, both with -current and 2.2.2, without much luck, I'm > in europe (england) and although bisdn connects and works most of the time > it did have a nasty habit of just halting the machine completely. If I > used natd and aliased a bunch of machines through it it crashed sooner.. > but it only seems to crash when bisdn I was using telnet. (ping etc. > wouldn't crash it for me). > > Basically though, bisdn isn't a workable stable system. It was a pain to > install and IMHO is a total mess. (Even sound cards need less junk in the > kernel.) > > Well, just wanted to say that in case someone suggests that we should all > be using bisdn. Because IMHO, it sucks, and really shouldn't be used as a > base for future code either. (except as a bad example.) > all I can say is that I've been using bisdn ever since it was ii0.2 and, except for lots of problems in the beginning, it's always worked very reliably for me. There are many people using bisdn with success and you shouldn't condemn it wholesale just because _you_ had problems with it. regarding the size of it, this is a result of having to make a dumb (passive) ISDN card look like an active card. With an active card 80% of the stuff wouldn't be needed. But, who wants to pay 4 or 5 times as much for an active card ? I admit that one could probably make a good case for moving stuff out of the kernel (the LAPB stuff, for instance). once the re-write is finished I expect that bisdn will become part of the source tree. A lot of people want to see it finally get integrated. if you're so dissatisfied with bisdn you can provide something better. No one's married to it and I'm certain that an alternative would not be rejected out-of-hand. --- Gary Jennejohn (work) gjennejohn@frt.dec.com (home) Gary.Jennejohn@munich.netsurf.de (play) gj@freebsd.org