Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The OSS Solution to the Linux Wi-Fi Problem

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the wait-we-have-a-problem-with-that-now-too dept.

tobs writes "Matt Hartley of MadPenguin.org fame has published an open source way of solving the Linux Wi-Fi problem. He writes, "For intermediate to advanced users, who are willing to track down WiFi cards based on chipsets, live without WPA in some instances or have opted to stick with Ethernet, buying a new notebook for the sake of improved wireless connectivity may seem a little overkill. When a new user faces problems jumping through the NDISWrapper hoops, tracking down WiFi cards from HCLs and other related activities, the end result is almost always the same — they give up. What so many of us, as Linux users, fail to grasp is that projects like OpenHAL are critical to long-term development. The education on what to expect and what not to expect remains a complete load of hot air when articles claim how easy it is to setup wireless Internet on Linux machines. It's downright misleading."

16 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Weird... by mdm-adph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's like I RTFA, but then again I don't feel like I RTFA. Anyone else notice that? Is there some "Page 2" button I'm missing?

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  2. Atheros by Brian+Lewis · · Score: 5, Informative

    After spending hours on breaking and re-breaking wifi on my laptop, I went out and bought a $20 wifi card with an Atheros chipset. It has worked flawlessly sense, without having to jump through the ndiswrapper hoops.

    And any time someone new the *nix asks me about wireless, and why it isn't working, I always insist they spend the $20 on the Atheros chipset, as, again, it is damn near flawless.

  3. What's the REAL Solution though? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The OSS Solution to the Linux Wi-Fi Problem I'm confused, this article did not propose an OSS solution for the Wi-Fi problem at all. In fact, it just told me things I already know from first hand experience that I've posted about before.

    What confuses me so much (and I really am ignorant in this department) is why the ethernet chipsets were seemingly conquered right off the bat? I tried my first Linux distro (debian) in 2001 and ever since then no matter what the machine, no matter what the distro, no matter how confused I was the NICs always came up ready to go when I installed Linux. I've done this on a lot of machines, from obscure to well known Dells and used most of the major distributions. They just 'worked' and it was good.

    Now, wireless is here and for some reason, there must be a thousand different manufacturers with their own proprietary chipsets with completely different drivers & BIOS data on the flash memory stored in those chips because I've only had Ubuntu work once out of the box on a Linksys PCI WiFi card. Why? Why isn't that standardized? What do the companies gain from that? Is it because of the ever changing standards that the chips are so wacky? Is it because the A, B, G, N, etc. protocols? I don't understand this because I've never coded drivers.

    I understand what MadWiFi & OpenHal are trying to do. I now know to look for "Atheros" chipsets when I buy my wireless stuff but they are often more well known brands and more expensive. A reason I switched to Linux was to save money in college, not spend more on the hardware.

    Maybe a more helpful article would be detailing the real underlying issue--that these no name brands that get huge rebates at CompUSA or where ever (Hawking Technologies, generic boxes, etc.) are targeting Windows because of the number of users. How do you change their minds or show them a market for an OSS driver? Is there a way to even open up a channel of communication with them to discover how to write drivers for their chispets? How do you convince them it's worth their time/resources?

    That would be a solution moving forward.

    The next best thing would be to post an article about how to get started making these drivers. I'm a coder (though not the greatest one) with a little bit of free time. How do I start? How do I get access to the BIOS pages on the chipsets? What do I do with that, how does the Linux kernel use it? What books do I read that teach me how to start with a chipset I know nothing about, have no resources on the data or mechanics and then poke it, prod it until I know enough about it that I can set it up for the kernel to use it?
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:What's the REAL Solution though? by david.given · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now, wireless is here and for some reason, there must be a thousand different manufacturers with their own proprietary chipsets with completely different drivers & BIOS data on the flash memory stored in those chips because I've only had Ubuntu work once out of the box on a Linksys PCI WiFi card. Why? Why isn't that standardized? What do the companies gain from that? Is it because of the ever changing standards that the chips are so wacky? Is it because the A, B, G, N, etc. protocols? I don't understand this because I've never coded drivers.

      Because wireless hardware is really complicated.

      Typically a wireless card is a microcontroller with ROM, RAM, and a CPU --- usually an ARM. One end is plugged into the radio, of which there are a zillion different varieties. The other end is plugged into your computer.

      Some wireless cards don't have their software on ROM --- which means that in order to make it work, the first thing you have to do is to upload the software from your PC. This is the infamous 'binary blob' problem. That software is highly proprietry and really, really hard to write. So far (although I could be wrong) there are no open source firmware replacements.

      Even once you have the card programmed and running, you still need to talk to it. This usually involves a driver that needs to know how to talk to the wireless card's host hardware (the bit between the microcontroller and your computer), the firmware itself (which may have different command sets for different versions of the firmware), and sometimes you even need to know implementation details of the radio chipset. That's a lot of information you need access to, and it all interacts in rather horrible ways. (Also, FCC regulations may mean that the vendors aren't allowed to give you information that could be used to, say, make the card operate on unauthorised frequencies...)

      It also doesn't help that the Linux wireless layer isn't terribly well designed: the abstraction layers are in the wrong place, which means that in order to write a driver you have to duplicate a lot of code. That's one reason why the BSD operating systems typically have better wireless support. Their driver framework makes it a lot easier to write wireless drivers.

      The good cards usually have well-designed firmware on ROM with a sufficiently abstract interface that implementation details aren't exposed. They're easy to support, because the vendor can change the implementation without having to change the driver. The bad cards have firmware that's loaded at run time that exposes lots of implementation details that the vendor can't tell you about because the third party whose radio chipset they're using made them sign an NDA. (Or just because they don't want to. Broadcom fits this category.) They require lots of unpleasant reverse engineering.

      So, in short, wireless drivers are hard because wireless cards are really complicated.

    2. Re:What's the REAL Solution though? by grahamm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Typically a wireless card is a microcontroller with ROM, RAM, and a CPU --- usually an ARM. As wireless cards are intelligent with their own processor it should have been relatively simple for a high level API to have been defined (in a similar way to VESA for display cards) by which all wireless cards communicate with the host computer.

    3. Re:What's the REAL Solution though? by david.given · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Firmware is just firmware - it runs on a different CPU and only has access to the device. Binary blobs run in your kernel space and could (potentially) mess with anything on your system.

      Ah, but the firmware on the wireless card is running, effectively, at a higher privilege level than your kernel --- it can do things totally outside the kernel's control. Even if you are legally allowed to redistribute the image, how do you know what it's doing? Given that all your network traffic is passing through that thing, and that it's got complete unsupervised control over all the radio bandwidth it can eat, and that on some interfaces (such as PCI) they can even access host memory... there's a lot of scope for malicious behaviour. Without source, they can't be audited. That's what I mean by the binary blob problem.

      (The firmware source code probably includes lots of deeply patented and proprietry frequency-hopping and radio control software, which the FCC would be deeply unamused to have people play with; most likely there's also going to be a third-party embedded operating system, too, to make it all go. It would probably be a legal nightmare to release source.)

      (You're right in that there's not much difference between uploaded firmware and firmware in ROM --- it's just a variation of the same problem.)

  4. Re:Scientist's viewpoint by Walpurgiss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember feeling that way around when the internet was gaining traction. It was so hard to find a linux compatible modem in stores since almost everything at the time was a winmodem piece of trash that let windows control everything and had almost no on board processing. I couldn't believe how many hardware vendors wouldn't be bothered to make standalone modems, instead opting for the cheaper windows only idea. Though with my current laptop I got lucky, had an atheros chipset that was supported by madwifi. Took some tooling around to get WPA-PSK to work; but it's ok now.

  5. Re:Scientist's viewpoint by mdm-adph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been using Linux from the early days, mostly for scientific computing. For that it is great. But the problem is that linux has so many driver complications, and users tend to blame it on the companies that make the devices, and things never go anywhere as a result. Well, the only driver problems I've ever had with Linux have been with ATI cards (which is ATI's fault) and the aforementioned wireless mess, and I still don't see how this isn't the fault of the companies. But, if I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me.
    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  6. I agree by cjonslashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In fact, I am an experienced IT professional, and I have only a vague idea what you are talking about. The fact is, I do not spend my time studying the innards of Linux: I have other kinds of issues that I worry about. I am sure I could get a WiFi card working on Linux if I put my mind to it, and edit the right files, find the right drivers, and upgrade the BIOS as required, but I have no inclination to spend the many hours required to learn all those picky details - which I will then forget because I will not use them again. The fact is, if one has to do this, you can kiss Linux goodbye for the typical user. If Linux cannot be made to work with most (like 99%) built-in and third party devices (graphics, WiFi, sound, Bluetooth, etc.) out of the box or with *easily* found drivers - without having to edit files - then it is not a viable desktop for the typical home user. Further, it should be installable from Windows - without having to create an ISO disk and boot. These are far bigger issues than whether the scheduler is "fair" or whether the GUI is KDE or Gnome. Who cares if you can't get it running with an hour of point-and-click effort? It will then never be adopted by the masses, unless manufacturers decide to ship it pre-installed.

  7. Take the time to buy the right hardware... by Kludge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a complete load of hot air when articles claim how easy it is to setup wireless Internet on Linux machines


    I just installed Fedora 7, and I am managing multiple wireless networks with NetworkManager, no configuration at all. Zilch.

    Of course, I have a 5 year old Dell. People think they can buy whatever hardware they want and just have it work. No. You have to be selective. That's why my 3D desktop runs on Intel video.

    Buy companies that support open source from the beginning, dammit, or other companies will never see the use of providing drivers or specs PERIOD.

    1. Re:Take the time to buy the right hardware... by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I want an operating system, not a political movement.

      then support that operating system by buying hardware that it is allowed to interact with by the vendor. activism is also sometimes pragmatic you know.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    2. Re:Take the time to buy the right hardware... by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 3, Informative

      I want an operating system, not a political movement.

      Richard Stallman didn't want a political movement either. He wanted to work around a flaky printer. Unfortunately, reality can be such that a political movement is necessary in order to obtain the things that many of us think should be able to be taken for granted.

      --
      http://outcampaign.org/
  8. There's Still a Problem With Wireless? by filesiteguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm confused. The past three notebooks I've owned have all been immediately recognized as using WiFi cards with accompanying drivers.

    Seriously, I think the article is trying to find a solution in the wrong area. If I want a laptop and I plan to use Linux (which I always do) then I plan to get a wifi card compatible with such. I have no idea how ndiswrapper works and have no plans to ever use it.

    My most recent notebook - an HP/Compaq nw9440 - came with the option of a Broadcom or an Intel wireless card. I went with Intel for the simple fact that I know intel works.

    Sure enough, wireless was up and running as soon as I installed SUSE 10.2 on the machine. (It initially came with Vista but I upgraded pretty quickly.)

    The answer to WiFi is to ensure the manufacturers supply drivers - open source or not - to their chipsets, since they're no longer putting them in the firmware. Intel does. I believe Broadcom is now. Anybody else?

    End of story.

    --
    The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
  9. Re:Atheros names/brands/sources would be nice by Roofus · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://linux-wless.passys.nl/. Just search the complete listing and look for the Atheros chipset.

  10. Buy Intel by kilgortrout · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's generally the solution to the wireless problem in linux. Get a notebook with an intel based wireless card built in. And if you don't want to fool around with graphics drivers for 3d acceleration, do the same - buy a laptop with integrated intel graphics.

  11. Re:The all OS solution by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since i have a Medion Mim with some proprietry medion chipset, i'm stuck with no wireless for ubuntu.. :(
    the driver doesnt work with NDIS wrapper either...
    of course...
    that doesn't stop me using debian stable on my desktop!

    It's not pretty, but I found a solution which even works with old Windows 95 (for testing) and enables full WBA encryption. It works on any OS that can use the wired NIC in a machine. Are you ready...

    Use an access point which is capable of Client Mode operation. I use a D-Link AP in client mode. I configure it with my browser. It requires no software install of any kind. Testing was done on the D-link AP and now a Linksys 54G router has been added to my travel pack because it cost less (lucky find, a version 4 for $12 at Goodwill).

    I have been running wireless with an AP in client mode since Breezy Badger. Upgrading the firmware to DD-WRT has added the client mode. As a bonus, you get to use high gain antennas with much better range than a stock laptop provides, and the power is adjustable for use in poor signal locations. The router does the site survey for you internally, so you don't even need to know the SSID ahead of time. It is as simple as switching to either client or client bridge mode, scanning, choosing an AP, and picking the encryption and entering the key. After that it's net, nothing but net.

    There are hardware solutions out there. The package may be a little big and bulky and not run on self contained batteries, but it provides excellent connections in hotels in marginal reception areas. With the external box, it can be positioned in a window where the neighbors open AP may provide better bandwidth than the hotel provides. I went to a Starbucks once not knowing the wireless wasn't free (T-mobile). I was able to find 2 unsecured APs from inside Starbucks to use instead. Nobody at Starbucks was the wiser. It beats getting busted for sitting in a car leaching on some residential street.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!