Slashdot Mirror
NDIS Wrapper For Wireless LAN Cards Under GPL
An anonymous reader writes " Shortly after Linuxant has released their commercial
DriverLoader, Pontus Fuchs
has made an NDIS wrapper available under the GPL.
Since some vendors refuse to release specifications or even a binary Linux-driver for
their Wireless LAN cards he has decided to
solve it himself by making a kernel module that can load Microsoft-Windows NDIS drivers.
ndiswrapper
has been tested with some BroadCom miniPCI cards and it seems to work on some laptops . With some more work it
should be possible to support more cards. Hopefully this will be the case for
the many owners of Linux laptops based on Intel's Centrino technology.
Please contact Pontus if you are interested in helping out!"
How does he expect people to try out his code without any screen shots????
main(i){(10-putchar(((25208>>3*(i+=3))&7)+(i ?i-4?100:65:10)))?main(i-4):i;}
Please contact Pontus if you are interested in helping out!
How do you contact Pontus?
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
As long as the NDIS wrappers support all the capabilities of the cards, this is great news!
compared to a native driver, but certainly helpful in reverse engineering the windows drivers.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Would someone care to point out which cards have native Linux drivers available? Once we have this list I think we should go out of our way to buy from vendors with Linux drivers.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
My one major issue with my D600 (Dell/Centrino) laptop is the fact that i cant take advantage of the wireless in it under Linux, i have to install another card. Hopefully this will soon lead to Intel/2100 card support and we can all be happy again!
3 of 4 initial posts are trollbait. Trolls are so cute and Fuzzy!
This is kind of a double edged sword. Now that you can use NDIS drivers under Linux, it will be that much harder to convince these companies that providing a native Linux driver would be good for their business...
If you are in the market for one of these cards, buy from a company that supports your OS of choice...
The wrapper should send an e-mail to the hardware vendor every time it loads. As more people use the wrapper, they get more and more e-mail. Perhaps they would rather write proper Linux drivers than get more e-mail. ;-)
Here's a nice list at HP of cards that work.
For quite a while now, I've considered what sorts of problems would be inherent in cross platform drivers. Usually, the problem seems to come back to a difference in the way kernels manage their drivers and differences in the way that I/O is done between OSes. Perhaps a "Driver Adapter" could be built that would allow drivers written for it to run on any OS? The basic concept is that the adapter itself would be a driver for the OS, then the "Cross Platform Drivers" would deal directly with the adapter.
Anyone have any thoughts on why this would or wouldn't work?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
That should have been "Firstus Pontus"!!!! :P
Un-news
Good news : I can get that %^*@$# network card going now.
:
Bad news : Nobody will bother to write Linux drivers soon enough, they'll all say "why bother, we'll just make a Windows driver and tell people to use the wrapper.
Net results
- This makes card vendors inclined to think only the Windows platform is truly important
- This allows Microsoft to have the option of one day changing, subtly messing up or adding undocumented calls to their API, slowly leaving Linux people in the cold as all card vendors transition.
- I would think native drivers are faster / more efficient / more full featured than drivers running under emulation. That might not be the case though, but more often than not, running alien binaries in any OS isn't known to be as fast as the real McCoy.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
This wrapper sounds a bit like the UDI Project creates a universally consistent driver DDI across all platforms. All drivers are source code compatible for all platforms with an environment. Drivers are binary compatible between platforms with a common C ABI.
Unfortunately Caldera was the main weight behind this, back when they actually did something silly like write code to make money instead of sue. They fell on hard times and essentially pulled support, and it's been dead in the water since.
How does the licensing work with this? If it's GPL, isn't it being linked (albeit in a kind of weird runtime way) with proprietary code? It seems a nice idea to write code in order to export the features of proprietary code into open software, but how do you distinguish it from programs that do the opposite?
Is this implemented in kernel space still? Is it possible to implement a driver wrapper like this in Ring 3, or at least in Ring 1 or 2, thus reducing the effects of a driver crash, instead of Ring 0?
Fuchs is normally pronounced "fewks".
:)
But I don't want to spoil your joke
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
For the time being it appears that binary Windows drivers will become the de-facto standard for hardware-specific drivers at least until Microsoft starts falling apart and/or somebody comes up with a good way to make native binary drivers work with our plethora of kernels.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Looks like more and more Linux is simply emulating Windows. But if you run Windows drivers and Windows programs via appropriate emulation layers, why not simply run Windows?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
I find that amusing, yes, I do ..
The only bad thing I experienced when testing this NdisWrapper was that I needed Linux 2.6.0-test8 or higher.
I don't want to run a beta version of Linux, so is there any good reason for this?
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING
GODDAMIT, I'M INTENDING TO BE YELLING!
There are people here claiming that we'll never see Linux drivers because of this.
The main reason this is required, however, is because the latest chipsets for wireless give too much control to the software. That means the user can theoretically control transmit levels and frequencies, and make their transmission interfere with other people's communication.
Since the transmit power levels and frequencies are all set differently in different parts of the world, the closed-source software is needed to restrict people's control over the hardware.
And that is a real bummer. It is hard to support closed-source Linux drivers - people don't particularly like them, there are thousands of different kernels out there (each distribution has about fifty or so current at any one time, not to mention all the patches you can download from kernel.org).
As a result, this doesn't surprise me at all. I think it's probably the only way modern WiFi will be supported under Linux. That doesn't translate to the end of the world, however, since the regulatory situation is quite different for almost everything else in the computer.
Even though this code is for Linux, it would be better if it were licensed under an MIT or similar license. That way, it could be incorporated into many non-Windows operating systems, from Linux to NetBSD.
...Captain Obvious.
A stable Linux driver API/ABI. This is getting ridiculous. Windows drivers compiled for a 5 year-old version still work on the current version (maybe a slight exageration), while a driver compiled for 2.4.21 won't work with 2.4.22. Not only that, but even with the same version, driver compatibility depends on SMP option, highmem, ...
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
So does the dll loader part almost give us:
Kernel support for COFF (DLL) binaries?
Then all these media encoders that use DLL's don't need the wine hacks.
or...
(COFF) Kernel core (/proc/kcore) format
(ha ha)
"Since the transmit power levels and frequencies are all set differently in different parts of the world, the closed-source software is needed to restrict people's control over the hardware. "
It's a matter of opinion that "restricting people's control over the hardware" is necessary or appropriate. If there is some compelling state interest, then it should be considered a defective and/or dangerous product, which ought to be dispensable only to licensed purchasers.
Treating it as a problem that the consumer owns does not solve the problem. Just because the manufacturer hasn't enabled the consumer to alter the card's programming, doesn't change the fact that the dangerous device has been distributed into the wild.
As soon as some independent party (not subject to the US law-by-agency-order), creates software to unlock these cards, the disabled-by-obscurity features will be open. If that's a problem for the state, then they should have considered it before allowing the product to be sold.
If some product can be converted to a weapon, the fact is, the weapon is in the consumer's hands whether you've told him how to convert it or not. You hold some of the responsibility for this product getting into the consumer's hands.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Pontus Fuchs your mother.
It works even with your pronounciation
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
I said no text you perverts
36/Male/My mom's basement
That's a nice fantasy.
It's a matter of opinion that "restricting people's control over the hardware" is necessary or appropriate.
No, it's a matter of law and economics.
Look, in most parts of the US (all?) you're not allowed to make significant modifications to your own house without getting a license. You CAN do it. You MAY NOT do it.
In most of the world, you're not allowed to broadcast on various frequencies. In much of the world you're not allowed to broadcast at all.
But there are plenty of consumer devices that will (with just a little tweaking) let you do so. The sellers of these devices are required to make sure they comply with local laws out of the box. What the consumer does after that becomes tricky, but generally not the fault of the manufacturer.
Taken to an extreme: Ford is not responsible if you use your truck to kill your neighbor. Nor should they be.
Taken to an extreme: Ford is not responsible if you use your truck to kill your neighbor. Nor should they be.
Following your argument, why don't the wireless card makers release specs then? If they're off the hook regarding using these wireless chipsets for illicit purposes, why don't they just release the specs?
This is an unfortunate side-effect of the FCC regulations (not that I'm saying to abolish them).
From the hardware vendor's point of view, it makes the most sense to make a generic, software programmable transmission device. This way, they need only one hardware design for the entire world, just different drivers (although they won't tell you that, of course).
Imagine how much this stuff would cost if they actually put the limits in the hardware itself (R&D would be insanely expensive). Perhaps some sort of EEPROM type storage would work to hold the values that aren't supposed to be change), but if that fails (or is reprogrammed), then you have a problem.
Looks like I'll be stuck at 802.11b for a while, until the 802.11g solutions open up a bit. A Linux driver might not work for me, since my OS of choice at the moment is FreeBSD.
-- Joe
See? This is the problem with the "Don't ask, don't tell" ploicy.
note, that if you search for CONFIG_BINFMT_COFF,
you will see that this was removed in 1994.
or was that COFF, different from the dll COFF referred to in this driver?
DLLs are PE-COFF ??
Anyone know the history there?
Following your argument, why don't the wireless card makers release specs then? If they're off the hook regarding using these wireless chipsets for illicit purposes, why don't they just release the specs?
Because every hardware company that releases a product believes that they either
Have a competitive advantage and need to keep it a secret.
or
Have a crap design and need to keep it a secret.
or
Have the same design as everyone else and need to keep it a secret.
Right.
In this case it is the opinion of the Federal Communications Commission. They have decided not to license these devices for consumer use unless these sorts of controls are in place. Meanwhile the "control in software" approach to hardware design continues apace, and there are technology drivers behind that which are not going to about-face all of a sudden.
Radio transmission devices do inherently offer the possibility of affecting people further afield, and the industry has historically been extremely regulated.
Interference can be life-threatening, if it disrupts the communication of police / ambulance / fire / ... services too. Not that I expect any WiFi kit to have the power to do that, but that is the sort of thing that drives the regulations.
Big fuss over possible implications when a commerical release is made, but when someone in the opensource community does the same thing and licences under GPL, are these comments not still valid? Contradicts the current opinion expressed here.
I know a girl whose name is "Ashley Fuchs". Her email sig simply reads "It's pronounced fox."
Lets take your analogy back to linux:
Ford sells you a car without telling you how to operate it, and only lets a Ford driver supplied with the car drive it.... Just because some people might kill their neighbour if they knew how to operate it themselves.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Cobblers!
You're implying that there are only two OS that matter: Windows and Linux.
If a court established the principle that manufacturers have to supply a driver for *every* OS, then they'd all go out of business. *BSD, Solaris, MVS, OS/360, AmigaOS, MacOS 6, 7, 8..10, DOS, OS/2 etc. etc. How do you choose the ones entitled to support by law?
Anyway, it's a different situation to the M$ case. M$ were prosecuted for excluding a competing product, Netscape, from a platform they sold. Linux is not a competing product to a wireless card and the makers of such cards are not willfully disadvantaging Linux distros to favour their own products.
.. if "written for other OS" can be interpreted as "copy protection" so something like this can be stopped under DMCA.
Since the transmit power levels and frequencies are all set differently in different parts of the world, the closed-source software is needed to restrict people's control over the hardware.
How does not giving out the source "restrict people's control over the hardware"? Finding out where parameters like power levels and frequencies are stored is usually quite simple, with source or without. In many cases, all you need to do is compare two different versions of the driver.
People who rely on keeping source closed for security or safety are really asking for trouble.
As a result, this doesn't surprise me at all. I think it's probably the only way modern WiFi will be supported under Linux.
Vendors shouldn't put huge amounts of intelligence into the driver anyway. The best kind of WiFi is something that looks like a wireless bridge and either plugs directly into the Ethernet port, or just looks like a wired Ethernet card with some configuration options. Let's hope vendors will move to those configurations as embedding more intelligence becomes cheaper.
I'm still waiting for broadcom to release their specifications so that KisMac will support Airport Extreme cards (yes, i know you can actively stumble with it now, but passive stumbling does not work).
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
>why not simply run Windows?
Same is true with Wine or running Cygwin under Windows. If the market is one controlled by a monopoly then its up to the users to create interoperable solutions. Plain and simple. This kind of "the sky is falling" attitude is a good way to further marginalize Linux.
In the real wold computers and software have to work with each other thus Wine, Samba, etc. Its only in the fantasy world of fanboys that these things could ever be percieved as bad ideas.
Can someone tell me why this was modded down ? There is nothing trollish about that . I mention that you need to fight the hardwared makers or they wont assist at all.
I have last year Fujitsu E7110. Everything works (donno about the winmodem - never needed one). Built in wireless card works as well, different distros' configuration tools have different degrees of success with WAP but command line config always works.
No, Ford sells you a car with a manual that tells you what it needs - like gas and oil and all those good things. And they ONLY sell you a car if you have a license, and insurance. We call these things "requirements".
Just like hardware vendors sell you cards with requirements - like a computer, an OS, and all those good things.
Just as your Ford doen't run if you put milk in the tank, their hardware won't run without Windows on the Computer.
If the hardware vendor doesn't specify what OS is required, try to sue them - but you'll probably lose because you should have just returned the item.
Quit whining, wake up, and smell the economics. It doesn't make sense for them to cater to a vanishingly small percentage of the marketplace. If it did, it would make them money, and they would do it.
It turns out that ALL of these vendors WILL supply you with drivers. You just have to fork over the green. Lots and lots of green.
Let me make a proposal: start yourself a website that tries to put together enough dough to buy linux drivers for whatever hardware you feel you need a driver for. See how far you get.
Eric, This is a fascinating point of view on the topic that I had never considred before . (So, gees, this reading thing really does teach you things, let you teach yourself things, I guess thoes people were right after all.) It seems like it would be a difficult argument to make in court that a company was required to make drivers for their hardware for other OS's. I couldnt do it, but I'm sure there is someone smarter than I who could give it a whirl. You'd think that the profit motive would be enough for them. But, oh yeah, I forgot about their support offering & how dismal they are, & the cost burden to the manufacturer. I guess they could release a driver and post it to the non-supported-software section of their site. Thanks. Jason
Alright,
I have a sony PCG-V505BL (a 1.8ghz celeron notebook). it is quite light, has a very clear screen, and has about 2.5 hours of battery life. I picked it up for about $1000 at best buy on clearance.
It took to linux fairly well, everything is supported except for 3d acel on the ati radeon mobility. It has no built in wireless (i use a Senao 2511 EXT2 with external antenna in pcmcia, prism 2.x). I'd reccomend it to another. One nice feature is that it comes with three partitions direct from the factory, making dual boot trivial. If i want to play some 3d game i would just reboot to windows xp home, which came with this.
The easiest way to get a real list of hardware when you are shopping is to take a Gentoo LiveCD with you and boot up the laptop with it in the store (make sure no one is watching). The liveCD will detect a lot of stuff, and will give you chipset names as it does.
If you can deal with the poor 3d accel in linux, this is a nice laptop to pick up on a clearance sale (newer models have come out since). Oh yea, if you are willing to spend the extra cash and buy online, sony is extending the warranty to 3 years (with LCD), and they have had free memory stick/memory key offers.
The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog
If this works, then no one will bother developing an open source driver, which means there is still no hope for using Airport Extreme, which uses the Broadcom chipset, under Linux on a PowerBook. =(
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
A commercial business would take these harware makers to court since they are only making their product to work with only ONE company
Have you bought parts for your car lately? It's pretty hard to find a fuel pump that will work equally well in a Ford or a Fiat.
I believe that in most cases it is in the companies self-interest to offer Linux drivers. In the remaining cases it is very likely that Microsoft (not the HW company) is engaged in anticompetitive practices.
I don't know what country you live in, but here (The Netherlands) you can buy a car without any of that.... The manufacturer would just sell you a car. If you wan't to drive on the road then the government comes in with restrictions.
Its the same with wireless stuff, you can buy the equipment and own it legally, but when you want to use it the government comes in with restrictions.
Just like hardware vendors sell you cards with requirements - like a computer, an OS, and all those good things.
They actually have two sets of requirements: one set for the actual hardware (such as a 32bit pccard interface) and one for their software (monopolyOS X.y). My computer fits the first set, there is no reason for them to deny me the use of the hardware.
Just as your Ford doen't run if you put milk in the tank, their hardware won't run without Windows on the Computer.
If the hardware vendor doesn't specify what OS is required, try to sue them - but you'll probably lose because you should have just returned the item.
I'm not an american, suing the company after pouring milk in the tank is not something I am likely to do
Quit whining, wake up, and smell the economics. It doesn't make sense for them to cater to a vanishingly small percentage of the marketplace. If it did, it would make them money, and they would do it.
All they would have to do is make specs available, they should have documentation for internal use anyway so there is no extra cost, just a different attitude.
It turns out that ALL of these vendors WILL supply you with drivers. You just have to fork over the green. Lots and lots of green.
Let me make a proposal: start yourself a website that tries to put together enough dough to buy linux drivers for whatever hardware you feel you need a driver for. See how far you get.
I already have a website with the stuff I wrote, that is far more usefull then whining for money.
(I already pay them for the hardware so they are making money anyway)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
No. i didn't. Do you want to show me where I 'implied' that ?
If a court established the principle that manufacturers have to supply a driver for *every* OS, then they'd all go out of business. *BSD, Solaris, MVS, OS/360, AmigaOS, MacOS 6, 7, 8..10, DOS, OS/2 etc. etc. How do you choose the ones entitled to support by law?
First of all , I said release the details of the driver OR create a driver for Xfree opensource operating systems . It would be nice if we could find a way for driver software to be easily ported to other systems. I think it could be done.We could develop software that would only need detail about the hardware and it could port the software to the other operating systems. Don't tell me it can't be done. If we had to choose one then it might be Linux since it is the most used or is it MacOsX ?
Anyway, it's a different situation to the M$ case. M$ were prosecuted for excluding a competing product, Netscape, from a platform they sold. Linux is not a competing product to a wireless card and the makers of such cards are not willfully disadvantaging Linux distros to favour their own products.
The government creates laws to create an fair and equitable market . Do we have that here ? No. The Microsoft case was about unfair Monopoly using their powers to hurt others. Well, these manufacturers are playing right into Microsofts hands by not opening up on their hardware. The government should force them to release a version for Xfree so that the minority can use their products.
"It doesn't make sense for them to cater to a vanishingly small percentage of the marketplace."
But the effect is to increase the monopoly position of Microsoft. I don't care about economics or regulations. The thing I notice is that there are NO 802.11g devices for Linux, BSD, or any other OS, available AT ALL. I interpret this as an intentional leveraged attack on competitors to Microsoft.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
You've been modded as a troll because your position is untennable. If a company doesn't want people to have drivers, then they can damned well not release specs for their products. Fairly stupid of them, but it is their perogative.
It also doesn't have much to do with Microsoft, I think, if anything.
I work on cars frequently and when i need sparkplugs,gaskets,brakes,lightbulbs,floormats,coo lant,oil and mechanical engine pieces ,I don't need to buy from Ford or one company. People would revolt if Ford pulled anything like what microsoft does. That's whats great about cars.
If the courts would see the parallels to cars then they would be more proactive against the microsoft monopoly.
A better ananlogy would be whats happened in the inkjet printer cartridge business.
We need to create a fair and equitable market like in the car parts business.
"I don't know what country you live in, but here (The Netherlands) you can buy a car without any of that...."
It's that way in the US too. You won't be able to secure *financing* without a drivers' license and insurance most likely, but that's not really a requirement for owning a car. I owned a car when I was 15, before I had a drivers license. I couldn't drive it on the road except on farm business (specific exemption for moving feed and equipment from one part of your farm to another), but no problem, I had my own rally track!
"All they would have to do is make specs available, they should have documentation for internal use anyway so there is no extra cost, just a different attitude."
I think if the truth came out, you'd find out "They" do not own the information to such an extent that they can show it to you.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
They actually have two sets of requirements: one set for the actual hardware (such as a 32bit pccard interface) and one for their software (monopolyOS X.y). My computer fits the first set, there is no reason for them to deny me the use of the hardware.
Fortunately, you live in the Netherleands, where they'll sell you cars you're not able (allowed) to drive. Similarly, they'll sell you hardware you're not able to use.
All they would have to do is make specs available, they should have documentation for internal use anyway so there is no extra cost, just a different attitude.
As I mention in a peer thread, they don't do that to remain competitive. Please see my other post (sorry, not going to ref it).
(I already pay them for the hardware so they are making money anyway)
It turns out you're paying them for a product. The product includes hardware and software, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this at all. If you want to write your own software, but are having trouble without the spec, buy it off them. They will sell you that, too.
But the effect is to increase the monopoly position of Microsoft. I don't care about economics or regulations.
Let me give you a little clue: 3rd party hardware vendors love the monopoly. They only need to develop one set of drivers to sell to 90%+ of the marketplace.
The thing I notice is that there are NO 802.11g devices for Linux, BSD, or any other OS, available AT ALL.
A little cut&paste from the apple store:
"The new PowerBook G4s feature the hot new AirPort Extreme technology, based on the 802.11g standard"
OSX is unix & bsd & an other os. Argue semantic crap if you like, but there you have it. Apple sees an economic advantage to supplying their own 11g drivers with their own cards.
I interpret this as an intentional leveraged attack on competitors to Microsoft.
Excellent. Sue them. Good luck.
It's simple econ. They WILL sell you a driver. Fork up.
I'm seeing a bigger picture than you are.
You're just looking at the economics. I'm looking at the cultural implications of, say,
linux having no wireless capabilities.
If the video card folks did this, and we had no graphics, that would pretty much kill any notions of "linux on the desktop" would it not?
Do I think the manufactures have any responsibility to "the culture?" No. But it surprises me that nobody in some free country has simply released a reverse-engineered driver for, say, broadcom chips, into the wild yet.
I suspect it's simply because everybody who wants wireless, has a prism2 card, and/or doesn't realize that there's almost nothing available in the retail market today that can be used at all.
Maybe a few companies are still making intersil devices, but it's damned hard to find them, and even harder to know what you've got before you buy it. In a commercial environment, that has ALREADY made it impossible to specify hardware, if you need 802.11b, and even worse if you need 802.11g.
Shutting out linux from the world of wireless networking might be an unintended consequence of economics, but I don't understand how that knowledge is supposed to help me.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Dell's Truemobile 1150 (I think that's it.. the 802.11b minipci card) works in Linux. As far as video cards go (if you want good 3d acceleration) your best bet is any nvidia card, or only the newest bleeding edge ati mobility. Anything before the m9 series is not very good (although I can run warcraft 3 and enemy territory so-so on my radeon 7500 mobility).
If a company doesn't want people to have drivers, then they can damned well not release specs for their products.
I can understand where your coming from . If this were an open and free operating system market with alot of choices then i would agree but I can't. This is still a closed system and the only way to open it up is 'legal' ways. Hardware companies should be forced to release specs if they only release drivers for a MONOPOLISTIC operating system. This should be about creating a fair and equitable market. What's really funny is that the government sued the car manufacturers when they didn't release the details of how their electronic ignition system worked . They too wanted to keep that a secret.
You said untenable. But has anyone tried ?
Jason , my main point is that these companies are supporting an unfair monopoly that has committed wrongs. It may take legal ways to fix this wrong . And I made the point earlier in a thread that the government treats computers differently than other sectors of business. We are seeing legal challenges to the inkjet cartridge monopolies now.
I don't think it would be hard for a court to force hardware makers to release drivers for other operating systems. I think it could be done.
While I don't agree with the comments, it clearly is not a "troll". I would of rated it interesting. I would, however, rate the moderator as "idiot" or "incompetent".
Like it or not moderators, your job is not to mod down things you disagree with. You job to to find and moderate interesting tidbits, opinions, and facts so that the population at large can better enjoy the more interestings stuff.
Shutting out linux from the world of wireless networking might be an unintended consequence of economics,
You still do not get it. Nobody is shutting out linux. You want something for free. You don't get it. If you PAY for a driver, one will be available. All the windows users pay for their driver - you just close your eyes to the software they get because it does you no good (until now).
but I don't understand how that knowledge is supposed to help me.
A prayer you might consider:
"God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."
Some wisdom (I hope):
Here's what you can not change: economics (vendors don't do things for free).
Here's what you can change: availability of drivers (you can code it, you can buy it, you can buy specs).
Here's what you shouldn't do: whine.
You've been modded as a troll because your position is untennable.
Regardless, that would make the moderator an idiot because that's not his role. His role is to help make interesting stuff float to the top. Likewise, make crap sink to the bottom. In this case, even though I disagree with the posting, it should of been left as is (rightly so) or mod'd interesting, because that's what it is. A troll, it certainly is not.
Just because a moderator disagrees with a posting is NOT cause for it to be mod'd as "troll" or "overrated". I'm constantly finding that when I meta-mod, there are tons of idiot moderators that I'm having to come behind and correct. In fact, I'd say, maybe 1 out of 4, or maybe 1 out of 6 meta-mods (series of modding mods) that I do, do I find that moderators have actually done their job correctly. The fact that you've answered as you have might indicate that you should pass on your next chance to moderate until you've read the moderation rules. Hint, hint.
"AddLib Compatible" SoundBlaster cards?
Creative Labs stuff is everywhere today. Where is AddLib?
Come on people, many factors determine success or failure for any given technoloy. The more people using this stuff in Linux, more pressure to the vendor to release native drivers.
In the meantime, another choice is given to Linux users. Isn't it all about choice? "Choice!", this is the mantra, am I missing something?
Go to a shop with Knoppix CDROM. Boot the PC and see whether it works...
Apple powerbook
I don't think it's hurting Linux to make this wrapper available. Look at the windoze 3DFX wrappers written for OpenGL a while back...did this make ppl suddenly stop developing OpenGL games?
What about Wine? Has the availability and stability of Wine stopped ppl from porting apps to Linux?
For right now, it looks like the wrapper is the only way to go...an I'ld personally rather see a well done, GPLed wrapper than a half-a$$ closed source driver from a company that was "forced" into it...
It's well known that BroadCom has Wireless drivers for Linux (they're even in the firmware for the Linksys WRT54g) and could probably release them tomorrow if it werent for the FCC concerns. They wouldn't have been able to see this wrapper coming months ago.
We have to realize, wireless connectivity is generally reserved for end users...there's security issues with running a server over a wireless link and their main customer base own laptops...and most laptops are not running Linux...
Before I will belive the argument that "this will keep companies from developing Linux drivers", I want to see a company currently developing a Linux driver for their hardware stop, stating this wrapper as the reason ("no need to anymore") or something to that effect...
So, if this is what it takes to get a usable driver under Linux, so be it...
And it died... Two years ago. Lots of talk and no work.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Its actually quite hard to reverse engineer modern hardware. Gone are the days of a few bits to twiddle on an IO port. Now we are talking entire protocol stacks for complex protocols with varying amounts of the stack and/or compression implemented in hardware. Go read the USB or 802.11 specs sometime. This is not your grandfathers' serial port. Yes, I am experienced at writing device drivers. I reverse engineered a major USB webcam chipset for Linux, and I've written many older drivers.
Hey, zappa333@hotmail.com, you're starting to annoy me.
The drivers are in fact portable across all 2.4 versions. However, you have to compile the kernel without versioning (which no distro does that I know of by default), which sort of defeats the purpose of that.
You'd have to build it yourself, then you can play with knives.
But then, it's probably safer if people can't force load older drivers...sometimes a bugfix the changes the semantics of some kernel function or depricates one, even if all the other APIs are the same.
The driver shouldn't still be using it otherwise the security hole still exists.
I mean, NVidia has the right idea. They compile the resource management hooks from source, but the core is a static object linked in which has all the proprietary logic.
Broadcom should be doing the same thing... keeping their radio tweaking code inside an object with all the register numbers hidden so we can't jam police radios or something.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I hear her sister Ivana is pretty hot.
but all Micro$oft would need to do is update an EULA for their NDIS drivers and state the same thing they state in most everything else now - you must have a legally installed version of their operating system to use -fill in the blank- which would cover any NDIS driver they own.
Now if the hardware people own the drivers, there's no problem *unless* Micro$oft tells them to put that in their EULA...
Have you hugged your penguin today?
I don't want anything for free. I want the hardware I paid for, to work. It's that simple. If it doesn't work, that's not my fault.
I realize that I shouldn't expect hardware to work under linux, and I understand the issues.
But, people still seem to be wondering what keeps other OS's from gaining widespread adoption, and I'm saying, here is the answer.
I assure you if the situation were the same with video cards or SCSI controllers, as it is with wireless network cards, there would be a whole lot more noise about it.
I also think there's more to this than just money. IBM could fix it like tipping for coffee.
They're supposed to be into linux adoption, right?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
s/now/not/
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
But... Many Fiat fuel system parts are Bosch. And many Bosch parts are interchangeable between BMW, VW, Fiat, Volvo, Saab, etc. And there are aftermaket replacement parts that fit, if you don't want to buy an expensive Bosch part.
Perhaps more relevant, the FCC hasn't said you can't undo the bolts on your Fiat, or put BMW parts on it.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
And that is a real bummer. It is hard to support closed-source Linux drivers - people don't particularly like them, there are thousands of different kernels out there (each distribution has about fifty or so current at any one time, not to mention all the patches you can download from kernel.org).
So does Linux have something like NDIS to make drivers stable across kernels? If not, then shouldn't there be one?
I don't want anything for free. I want the hardware I paid for, to work. It's that simple. If it doesn't work, that's not my fault.
Right. And I want my car to run on H2O. If it doesn't, that's not my fault, right? You're asking the same damn thing.
But, people still seem to be wondering what keeps other OS's from gaining widespread adoption, and I'm saying, here is the answer.
I don't think anyone wonders. I don't - do you?
I assure you if the situation were the same with video cards or SCSI controllers, as it is with wireless network cards, there would be a whole lot more noise about it.
Nope. There'd be a few folks making a lot more noise, MAYBE. More likely, though, there would be less folks, and they'd just cope. In the end, though, noise doesn't help the situation - money does.
I also think there's more to this than just money. IBM could fix it like tipping for coffee.
At which time their shareholders would sue them for mismanaging their company. Because they're pouring money down the drain.
They're supposed to be into linux adoption, right?
No, they are into solutions. In particular, they SELL solutions. Linux is sometimes part of that solution because it works, and they can get it for cheap, and it does what they need, and it helps them make more money.
MONEY
Are
MONEY
you
MONEY
getting
MONEY
the
MONEY
picture?
MONEY
Or better, contact Intel and ask them, why in spite of all the hype and marketing announcements about them supporting Linux, they have silently failed to deliver either Centrino drivers or Centrino documentation.
Frankly, I'm rather surprised that no Linux company has sued them yet, for unfair competition. Disclosing drivers and documentation to one OS maker and hiding it from the others IS unfair competition.
Couldn't there be some license problems here? For example wouldn't you expect to see some of the driver's licenses to state what type of operating system they are to be run on?
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Why do they not include these controls in firmware that's in flash memory on the card itself? It could still be upgradeable through signed updates, just like mobile phones are. That seems both more convenient and more secure than trying to keep the register-level interface a secret. I suppose it would just cost a little more.
I haven't laughed that hard in ages.... Yes, ok I'm a geek.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
Could running a Windows driver like this on Linux (or other friendly OS) via such a wrapper actually allow people to reverse engineer the driver/interface easier? It seems that there are a lot of tools for Linux that could help a person view (debug) exactly what is happening at any given time.
It's unreasonable to expect my car to run on water.
It is reasonable to expect the hardware in my computer to work with various operating systems.
Hardware manufacturers don't want their stuff being used under os's besides windows. You think that is directly, solely, and strictly associated with money. I think there is more to it than that. But I make a distinction between control and money, even though I realize that either control or money is a means to the end, whether money is the means to control, or whether control is the means to money.
All the nonpolitical consumer understands is there's no choice of OS for the X86.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
What a load of drivel. It makes no difference whether you have source or now(sic)
Of course! Thats because we can use magic! Magic(tm) helps us pretend that a PPC linux kernel can run x86 drivers! and Magic(tm) helps us pretend that 2.4 drivers will automajikally work in 2.6 without a recompile!
Those nutty linux programmers! What would they know anyway?
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
The last thing I expect to hear from an engineer is how he doesn't want to do something because it's hard.
I agree with you, though. I've dealt with trying USB signals (playing with the USB midi driver) and it's fun, but tedious.
Still, I have to wonder what's the deal with Broadcom really. Allegedly, they'd be in some trouble with Uncle Charlie if the specs for their consumer products got out. But how does that help them if they get their specs handed to them by some kid in China or Norway? Sure they could try the DeCSS approach, and you know where THAT leads. DMCA keeps it out of commercial applications in the US, I suppose. But does it solve the problem for Broadcom, effectively that they have released a commo device into the wild that has the potential for misuse?
I'm just pissed because I own several of these things, purchased by make and model because they were supposed to be Intersil.
To me, the whole thing looks like a deliberate effort to exclude linux, bsd, and solaris from a major current network infrastructure. Perhaps if we miss a generation, that's the end?
Yes, I know it's about money, money, money, whatever. Either that tells me that linux and bsd still don't have a significant place in the market, but that was the story in 1994. It doesn't really look to me like we've gotten anywhere since then.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I am not so sure they love it now. Not with Microsoft selling Microsoft branded Nics, Wi-Fi, and Switches in 'a store near you'
Damn straight. There is no other way to test out a box before purchase.
The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog
Are they still having those problems with the bright white spot on the center of the LCD displays on apple powerbooks? I was watching the laptop in the seat in front of me in class today and that bright spot looked painful.
The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog
MDK LiveCD
NONE
Welcome to the next problem
Linking to and/or calling from non GPL'ed code??
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.