From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Mar 29 11:08:13 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA12258
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:08:13 -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 LAA12220
          Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:08:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA00831; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:07:09 -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 "Fri, 29 Mar 1996 08:15:52 PST."
             <Pine.A32.3.91.960329080943.51989B-100000@vv.psiint.com> 
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:07:09 -0800
Message-ID: <829.828126429@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> In the interest of solving Samy's problem, which is where this discussion 
> started...  Is there something in FreeBSD that he can adjust so that it 
> doesn't push the BitSURFR quite as hard?

It's theoretically possible, I suppose, but just about everything in
FreeBSD goes out of its way to do just the opposite, so you'd have to
really break the code's fingers and chain its legs together in a whole
bunch of ways.  Sounds like a most disgusting exercise to me, and
quite a waste to boot.  I'd just scream at moto until they sent me a
ROM revision that worked or get rid of the damn things! :-)

					Jordan