From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Feb 17 13:54:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F69611218 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:54:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id OAA08835; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:54:05 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990217145000.04008890@mail.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:53:59 -0700 To: Mike Smith From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Walnut Creek, Where Are You? Cc: chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199902172138.NAA00766@dingo.cdrom.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 01:38 PM 2/17/99 -0800, Mike Smith wrote: >We can't run on anything other than their NetFinity systems at the >moment, That's what they're proposing to put Linux on. >and we are still trying to complete limited qualification on >them. We run OK on about half their range at the moment; the other >half suffer from the "initialising fxp0 hangs" bug. Could this be due to probing, I wonder? IBM machines tend to have weird hardware that responds badly to probes. It could be that other drivers (which could be deactivated) are mucking up the hardware. This used to happen with OS/2. >> For what would more money be used? > >Employing one or more developers to extend/fix our code to the point >where we properly supported IBM's hardware, so that we could obtain >qualification and thus move to the next stage. Heck, if they sent me a machine to play with, I'd do that just for fun. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message