From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-144105-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00060138254
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:49:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 528E321C065;
Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:49:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 023A121C066
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:47:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id oi10so12625265obb.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 02 Jan 2013 07:47:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
bh=6k92kAbihIsM2MDQtw8AynHUC07q9R+vMSrcnKcgYio=;
b=pOj+I0JqDVLpVQ7WDYagX+3mjqkzoWE5m69KWgukzZY0Xy+44C27GeElaaWwjoXtDz
m1Cp5GvjZsS8+CDS+eBwjyR8c5hVe6tvfPrR5lgHcZVcFHUPcIK7+nFt4fZkOEbPttgA
CbmMo9l962NNezP3hgXdyyLAP70htVBtTseIrDt8qVkRU+zRUKjcFT+aGaADiZVkfFC5
pJNcBCAmmKiN1DQPGoZdWsEpSHDlAhCjYfLQXgw5jiR8CUs02hElp9IjGSn7XOnHcOJt
DwC68ccTbXuqjDdQEKe/sblocHeaa6BFsk2/U9HR2IvwVzfcJ+09/GV6CdfsoKRfBKMM
5ceA==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.42.97 with SMTP id n1mr37323639obl.91.1357141633127; Wed,
02 Jan 2013 07:47:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.20.243 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 07:47:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50E453AF.7060305@libertytrek.org>
References: <loom.20130102T002638-817@post.gmane.org>
<CADPrc83qtEOFAhX7DaRE0dLkb+0i31Tk6V-uffKCF0XHimjXmw@mail.gmail.com>
<50E42DBA.80501@libertytrek.org>
<CA+czFiBVXp3TNokuNU4-68PCTLu2yigZKQVS8qbanBtDOphR0Q@mail.gmail.com>
<50E453AF.7060305@libertytrek.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:47:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+czFiCykM7a3+oO0Fibcsnze=iLBrjgtgXMKVsKWijLChZRPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Ethernet Machination
From: Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 05428e57-fe3c-4438-9bad-35be863989bb
X-Archives-Hash: d58fc009df6f1ff105d2b7f7382d8a7f
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2013-01-02 10:24 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I once had an onboard NIC go bad, and the PCI NIC I substituted for it
>> wouldn't work unless the onboard NIC was disabled. So disabling
>> onboard hardware may or may not be a net positive.
>
>
> ? That was confusing - unless you actually meant that the new PCI NIC you
> substituted for it wouldn't work unless the onboard NIC was ENabled... ?
I found your query confusing, and had to read my own text three times
to catch it. Very strange how sometimes what we write can come out
exactly the opposite of what we think we're writing.
>
>
>> So long as there are no drivers available for the onboard NIC, it
>> won't show up in the net subsystem, so udev won't tie it in under net
>> rules.
>
>
> Ok, good to know, thanks...
>
--
:wq