From owner-freebsd-questions Wed May 1 10:42:05 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA03804 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu (riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu [128.223.170.164]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA03796 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 10:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dwhite@localhost) by riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10303; Wed, 1 May 1996 10:43:39 -0700 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 10:43:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White Reply-To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu To: Nate Williams cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Hello In-Reply-To: <199605010034.SAA05536@rocky.sri.MT.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'm pruning the cc: list a bit, although this is probably the end. On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Nate Williams wrote: > > Yes, but most of us don't want to run -current, especially on a laptop. > > Fair enough. However, realize that the Nomad patches contain lots of > -current code in them. I'll keep that in mind. > > Then put it in -stable. -Current is too UNstable for non-hackers to > > run. > > The Nomad patches are too unstable for -stable. Heck, some of the > patches are too unstable for -current, that's why I hacked them up. All > of the 'stable' patches already exist in -stable. However, I don't want > to make it unstable by adding in some of the bogus and possibly > de-stabilizing patches just to get it working in -stable. (This is about as confusing as when we start talking about more(1) & less(1) :) OK, I can understand that. > Let me summarize what's been done, and what's left: > [...] > The Nomad code simply takes the -current drivers and back-ports them to > -stable, plus it contains all of the bad hacks that no longer exist in > both -current and -stable. > > So, if you use the Nomad patches, you still have a chance of an unstable > system. (Although the instabilities may not show up on laptops). Ah. OK. I can understand that. My experience has been that the Nomad stuff has been pretty solid, but you actually understand what's going on, and I just use it. :-) > What I'm trying to do is this: > [...] > - Keep my sanity. :) Quite important. > In order to do this, I need *testers* who can tell me how things work, > and if folks only use the Nomad code this isn't going to help me at all. > Telling folks that 'You _want_ to apply the Nomad PCMCIA patches' > implies that there is no other solution, or that the other solutions are > somehow 'bad'. Please avoid making my job harder, as I need some help. Then, I'm sorry I stepped on your toes. I was going on what (little) information I had and my personal experience. I wan't aware of what the current status was regarding your work with it. One of my co-workers is on -mobile, but he hasn't forwarded any information over, so I'm in the dark. My remaining question is, although it may be moot in a couple of months with 2.1.x, what are 2.1-R people supposed to do for PCMCIA support? Thanks for all the info. Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major