[2657] in linux-net channel archive
Re: As 2.0 looms
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Gortmaker)
Thu Apr 25 21:42:40 1996
From: Paul Gortmaker <gpg109@rsphy1.anu.edu.au>
To: sburn@smbtech.com (Steve Burnett)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:09:58 +1000 (EST)
Cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960424223035.3119C-100000@smbtech.com> from "Steve Burnett" at Apr 24, 96 10:32:30 pm
"Steve Burnett" at Apr 24, 96 10:32:30 pm
> On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
> > A lot of the other cards listed as "alpha" are there simply due to
> > the fact that they are relatively uncommon, and thus feedback is low
> > to nonexistent. Not sure what you want to do about those...
>
> I don't know what others may feel, but the SMC Ultra could go
> "de-alpha". No problems here.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> | Steve M. Burnett sburn@smbtech.com |
If memory serves me correctly, the Ultra driver was never ever listed
as an alpha driver. It was directly introduced into 0.99pl14 back around
October 1993 as a stable driver, since it used the stable 8390 core.
There wasn't even a 'Do you want Alpha drivers' question back then. We
just left alpha drivers commented out in the (now gone) "config.in" file.
Perhaps you have your card names confused.
As a side note, I found non-computer types tend to correlate the term
"Alpha drivers" with the alpha-axp hardware, and not realize that it
refers to the maturity of the code. Perhaps a clearer term or phrase is
in order here, since more and more newbies are building kernels (which
is good).
Paul.
