Re: Motorola SM56 on Debian Linux
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:53:24PM -0800, S Yuval wrote:
[please wrap your lines to about 72 characters]
> Own a Motorola SM56 winmodem and run Red Hat Linux 7.1. Frustrated
> with the poor maintenance capabilities of Red Hat I am considering
> moving to Debian. However, that decision depends on whether I can be
> assured that my modem works. Currently I am using drivers supplied in
> rpm form from Motorola; these run only on the older 2.2.* kernel. From
> my short experience with Red Hat 8.0 there is no way to migrate the
> drivers to the newer 2.4.* kernel.
I just took a look at Motorola's site, and the system requirements state
that the driver requires a 2.4 kernel, and that it would not work with a
2.2 kernel.
> From the research I have done so far it appears to me that it
> should not be difficult to convert the rpm package into a deb package
> using "alien". The question is however, which release of Debian to
> purchase and whether I have of a choice between what kernels I want to
> use. According to LinuxMall.com, Debian 3.0r0 allows the user to
> choose which kernel to install.
>From what I've read, you should install a 2.4 kernel. I can't say
anything about installing woody, as all of my systems were installed
with a set of potato floppies, followed by floppied X and netscape (to
allow my system to connect to a java-requiring proxy), then apt-get
dist-upgrading my way to sid (and replacing netscape with phoenix).
> Does this mean there is any chance my modem will work? If it does,
> I should get Debian 3.0r0 and install the older kernel, or should I
> get an older version (e.g. 2.7.*) ? I'd appreciate your assistance.
2.7? I don't remember any 2.7. Do you mean potato (2.2r7)? Anyway, woody
(currently 3.0r1) supports the 2.2 kernels, but it seems like the
current driver for your winmodem will not. If the modem works, fine
(although I don't like proprietary binary only drivers), if it doesn't,
obtain a good external modem to replace it.
--
Seneca
seneca-cunningham@rogers.com
Reply to: