1 |
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> On 2013-01-02 10:24 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> I once had an onboard NIC go bad, and the PCI NIC I substituted for it |
5 |
>> wouldn't work unless the onboard NIC was disabled. So disabling |
6 |
>> onboard hardware may or may not be a net positive. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> ? That was confusing - unless you actually meant that the new PCI NIC you |
10 |
> substituted for it wouldn't work unless the onboard NIC was ENabled... ? |
11 |
|
12 |
I found your query confusing, and had to read my own text three times |
13 |
to catch it. Very strange how sometimes what we write can come out |
14 |
exactly the opposite of what we think we're writing. |
15 |
|
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
>> So long as there are no drivers available for the onboard NIC, it |
19 |
>> won't show up in the net subsystem, so udev won't tie it in under net |
20 |
>> rules. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Ok, good to know, thanks... |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
:wq |