Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Ethernet Machination
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:49:21
Message-Id: CA+czFiCykM7a3+oO0Fibcsnze=iLBrjgtgXMKVsKWijLChZRPA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Ethernet Machination by Tanstaafl
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