From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 28 20:09:13 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA08943 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:09:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from guardian.fortress.org (fortress.org [199.84.158.128]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08921 Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from andrew@localhost) by guardian.fortress.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15898; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 23:07:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 23:06:59 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Webster Reply-To: andrew@pubnix.net To: Michael Smith cc: Dave Walton , jkh@time.cdrom.com, lmcsato@lmc.ericsson.se, brian@mediacity.com, questions@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BitsurfrPro on FBSD 2.1 & MLPPP broken In-Reply-To: <199603290153.MAA19252@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Michael Smith wrote: > Dave Walton stands accused of saying: > > > > I don't mean to be a pain here, but I really don't understand the > > insistence that this is purely a hardware problem. The second half of > > No matter what the input, the BS shouldn't crash and reboot. Period. > This is why it's a hardware problem. I'd like to add my two cents to this... I wonder if the problem lies in the fact that Win95 doesn't properly implement the protocol, the BS in turn, was designed to "work" with Win95, and as a result it doesn't work with a "proper" implementation. Another possibility is that FreeBSD can drive the hardware much harder than Win95 can and as a result timing problems in the BS's software are coming to light. Regards, Andrew Webster - andrew@pubnix.net - http://www.pubnix.net PubNIX Montreal - Connected to the world - Branche au monde 514-990-5911 - P.O. Box 147, Cote St-Luc, Quebec, H4V 2Y3