News Group Posts

alad vs. alad325

I've mentioned before that installing older SCO on newer equipment can be difficult because of drivers which are not current. This post details yet another reason to be wary.

In this particular case, the problem ultimately turned out to be faulty hardwware, but driver confusion helped delay that determination.

From: Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com>
Subject: Re: SCSI Drivers
Date: 1999/09/10
Message-ID: 19990909210153.A25938@jpradley.jpr.com
X-Deja-AN: 523205854
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc

Norman Street opined (on Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 11:41:20AM -0700):
| I am going to be installing SCO OS 5.0.5 on a HP E60 NetServer. I have been
| going through the readme files on the HP Navigator CD and they refer to
| using either the alad or alad325 driver. My question is, what is the
| difference between the two, and which one should I use? Any help will be
| appreciated.

There is no point durng the installation of OSR 5.0.5 where you need to
answer that question; you don't need to use any Adaptec-supplied BTLD
diskette, OSR 5.0.5 already knows how to handle a 2940 card quite well,
thank you.

But, to elucidate:

On 3.2v4.x, or on OSR 5.0.x, the 2940 driver is called alad.

But that code name, alad, does not comprise the same bunch'o'bytes.  

IOW, on both 3.2v4 machines and 3.2v5 machines, there's a directory
called /etc/conf/pack.d/alad, and in that directory are files called
Driver.o and space.c. They are NOT identical, and certainly not
interchangeable.

When you get drivers from Adaptec's web site, the drivers for both of
those releases are included in the same archive by Adaptec.  The files
intended for 3.2v4 are referred to as alad.  The files in that archive
intended for 3.2v5 are referred to as alad325.  In either case, the
files get installed under directories called 'alad' on a 3.2v5 machine
as they do on a 3.2v4 machine.

Now why Adaptec is incapable of having its installation script run
'uname -X' and deciding which OS is present, and thus selecting the
correct bunch'o'alad bytes, but instead expects the user to pick alad or
alad325, well, I've no idea.  Probably the same mental deficiency which
causes them to provide NO removal script if you want to revert to the
driver you had before.

Given that Adaptec likes to offer its UNIX drivers in a DOS *.exe
archive, don't count on getting an intelligent answer if you write to
them.  I've tried, and was sorry I did.

Since I'm quite pleased with the performamnce of their hardware and
software, I grit my teeth and overlook their lacunae.

-- 
Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com>  XC/XT Custodian   Sysop, CompuServe SCOForum

Comments?

More Articles by Tony Lawrence - Find me on Google+

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.