Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:55:36 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: dwalton@psiint.com, lmcsato@lmc.ericsson.se, brian@MediaCity.Com, questions@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BitsurfrPro on FBSD 2.1 & MLPPP broken Message-ID: <199603291655.KAA21508@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <28274.828091521@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Mar 29, 96 01:25:21 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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... I run Motorola UTA/220's with the same firmware as the BitSurfer Pro's and they have no problems with each other or talking to BitSurfer Pro's... I haven't tried BSP-BSP recently but I see no reason it would be "problematic" in the least. ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603291655.KAA21508>