Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 23:06:59 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Webster <andrew@fortress.org> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: Dave Walton <dwalton@psiint.com>, jkh@time.cdrom.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: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960328230306.15301H-100000@guardian.fortress.org> In-Reply-To: <199603290153.MAA19252@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Michael Smith wrote: > Dave Walton stands accused of saying: > > > > I don't mean to be a pain here, but I really don't understand the > > insistence that this is purely a hardware problem. The second half of > > No matter what the input, the BS shouldn't crash and reboot. Period. > This is why it's a hardware problem. I'd like to add my two cents to this... I wonder if the problem lies in the fact that Win95 doesn't properly implement the protocol, the BS in turn, was designed to "work" with Win95, and as a result it doesn't work with a "proper" implementation. Another possibility is that FreeBSD can drive the hardware much harder than Win95 can and as a result timing problems in the BS's software are coming to light. Regards, Andrew Webster - andrew@pubnix.net - http://www.pubnix.net PubNIX Montreal - Connected to the world - Branche au monde 514-990-5911 - P.O. Box 147, Cote St-Luc, Quebec, H4V 2Y3
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960328230306.15301H-100000>