As in the case of the Intel card, thats what it does, I've done
(very) little peeking into how it works, and I'm not even going to attempt
to reverse engeneer it untill all these nice lawsuits over DeCSS end,
that makes it not worth my time untill I see how those turn out.
Honestly, Intel's lack of response in this matter has caused me to just
abandon the DSL idea, and shortly I will be switching to a real network
interface, like a DS1, because this is a flat out joke that they would be
this uptight (proably a better series of words I could use here...) about
a peice of hardware _I_ own and that is in _my_ PC. I've waited a few
weeks for any kind of reply, and have gotten nothing except "All Intel has
commited to doing is considering contacting you."... That's not
acceptiable to me, nor should that be a standard of communication about
these kind of details, and in the real world, that really is, to put it
simply, lame.
Justin C. Darby
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Really? I expected that the DSL card would just implement the physical
> layer, and that IP routing would be left to the PC, just like
> conventional modems.
>
> So the DSL card yields IP packets, not some lower-level packet?
> Are all DSL cards like this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard....
> Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
> Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST