Slashdot Mirror
Functional Linux 802.11G Centrino Driver Released
sixstring355 writes "Intel has released the first functional version of its Centrino/IPW2200 chipset driver. for Linux (kernel 2.6.4+). Posts to the ipw2100/2200 developer mailing list report connection speeds of 450KB/s. See the feature list for more details."
802.11G should support up to 54Mbps (6.6+MBps), isn't 450KBps (3.6Mbps) a little low. slower than 802.11b
Always forgetting about us Linux PPC folk! It only supports x86!
Oh, wait. Never mind.
I've had this sig for three days.
Unfortunately, without WEP it won't be much good for everyday use.
WEP isn't much good for everyday use. WEP creates complexity because you need to deploy keys everywhere, reduces performance -- sometimes by as much as half -- and is very easy to break, so the security it provides is mostly illusion. I'm somewhat of a security expert (as in, it's my day job, and they haven't fired me yet), and I run my home network unencrypted, but with the wireless part firewalled off, with the AP configured to do MAC address filtering and not to broadcast the SSID. That's just about as secure as WEP, is much easier to manage and doesn't slow down my data transfers.
That said, the driver in question uses the HostAP infrastructure, which includes a WPA supplicant, so when the security is all hooked up, it should not only have WEP, but it will also support WPA and WPA2, along with either PSK or any of the zillion EAP authentication methods, for centrally-manageable, strong security.
IMO, the driver's security is perfectly acceptable for home use now, and when they get it all hooked up, it'll be just fine for enterprise use as well. Good stuff!
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
> The firmware that runs on the card itself is still a closed source binary.
Talk about failure to pick your battles. A bit of real-world info: every single WiFi card on the planet has closed-source firmware. No exceptions. The difference is that the Intel 2x00 cards save money on manufacturing (and thus make the cards cheaper for YOU) by not storing the firmware on an extra flash chip on the board itself.
Take a look at the board of MOST WiFi cards. You will see either 3 or 4 chips (though some new non-PC-compatible "chipsets" manage to totally integrate this into a single chip). Chip #1 is the baseband (MAC). Chip #2 (if not integrated into the MAC, which is a very recent thing) is the radio section (upconverter/downconverter). Chip #3 is the SRAM needed to store in-flight packets. Chip #4 is the flash chip containing the closed-source firmware. The Intel 2x00 cards save money by letting the host processor and infrastructure do what they're really good at: storing and moving data. Instead of loading firmware out of flash, the card waits for the host to load the firmware as the driver boots up.
No as for the desirability of open-source firmware... If you plan on telling me that you intend to take this open-source firmware and modify it so your card can do different things with its radio, pay me no mind while I laugh in your face.
I'm developing firmware for a hardware product right now, and can tell you that there is not the slightest chance that anyone outside the designers of the hardware can make firmware do anything other than what it was designed to do.
First of all you have the hardware itself, which even the software will be useless for as far as getting the slightest clue what's really going on. Second, firmware for such devices, *especially* high-speed devices like WiFi cards, is more timing-critical than you can even begin to imagine. The slightest change will make it cease to work in ways even the original author most likely will not understand (speaking from daily experience here).
Sorry, but if you want open-source firmware, you're going to have to design your own chip.
(Not-Disclaimer: I have no relationship with Intel, their product, or this driver project, except that I plan on buying a 2x00 at some point to replace the driverless/worthless BCM4306 card that came with my laptop)
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
They're bothering with WEP because a lot of people use it and because WEP can be quite useful in many situations, as long as you know its limitations. WEP offers an appropriate level of security for many users.
Security, even wireless security, isn't black and white. It comes in shades of gray (not to mention mauve and chartreuse), and all of them are appropriate for some situation or other.
Parent is very informative. As extra detail, FCC regulations prohibit open source firmware in 802.11. They require than non-FCC-licensed radio operators (wi-fi users) be unable to modify the device to create interference. This means that because of the FCC regulations, they can't open source the part of the code that controls the radio's power output and frequency. The atheros guys solved this by creating open source code, and then a binary-only hardware abstraction layer. Supposedly there is some under the table work on replacing the HAL with some open source code. Of course, that would be illegal in the US *wink*.
God I love the Internet.
There is so much inaccurate crap spewed by condescending assholes who think think it is accurate.
Repeat the following until you understand:
The firmware does not execute on the PC's CPU. The firmware is not a driver a kernel module, or portion thereof. The firmware is executed entirely within WiFi card itself. Therefor it matters not what operating system (FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, BeOS, etc) or CPU architecture (x86, Mips, Sparc, PPC, etc) is used. I'm a double dumb ass for spewing inaccurate information as gospel.
BTW, the license *does* allow for redistribution. Go read the whole thing, not just the small snippet posted in the grandparent.
True, although the IPW2100 chipset driver supports 802.11b and has been functional for a while. This marks the first release of an Intel driver that supports the IPW2200 chipset, which is also the first driver supporting the 802.11g standard in addition to the 802.11b standard.
that's what... 4000kbs? Isn't that within the speed expected from 802.11b?
There are many Linux installation reports for Centrino based laptops and notebooks available. The older manuals cover the Centrinos with Banias CPU. But some of the new cover the current Centrino generation with Dothan CPU already.
Is this really true? This comment seems to suggest otherwise:
- Brian
Please check out this.
The fact is that WEP is better than no WEP, that if you use WDS you gotta use WEP instead of WPA because of the MAC addresses, and that you should still use higher level encryption layers anyway for sensitive information.
Deploying WEP is easy (and I don't even mean using it with the Wireless wizard in XP SP2 that will deploy passwords for you).
OK. Let's think about this for a second. You've got Wi-Fi developers who take source code and compile it into Kernal module and such. Then you have Wifi users, who Load kernal modules and use Wifi to access the Internet. For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to imagine that I am a manufacturer of wireless devices. I'm not, but I'm trying to put myself in their position, so I can think this through.
If I was a device manufacturer, and I released my source code that allowed someone to operate my hardware, I could not, by law, put a feature in the code that allows an end user the ability to modify the power output or frequency of the device or allow it to cause interference with other devices.
But, If someone else writes a new unautorized driver for my device that does so, the FCC should hold them responsible for it, not me. Now, The FCC, may or may not see it this way. And it is easier for the FCC to go after the device manufacturer than to go after some 16 year old in Finland who hacks up a modification to a device driver. So, as a manufacturer of a wifi device, I'd want to avoid this risk altogether if I could because battles with the FCC cost losts of money and are generally no fun, and I'd rather spend money developing products and marketing them, and telling the Linux crowd to buy my stuff because I support Linux and such.
So, to avoid this risk altogether, I hide the functionaliy using security through obscurity by putting that part in binary only form, as well as using an end user licensing agreement that says that in order to use the software you agree not to reverse engineer it. Now, let me state, that I am NOT advocating security through obsecurity as being secure. It is not secure. In this case, it is not really important that it is really adding security. What is important is that I am making the pretense of adding security. If I really cared about security, I would be using cryptography. But I don't. Instead, I am using a binary only module, so that later I can defend it in court (if I have to) and talk about how there is no way that someone could have modified the power levels or frequencies unless they referse engineered it (which is explicitly prohibited by the end user license agreement).
The end result is that it will probably delay the 16 year old kid in Finland or somewhere from figuring out how to modify the frequency and power levels by a bit, but when the FCC gets upset, I as the device manufacturer, could plead that I have taken due care to comply with the law and prevent exactly this sort of thing. And that's probably sufficient to avoid liability, which is what's important.
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
They do, the latest firmware supports rfmon.
I haven't tried it in the last couple months since it was first implemented in the ipw2100 driver and firmware, but it worked (with minor packet corruption, I think that has been redueced in the last couple releases)
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson