From owner-freebsd-audit Sat Mar 31 22:39:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3FF37B718; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:39:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bmah@cisco.com) Received: from bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com [171.70.84.42]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA14214; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:38:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bmah@localhost) by bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f316cdD83408; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:38:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bmah) Message-Id: <200104010638.f316cdD83408@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/19/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Jordan Hubbard , audit@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Call for review... PR 25577 In-Reply-To: <22564.985987216@critter> References: <22564.985987216@critter> Comments: In-reply-to Poul-Henning Kamp message dated "Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:20:16 +0200." From: "Bruce A. Mah" Reply-To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A 2V%N&+ X-Image-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Images/bmah-cisco-small.gif X-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1727279998P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:38:39 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --==_Exmh_1727279998P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20010330131413I.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, Jordan Hubbard writes: > >Cool. Does this mean that any of the foocontrol programs can go away? > > As far as I can see, anything short of firmware updates can be > done by ifconfig and therefore, presumably, foocontrol can die > for 802.11-valued foo. Uhhh...I don't think this is quite true. I'm not an expert on the an(4) driver, but ancontrol -S and ancontrol -C give a lot more information that the new ifconfig, and I'm pretty sure that ancontrol (8) lets you twiddle things that ifconfig doesn't. (Antenna diversity and transmit power spring to mind, also it is not immediately obvious to me how to set ad-hoc mode using ifconfig(8)). I think that a *majority* of functionality can be done with ifconfig, and that someone would only need to use ancontrol if they really wanted to do something esoteric (or at least unusual). More comments to come...I'm typing up some feedback based on playing with the -stable version. Bruce. --==_Exmh_1727279998P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 iD8DBQE6xszv2MoxcVugUsMRArtKAJ0SkqTIjYLBsp6EpJkxy3lAWZhw6QCgk2Md VsbZNPl2k6Fel+lR0+VxM5A= =lSnw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1727279998P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message