Slashdot Mirror


Reverse Engineered 802.11b+ Drivers

orv writes "When Andreas Mohr found that his new wireless networking card wasn't supported under Linux rather than returning the card and getting himself a supported one, he decided to set up a project to write his own drivers instead - http://acx100.sourceforge.net. Companies such as D-Link had initially promised to release linux drivers for these cards but later backed down from that promise and announced that Linux would not be supported and that customers should not hold on to the cards in the hope of getting them working, as shown on their current FAQ. Texas Instruments, the makers of the chipsets upon which these 802.11b+ cards are based refused to release code or specifications for the cards, no doubt for similar reasons that were recently discussed here. The fact that the current alpha release is certainly as good, and in some areas better, than the binary drivers that escaped from one of the card manufactureres speaks volumes for the quality and determination of the team to create their own drivers."

14 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Good For Them by SkArcher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is good to see a direct verifiable example of Open Source development with a higher standard of Quality Assurance than the corporate developers.

    A psychological standard of quality on the part of the devs leads to a physical and coding standard of quality a cut above the rest.

    --

    An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
  2. Don't buy unsupported hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want to put the heroic work of these folks into a bad light, but from an evolutionary perspective, wouldn't it be better to avoid buying hardware if the vendor refuses to support Linux?

    1. Re:Don't buy unsupported hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A free market is not a fixed set of producers with a bunch of passive consumers who either take it or leave it. If a certain product does almost everything a person wants and he has the expertise to fill in the gaps himself, then by all means he should do so. Just like the X-Box hacks or 3rd party Lexmark printer cartridge refills. Sure, some vendors may be supporting Linux already, but it's always nice to have more choices in case one of them changes their mind. Competition is good.

      Now if the card makers start using legal or technological measures to stop these open source efforts, then scream and boycott them.

    2. Re:Don't buy unsupported hardware by DaveHowe · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is - some of the unsupported cards using this chipset used to use a different (eg Orinoco or Prism) chipset and have not updated the name of the card so that you think you are buying a supported card (as listed in many howtos) but in fact are getting a newer model with no available linux driver.

      --
      -=DaveHowe=-
    3. Re:Don't buy unsupported hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      [uh oh, we did make it to /. after all... ;)]

      Yep, that's a very bad thing indeed.

      So bad that we decided to dedicate a major part of the README file to it:

      ::::::

      --- AND FINALLY... ---

      Let me mention that we REALLY dislike the way very stupid hardware vendors
      name their cards containing DIFFERENT chipsets!!

      One of these vendors is SpeedStream/Siemens: a card that uses the same
      name "SS1021" is available in both Orinoco chip and ACX100 chip versions.

      Another one is D-Link: they have "DWL-650" and "DWL-650+".
      "DWL-650+" is simply an improved version of the "DWL-650", right?
      WRONG!
      The standard versions use Prism2.5, whereas the "+" versions use ACX100
      chipset. Good luck in finding a (correct) driver!!
      And it's even WORSE: I just found out that there is some newer
      version of the "DWL-650" out that also contains the ACX100
      (it uses the same hardware as the "+" versions).
      This BRAINDEAD STUPIDITY in device naming easily entitles D-Link
      for the "Most Braindead Hardware Vendor 2003" award. And of course
      they were also talking about developing another Linux driver for some time,
      without any results (although I guess that's because they wanted to
      develop it, but were not allowed to, unfortunately, so it's understandable).

      IF you dare to release cards with a different incompatible chipset
      that doesn't even have proper driver support for a popular alternative OS,
      then AT LEAST change the card name in order to let people know and discern
      which hardware to avoid like the plague, for heaven's sake!
      This is such a [CENSORED], I could [OUCH, CENSORED!]...

      ::::::

      It's one thing to decide to not release Linux drivers and/or specs for a popular chipset (and frankly, we sort of have to respect such a decision, even though it hurts a lot), but it's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (and much worse!) thing to release cards with DIFFERENT chipsets using the SAME card name as older, well-supported chipsets.
      That's a capital crime which should by punished by revoking any and all hardware development rights and/or licenses of the relevant company ;)
      (heck, or maybe I should have removed that smiley after all, since it IS a very infuriating action after all ;)

      But I think I should stop now since I already wrote most of that in the README file paragraph pasted above ;)

      Anyway, let me also mention that I'm glad how well the development process of our driver is coming along. We are fixing many bugs (and implementing many improvements!) on a daily basis, and the team work is definitely great!

      Also, we had several users donate money and/or hardware (access points!) to the main developers,
      which is very astonishing to me, but that's not to say that I don't like that :)
      In fact the access point that has been donated to me arrived today :))

      Finally, let's hope that we might even attract proper driver and spec support by Texas Instruments, by showing that a really good driver IS possible.
      (admittedly we're still "a bit" far off from a perfect driver, but we're definitely working on it :)

      That's it. Have fun using our driver! :)

      Andreas Mohr

  3. Official support by danormsby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can see why a company will not want to provide multi-OS support officially, as if Linux changed they don't want the liability of having to support the changes. But, if someone in that company was already half written a driver, even if it is buggy as hell, surely they should give this away to the user community as a starting point rather than forcing people to reverse engineer their own solutions.

    --
    Omnis amans amens
  4. Re:And yet, the UN suggests WiFi laptops??? by sehryan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you honestly think that Mr. Kofi Annan knows the first thing about WiFi computing with laptops?

    People that high up don't think logistics, they think ideas, and let the people below them work out the details. I am sure he wasn't thinking "This is my way to get in the good graces of Bill Gates!!! Third World Countries...Windows 0wnz j00!!!" More than likely it was "It would be cool for all these countries to have wireless laptops" with absolutely 0 knowledge on the details of such an idea.

    --
    The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
  5. Taking advantage by orv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is particularly galling when you read about manufactureres who are actually reaping the benfits of open source development in their own products link but then refuse to support linux using customers.

  6. If nobody bought "unsupported" hardware... by goldspider · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and wrote drivers for it, we wouldn't have much of a Linux today, now would we?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  7. Re:DCMA Anyone? by radon28 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The DMCA isn't just a blanket law covering all instances of reverse engineering, regardless of the context. The DMCA covers reverse engineering in cases where it is being used for copyright circumvention, which driver hackers aren't trying to do. MOST Linux drivers have to be written this way. Don't get me wrong, the DMCA is still a pile of hot garbage. I just hate it when people are scared to do ANYTHING that might be useful because of the DMCA.

  8. from what I gather... by orv · · Score: 5, Informative

    Basically most work was done by disassembling a linux binary module for the chipset that leaked from one of the manufacturers.
    Additionally the behaviour of the card and correct initialisation process was determined by analysing the ARM disassembly of the firmware and watching the traffic that goes between the access point board and its embedded PCcard.

  9. Reason They Aren't Releasing Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I didn't see this posted anywhere, but if you read a little more about the topic, you would have found the probable reason for why the manufacturers aren't releasing drivers. It ISN'T some MS scheme to screw linux users. The manufactureres are affraid that releasing drivers will get them in trouble with the US government. Apparantley the card can be reconfigured to transmit on military/police/other "forbidden" frequencies. The manufacturers don't want to have to deal with the repercussions of releasing such a "weapon". Pretty stupid really, considering theres already an effort out there, with some success I hear, at reverse engineering the windoze driver, in order to reconfigure the transmit frequency.

  10. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did anyone notice that D-Link's FAQ now provides a link to the SF project at the bottom? Well, it's better than another asinine lawsuit!

    1. Re:Interesting by orv · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah that FAQ has changed a few times. I think there's a history of its comments on seattle wireless somewhere, rummage, rummage, here.

      Initially they said a linux driver would be released december 2002.
      In december that date was changed to Q1 2003.
      At the end of december they then said there were no plans for a linux driver and customers should not 'hold onto cards in the hope of drivers' being written.

      Then they added a link to the leaked binary drivers

      Then they added a link to the oss drivers

      Wonder what they'll change it to next?