comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) writes

> Chris F Clark <cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes: (me >>)

>> However, if the problem is just ipconfig not working (e.g. not
>> displaying the information). Is there another workaround possible?
>> Can I get the relevant information another way?
>
> John's a helpful kinda guy. If you think he's holding onto alternate
> workaround info and nost posting it to the FAQ just to spite Intel
> employees, well...

Agreed. John is a helpful guy. And apparently, there was more to the
referenced thread than I found on Google by following the link. I
don't think he was intentionally hiding something from me (or Intel
employees or anyone else for that matter--doing so makes little
sense). However, I didn't see that additional information and wrongly
assumed that it wasn't there. That was my error. I will look again.

>> The workarounds are problematic. I work for Intel and this laptop
>> (and the software on it) is managed by Intel's IT department.
>
> Then make it their problem. Your employer is paying these clowns to
> solve problems.

I would love to make it IT's problem. However, the reality of big
company politics is that these guys aren't getting paid to solve
problems, they're paid to enforce rules, rules that they write for
their own convenience.

Thus, whether my home network is convenient for me to work at home is
not something they care very much about (as a group--I can often find
sympathetic members of the group that are helpful). As a comparative
example, it took six weeks (and numerous interventions by my
management) to get a version of vtune (an Intel developed product)
installed on a linux system, so that I could do measurements of
performance of a specific application I was tasked by my management to
investigate (for a "high priority" project), because the request was
not a "standard" one and the IT guy who was assigned that
responsibility hid behind the regulations rather than simply running
the script (which took me all of 5 minutes to do on my home linux
system--it didn't take him significantly longer than that). Thus, you
might excuse the fact, that I don't think making it IT's problem is
going to get my issue resolved.

I don't expect any of the IP guys to come out and diagnose my home
network and its interference problem. Nor, do I expect John or you to
do so either. However, I don't know how to diagnose interference
problems. Moreover, if this problem is an interference problem, as
John suggested, then whether my laptop runs ipconfig or not, may or
may not be relevant to the interference. I presume the interference
isn't coming from ipconfg, which is why I asked if there was another
way to get the relevant information, so that I wouldn't be stuck
waiting for ipconfig to get fixed. However, it appears that I simply
missed some of the thread which would have contained relevant
information, and that is my fault.

Therefore, I am going to try to figure out who needs to be prodded to
get the wired ethernet drivers fixed. I'm going to do that, because
it is the right thing to do.

In the meantime, I have investigated and I am running version 8.0.57.0
of the wired ethernet adapters. Moreover, ipconfig does work when I
first boot the machine, which all matches John's description. I will
see if I can roll back the wired driver or use one of the other
workarounds in the thread that I missed. (Reporting what it is
currently saying is not relevant though, as my laptop and I are at
work and not home and I know the addresses are different, and I'm not
using wireless while sitting at my desk at work.)

> Suddenly you sound like an immense pain in the ass that I'm personally
> not that interested in helping.

I don't mean to be a pain-in-the-ass. I'm simply an individual who is
trying to solve his own problem, and doing so with the little
knowledge he possesses, augmented by what info he can cajole out of
other sources. However, thank you for the insight, as being perceived
as a p-i-a is not useful for me getting further help.

In any case, if you have further problems with my attitude, perhaps we
should take them to email (last I checked my address was not
obfuscated), as I don't see that airing our dirty laundry is that
useful to the rest of the group...