[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

useable NICs under debian//ppc, booting G4 mac



hello,

i am relatively new to debian (i used it a few years ago on x86...) 'cos i moved from SuSE to debian (now guess why ;)

i do have a few machines at home:

one pre-gbit g4 (1gig of ram, two ata-discs)

one pm 8200/120 (64meg, one 1gig scsi hd and one 4gb scsi hd, additional smc 9432tx 'etherpower II' and a farallon 10/100 card based on a DEC 21143 chipset 'Tulip')

one Sun SPARCstation 5 Model 170 and one half Ultra (has to be re-assembled ;)

ok, so i used to build the 8200 as a tiny server (if it works fine, it'll get a controller and a really big hd) using netatalk, nfs (perhaps, after a while, nis additionally) and smb (when friends with their x86 come).

using suse linux netatalk ran fine for me, even nfs worked. fortunately it wasn't able to address any other NIC than the onboard one (just 10mbit, oh dear) -- it's capitalistic, too, so... ;)

ok, now my two questions of the day:

* is there any way to become one of these additional NICs running (i just have two different in this machine cos i wanted to test which one works under suse -- none of them did)? under suse the smc card (using the 'epic100'-driver) hangs the *whole* system (hard reset req'd), e.g. by typing 'rcnetwork restart'. the farallon card doesn't work cos of 'i/o-errors', don't know the exact words... [both cards work fine under mac os -- but asip died in the last weeks and doesn't talk nfs/nis]

* have problems booting my g4 via bootX (guess, this is the wrongest way for a new world machine, isn't it?) as far as i have seen, debian utilizes yaboot, too. i'll try it that way...

*** is there any working NIC besides the onboard ones? ***

tia, timo
--
msg,

Timo

____________________________________________________________

No electrons were harmed in the manufacture of this e-mail.
____________________________________________________________
In a world without walls and fences
who needs Windows and Gates?



Reply to: