From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Mar 29 01:25:57 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA27211
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA27205
          Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA28276; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:25:21 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Walton <dwalton@psiint.com>
cc: Samy Touati <lmcsato@lmc.ericsson.se>,
        Brian Litzinger <brian@MediaCity.Com>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG,
        hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: BitsurfrPro on FBSD 2.1 & MLPPP broken 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:49:24 PST."
             <Pine.A32.3.91.960328141129.43928F-100000@vv.psiint.com> 
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:25:21 -0800
Message-ID: <28274.828091521@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> insistence that this is purely a hardware problem.  The second half of 
> his sentence above (which you didn't quote) points out that the same 
> hardware works correctly under Win95.  I'm not suggesting that it's 
> entirely FreeBSD's problem, since other TA's work correctly.  I'm just 
> surprised at the attitude that it's all Motorola's fault.  Win95 
> demonstrates that it IS possible for the hardware to work correctly.

I'm not saying it's all Moto's fault, I'm simply saying that I've had
no problems whatsoever with a pair of ADTRAN TAs for the last 6 months
and would like a "second opinion" on those Motos.  The fact that it
works under Win95 doesn't necessarily mean that Windows is stressing
those TAs fully.  I know that FreeBSD pushes mine to the theoretical
max, so...

					Jordan