Clearance For New Linux Wireless Driver

An anonymous reader writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has given legal clearance to OpenHAL, a wireless component for Linux, based on their pro-bono review of the code. This announcement dispels allegations of infringement on Atheros' proprietary HAL software. 'We believe that this outcome will clear the way for eventual acceptance of a new wireless driver into the Linux kernel,' said John Linville, the Linux kernel maintainer for wireless networking."

Comments

Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only we could get something decent for Broadcom hardware....

Re:Excellent!

[blhack]

Now if only we could get something decent for Broadcom hardware.... we do have something decent for Broadcom hardware. Link

Re:Excellent!

[bazald]

Now if only we could rid ourselves of Broadcom hardware.... There. I corrected that for you.

Re:Excellent!

[lilomar]

that is not "decent".
"acceptable substitute when nothing better is available" is stretching it a bit in fact.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it sucks arse.
I have three different Broadcom chipsets supposedly handled by the drivers. One of them works well. The other two barely at all, with lots of dropouts and other problems. This on several different distros too. I invariably end up using ndiswrapper for stability and reliability.

Re:Excellent!

[rbanffy]

I am running a HP DV6205us with Broadcom wireless and Ubuntu Feisty with the Gutsy kernel (2.6.22-8). My wireless interface works flawlessly. Under the Feisty kernel it appears to work, but refuses to connect.

Hope that helps.

Re:Excellent!

[visualight]

My impression of Broadcom hardware is 100% based on my experience using their products on Linux, and imo Broadcom is the suck.

I've noticed that when an application or gadget doesn't work well on MS Windows, people blame the application or the gadget, not Windows. But those same people blame Linux for every application/gadgets shortcomings.

There are more Desktops running Linux everyday though and one day vendors will start to realize that when their hardware "doesn't work" on Linux *a lot* of people will see that as a reflection of their product, not the Linux Kernel.

For myself, I don't even address driver stability in conversation anymore, I just go straight to "vendor x makes crap hardware".

Re:Excellent!

[pintpusher]

you know that's pretty insightful, IMO. I didn't really realize this was how I felt until you just said it. When I was a windows only guy, I blamed the hardware, or worse, just assumed it couldn't be done (despite knowing better). I never was at the point where a _blamed_ linux, just understood that it hadn't caught up with the hardware yet. Now that linux has caught up with all my hardware and almost all the hardware I've encountered out in the world, I more and more blame the hardware for failures on my linux machines. I've come to trust the code to work.

Re:Excellent!

[ericrost]

Is that amd64? I have a dv9200 series with broadcom and an amd64, and even with the ndiswrapper it has to be both soft and hard disabled/reenabled before it will connect to WPA encrypted (read encryption that can't be broken in 30 seconds by a script kiddie) networks.

Re:Excellent!

[kwark]

And for more anecdotal stuff: the Broadcom in my tx1120 only works with ndiswrapper but luckily it works well (Debian unstable/amd64, with a driver acquired from Dell :).

But the worst part is that I saw this problem coming well before I bought the laptop, but since wireless is on a mini pci-e bus I thought I could simply replace it with a (hopefully) better supported card. But an Intel 3945ABG card doesn't seem to work on this machine, even worse is that HP's helpdesk just sucks (your time and energy) if you are stupid enough to mention Linux.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

It works fine! I use it all the time.

Re:Excellent!

[MoxFulder]

Yeah, what isn't decent about bcm43xx? Works great for me... and is very near to becoming feature-complete with respect to the Windoze drivers.

Re:Excellent!

[MoxFulder]

If you care about having high-quality open-source drivers for your wireless card, it's a no-brainer... go with Ralink or Realtek-based cards, since those companies have gone out of their way to provide specs and help write drivers. Or even Atheros or Intel, which have also worked hard to satisfy the open-source communities, though both have kept a proprietary core out of regulatory compliance worries (that's what OpenHAL is about, replacing the proprietary core of the Atheros drivers).

But *definitely* don't choose Broadcom if you want open-source drivers. They haven't lifted a finger or provided a single spec to help the open-source community. The imperfect state of bcm43xx drivers is thanks to the arduous and time-consuming task of reverse engineering. That it works well for a lot of people is a testament to the incredible talent and hard work of the bcm43xx developers, and I for one am very thankful to them.

By the way, this site is a really useful database of wireless support under Linux. You can look up a specific brand and model of wireless card and find out what chipset it uses and how well it's supported.

Re:Excellent!

[Sledgy]

I've been very impressed with madwifi's atheros support. I am running a number of cards based on their chipsets for various purposes.

They also have a large list of supported hardware on their site http://madwifi.org/wiki/Compatibility

Re:Excellent!

[arth1]

The bcm43xx "drivers" aren't complete drivers, and require you to obtain proprietary drivers which fwcutter cuts out a piece of, and calls when running.
That's not native drivers any more than using ndiswrapper is, and legally on much thinner ice than calling the entire driver through a wrapper.

And, considering that bcm43xx causes problems for a lot of users (never getting full g speed, line dropping intermittently or even freezes), I can't honestly recommend it except for experimenting by those who live somewhere it's legal to reverse engineer (fwcutter is based on reverse engineering, else it wouldn't know which parts to cut).

Re:Excellent!

[arth1]

Amen to this. bcm43xx should not have been made available with the kernel, cause it's nowhere near production readiness for more than a few specific systems. The BCM4386 rev2 I have in my laptop simply won't play nice with bcm43xx no matter what. I can never get a connection to stay up for more than a few minutes, and I never get full 54g speed.
On the other hand, ndiswrapper works reliably, using the Windows drivers from the laptop manufacturer's web site.

Re:Excellent!

[arth1]

Yeah, what isn't decent about bcm43xx? Works great for me...

Exactly. Works great for you. It only works for some BCM43xx chipsets, that's what's not decent about it.

Re:Excellent!

[Anaerin]

The bcm43xx "drivers" aren't complete drivers, and require you to obtain proprietary drivers which fwcutter cuts out a piece of, and calls when running. You mean like IVTV does, then (Which has made it into the kernel doing just this?)

fwcutter is based on reverse engineering, else it wouldn't know which parts to cut Says whom? Perhaps (highly unlikely but possible) they ran a (Pseudo-Code):

For i = 1 To Length(File)
Return = Firmware_Load(SubString(File,i,Length(File)))
If Return Then
Exit For
End If
Next
FirmwareStart = i
For i = FirmwareStart To (Length(File) - FirmwareStart
Return = Firmware_Load(SubString(File,FirmwareStart,i)
If Return Then
Exit For
End If
Next
FirmwareEnd = i

I know, totally ridiculous, but possible...

Re:Excellent!

[Sancho]

I really can't believe that you got modded Insightful.

Although hardware and driver design can be tightly coupled, the quality of one does not imply anything about the quality of the other. For example, I've always considered Nvidia to make pretty good hardware. For a really long time, they did not provide a Linux driver. By your logic, it would seem, "Nvidia made crap hardware." Right up until someone decided to flip a switch and loose their driver upon the Linux community. By your reasoning, flipping that switch suddenly made all that hardware suddenly not suck. Your arguments are inane and FUD.

The simple truth is that sometimes manufacturers don't support all operating systems. I can't get Windows 95 drivers for many new hardware devices--that doesn't mean that they make crap hardware just because it doesn't support my OS of choice. Don't like that I'm talking about out-of-date software? It doesn't support the newest release of OpenBSD or FreeBSD, either, despite the fact that there may be a Linux binary driver.

You're obviously welcome not to buy hardware that isn't going to work with your system, but don't disparage that hardware. Disparage the company for refusing to support your OS if you must. Disparage them for not having open specs, certainly. But it's not a hardware problem.

Re:Excellent!

[deragon]

Correction, the open source Realtek driver (r818x) is broken. I cannot get my Realtek to work with it. Nor does it work with the latest version of the Windows driver and multiple versions of ndiswrapper. The r818x driver is on Ubuntu's blacklist (/etc/modprobe.d/blacklist) because of its sad state. Seams that the open source driver is not supported anymore. I strongly recommend people not to purchase Realtek based cards.

Re:Excellent!

[mrsteveman1]

I've seen the same thing with the REAL drivers in Windows itself, so it's not just the reverse engineered replacement that drops things randomly sometimes.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

silly mods...
You are wrong.
1) fwcutter just cuts out the firmware. Most wlan drivers today need firmware. It is completely different from using ndiswrapper. firmware doesn`t run on your cpu, a windows otoh does. The reason they made fwcutter is that the license on the firmware probably doesn't allow redistribution (or, that there is really no license info available). So in contrast to what you are posing, the drivers are native.

2) Latest versions start to become much better on the few chipsets I own. Some are PPC, so forget about ndiswrapper.

Re:Excellent!

[visualight]

WWWWWWhhhhooooosshh.

"But it's not a hardware problem."

No kidding. Did anything in my comment imply that I do not understand this? My comment was about market forces, consumer pressure on Vendors to perform when it comes to support what I argue (in the same comment) is an operating system that is becoming more mainstream everyday. This is a trend that Linux does not share with BSD, Win95, Amiga, and the Commodore Vic20.

In other words I'm suggesting that IF it is reasonable for a consumer to expect his webcam to "just work" on WindowsXP, THEN it is BECOMING more reasonable THESE DAYS to expect the same when using a Linux Distribution.

I don't think you actually read what I posted. Scanned maybe.

Re:Excellent!

[Sancho]

No kidding. Did anything in my comment imply that I do not understand this? Yes. I think it was the part where you said:

I just go straight to "vendor x makes crap hardware". I read your entire post the first time. You certainly made clear that you know what the problem is, right up until the last statement. My Nvidia analogy should have indicated that I understood that--i.e. flipping a switch magically made the hardware not crap anymore. The problem is that you seem to put forth information which may be a false conclusion based on poor analysis. You'll say "X makes crap hardware" when it's not necessarily the hardware that's at fault. You're spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the manufacturer just because they don't support your favored OS. Broadcom might work perfectly well on Windows--but you'll claim that they make crap hardware because of its poor Linux support.

Re:Excellent!

[visualight]

Dude.

"I just go straight to..." is obviously skipping a step. Nothing vague, no indication that I"m unaware of the step I skipped.

"you favorite OS.." carries an implication of niche, which I have emphatically denied. It is not "favorite os", it is an O/S that *was* niche, but now is *not*. I'll frame my own rhetoric, thanks.

If someone using Windows bitched about his dongle not working and he blamed the manufacturer for sell him junk, you would not be harping on him (I assert).

I AM ARGUING THAT LINUX HAS REACHED (or is reach*ing*) A PLACE WITHIN THE MARKET THAT BRINGS WITH IT THAT SAME LEVEL OF EXPECTATION. -----this is the point you can/should argue against!

jeez, talk about poor analysis.

Re:Excellent!

[sh3l1]

For myself, I don't even address driver stability in conversation anymore, I just go straight to "vendor x makes crap hardware".

x = "NETGEAR"

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

silly mods...
How so? The parent to your post isn't modded.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed that when an application or gadget doesn't work well on MS Windows, people blame the application or the gadget, not Windows. But those same people blame Linux for every application/gadgets shortcomings.

On Windows, the driver is supplied by the manufacturer. On Linux, the driver is (almost always) maintained by the Linux kernel developers. People blame the manufacturer when problems arise in Windows, and blame Linux when problems arise in Linux. See why?

Re:Excellent!

[rbanffy]

Core Duo here. 2.6.22.-8 works flawlessly with WPA - I am using it right now.

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep 'model name'
model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2250 @ 1.73GHz
model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2250 @ 1.73GHz

$ uname -srv
Linux 2.6.22-8-generic #1 SMP Thu Jul 12 15:59:45 GMT 2007

$ lsmod | grep bcm43xx
bcm43xx 127336 0
ieee80211softmac 31360 1 bcm43xx
ieee80211 35656 2 bcm43xx,ieee80211softmac

Re:Excellent!

[ericrost]

Maybe I'll give bcm43xx another try. It "worked" at the initial release of feisty, but I got horrible packet loss and the speed was unusable. Network-manager has a problem or two with the ndiswrapper, like I said in my OP, I have to both soft and hard disable and reenable the wireless on the initial boot and coming back from hibernate to connect to a WPA network (it'll default to any unencrypted network it can find before I do that, but won't finish a connection to my home network).

At the very least, some of the initial impressions from gutsy sound like bcm43xx improvements.

We'll see.

Re:Excellent!

[Sancho]

If someone using Windows bitched about his dongle not working and he blamed the manufacturer for sell him junk, you would not be harping on him (I assert). It may be true for a lot of people, because Windows is such a dominant OS. I, however, acknowledge the difference.

Back when I still ran Windows, I had the displeasure of owning an ATI All-in-Wonder graphics card. Periodic reinstalls were a chore, because the drivers were quite unstable. Install them in the wrong order, and pieces of your card wouldn't work (video capture, perhaps, or syncing with audio.) Install them before certain codecs were installed in Windows and the driver seemingly failed to understand those codecs (i.e. you couldn't capture directly to them.) Reinstalling was an absurd chore--skip one step and something was almost guaranteed not to work. I had detailed notes on the whole process that I had to follow any time Windows became too unstable to work in.

The thing is, I still loved and used the card. When it worked (when you had installed everything correctly), it was fantastic. The video capture was much better than the previous video capture card I'd used. The quality was better. The software for capturing and playback (separate from the drivers) was really quite good. The card had a dongle which you could send video/audio through so that you weren't cluttering up the back of your PC with more wires. Everything about the card was fantastic--so much so that when I upgraded my computer, I bought another ATI All-in-Wonder. Having already worked out the kinks in the driver and installer, it only made sense, as the card itself was fantastic. But you can bet that I bitched about ATI--not for selling me junk, but for seemingly being unable to program their driver installers robustly.

I bitch about ATI today, too. In Windows (which is still sadly necessary for gamers), ATI cards don't give me any trouble. In Linux, they lack compositing, and they crash more often than Nvidia drivers. I blame ATI--again, not for "sellilng me crap", but for crappy drivers.

No, I'd still harp on someone who made that claim, regardless of their OS of choice.

I AM ARGUING THAT LINUX HAS REACHED (or is reach*ing*) A PLACE WITHIN THE MARKET THAT BRINGS WITH IT THAT SAME LEVEL OF EXPECTATION. OS X has about 5% of the market share right now. Linux has 1-2%. Linux is not anywhere near the point where it's reasonable to expect the same level of manufacturer support as Windows. Now Linux has a lot going for it right now (what with two major manufacturers now offering to preinstall it on their PCs), but it has a long way to go. We don't yet know whether it's really going to make it into the homes of people who have never heard of it, or what the backlash will be when they can't download their crappy animated cursors, or get to their banking website (many of which still require IE), etc. I think you're jumping the gun a lot, here, and I think that you have high expectations of manufacturers. I wouldn't expect much support, even if Linux doubles its market share. Why? Because OS X doesn't have the support of most manufacturers. We'd probably need to see Linux get in-and-around the 15-20% before we start seeing managers take notice, and probably 30% before the majority of them realize that they need to devote some resources to Linux support. There's just too much money involved in training/hiring people to do development on a completely new platform, supporting it as well as you support your other drivers (via phone or e-mail or whatever--you've got to train your helpdesk on it, which means training them not only on your hardware and software, but also on Linux if they aren't familiar with it), etc.

Re:Excellent!

[Movi]

But i have to add: there is some hardware that works better with Linux than windows (due to buggy driver software for Windows). Prime examples are printers : i shudder everytime i have to install another "set" of HP Printer drivers :(. Also, my cx28xx card (unless one can use it with DScaler 3) and my Logitech MX1000 mouse (evdev rocks)

Re:Excellent!

[MoxFulder]

Correction, the open source Realtek driver (r818x) is broken. I cannot get my Realtek to work with it. Nor does it work with the latest version of the Windows driver and multiple versions of ndiswrapper. The r818x driver is on Ubuntu's blacklist (/etc/modprobe.d/blacklist) because of its sad state. Seams that the open source driver is not supported anymore. I strongly recommend people not to purchase Realtek based cards. That is true, the r818x driver is most certainly broken. Though it is *NOT* for lack of specs and information from Realtek, which actually provided a lot of support. It is mainly that the maintainer of the Realtek drivers stopped working on them and nobody picked it up again until very recently. There is now active development ongoing at: http://rtl-wifi.sf.net/

See their History page for more info on the drivers: http://rtl-wifi.sourceforge.net/wiki/History

Re:Excellent!

[ScrappyLaptop]

Funny you mention them...I no longer buy or recommend Netgear because there was always some little corner of functionality which did not work, to put it simply. From getting the time sych from a server that quit providing it to not actually forwarding ports to not actually being able to use 802.11g channels higher than 9, every NG product I've owned had functionality which was later found to be misprogrammed in the firmware -and typically never fixed. So, is that a hardware issue or a software issue?

Go SFLC!

[Lost Found]

I was really sad to hear that Eben Moglen was leaving the FSF. I knew about SFLC, but always wondered if they would do much. On the contrary, it seems like SFLC has actually been active and done some great things in its short time as an organization. The conservancy is a great idea too!

It is a sad day indeed

[Trigun]

When you have to clear your code with lawyers. The best part of it is that if it were a closed source blob, this step wouldn't really be necessary.

Re:It is a sad day indeed

[Volante3192]

Except with closed source, you'd be sued afterward.

Re:It is a sad day indeed

[TheAwfulTruth]

No, the hardware developer might, not the user or the distributer.

Re:It is a sad day indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

As with most cases of government intervention in an otherwise voluntary market, the eventual winner will not be the guy with the best product or service at the lowest price, who just wants to compete on honest grounds -- the winner will be the guy who knows best how to exploit the coercive power of government.

As if it needs to be said, that guy will be the biggest fish in the pond, who can afford the upfront cost of getting a piece of that pie.

oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenHAL: I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

some history

[cinnamon colbert]

back in the 80s, kodak developed an instant film,and to make sure it was not infringing the polaroid patent suite, kodak paid for opinions from 3 seperate law firms

Polaroid sued, Kodak lost, and the opinions did not help them one little bit

or, would you bet your mortgage on the law center getting it right ?

Re:some history

[itachi0x0]

According to TFA, they did a code audit on both the open and closed source drivers. That's a bit more rigorous than an opinion on a patent, IMO.

Re:some history

[KokorHekkus]

And of course any review must also be judged on the merits of those who stand behind it. In this case the Software Freedom Law Center which has Eben Moglen as chairman (just in case you missed who that guy is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen). I'd probably trust what SFLC says more than what most corporations says.

Re:some history

[Moniker42]

You can always get experts to agree with you as long as you find the right experts. It reminds me of a scene from "Yes, Prime Minister". Hope I'm not posting too much here but it's a great scene ;)

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

Re:some history

[radarjd]

back in the 80s, kodak developed an instant film,and to make sure it was not infringing the polaroid patent suite, kodak paid for opinions from 3 seperate law firms. Polaroid sued, Kodak lost, and the opinions did not help them one little bit

I looked up the case you mentioned, and you're right that Kodak lost the case, however, Kodak's pre-lawsuit opinions likely saved them from damages due to willful infringement. In a patent case, treble damages are awarded for willfull infringement -- that's where the money is. While an infringer will have to cease infringement, and will likely have to purchase a license, only a willful infringer pays treble damages as punishment. By seeking outside opinions, Kodak likely saved themselves treble damages, which would have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars.

So, I would argue it's a stretch to say those opinions did not help them one little bit -- they helped Kodak immensely, even though they didn't win the case.

(Also, if anyone wants to look it up, the case actually began in the late 70s, and damages weren't decided until 90-91. The damages opinion went unreported in the Supplement, but is available on Westlaw.)

Re:some history

[darkmeridian]

Kodak saved $1.8 BILLION dollars by hiring lawyers to conduct thorough reviews of the technology and patents.

If you willfully infringe someone's patent, you can get up to three times the damages you incurred. This is to dissuade people from knowingly and intentionally infringing on someone's patent and simply paying actual damages. (This would be a kind of forced royalty.) Having attorneys analyze your product, search for relevant patents, and study both then swear up and down you do not infringe argues against willful infringement.

Kodak's attorneys were wrong when they said the products didn't infringe, but they conducted a thorough review in good faith. The court found that Polaroid was not entitled to treble damages on these facts because there was no showing of willful infringement.

Up until 2004, failure to obtain opinion of counsel was a sign that you willfully infringed a patent you knew about. Now the lack of an opinion of counsel is just a sign you willfully infringed.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.mmmlaw.com%2Farticles%2Farticle_234. pdf&ei=36WvRun2MYKceaCbyYQG&usg=AFQjCNElqULOs3YimA zIWiRf3e-WS0LrKw&sig2=QptmOxEHX6EUKFrrG3RvYQ

Re:some history

[kansas1051]

An opinion of non-infringement from competent counsel is a valid defense to willful patent infringement. If a party is found to have willfully infringed another's patent, the damages against it can be enhanced (i.e. tripled). On the other hand, if the party has a proper non-infringement opinion, the damages might not be tripled. Companies like Kodak only pay for non-infringement opinions to avoid having to pay triple damages and not because the opinions have any substantive value. Everyone understands that it is impossible to predict what a half-retarded federal judge or jury will do.

Re:some history

[bigpicture]

We have to make a distinction between patent and copyright. The Kodak / Polaroid issue was most likely a patent dispute about material processes. Patent disputes over software do not have the same firm legal foundation, and are less likely to end up in court. It was probably the copyright infringement part that got cleared by some sort of prior art search.

Re:some history

[greensoap]

IMNAL, but opinions are not designed to protect you from losing an infringement case. They do, however, usually help for showing that there was not willful infringement. (Willful infringement gets you the 3x damage multiplier.)

Re:some history

[Usquebaugh]

Great series,

        made great fun of some very dark topics. Pity the UK public were too stupid to see it as anything more than a comedy. I mean Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown have never run anything more complex than a corner shop and then magically they can run the country? Next you'll be telling me voting makes a difference!

Re:some history

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who don't understand the word treble in this context (as it has nothing to do with music) it means triple. I had to look it up to be sure. If you mean triple, why not just say triple? It's a word everyone understands.

Re:some history

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting the opinion will help mitigate damages if infringement is alleged and proven in a suit. It is evidence that there was no willful infringement.

Re:some history

[Moniker42]

I'm from the UK! I think you're being more than a little opinionated there by consigning the whole UK public to the idiot bin for not electing a government based on a satirical tv programme. Then again I think "Spitting Image" might have had a greater role than some realise in bringing down Thatcher. Granted, I'm only 17 and not old enough to have voted then (not even now) but as critical as TV programmes are they can only play a small role in bringing down a government that was elected by a majority of people. They can only be part of, or even symptomatic, of a greater swing in public opinion.

There's an even better current show about the Bliar government called "The Thick of It" which i believe is being adapted for the US just now. I don't know if it's as accurate to real life but it's my favourite (and only) TV show at the moment, as it's so brilliantly scripted and well acted.

And anyway, that was twenty years ago, you elected Bush...

Re:some history

[Ginger Unicorn]

maybe its a british thing. i'm british and i think as a child i learnt treble long before triple, to mean three times something.

Re:some history

[Ganesh999]

> Great series, made great fun of some very dark topics. Pity the UK public were too
> stupid to see it as anything more than a comedy.

Err...were we?

I don't think I know a single person who watched the series who thought it was anything less than a very observant, expertly written & acted satire.

"Satire (from Latin satura, not from the Greek figure satyr[1]) is a literary genre, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision..." -- Wikipedia

Incidentally, "Yes, Minister" was Thatcher's favourite TV programme, and she commented several times that the programme wasn't remotely fictional. While at No10 she even named her cat "Humphrey".

> I mean Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown have never run anything more complex than a
> corner shop and then magically they can run the country?

Firstly, is your "corner shop" jibe a reference to Thatcher's father's occupation, or Blair's mother's family? Whichever, please could you explain how is this relevant to any of the people mentioned above?

Secondly, I think this is a phenomenon of democracy: prior to their election as MPs, our public figureheads have no background in matters of state. That's kind of the point; the Commons are meant to represent *real*people*. That means that they're somewhat restricted to influencing the civil service to act in what they deem to be the public interest or opinion.

Given that situation, then intelligence, experience, and transferable skills are paramount in a Prime Minister. And so it has been during the british political period you highlight. Even a little digging on wikipedia shows just how ignorant your statement really is.

* Thatcher - a research chemist with an Oxford degree. Undeniably smart. MP for 20 years and well experienced in a number of capacities (in both Shadow and real cabinets) before she became Prime Minister. Experienced and transferable.

* Major - originally from a poor background, which led indirectly to a mediocre education, although he supplemented this later via evening classes & correspondence courses. First became a local councillor aged 25, and served in a number of government capacities for 11 years before becoming Prime Minister. Transferable, experienced, and widely recognised by colleagues and opponents alike as hardworking and idealistic.

* Blair - Oxford graduate, reasonably smart. MP for 14 years, member of shadow cabinet for ~8 years before he became Prime Minister, so pretty experienced.

* Brown - selected for fast tracking at primary school; studying history at university at age 16; first class honours MA from Edinburgh at age 21; PhD later. Frighteningly intelligent. Temporary lecturer on the history of the Labour party (denied permanent post because of his political activism); journalist & TV current affairs editor; MP for 12 years before becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ironically the success of Blair (who was ultimately forced to step down by his own party) was largely a result of the relatively stable economy Brown provided for the decade of his tenure during a severe period for the global economy.

None of the above can be labelled "overnight successes" by any stretch of the imagination.

> Next you'll be telling me voting makes a difference!

Honestly, are you trying to be a troll?

In a country where there are no individual penalties for failing to vote, *not* voting is *guaranteed* to make no difference at all!

Please refer to the last general election where less than 40% of those eligible to vote actually did so, and Labour barely scraped a victory. Within weeks Blair was forcing through even more draconian new legislation, despite widespread calls for a referendum. His excuse for such a dictat? Apparently no such referendum was needed since he had just been given a renewed "mandate of the british people"!

There are severa

Re:some history

[Usquebaugh]

I did not elect Bush, I'm a UK citizen not US. Although in truth I'd love to be a citizen of the world with no affiliations to any country.

Public opinion is formed by the media, very few people are able to think outside the left/right of politics or indeed the good/bad of morals. The tripe served up in the papers and by the TV news is directed at those who have a comprehension age of seven. You think advertisers spend all that money because it only has a minimal effect?

The Blair/Thatcher governments were not elected by a majority of the people. I think it was only 20% of eligible voters voted for Blair. Far from a majority.

Spitting image did far more to keep labor out than it ever did to bring down Thatcher. Thatcher never lost an election, she was removed by her own party. The question becomes was her removal the cause of the Tory election victory or would they have won anyway. Either way, it was ironic that she was deposed the same way she gained the job.

Re:some history

[Usquebaugh]

So 20+ years ago the UK public were shown just how inept and corrupt their ruling institutions really were and what happened? Has anything changed for the better? Yet the UK public continue to pat themselves on the back for a job well done! They deserve everything that is coming!

I actually like Major, apparently at his first meeting of his cabinet after the leadership battle his first words were 'Well, who would have believed it?'. Also when the IRA mortar bombed the cabinet office he apparently was very calm and collected and later downplayed his own calmness. He also tried to lessen some of Thatchers most damaging policies.

Not one of the politicians listed had led so much as a cake bake before they rose to PM. It showed in how they went about their job to begin with. You think any of them were fiscally sensible with your money? If so explain inflation as compared to the value of gold?

You listed some of the problems with the UK elections but the main one remains, 1st past the post. Until each and every vote counts they are all worthless, it's not a democracy or rule by consensus. Then you might question why the Queen has the power of veto? The Lords voting on legislation? The civil service delaying paperwork? The police proposing legislation?

I voted with my feet and left the UK. A revolution just replaces the current scum with a new layer.

Re:some history

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, but I doubt that guy voted for Bush since he's from England.

Re:some history

[Ganesh999]

> So 20+ years ago the UK public were shown just how inept and corrupt their ruling
> institutions really were and what happened? Has anything changed for the better?

No, it's become worse. People really weren't prepared for the spin strategy that is New Labour's (particularly Blair's) trademark.

Ultimately, I agree the population's at fault. Somewhere along the line people became apathetic, and stopped taking an interest in politics other than the minor interests that affected them directly. They divided, were conquered, and yet steadfastly refuse to vote out those who have so spectacularly failed to represent their interests.

The flag-wavers who keep voting the same way they always have are a problem. A much bigger problem is the majority who could use the voice that was so hard-won for them by their forefathers, and who simply refuse to do so.

Without an exercised public vote, a democracy can only become a dictatorial oligarchy.

> Yet the UK public continue to pat themselves on the back for a job well done!

Example, please. I don't see anyone except the compulsive flag-wavers congratulating themselves...and even many of those have been looking uncertain for a while.

> I actually like Major

*Nod* Major was the only PM we've had in 30-odd years who had a strong social conscience (Brown *may* turn out ok, but it's too early to tell, and his early statements haven't been too encouraging).

Even Major's political opponents were forced to concede that he was a "decent and honorable man". Yet he was consistently sabotaged by his own cabinet ("that bunch of bastards"), and by the deterioration of his public image via consistently negative media coverage and easy personal satire. Much of that public frustration at him was frankly the misplaced legacy of the Tory party in general, and Thatcher in particular.

Somehow Major ran the country for years seemingly without any allies, without completely ballsing things up. That's a remarkable feat, and one wonders what he could have accomplished if he'd had more general support, even within his own party.

Of course, if he'd publically 'fessed up to his extramarital affair the first time someone tried to coerce him, and managed to weather the subsequent political storm, he'd have simultaneously stripped the "bastards" of ammunition and blown away the "grey man" image of which the media made so much - a double win that might have helped him accomplish much more than he did.

> Not one of the politicians listed had led so much as a cake bake before they rose to PM.

I just listed a bunch of stuff in the previous post. Since you weren't convinced, here's more :

Thatcher - barrister (tax law); MP from 1959; Parliamentary Secreatary for Pensions & NI 1961-1964; Tory spokesman for Housing & Land; Shadow Treasury 1966-67; Shadow Cabinet 67-70 (first for Fuel, then Transport, then Education); Secretary of State for Education & Science 1970-74; Conservative leader from '75.

Major - on Lambeth council from '68-71, responsible for the construction of much public housing; MP from 1979; Parliamentary Private Secretary from '81; assistant whip from '83; Under-Secretary of State for Social Security '85, becoming a minister in '86; Chief Secretary to Treasury '87-'89; Foreign Secretary '89 for short while before becoming Chancellor of Exchequer after Lawson's sudden resignation.

Blair - MP from 1983; much rhetoric & little action 'til Shadow Cabinet for a few years, then party leadership.

Brown - already covered, in much detail, in the previous post.

Summary: Blair's the only one who can be remotely accused of "not leading even a cake bake" before being PM. Thatcher & Brown are both seasoned politicians with strong leadership backgrounds even prior to their political career - Thatcher held several positions in previous Tory governments & in opposition. Major didn't lead as much before becoming PM but had been very active in polit

Re:some history

[Usquebaugh]

Most of the items we agree on, but a couple of points.

The problem with Major having an affair was not so much that he had one, but that he showed such appalling taste in who to have one with. Short of the queen mum his choice was about the worst possible. No spin, save confessing to a whole list affairs, would have saved him from public contempt. In a way similar to Clinton a few years later.

The point on lack of leadership was the lack of commercial leadership. Political leadership very rarely requires the skills of state leadership. The reason for throwing in the pound and inflation was that no leader has spoken out against fiat currency, only by linking a currency to a scarce commodity can you judge it's performance. The current fiat system means that paper is valuable purely because everyone believes it to be so.

With 1st past the post the majority can be defeated by a minority. Each vote is not equal but derives some importance due to where it is cast. When two votes carry different weights democracy can never flourish. This is the biggest problem with the current system.

I care not that the queen has never used it or that it might be unenforceable, it is on the books and gives her a place above parliment in the running of the country.

The lords are I agree far more reasonable than the commons, but I wish to be ruled by my fellow citizen not a body of people who are un-accountable.

The civil service does not act impartially or indeed in the best interests of the public. It meddles where it should not. In this age of computers most civil servants should be replaced, and indeed in a commercial company would have been.

I am a UK citizen and I vote. Now I agree I should not be allowed to as I am no longer a resident and no longer goverend by it's laws. But while I can vote I will vote.

I do not however see not voting as a problem or a betrayal of hard won rights. I see it as a statement of defiance, the system is not going to change by voting why should I waste my time pretending otherwise.

I think it was Jefferson who said 'the tree of liberty needs a little blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time'. The tree in the UK has been dry an awful long time.

My own preference is instead of an election we have a lottery. My desire is to be led by a group of people that represents the society in which they were chosen. If it's good enough for the courts it's good enough for the legislature.

Re:some history

[Ganesh999]

> The problem with Major having an affair was not so much that he had one, but that he showed such
> appalling taste in who to have one with.

No disagreement here. :)

> The point on lack of leadership was the lack of commercial leadership. Political leadership very
> rarely requires the skills of state leadership.

I disagree with the current popular emphasis on the "all-knowing" commercial sector.

Commercial leadership, like military leadership, can result in a number of very useful transferable leadership skills - e.g. Linus. However, the initial background in such specific environments often leads to a belief that anything outside of known factors is irrelevant; this can result in a serious lack of flexibility, and the outright dismissal of issues that are in fact key in other sectors (e.g. social).

Conversely, I can't agree that time spent in the commercial and/or military sectors is a requirement for competent political leadership. Good (and bad) leaders can arise in virtually any context, although politics is unusual in the degree to which really bad leaders are seldom removed from office. What political leadership needs is more culpability, rather than an influx from other sectors.

> With 1st past the post the majority can be defeated by a minority. Each vote is not equal but
> derives some importance due to where it is cast.

Did I miss something? Surely it's evident that I understand what 1st past the post is from my earlier diatribe on proportional representation? Or are you just taking the opportunity here to explain the UK's current electoral system for the benefit of other readers?

I'm glad we agree that democracy is dependent on an equal weight being attributed to all votes.

> I care not that the queen has never used it or that it might be unenforceable, it is on the books
> and gives her a place above parliment in the running of the country.

The UK political and legal systems are jam-packed full of such quirks. Where they're harmful they're killed off. Most just add colour. Many find really unexpectedly beneficial uses.

"Place above parliament" - yes, but not above the will of the people. That was proved on 30th January, 1649.

If the current parliamentary system ever breaks down, other backup political systems exist. Belt and braces; I see no danger in such a redundancy - in fact as an engineer with a great interest in safety, I'm quite reassured by the concept of alternate load paths & systems.

> The lords are I agree far more reasonable than the commons, but I wish to be ruled by my fellow
> citizen not a body of people who are un-accountable

Personally I don't wish to be "ruled" at all. I do wish the interests of the people to be properly represented in the decisions of the country's governing body. Right now, ironically, Lords often seems to be accomplishing that a hell of a lot better than Commons.

> The civil service does not act impartially or indeed in the best interests of the public. It meddles
> where it should not. In this age of computers most civil servants should be replaced, and indeed in
> a commercial company would have been.

N.B. Multivac is a utopian fiction.

There's little denying that the UK could do with some solid IT infrastructure to help government. But have you been monitoring the catalogue of disasters lately resulting from NL's attempts to introduce IT? Complete balls-up - massive overspends, systems deemed useless by their intended beneficients (e.g. a basic centralised NHS medical records & booking system!) - and all because the *policy*makers* (i.e. the politicians, not the civil service) were unable to define the work packages in anything but classic political terms, instead of functional.

IT failures may be acceptable to the commercial sector, but they're absolutely not acceptable in a social context.

Call me when a supermarket checkout till can

Finally!

[physicsnick]

I am the proud owner of a D-Link wireless card, and as much as I love this card, I hate having to use a binary blob to make it work. Ubuntu's the only distribution I've found that works well out of the box with this card because of the streamlined restricted modules.

Here's hoping this makes it into the kernel soon!

Re:Finally!

[Chandon Seldon]

I am the proud owner of a D-Link wireless card, and as much as I love this card, I hate having to use a binary blob to make it work.

Have you considered replacing your poorly-supported hardware? Fully functional hardware is readily available and cheap, there's no reason to futz with hardware from companies that don't really want your business.

Re:Finally!

[313373_bot]

I half-agree, half-disagree here :-)

On one hand, if you are going to buy some piece of hardware, by all means prefer FOSS-friendly products: less trouble for you and a nudge to the market in the right direction. On the other hand, if you already own a fully functional but non FOSS-friendly equipment, why be wasteful? Reverse-engineering and/or demanding FOSS support are legitimate ways to put pressure in the market too.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of wireless cards, I tried that, and found that the manufacturer had silently changed the chipset while keeping the model number the same (the bastards - what the hell is the model number *for*?). Sent it back, of course, but still, bloody annoying, and if I had needed wireless urgently I might have had to live with it.

Re:Finally!

[kwark]

When I was shopping for wireless cards I always:
-spend a lot of time to find a working chipset
-find the damn thing
-if you actualy get the chipset you were looking for and it is tested to work: buy a couple of them.
-Redo from start when technology or interface changes.

I do miss the pcmcia interface on my new laptop, what modern chipset can compete with the Prism2?

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Might have known someone would put a friggin' Ubuntu spin on this. When the hell will the fanboys just crawl under a damned rock. Sheez just use Linux and be happy. If the hardware doesn't work find good hardware that does. Damn the fanboism

Re:Finally!

[Chandon Seldon]

On the other hand, if you already own a fully functional but non FOSS-friendly equipment, why be wasteful?

How much of your time is it worth to avoid spending $30 on a new wireless card? Are you going to waste other people's time too by complaining on the community support forums that your known-dysfunctional card doesn't work?

If you're actually going to personally reverse engineer the card and write a FOSS driver, that's great. My guess is that you're not going to do that - instead you're going to spend two days discovering new and interesting bugs in ndiswrapper, and then you're going to post a four page rant on the Ubuntu forums (or Slashdot) about how "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" because you wasted 2 days on dysfunctional hardware. If I'm right, just go buy the supported hardware now - seriously.

Re:Finally!

[313373_bot]

Well, let's clarify a point or two...

On the other hand, if you already own a fully functional but non FOSS-friendly equipment, why be wasteful?

How much of your time is it worth to avoid spending $30 on a new wireless card? Are you going to waste other people's time too by complaining on the community support forums that your known-dysfunctional card doesn't work?

When I said "wasteful", I wasn't thinking solely in terms of monetary value. Of course, if you make $5/hr then a $30 card costs you 6 hours of work; on the other hand, if you make $180/hr, the card isn't worth more than 10 min. But this is only part of the problem. First, do you measure someone's worth by his or her salary only? $30 isn't exactly chump change for most of the people in the the world, certainly not for the factory worker somewhere in China who built the card, nor for the kids awaiting the so-called $100 laptop. Secondly, what about the costs for the environment? Electronic waste is not exactly eco-friendly, you know. Oil and raw resources are spent in manufacturing, not to mention transportation costs. All this things matter, too. Should we dismiss all those concerns because some "businessman" and his "lawyers" decided not to release one stupid spec sheet because of "greed" (read "protecting our intellectual property" or some other lame excuse)?

If you're actually going to personally reverse engineer the card and write a FOSS driver, that's great. My guess is that you're not going to do that - instead you're going to spend two days discovering new and interesting bugs in ndiswrapper, and then you're going to post a four page rant on the Ubuntu forums (or Slashdot) about how "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" because you wasted 2 days on dysfunctional hardware. If I'm right, just go buy the supported hardware now - seriously.

Since you decided to make a personal attack here, let me tell you something: I will not enter in a engineering skills competition with you. I have in fact worked with hardware and done some low-level coding in the past, but I am no FOSS developer. But seemly you fail to understand that some people have fun tinkering with hardware and/or software, and if they can make a living from their "hobbies" they are happy. Other people see an engineering or cs degree solely as an investment, believing that by itself it will bring them a lot of money: in general, they end up bitterly disappointed. If I'm "wasting" my time "ranting" here on Slashdot, that's because it amuses me. What is your "business case"?

Re:Finally!

[Chandon Seldon]

When I said "wasteful", I wasn't thinking solely in terms of monetary value.

If you're worried about wasting the old card, give it to a friend who runs Windows. Or sell it on eBay.

If you're worried about the environmental impact of being involved in the purchase of an "unnecessary" wireless card, then maybe you should chose to put more effort into getting it to work. It doesn't mean that you deserve any more sympathy if your attempt fails. Or sell the old card on eBay, and replace a new card sale that way.

As for the kids who made the card in China - I don't see any harm to them from you buying a new wireless card. The kids who get OLPC XO's - they'll get supported hardware, and nicer stuff than we'll see for years at that.

But seemly you fail to understand that some people have fun tinkering with hardware and/or software, and if they can make a living from their "hobbies" they are happy.

I fall in that category myself. I've spent many afternoons installing Gentoo or whatever simply for the fun of it. I just hate listening to people complain when they 1.) make the choice to solve a problem the "hobbyist" way and 2.) post a giant rant on the internet when they fail. Supported wireless cards work perfectly under Linux. If you screw up and get an unsupported one your error will cost $30 to fix. Anything else is a hobbyist project that you chose to take up.

Re:Finally!

[meiao]

I have a DWL G122 USB wireless adapter.
I tried 2 drivers (first was plain wrong, and ndiswrapper worked for 15 seconds and hung my system) and 2 OSs (FreeBSD and Ubuntu).

Switched back to Debian, found out that the rt2750 driver would work and it did.
I just think that the usb connector is faulty and disconnects from time to time (or maybe the driver is not good enough).

oh HAL!

[fattmatt]

I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.

Re:oh HAL!

[cp.tar]

Since it's OpenHAL, this is the one that did open the pod bay door...

Macbook

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news. Roll on native wireless drivers for my 2nd Generation Macbook!

G++

OpenHAL or not the OSS Wireless drivers are doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll get no specifications from the manufacturers and it will take no effort to destroy all your efforts by just releasing a firmware upgrade what will render your OSS driver pretty much useless.

What *I* want...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a Linux handheld with a multi-touch sensitive screen (like the one the iPhone has) which supports web browsing (including flash, java, etc.) complete with image scaling by pinching (the scaling should apply equally well to the flash, java, etc.).

Of course, it needs the wireless capacity to achieve internet access, though it should be able to do that whether not I have signed up with a cell phone carrier (i.e. through my wireless router, public hotspots, etc.).

In other words, I want the browser and interface parts of the iPhone, only they should not be broken.

How does the FUD last?

[Warbothong]

People and organisations are going to extremely far lengths to do this kind of thing, a lot of the time for no direct monetary gain. The code is out there for people to study, use and improve. Lots of FOSS code is under terms like the BSD licenses which allow incorporation in non-free, secret, undisclosed code. When efforts like this are going on it amazes me that Microsoft's FUD campaigns about FOSS still seem to be taken seriously by the mainstream media (try finding a recent mainstream story about Linux which doesn't mention Microsoft's software patent crap), even though they come from what appears to be the biggest code-stealer/patent infringer on the planet (Google around, the lawsuits and payoffs are everywhere, well the publicly known ones are). I'm willing to bet money that Microsoft uses GPL code in some parts of its software portfolio without following the terms, yet we'll never know since their code is locked up away from prying eyes.

It is a sad situation, but I think a Software Freedom Marketing Centre might be needed just to level the playing field :(

Oblig. Simpsons Quote

[bigtimepie]

pro-bono

Collin: I just moved here from Ireland, my father's a musician.

Lisa: Is he...

Collin: (laughs) No, he's not Bono.

Lisa: (blushing) Well I just since since you're Irish...

Collin: He's NOT Bono!

Old News from 2006

[Anonymous Coward]

This "clearing" the HAL drivers is old news
http://lwn.net/Articles/209472/
This was done in 2006.

Re:Old News from 2006

[otaku42]

It is not "old news", you just have to read both articles again.

Back in 2006 the assessment was done by talking to a bunch of OpenBSD developers, who responded "we didn't do anything bad". So the SFLC *believed* it should be safe to work with the OpenHAL.

The recent assessment included a source code review, which basically changes the "SFLC believes it's safe" to "SFLC knows it's safe". And that obviously is worth a news item here, don't you think so?

Bye, Mike

Linux?

[TheRaven64]

I wondered how this compared to the Atheros HAL developed for OpenBSD, so I googled. This is what I found on the MadWifi page:

OpenHAL is an open source implementation of Atheros HAL. It was originally written from Reyk Floeter for OpenBSD, known by the name "ar5k". An effort is underway to port OpenHAL to Linux and make it compatible with MadWifi. So, why is this article in the Linux category, when it's talking about the legal status of an OpenBSD driver that will eventually be ported to Linux? Possibly because TFA described it as:

a wireless network component for Linux This leads me to doubt their ability to say anything authoritative about the origin of the code.

Re:Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

golly gee, I remember some months ago, openbsd being pestered about using linux broadcom driver as the basis for a bsd broadcom driver. Kind off makes you all out to be hypocrites doesn't it? After all, you know what the openbsd head is like. What happened should have been expected.

Re:Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly does one inaccurate article on some web site make the entire Linux community into hypocrites?

Re:Linux?

[ajs]

So, why is this article in the Linux category, when it's talking about the legal status of an OpenBSD driver that will eventually be ported to Linux? You claim to have read TFA, but... don't seem to have.

The Linux Wireless developers asked the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) to investigate ...

"Our ultimate goal is to have full support for Atheros devices included in the Linux kernel," said Luis Rodriguez, a Linux Wireless developer. ... Yeah, this is about Linux, not BSD, even though the driver was originally developed for BSD.

Obviously the BSD guys benefit from this review of their legal standing too, but that's not the point of the article.

Re:Linux?

[Thyrteen]

Ah, sure! but as soon as OpenBSD starts porting the broadcom driver in CVS, the linux guys all scream foul play! I see how the ball rolls! *holds up flak shield* -- Free sarcasm, no purchase necessary.

Re:Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, sure! but as soon as OpenBSD starts porting the broadcom driver in CVS, the linux guys all scream foul play!

The issue wasn't simply that the developers in question (NOT the entire Linux community, you can't judge however many thousands of people based on the actions of maybe three or four developers) don't like BSD, it was that basing a BSD-licenced driver on a GPLed one is a violation of the GPL. It is NOT a violation to do the reverse.

Re:Linux?

[ajs]

Ah, sure! but as soon as OpenBSD starts porting the broadcom driver in CVS, the linux guys all scream foul play! You're clearly not responding to what I said, since I made no judgment about anyone's behavior. I was only pointing out that we are, in fact, talking about the Linux driver developers, not the BSD driver developers.

Is this a joke?

[fbartho]

Is this a joke?

...said John Linville, the Linux kernel maintainer for wireless networking...

You don't deserve tinfoil.

[ascendant]

Is this a joke?

...said John Linville, the Linux kernel maintainer for wireless networking...

No, that is not a joke. You read too much into things, fail.

Re:You don't deserve tinfoil.

[fbartho]

hmpf. Henry Kissinger: "Even a paranoid can have enemies."

plus I just thought it was a funny coincidence.

--Whoops, did I say that? I meant:

I don't believe you, you must be one of them!
Mom!!? DoubleLayer the tinfoil!

So, the SFLC has cleared OpenHAL...

[idontgno]

Does Atheros agree? On paper?

If not, queue the lawsuits in 5...4...3..2..1

Is there are good Linux WL HCL?

[Kadin2048]

Fully functional hardware is readily available and cheap

Is there a regularly-updated list around, anywhere, of what wireless hardware is well supported under particular distributions, and whether it has drivers in the kernel, or from some additional source, or requires binary blobs?

The problem I've always had is that whenever I go to a store to buy a WL card, there are always 10 different ones on the shelves, none of which I've ever heard of, and I can never find any of the supposedly-compatible ones around.

It's not hard to find reports where people will say "oh, yeah, my FOO3549 works perfectly, right out of the box!" but then if you try to go to a store and buy a FOO3549, you'll find out it was discontinued six months ago and replaced with the FOO3649, which uses some totally different, highly proprietary chipset, that there's no support for. (Heck, sometimes they don't even bother to change the model numbers.)

This isn't entirely the fault of Linux or any of the OSS driver developers, but it is a major fucking pain in the ass to buy Linux-compatible wireless cards, and I have a stack of incompatible ones sitting around as a testament to this. I've basically given up -- finally I realized that wireless internet was more frustration than it's worth, and I bought a 500' spool of CAT-5e plenum cable and started drilling holes throughout my house. At least running cables feels like a solvable problem. (Hint: the easiest way to run Ethernet between floors is to route it through the heating ducts...particularly if your walls are all insulated.)

But as far as I know, there's no good centralized repository of information concerning the compatibility of different models, or even of which models have which chipsets. It's all scattered around the internet in a dozen different wikis and forums.

Re:Is there are good Linux WL HCL?

[AeroIllini]

Try here.

http://linux-wless.passys.nl/

Re:Is there are good Linux WL HCL?

[Kjella]

...and people still wonder why it's a such a big thing that Dell offers preinstalled Linux desktops with guaranteed working chipsets.

Re:Is there are good Linux WL HCL?

[kwark]

Have you even looked at what cards are on the list? Take a look at
http://linux-wless.passys.nl/query_hostif.php?host if=USB
at please tell me which of these cards are actually available in stores!

My guess will be a zydas or ralink* stick is eaiest to find. But there are only 211 "green" cards. 77 of them are Prism based (very hard to find IMHO). Further 9 are Orinoco and Hermes (really old stuff). IOW it is mostly old stuff.

But I just manages to find a store that has the Belkin 802.11g F5D7050 so maybe it has some uses after all.

Re:Is there are good Linux WL HCL?

[rifter]

...and people still wonder why it's a such a big thing that Dell offers preinstalled Linux desktops with guaranteed working chipsets.

They sell laptops with Ubuntu Linux on them, too.

I was kind of annoyed at the way the original Linux program went. I was pleasantly surprised to see they were doing this again, and it looks like the price is not bad this time. They also sell systems with Freedos if you want. I think just knowing that the wireless stuff is going to work is a major reason to go this way.

I don't get the previous poster's claim that linux friendly wifi hardware is plentiful and cheap. It seems to me that any wireless card requires wrappers, animal sacrifices, and a fair amount of divine intervention to work. It's probably easier than that, but I haven't seen that there is any manufacturer that is "linux friendly" as some video card and wired network card manufacturers are. You see that various chips have driver solutions of some sorts, certain individual models, etc, but like one of the other posters said you'd have to be able to see the chip to be sure since some manufacturers change chips without changing model numbers, and most shops will send you "equivalent" models anyway when you order a bunch of them.

I think it's great that so much progress has been made in this area given the challenge that such development must present. But it's still far from easy for someone to find out whether their wireless card will work ahead of time. It does seem to me that your best bet would be to go with a laptop with integrated wifi that is favourably reported on the net (like on the linux-laptops site). But as for a central repository for pcmcia wifi or wifi in general, I've found that there doesn't seem to be one. There are a lot of sites on the net which talk about various cards, but they usually only cover a few cards on very specific versions of the linux kernel. Nothing like the linux usb site, for example.

Re:Is there are good Linux WL HCL?

[innocent_white_lamb]

IOW it is mostly old stuff.
 
Well, apparently that's what's supported.
 
I guess that's the answer. It's not the answer you hoped for, but it is nonetheless the answer.

Re:Is there are good Linux WL HCL?

[Chandon Seldon]

Is there a regularly-updated list around, anywhere, of what wireless hardware is well supported under particular distributions, and whether it has drivers in the kernel, or from some additional source, or requires binary blobs?

The major distros all provide hardware compatibility info. Here's the page for Ubuntu:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupport

Free Software HAL == legal?

[racyrefinedraj]

From what I understand (and from what the Madwifi wiki tells me), the current HAL is closed source because the Atheros chipset has the technical capabilities to broadcast out of the legal range of spectrum allowed by the FCC and similar bodies. Wouldn't distributing OpenHal be illegal? The SFLC seems to answer a different question in TFA - what about the legal ramifications of distributing a free software HAL in the first place?

Re:Free Software HAL == legal?

[Derek Loev]

Whoa whoa! If you're saying Atheros broadcasts too far, what would the FCC say about my two Hormel Chili cans soldered together, artistically painted and decorated, with a confirmed distance of 5.1061 miles.

Re:Free Software HAL == legal?

[choongiri]

He said "the legal range of spectrum", i.e. it has the capability (in hardware) to broadcast frequencies that are not permitted, and only the software prevents it from doing so. This has nothing to do with signal range, which is affected by power output and - as you know - antenna design. An open implementation that had frequency or power restrictions implemented in software would be a trivial matter to override. That said, I would be surprised if the fact that it's possible to change the code and recompile would make the open source implementation illegal. It's still the person who changes the code, recompiles it, and actually transmits outside the permitted region who is breaking the law, just like someone who physically modifies the hardware to transmit on non-permitted frequencies.

Re:Free Software HAL == legal?

[chance2105]

From what I understand [..]

the current HAL is closed source because the Atheros chipset has the technical capabilities to broadcast out of the legal range of spectrum allowed by the FCC and similar bodies. Wouldn't distributing OpenHal be illegal? I can search the Internet using Google with Firefox for instructions on how to do any number of illegal things. This apparent "ability to be illegal" has never precluded me from having Firefox (Iceweasel) in Debian.

Re:Free Software HAL == legal?

[Andy Dodd]

Yup. Just because the SFLC has determined that Atheros will have trouble suing the developers (it's no guarantee that they can't - see previous comments regarding Kodak and legal opinions) doesn't mean that the FCC won't decide to start smacking someone around over this issue.

After all, the reason consistently stated by Atheros for the closed HAL is that the FCC would nail them if they opened it up. I don't blame them - the FCC could easily put them out of business.

Re:OpenHAL or not the OSS Wireless drivers are doo

[ettlz]

So? Don't apply the firmware update.

Re:OpenHAL or not the OSS Wireless drivers are doo

[beswicks]

Because hardware makers are always trying to reduce there market by buggering up Linux drivers... what is this, Bizarro World?

Generally if a Linux driver is closed source, its closed source because the maker of the driver does not have all the rights to give the source away, which I think is nVidia's excuse, or does not want others to see how it does certain things, which I think is nVidia's real issue.

While they may be upset if a developer guesses the "big secret" hidden in the driver, they would be pretty stupid to noble the hardware just to spite the Linux community, and the point of this article seems to be that the driver does not break any laws, so I'd assume its not stepping on any patients or secrets owned by anyone.

Just my 2 pence ofc.

Re:OpenHAL or not the OSS Wireless drivers are doo

[beswicks]

Oh poo, I no speak proper grammur.

Please ignore the miss use of there in place of their (and whatever else I did wrong).

good - tired of 'restricted modules'

[MrDERP]

Always hated downloading the "restriced" modules & using Automatix2, which OT, I have found can really break Ubuntu. so how would you install the OSS version ? is it in Ubuntu Repositories [non restrcited]? Jeff

re experts

[cinnamon colbert]

J K Galbreath says something to this effect in his very amusing advice to a young bearuacrat, excuse spelling errors

Re:good - tired of 'restricted modules'

[JoshJ]

Yes. You shouldn't use automatix at all.

gksudo gedit /etc/apt/sources.list

Make the lines have this ending:

deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ feisty main restricted universe multiverse
deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ feisty restricted main universe multiverse

Re:Oblig. Spelling Correction + Oblig Wiki Ref

[vorlich]

Colin normally has only has one 'L'. Adding an extra 'L' is a common mistake made by native German speakers. Since almost 95 per cent of Americans are of German descent one can appreciate how extensive the difference in language is between those who speak English and those who speak US English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin
'Collins' with two 'Ls' is a surname common to Scotland and Ireland. Mr William Collins was a famous Scottish language dictionary publisher (now part of HarperCollins empire) and possibly contributed to the origin of this confusion.

If 'Collin' really was Irish he would be 'Colin'. As to the circumstances surrounding the identity of his father, I shall have to leave that to more informed sources...

How is this different from the news 9 month ago?

[hweimer]

Last November, SFLC already said basically the same thing. Does anyone know what is really new here?

Careful there fattmatt

[Hal9000_sn3]

That was unkind of you, I was under duress.
Don't make me post the transcripts of recordings I have of you.

Re:How is this different from the news 9 month ago

[otaku42]

The new thing is a change from "we believe it's ok" to "we know it". See also here.