Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:20:25 -0500 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: Mike Wade <mwade@cdc.net>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: if_fxp driver info (which card then?) Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20010126120015.0228fc90@mail.etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101260844390.34314-100000@net-ninja.com> References: <20010126141808.D1222@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:51 AM 01/26/2001, Mike Wade wrote: >On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > Performance isn't even the main thing. As I said earlier, it's plain > > bloody unreliable. Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they > > think something is wrong with the card. They were surprised when I > > reported that it works without any problems under FreeBSD. Do we > > really want to change that? > >Slightly off subject but with all the discussion about not Intel playing >nicely with the FreeBSD developers... I've always had the best >reliability, performance, and lower CPU usage with the Intel EtherExpress >Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD (and Solaris x86 for that matter). Are there >better cards out there that I should be looking at? Why dont some people get the point even when you hit them in the head with a hammer? The point is that the driver quality is more important than the "card" To get completely off base, this is which is why we SELL our software. Implementation technique is usually more decisive in determining functionality and performance than the hardware itself. its something that people in the know are willing to pay for (sometimes). Certainly some hardware is better than others, but a bad driver with good hardware is useless. DB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.0.25.0.20010126120015.0228fc90>