Broadcom Releases Source Code For Drivers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Broadcom Releases Source Code For Drivers

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 9, 2010 @07:40AM from the they-sure-get-my-goodwill dept.

I'm Not There (1956) writes "Broadcom, the world's largest manufacturer of Wi-Fi transceivers, open sources its Linux device drivers. This is a big win for Linux users, as there are a lot of users that face Wi-Fi problems when they use Linux on their laptops. With these device drivers now open source, distributions can ship them out-of-the-box, and that means no Linux Wi-Fi problems for new devices and upcoming distributions at all."

350 comments

Hahahahahaha by JonJ · 2010-09-09 07:42 · Score: -1, Troll

and that means no Linux Wi-Fi problem for new devices and upcoming distributions at all.
Yeah, because the drivers with source code always works flawlessly. What a bunch of bullshit.

--
-- Linux user #369862
1. Re:Hahahahahaha by C3c6e6 · 2010-09-09 07:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  No one is saying that device drives will magically start working flawlessly because their source code is open, although it will make it easier to track down bugs (see Linus Torvalds' quote about the number of eyeballs).
  The main point, however, is that now Linux distributions can ship these drives out of the box, so wireless devices will work straight away. Until now the biggest (and dare I say only?) problem I've had with installing Linux on a laptop is finding and installing the right drivers for wireless network cards.
2. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  Uh... the manufacturer is providing open source drivers for their hardware. Except for random edge cases, yeah... drivers tend to work reliably. What are you smoking?
3. Re:Hahahahahaha by JonJ · 2010-09-09 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Oh, lighten the hell up guys, troll? Seriously? Just because I'm pointing out that the open drivers have their fair share of issues too? Open Source is not some magic pixie dust that makes the drivers impervious to mistakes, I'm very happy that it's open source because that means that I might be able to install Fedora on my IdeaPad without wrestling with the broadcom driver(It's sort of working now), but you can't possibly believe that open sourcing the driver will remove every issue with it?
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
4. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Not bullshit at all. It means that programmers can now fix the code and release stable versions with linux updates. Meaning (virtually) no problems for Broadcom wifi in future releases and updates.
  Yes - hooray!
5. Re:Hahahahahaha by armanox · 2010-09-09 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  The big thing isn't that they're open sourcing the driver - it's that Broadcom is releasing a Linux driver. Open Sourcing it is icing on the cake, but the main point is that the driver is from Broadcom for their hardware.
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
6. Re:Hahahahahaha by JonJ · 2010-09-09 07:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's what the text says though, or do you have a problem reading the quote?
  
  and that means no Linux Wi-Fi problem for new devices and upcoming distributions at all.
  
  Just do a quick search for rt2x00 bugs, they've been open sourced a long time, and still has plenty of bugs and failures. It's not magic, it wont' make all problems go away. Yet, that's what the claim is.
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
7. Re:Hahahahahaha by JonJ · 2010-09-09 07:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They've had a binary driver out for some time, I'm using broadcom-sta on my IdeaPad.
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
8. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  huh? i've been using the proprietary wl driver for years.
9. Re:Hahahahahaha by armanox · 2010-09-09 08:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Maybe I'm about a year behind on Broadcom on Linux, but last I looked you had to use NDISWrapper with the Windows driver to get it to work, and Broadcom had no actual driver (was using a 2007 era HP Laptop).
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
10. Re:Hahahahahaha by JonJ · 2010-09-09 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's probably a couple of years behind, actually.
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
11. Re:Hahahahahaha by gomiam · 2010-09-09 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, you get modded Flamebait because your comment is it. Because it would have taken you less words to just say something in the line of...
  
  and that means no Linux Wi-Fi problem for new devices and upcoming distributions at all.
  That is, no problems besides those in the open sourced code.
  But you had to be innecessarily agressive. Well, you reap what you sow.
  (And no, this comment isn't Insightful or anything else; actually I probably HBT).
12. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  (see Linus Torvalds' quote about the number of eyeballs)
  I'm pretty sure that was E.S.R, who called it Linus's Law. Probably from his Cathedral and the Bazaar book. Remember that? Or him, come to think of it :D
13. Re:Hahahahahaha by ciggieposeur · 2010-09-09 08:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  See the b43 driver and b43-fwcutter utility.
14. Re:Hahahahahaha by JonJ · 2010-09-09 08:22 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  It's not agressive, it's the truth. I didn't wrap it up in fancy words or diplomatic blurb. It's bullshit, and it's hyperbolic bullshit. But apparantly all the 12 year olds with Ubuntu has mod points today, and I probably offended their religion. So it's not that big of a deal, but it's annoying to see how little it takes to get modded down when it's only the truth. I guess the truth hurts.
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
15. Re:Hahahahahaha by toppings · 2010-09-09 08:26 · Score: 1
  (And no, this comment isn't Insightful or anything else; actually I probably HBT).
  
  Have Better Teeth?
  Harass Baton Twirlers?
  Head-Butt Tinkerbell?
16. Re:Hahahahahaha by FourthAge · 2010-09-09 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, agreed.
  The big problem with Linux Wifi is not necessarily the drivers, but the usability of the rest of the stack. On Windows and Mac it's easy to connect to a wireless network; you can do it in a few clicks and enter a password, because the Wifi tool is part of the GUI. Then you are done.
  On Linux, the Wifi tool may (or may not) be part of your desktop environment. There may be several possibilities for your desktop environment and included in your distribution. As a new user, you will not know which is the right one. If you find the right one, then it may (or may not) work. If it does work, then it may support WPA2 and other modern Wifi standards, or it may be limited to WEP. Finally, even if everything has worked so far, it may (or may not) remember the settings for next time.
  No wonder we all end up hacking wpa_supplicant.conf.
  It's good that we get driver source code. Thanks Broadcom. But really, thanks to ndiswrapper (awesome software!) drivers haven't been a big issue for a while. The rest of the stack is, as always, the problem.
  
  --
  The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
17. Re:Hahahahahaha by domatic · 2010-09-09 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As a counterpoint, I found it dead easy with Ubuntu Netbook Remix on an Asus 701. It was about as many clicks and menus as it takes on OS X and WinXP. Now a given distribution may not always make it that easy for you but this should basically be solved for the distros intended for desktop use.
18. Re:Hahahahahaha by Animats · 2010-09-09 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  No one is saying that device drives will magically start working flawlessly because their source code is open, although it will make it easier to track down bugs (see Linus Torvalds' quote about the number of eyeballs).
  Microsoft has something better than "eyeballs": the Static Driver Verifier. This has been under development for a few years, and now, Windows 7 drivers don't get signed unless they pass static verification.
  This is real proof of correctness, in actual production use. It doesn't guarantee that the driver will run the device properly, but it does guarantee that the driver won't crash the OS.
19. Re:Hahahahahaha by sammyF70 · 2010-09-09 08:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  hmm .. I still have to see a driver for any wireless card that crashes linux. Worst case scenario, it just doesn't work, which was incidentally the problem I had with my broadcom adapter on an Acer Aspire One D250. but crash the OS? not really, no.
  
  --
  "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
20. Re:Hahahahahaha by FourthAge · 2010-09-09 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. And I'm glad that recent Ubuntus have improved in this regard.
  
  --
  The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
21. Re:Hahahahahaha by Andorin · 2010-09-09 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  > But apparantly all the 12 year olds with Ubuntu has mod points today, and I probably offended their religion.
  You really can't understand why you're getting modded down? That comment is essentially a troll.
  
  --
  That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
22. Re:Hahahahahaha by glennpratt · 2010-09-09 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  That whole paragraph looks like it was run through Google Translate, it's kind of silly to pick it apart line by line.
  I'd assume the sentence you quote meant there won't be problems including drivers as new models are released or in various distributions that have different policies about non-GPL binaries.
23. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  /facepalm
24. Re:Hahahahahaha by Nikker · 2010-09-09 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  The only real difference between the open source driver and a proprietary one is the project manager behind it. Company X releases a driver for device Y and it is working slowly, eats memory like mad and crashes when the load is high, but it does function. It comes back to the project manager to decide "do I care enough to ask upper management to give me money to fix these issues?" and "if I do ask will upper management care?". The answer to both of these questions will likely be "NO!", reason being if you speak to upper management and tell them the current implementation works but lacks in these cases, a small percentage of the user base is unhappy, management will likely say it's fine the way it is get back to work on the next greatest thing. Open source is driven on making the end user happy so while it still takes the same if not more time to get to the same goals overall the project stays open and progresses adding more features and fixing bugs continuously until reports disappear.
  
  That is why Open Source is not magic but it is not run by people who don't know what is going on either ;)
  
  --
  A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
25. Re:Hahahahahaha by causality · 2010-09-09 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  > But apparantly all the 12 year olds with Ubuntu has mod points today, and I probably offended their religion. You really can't understand why you're getting modded down? That comment is essentially a troll.
  He understands it in terms of "it's always someone else's fault". That isn't really something you can fix despite how easy it is to demonstrate that it's wrong and a puerile way to look at things.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
26. Re:Hahahahahaha by Kjella · 2010-09-09 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Just do a quick search for rt2x00 bugs, they've been open sourced a long time, and still has plenty of bugs and failures. It's not magic, it wont' make all problems go away. Yet, that's what the claim is.
  Well yes if the released source is crap and the documentation is equally crap so you can't figure out how to fix it then GIGO it is. But Linux doesn't have the luxury of being prioritized as highly as Windows or Mac except for server components, I would say in 99% of the cases open source is better than closed source. Then at least you can fix obvious logic errors or overflows that you don't need chip documentation to understand. This is one big step closer to installing Linux and having it all Just Work(tm). That's actually the biggest advantage of in-kernel open source drivers, nothing as annoying as having to drag out a cable to get online for updates and troubleshooting. Almost anything else can be fixed as long as you get online...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
27. Re:Hahahahahaha by HermMunster · 2010-09-09 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wireless, for the most part, works very well under Linux. If you were unable to get the linux version to work you could always use the windows version via ndiswrapper.
  In the past year alone I have seen a significantly reduced instance of wireless driver issues as the open source community has worked out so many of the problems. Though, you had to install them after you installed the distribution--you were told there were proprietary hardware drivers available (automatically). You needed only a couple clicks and a reboot to make them work.
  This provides a way to have wireless work without the need to be prompted for proprietary drivers and the reboot.
  If there was a reason to complain, and there was about 2 year ago, wireless is where it was at. Linux didn't bring joy all the time, especially in certain HP laptops. Even so, it seems every week I have to deal with issues with a customer's wireless device under Windows XP, Vista, or Win7 (though not as often under Win7). It isn't a joy to work with them under Windows either.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
28. Re:Hahahahahaha by gomiam · 2010-09-09 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Have Been Trolled :)
29. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:30 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Who's "we all"? I haven't touched wpa_supplicant.conf for a long time. The two leading wireless configuration systems, NetworkManager and Wicd, both have GUIs making it very easy to connect. Any modern GUI distro will have one of them.
30. Re:Hahahahahaha by zMaile · 2010-09-09 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  I see some inconsistency between your sig and comment...
31. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:39 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The big problem with Linux Wifi is not necessarily the drivers, but the usability of the rest of the stack. On Windows and Mac it's easy to connect to a wireless network; you can do it in a few clicks and enter a password, because the Wifi tool is part of the GUI. Then you are done.
  Wow. Exactly the opposite exerience from mine. My corporate Windows laptop has three different network management apps -- I have no idea why -- and a separate VPN app. None of those seem simple, and whenever I have to use Windows I'm a little lost with them. In linux I have Networkmanager that does everything networking related.
32. Re:Hahahahahaha by Guspaz · 2010-09-09 09:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Keep in mind that Broadcom wireless chipsets are used in a staggering number of linux-based embedded devices, such as the venerable WRT54G.
33. Re:Hahahahahaha by KazW · 2010-09-09 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately I have had wireless drivers (ath5k/ath9k + hostapd) cause a kernel panic, although after completely rebuilding the server after the 3 years it had been in service fixed the issue, so it may have been a bad link to a system library. (Yes, I mean both ath5k and ath9k had the issue, I installed a newer wireless N card to see if it was a hardware issue, it made the kernel panic as well)
  
  --
  Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
34. Re:Hahahahahaha by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-09 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  hmm .. I still have to see a driver for any wireless card that crashes linux. Worst case scenario, it just doesn't work, which was incidentally the problem I had with my broadcom adapter on an Acer Aspire One D250. but crash the OS? not really, no.
  I guess I was fortunate: every distro I've tried on my Thinkpad R40 has worked right out of the box. Then again, Thinkpads were always pretty Linux friendly.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
35. Re:Hahahahahaha by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-09 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  I see some inconsistency between your sig and comment...
  Shhhh! Be careful, or the conflict may cause a breakdown in his positronic brain..
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
36. Re:Hahahahahaha by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-09 10:20 · Score: 2, Funny
  (And no, this comment isn't Insightful or anything else; actually I probably HBT).
  
  Have Better Teeth?
  Harass Baton Twirlers?
  Head-Butt Tinkerbell?
  This is Slashdot. Has Big Tits.
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
37. Re:Hahahahahaha by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-09 10:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  As a counterpoint, I found it dead easy with Ubuntu Netbook Remix on an Asus 701. It was about as many clicks and menus as it takes on OS X and WinXP. Now a given distribution may not always make it that easy for you but this should basically be solved for the distros intended for desktop use.
  I agree. I found Ubuntu and also OpenSUSE both pretty painless on my Thinkpad. The only problem I had with either of them was that they wouldn't control the CPU fan (but that's a known issue with this model's embedded controller firmware.)
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
38. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Except that having to use ndiswrapper sucks, it's a kludgy workaround, this is a nice native solution that is a real fix.
39. Re:Hahahahahaha by armanox · 2010-09-09 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not so much. I've been quite happy using my Toshibas. The ath5k in my A105 and the rtl8192e in my A505D have served quite nicely. For the short period I had the HP (from Oct. 07 till Jan 08) I used NDISWrapper without too much hassle. That, and my sig also references my Desktop, all of which I've never had major driver issues. NDISWrapper took a whole 30 minutes to figure out. Considering that the rest of everything worked fairly smoothly (including fglrx), certainly closer to "Just works" then Windows ever came as far as driver installations go.
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
40. Re:Hahahahahaha by armanox · 2010-09-09 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  We have them now? Awesomeness.
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
41. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  I'm 33 years old running openSUSE. I would have modded you down. The way you say things does matter.
  
  Yeah, because the drivers with source code always works flawlessly. What a bunch of bullshit.
  It sounds as if you were on a rant against open source instead of a rant about how the article is clearly wrong. There's no such thing as flawless drivers (which has nothing to do with source availability and licensing).
  Even if I didn't mod you down at first, I would have modded you down later because of the way you're carrying on. Calling moderators "12 year olds" and implying that only Ubuntu has something to do with that demographic certainly won't get you much respect.
  I've modded people down, who were completely on the mark, because they ended their remarks with name calling. You don't have to be diplomatic, but that's not an excuse to be outright antisocial. (People would do well to ask themselves if their post encourages discussion or weather it encourages name calling.)
  There's a lot of truth in the troll moderations you have received.
  
  I guess the truth hurts.
  Bingo baby, bingo.
42. Re:Hahahahahaha by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-09 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  We have them now? Awesomeness.
  Yes, and not only do they run Linux but they're open-source and use Broadcom chipsets.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
43. Re:Hahahahahaha by hedwards · 2010-09-09 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I use easy peasy on my eeepc 900. It works well, it's a shame that Asus couldn't have chosen them as the default. Although, the Ubuntu netbook remix is not bad at all either. Really it's better than the Xandros copy they included complete with broken repositories.
44. Re:Hahahahahaha by QuantumBeep · 2010-09-09 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Two words: Creative Labs
45. Re:Hahahahahaha by HermMunster · 2010-09-09 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ndiswrapper is just like any other GUI based app. You download the drivers extract them, and then the rest is point and click.
  I'm really getting tired of hearing things like this from people that have no idea what they are talking about.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
46. Re:Hahahahahaha by petermgreen · 2010-09-09 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't guarantee that the driver will run the device properly, but it does guarantee that the driver won't crash the OS.
  I don't see how thats possible. My understanding of a bus master DMA based system (e.g. pretty much any PCI or PCIe based system) is that part of "running the device" is telling the device where to DMA to.
  When devices can easilly crash the system without help from a driver it seems unlikely any driver verifier could prevent a driver intentionally or unintentionally crashing the system.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
47. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  Clearly he should be modded up. He points out that Ubuntu is so easy a 12 year old can operate it. +5 informative! Talk about a win for Linux on the Desktop!!!!!
  Move over Apple and Microsoft! Time to get Linux in the schools.
48. Re:Hahahahahaha by geminidomino · 2010-09-09 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh... I've had nothing but trouble with my Soundblaster Cards for years now.
  Let me ask sincerely: If one wants decent audio quality (not "audiophile" but better than on-board), what's a good, Linux-friendly alternative?
49. Re:Hahahahahaha by LingNoi · 2010-09-09 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  distributions can ship them out-of-the-box, and that means no Linux Wi-Fi problems for new devices and upcoming distributions at all.
  Context is important. It's obvious the submitter is talking about problems with distribution, not software bugs.
50. Re:Hahahahahaha by LingNoi · 2010-09-09 17:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You're a troll because you quoted out of context..
  Your quote..
  
  and that means no Linux Wi-Fi problem for new devices and upcoming distributions at all.
  Full quote..
  
  With these device drivers now open source, distributions can ship them out-of-the-box, and that means no Linux Wi-Fi problems for new devices and upcoming distributions at all.
  It was obviously about distribution problems however you misquoted and made a strawman out of the issue, hence why you've been modded troll.
51. Re:Hahahahahaha by LingNoi · 2010-09-09 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  How do you download drivers if your wifi isn't working? It's a kludgy workaround compared having a proper driver that works from the live CD.
52. Re:Hahahahahaha by swillden · 2010-09-09 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  This is real proof of correctness
  Proof? Really? Someone should tell Turing!
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
53. Re:Hahahahahaha by arivanov · 2010-09-09 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  For the WiFi Broadcom has had working closed source drivers for a very long time. One of my machines is a Lenovo S10e which I bought in March 2009, defenestrated it and installed Debian day one. It has been using the closed source Linux driver from Broadcom website. The original 2009 release had some problems with WPA which they fixed. After that it just worked - hibernate, resume, everything.
  As pointed elsewhere on this thread Broadcom is every second wireless enabled embedded device with Linux. So its closed source driver gets some very heavy testing on a variety of CPUs and architectures. As a result it is of very reasonable quality. If they have forked this closed source one or have released a parallel development open source one I would not be so sure that it will achieve higher code quality because it will be getting LESS eyeballs, not more. I guess I need to have a look at what exactly did they opensource here.
  
  --
  Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
  http://www.sigsegv.cx/
54. Re:Hahahahahaha by frehe · 2010-09-09 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  If one wants decent audio quality (not "audiophile" but better than on-board), what's a good, Linux-friendly alternative?
  I don't know if this is too expensive for you, but I bought a NuForce uDAC a month ago. It works perfectly in Ubuntu 10.04, it' very convenient and robustly built, it sounds great with my Sennheiser HD 600s headphones, and it can also be connected to a bigger amplifier to drive ordinary speakers.
  The model I have:
  http://www.nuforce.com/hp/products/iconudac/
  A newer version of the same:
  http://www.nuforce.com/hp/products/iconudac2/
55. Re:Hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  see Linus Torvalds' quote about the number of eyeballs
  Just in case people start to forget it, this is called "Linus' Law" and Linus Torvalds had nothing to do with it. It was coined by Eric Raymond and can be found in his book "the Cathedral and the Bazaar".
  AC
56. Re:Hahahahahaha by Muad'Dave · 2010-09-10 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  ...defenestrated it...
  That must be one tough PC to survive being thrown out of a window.
  You did the inverse - you threw Windows out of _it_.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
57. Re:Hahahahahaha by geminidomino · 2010-09-10 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, not to expensive. I've generally spent nearly that every time I bought a new Audigy for the past 10 years.
58. Re:Hahahahahaha by HermMunster · 2010-09-10 05:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Most drivers under Ubuntu/Linux don't need to be installed. It just works. It isn't like Windows.
  To address your question, I would reply that you do it the same way you do it in Windows. Connect up the wired port or use a second machine.
  In the case that the drivers aren't there you often, in the case of Ubuntu, are prompted telling you that you have proprietary drivers available. At that point you can just click a few buttons and have them installed. They will automatically be downloaded and installed.
  If there are none, which is exceptionally rare, then you can get the windows driver, extract them, and use the tool provided with ndiswrapper to install them by pointing to the folder where the drivers are located, select your driver, and go from there. The tool has a graphical UI and is exceptionally easy.
  But, that's only useful about 1/2 the time. When you consider the vast number of installs already covered the failed percentage isn't bad. Under Windows I have had the same issue where drivers weren't available. In fact, on a current unit I'm working on there are no SiS drivers for video for Win7. To get the wired drivers working I had to use XP drivers to start, which isn't always a good idea.
  In the past when there was a large number of people that wanted to go from Vista to XP the computer manufacturer often wouldn't provide XP drivers. That meant that you had to have some pretty expansive knowledge of computers to know to go looking for models, even from other manufacturers that provided XP drivers for the chip-sets governing the device you wanted drivers for and to download those from them. Often you had to look far and wide, and you had to have the knowledge to identify the chip-sets because you weren't given this information by XP. To help you could always boot from an Ubuntu live CD, open a terminal prompt and type "lspci" (without the quotes). Then write down the components and look for the appropriate driver as described above.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
59. Re:Hahahahahaha by LingNoi · 2010-09-10 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  You've written all this and failed to address the point at hand.
  You state Ubuntu is point, click to download and install the drivers failing to address my point about how you do that when you can not connect to the internet via wifi.
  You make the comparison that ndiswrapper is no better then windows. Great, but I don't care about windows and their failures. Just because it's no better then windows doesn't absolve it from being mess. Drivers in the kernel are a much better solution.
60. Re:Hahahahahaha by lamapper · 2010-09-11 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not only has it NOT been a problem for years...device drivers in Linux...there are literally more device drivers for linux than ANY operating system in the history of computers.
  The problems with proprietary hardware are easy to avoid...don't purchase proprietary hardware, ever.
  Two great sources for PC hardware that will run anything are ZaReason and System 76. Avoid any company that is stupid enough to pay a Microsoft Tax (can you say LinPro as they use hardware that is rigged to only work with Microsoft Windows and break under Linux.) as they are using hardware that will not work readily with all Linux distros.
  You can even install Windows on them if you want, but all the hardware is configured knowing from day 1 that it will run under Linux. If the hardware will not run under Linux, it is not used...problem solved.
  To add an additional layer of security, learn about hardware, and for any company that ships hardware that will not work with Linux and refuse to immediately fix it or provide information so others can fix it...do not buy any hardware or software from them for a minimum of 7 years since the last "Linux-Show-Stopper" event. If we all did that, no company would dare release BS hardware that does not work with Linux on day 1, as they would lose your business for 7 years, with the clock getting restarted at each new occurrence.
  Thus their words NO LONGER MATTER, only their actions! If after 7 years of good behavior, once again add them to your list of bonafide companies to do business with. For definition of bonafide, see O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000)
  
  --
  Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
61. Re:Hahahahahaha by PastaLover · 2010-09-12 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Except half of the time it doesn't actually work. Not to mention you can forget about putting your laptop to sleep and reconnecting the wireless when (if!) it wakes back up.
  I'm really getting tired of hearing things like this from people that have no idea what they are talking about.
Does this mean I can do packet injection? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:42 · Score: 0

I know alot of the chipsets didn't support it and I ended up buying an external atheros a ways back. Albeit, cracking wifi network is mostly a shits and giggles operation - it can come in handy occasionally. So, does anyone know if open source driver = packet injection or is it limited at the hardware level?
Oh and of the course, the obligatory hoorah for open source.
FP by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:43 · Score: -1, Offtopic

First Post
1. Re:FP by oldspewey · 2010-09-09 07:45 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Take heart - you're still in the running for lamest post.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
2. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Lamest Post
Sweet by oldspewey · 2010-09-09 07:43 · Score: 0

Now maybe I'll finally be able to get wireless working on my two Dell laptops!

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
1. Re:Sweet by veganboyjosh · 2010-09-09 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, "Will 2010 be the year of Linux on the laptop"?
2. Re:Sweet by mr_mischief · 2010-09-09 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Which Dell laptops? My old Inspiron 6000 works great out of the box with several distributions, especially Mandriva (who knew using a distro known for its hardware detection would help with detecting and setting up hardware? Hmmm...). Then again, I got one with the Intel PRO/Wireless 2200BG. As I understand it, Dell still sells plenty of models with newer versions of the Intel wireless hardware, which has been well-supported for years.
3. Re:Sweet by oldspewey · 2010-09-09 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Latitude D620 and Latitude E6400. Both have given me nothing but WiFi heartache.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
About Time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:43 · Score: -1, Redundant

Seriously
This is fantastic by Demanufacture · 2010-09-09 07:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Congratulations Broadcom, you have just made at least one geek very happy.
While you're at it, any chance of releasing the source for your video decoders? I promise that you will own the HTPC market if you do.

--
--- "When you're strange"
1. Re:This is fantastic by dubbreak · 2010-09-09 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations Broadcom, you have just made at least one geek very happy.
  It would be more if they had done this years ago. I have many not so fond memories of trying to configure broadcom cards under linux. I can partially blame the status of my hair on broadcom wireless cards.
  
  Broadcom, you owe me sleep retroactively and some thicker hair!!!
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
2. Re:This is fantastic by grub · 2010-09-09 08:02 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I can partially blame the status of my hair on broadcom wireless cards.
  
  Broadcom wireless cards made you get a Brazilian wax? Weird.
  
  ...
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
3. Re:This is fantastic by BobNET · 2010-09-09 08:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  While you're at it, any chance of releasing the source for your video decoders?
  You mean like this, or something else?
4. Re:This is fantastic by Andrew+Cooper · 2010-09-09 08:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well yeah. Getting a Brazilian was listed as an important step on the forum I was using to get my wireless card working. And I got it working so the wax job must have helped, right?
5. Re:This is fantastic by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  I promise that you will own the HTPC market if you do.
  What the hell is a 'hot top pc?'
6. Re:This is fantastic by ThatMegathronDude · 2010-09-09 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Home Theater PC
7. Re:This is fantastic by Fitch · 2010-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Amen! This is a long anticipated move that is very much appreciated. Way to go Broadcom.
  Now what will it take to get you to apply the same logic to your 7400 series video SOCs. And get Realtek onboard while you're at it. You would sell product like the proverbial hotcakes...
8. Re:This is fantastic by Dishevel · 2010-09-09 09:04 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Whosh.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
9. Re:This is fantastic by dgatwood · 2010-09-09 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Alternatively, why do high temperature PCs need special drivers? Special solder, sure, but....
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
10. Re:This is fantastic by skyride · 2010-09-09 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Same here. My 3 year old Dell Laptop has a broadcom wifi chipset and this has been the single biggest source of hassle i've had with linux on it.
11. Re:This is fantastic by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  If Broadcom gives you your hair back, call me.
12. Re:This is fantastic by mirix · 2010-09-09 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is excellent. I've been having to run 2.4 on the routers I've been hacking with, because that was the only kernel they had a binary blob for, iirc. Should definitely make things easier.
  Now if they'd release pinouts of their chips without a fucking NDA, I might not consider them to be evil anymore.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
13. Re:This is fantastic by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  a byte late to the party, don't ya think ?
  jr
14. Re:This is fantastic by mr_mischief · 2010-09-09 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  One with a Sony battery?
15. Re:This is fantastic by xonicx · 2010-09-09 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  How is this news? Driver source is available in android git from a long time.
16. Re:This is fantastic by LingNoi · 2010-09-09 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  From the sound of it, looks like you're still in for problems as the code is only for their new 11n products.
17. Re:This is fantastic by Tacvek · 2010-09-10 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  That AFAICT covers a completely different chip. The drivers they just released do not download firmware blobs to the chip.
  These new drivers do contain some binary blobs in the form of tables without sufficent documentation as to what they are, and any hint of why for the values, but many look like they are just empirically derived parameters for the radio.
  They do have a few tables of data to load as initial values for registers, and those really need to be documented. Similarly the codebase is huge, and while parts are reasonabby well documented, other parts are not. The code does not have any structure that is clear to me, although perhaps it makes good sense to those who develop wireless drivers. I really don't know.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
The world just got a bit nicer. :) by h4rm0ny · 2010-09-09 07:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Broadcom wirelss. Cause of a 100 page thread on the Ubuntu forums (and innumerable posts elsewhere) by people trying to get those bloody cards working under Linux.

So speaking as one of the many sufferers, how long before I can just slap Linux on an old Acer laptop and expect the wireless to just work?

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
1. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by CFBMoo1 · 2010-09-09 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Huzza! This could eventually make my life easier too!
  
  --
  ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
2. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:49 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Broadcom wirelss. Cause of a 100 page thread on the Ubuntu forums (and innumerable posts elsewhere) by people trying to get those bloody cards working under Linux.
  So speaking as one of the many sufferers, how long before I can just slap Linux on an old Acer laptop and expect the wireless to just work?
  You can try it today, and if it doesn't work, fix the driver.
3. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Rashkae · 2010-09-09 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Probably too late for Ubuntu 10.10, but I would expect these to be included with 11.04
4. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by melikamp · 2010-09-09 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe I am not a hardware kind of guy, but I've known of Broadcom chipsets for years and years, thanks to what seemed like a tireless effort to make their cards incompatible with Linux. This is a tremendous good news for the free software community. I think that we are at a place now where we should take a dysfunctional open-source driver over an apparently (!) perfect closed-sourced blob, since the latter is COMPLETELY useless in production due to the security considerations.
5. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by miknix · 2010-09-09 08:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  $ lspci
  (...)
  03:00.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4311 802.11b/g WLAN (rev 02)
  $ lsmod | grep b43
  b43 153329 0
  rng_core 3158 1 b43
  mac80211 128164 1 b43
  ssb 33383 1 b43
  My broadcom BCM5311 has been working just fine using the b43 drivers included in Linux; they are there for quite some time..
  Good news for everyone though. This means new broadcom hardware support and improvement of current GPLd drivers.
6. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by nine-times · 2010-09-09 08:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I've never really understood: why don't more hardware companies open the source for their drivers? Is there super-secret special source in the drivers that they're trying to prevent their competitors from learning? Is it an issue of patents?
  It seems to me that drivers are an instance where opening the source should be a no-brainer. It's not like an application, where you're trying to sell the software. People still need to buy your hardware to make use of the drivers, so it's not like your customers will be inclined to stop buying things from you. I would image you could drastically lower the cost of supporting the drivers by opening them, though. You'll probably increase quality at the same time.
  I'm sure I'm missing something, though. Would someone enlighten me?
7. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  You can. I installed Arch Linux with wifi just fine on my Acer Aspire 3050 with the ath5k Atheros driver.
8. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by djdanlib · 2010-09-09 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  This seems like the kind of major win that would be worth delaying Ubuntu 10.10 for.
9. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it's something like the situation with graphics cards, where the hardware is identical but the different price points are for more or less powerful proprietary drivers?
10. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by networkBoy · 2010-09-09 08:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Often these drivers connect to registers in the hardware that are *not* public knowledge. In the case of WiFi and other "firmware" radios the driver often contains DSP code that would normally be in Si but is now in loadable firmware, thus the manufacturers want to keep that a secret.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
11. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  How about being proactive and being part of the solution and working with others to figure out how to fix it?
  After all, isn't that the driving force of opensource?
12. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by FrankSchwab · 2010-09-09 08:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  My company manufactures devices for PCs. We do NOT open source our drivers; I'll give you my two cents as to why:
  1. Licensing. Our drivers include licensed code from at least two other companies - code that implements algorithms seen as proprietary and valuable by those companies. We don't have the right to publish that code, and couldn't conceivably convince them to do so.
  2. Competitive advantage. We have several competitors in our market. The specs that Marketing puts on our datasheets might be optimistic in some scenarios. If we open-sourced our drivers, our competitors could easily demonstrate that to potential customers - if their drivers were closed, we would not have the equivalent opportunity to prove that their liars were worse than our liars.
  3. Support. If we publish source, we will end up fielding all kinds of questions from all kinds of people about all kinds of aspects of our product. Even if we simply answer "Go away" to all those queries, there's a lot of time spent reading and replying (or simply ignoring) them. Considering that we sell our products to OEMs for a few dollars, there just isn't any margin for end user support.
  4. Security. Say what you will about "security through obscurity", it still has a huge following in the corporate world. Publishing all your source code provides all kinds of opportunities for the scoundrels of the world to take advantage, from the PHB point of view.
  5. Financial. There is no business case to be made to disclose this proprietary information. If I'm not going to make money from something, why should I spend the time/effort to open source it, and perhaps give away information that my competitor could use?
  In Broadcom's case, there are probably others also - for example, publishing source for a Wireless card could allow operating the RF section beyond regulatory limits - transmitting/receiving out of band, transmitting with too much power, etc. This could jeopardize certification (such as FCC certification in the US) or subject the company to unwanted regulatory scrutiny.
  Does this help?
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
13. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:23 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Why? Here are the obvious ones:
  1. Paranoia
  2. Dislike for commie OSS
  3. Don't actually own the code to publish
  4. Code is really shit
  5. Contains many a fudge to work around bugs in the hardware
  Of course, none of these actually matter. All the HW companies have to do is publish the bloody spec sheets and programmers will do the driver themselves. In years gone by, all ICs came with data sheets. These days they're scared shitless of people understanding the very products they're trying to sell.
14. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by h4rm0ny · 2010-09-09 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think its a bit of a case by case basis. I know in the case ATI, when it was taken over by AMD, they wanted to release Open Source drivers as quickly as possible but couldn't straight away because third party companies had contributed parts of the driver software and it was under NDAs. I think it took them a little while to work around some of those issues, secure agreements, etc. In other cases, companies have things in their drivers that they don't necessarily want their competitors to be able to just grab or study. You might think that a hardware manufacturer only has value invested in the hardware itself. But if you think about it, that they're writing software to go with it, it's not unlikely that in some cases there is value in the software as well.
  
  Still, the mental shift for hardware companies is happening, thanks to the Free Software movement which is making Open Source drivers a saleable attribute both in terms of actual utility and in terms of PR.
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
15. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by h4rm0ny · 2010-09-09 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  You can try it today, and if it doesn't work, try to fix the driver.
  Fixed that for me.
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
16. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Hadlock · 2010-09-09 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Is that DSP code licensed from a third party or some sort of unpatentable trade secret?
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
17. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by chrb · 2010-09-09 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure I'm missing something, though. Would someone enlighten me?
  Corporate mentality. There are a lot of companies out there that just don't get it. They think that every little bit of code that they have under their control somehow gives them an advantage over the competition. The idea of giving away code after they paid to develop it just sounds wrong.
18. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by andrewd18 · 2010-09-09 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  From the B43 development website:
  
  not working yet * IEEE 802.11n
  That's all 802.11n devices. You know, those things that have been on the market for like 2 or 3 years? From TFA:
  
  Broadcom would like to announce the initial release of a fully-open Linux driver for it's latest generation of 11n chipsets.
19. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I had mod points I would have gladded modded you up, though only for your first point. I feel the rest are either washes (you mention bad potential problems without mentioning the potential good ones) or things that are borderline illegal (or should be).
  1. Great point, can't argue this one.
  2. Is the spirit of fraud, if commonplace and within the letter of the law, and should not be tolerated.
  3. Support, if your source is good enough, other people (the community) will actually do your support for you in many cases.
  4. Do I actually need to pick this point apart? While it is correct that many PHB believe it, it isn't actually true.
  5. There are plenty of business cases to be made for doing so. Free (unpaid by you at any rate) coders improving your device, and depending on license, being required to make those improvements available to you for starters.
20. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by scrib · 2010-09-09 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Even if it doesn't delay it, they could opt to ship with a "probably works" driver. A driver that might not work for all machines or that might break under certain conditions is far better than the current "no driver" situation. If it worked just well enough to connect and download an update, that would be great!
  
  --
  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
21. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Kjella · 2010-09-09 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I know in the case ATI, when it was taken over by AMD, they wanted to release Open Source drivers as quickly as possible but couldn't straight away because third party companies had contributed parts of the driver software and it was under NDAs. I think it took them a little while to work around some of those issues, secure agreements, etc.
  Actually, far more than that. They gave up on "washing" the internal code base and the open source drivers are essentially written from scratch with only slight one-way code sharing. In some cases yes they look at it to figure out how to program specific bits of hardware, but that's about it. And even that almost-from-scratch rewrite has to pass through a fairly serious legal review to make sure they're not revealing too much IP. Most of the shit in the graphics drivers is caused by DRM though, they can't release any low-level stuff or you would be able to see the DRM'd bits being moved around and decrypted, even if you don't know the DRM bits.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
22. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  It'll be long enough that you may as well get another laptop. This isn't going to change things overnight, so with short battery life & fast spec improvement, there's no point waiting with old hardware.
  The three hobbyhorse of the apocalypse for Linux on laptops are wireless, trackpads, and display. Wireless is probably the worst, so this Broadcom release is a very big deal.
  [If you want to trade your old Acer for similar, the Dell D610 works nearly perfect. Only "nearly" because apparently on Win and older Ubuntus you could go one step higher in display resolution. But I'd find that too small to read, so I'd say grab one -- it's the painless install you wanted. And it should get you along till this release affects new installs.]
23. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Hatta · 2010-09-09 08:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  1. Licensing. Our drivers include licensed code from at least two other companies - code that implements algorithms seen as proprietary and valuable by those companies.
  Release the rest, and provide descriptions of the missing algorithms. They'll be reimplemented in a week.
  if their drivers were closed, we would not have the equivalent opportunity to prove that their liars were worse than our liars.
  So don't lie.
  3. Support. If we publish source, we will end up fielding all kinds of questions from all kinds of people about all kinds of aspects of our product.
  Really? Do you think end users are really going to contact Broadcom? Or are they just going to go to the Ubuntu forums like they have been.
  4. Security.
  We all know that's bullshit.
  5. Financial. There is no business case to be made to disclose this proprietary information.
  But there is. Before today, if I wanted a wifi router I would only buy one with Atheros chips. Now I will seriously consider a Broadcom based product. I had never run ATI cards before they open sourced their drivers in 2007. Now I have an ATI card.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
24. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  If it got delayed past October, would it *really* be Ubuntu 10.10, though?
25. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by rahvin112 · 2010-09-09 09:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  5. Financial. There is no business case to be made to disclose this proprietary information. If I'm not going to make money from something, why should I spend the time/effort to open source it, and perhaps give away information that my competitor could use?
  You might find this hard to believe but the large OEM's (HP, Dell and all the others) are demanding Linux driver compliance in their OEM selection process. Linux is huge in the server market, particularly in visualization, is taking over the cell phone market and will one day be in the home. If you don't OSS your drivers you will lose OEM contracts and likely won't be told that you lost because you didn't have Linux drivers.
  Linux will one day be the dominant OS in all the backend servers, the dominant players in the largest percentage of Embedded devices (including cell phones) and in the future will dominate the desktop.
26. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by FrankSchwab · 2010-09-09 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  You might find this hard to believe but the large OEM's (HP, Dell and all the others) are demanding Linux driver compliance in their OEM selection process.
  
  You might find it hard to believe, but I'm intimately familiar with their requirements here for Linux driver compliance.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
27. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by tepples · 2010-09-09 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  we should take a dysfunctional open-source driver over an apparently (!) perfect closed-sourced blob, since the latter is COMPLETELY useless in production due to the security considerations.
  If this is true, it's only because Linux has no way to sandbox network drivers. Would a microkernel work better at this?
28. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by miknix · 2010-09-09 09:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I don't usually reply to trolls but..
  
  From the B43 development website [linuxwireless.org]:
  
  not working yet * IEEE 802.11n
  That's all 802.11n devices. You know, those things that have been on the market for like 2 or 3 years? From TFA:
  IEEE 802.11n is obviously backwards compatible with 802.11b/g, meaning that 802.11n chipsets should work with 802.11b/g protocols in b43.
  Besides, I was just informing people that the Broadcom BCM4311 *802.11b/g* (in case you missed it) works just fine with b43. 802.11n support or not, it doesn't change that fact.
29. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by orient · 2010-09-09 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Mandriva is able to use Broadcom wireless chipsets from the very beginning: during the installation process.
  
  --
  Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
30. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by FrankSchwab · 2010-09-09 09:17 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  1. I should spend a month or two of engineering time to write specifications for a block that isn't part of my core competency?
  2. Don't take "liar" literally. Marketing is always guilty of Puffery, and in the US this is acceptable. Datasheets always have specifications which, if taken out of context or tested outside the conditions in the tiny print, can be proven wrong. In the market, to remain a viable business, you have to "puff" as much as your competitors do - look at beer, cigarette, car, computer advertising. A company that lets the Engineering department write the marketing materials doesn't survive long. Frankly, our materials are a whole lot closer to reality than our competitors - we've never published wholesale lies, to the best of my knowledge, which isn't always true of those I've competed against.
  3. Yes, really.
  4. Yes, I know that's bullshit. Tell that to my CEO and CFO.
  5. OK, we'll lose your business - that's $3 worth of revenue that we won't receive, once. We hope that you'll see the value of our products in the future and be willing to consider us then.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
31. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by cptnapalm · 2010-09-09 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps. But perhaps a microkernel would be worse at everything else?
  Gotta make tradeoffs.
32. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Bert64 · 2010-09-09 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  If a higher display resolution makes things harder to read, you're doing it wrong...
  Font sizes are specified in points, 1 point is supposed to be 1/72 of an inch regardless of how many pixels are required to display it... So a higher resolution screen will just result in text which is more detailed while being the same physical size.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
33. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Lord+Ender · 2010-09-09 09:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I got so sick of trying to get my broadcom card working on Mythbuntu 10.04, I just gave up and bought Windows 7. By spending $99 on Windows I saved... how many hours of frustration?
  I tell friends: try linux. If it works on all your hardware without requiring you to dig through forums or edit text files, use it. Otherwise, save your time and sanity and get Windows. This action by broadcom means the people who take my advice will stick with linux :-)
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
34. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:23 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  5. Financial. There is no business case to be made to disclose this proprietary information.
  Wrong. I had reservations about Broadcom before because of their drivers. Now I do not. Given a choice between devices with open-source drivers and closed-source drivers, the only chance the closed-soruce vendor even has is if the open-source product is totally worthless
  Broadcom isn't.
  You have forfeited my business.
35. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by arth1 · 2010-09-09 09:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  IEEE 802.11n is obviously backwards compatible with 802.11b/g, meaning that 802.11n chipsets should work with 802.11b/g protocols in b43.
  Yes and no. This is only the case if the access point has fallback to the 2.4 GHz band, not if it runs exclusively in the 5 GHz band.
  I have two access points with 802.11 a/n, and can't connect to them with a b43 driver. I had to reconnect my old 802.11 b/g access point for that.
36. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Lord+Ender · 2010-09-09 09:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There is no business case to be made to [release linux drivers]
  Before I buy personal hardware, I check to see if it works well in Linux. Before my organization buys hardware, it requires that it work in linux, as the vast majority of our datacenter runs RedHat.
  Do you sell to businesses or computing enthusiasts? There's your business case. If you're selling to soccer mom's, well, then you would have a point.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
37. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by melikamp · 2010-09-09 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A great question. From the security standpoint, a working microkernel would make it possible to run some binary blobs safely, but, and this is really interesting, not a network driver. Never. Such a driver does not need to escalate anything. By definition, it already has the ultimate access to one piece of hardware that allows it to see all raw network traffic and connect in perfect secrecy to any host on the net. Secrecy from the OS, of course, not from a forensic tool down the wire, but the latter one cannot be guaranteed to work. And before I drop any cash on a stand-alone network monitor, I will at least consider simply buying a card that has a legit driver.
38. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by gknoy · 2010-09-09 09:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  1. I should spend a month or two of engineering time to write specifications for a block that isn't part of my core competency?
  Don't try to describe it all, just point out that function calls X/Y/Z are used, point them out, and talk about what they're expected to do.
  I don't believe the "implemented in a week" claim, but at least someone could build a black box that might meet your needs. If you said, "This sorts the $FLORBS", or "This needs to quickly calculate checksums for integrity" or "This needs to do ${COMPLICATED_MATH} quickly on ${STUFF}", people can at least try to implement it. An inefficient but working implementation will meet some people's needs, even if your proprietary drivers use code thich has been heavily optimized for speed, reliability, or correctness. Assuming anyone cares enough to write them.
39. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Kjella · 2010-09-09 09:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  1. Is usually not that easy, if it's licensed for use in the driver there might be bits of it many places. It'll take developer time and lawyer time to do, or you could risk a huge lawsuit.
  2. Being the honest loser of an OEM contract doesn't put food on the table.
  3. Common end users? No. But certainly some developers in the community will start asking hard questions and expect answers. If the driver isn't working well enough, the negative PR will hit the company, possibly worse than if they had no driver at all.
  4. It doesn't matter if we "know" it's bullshit, as long as PHBs believe it
  5. Invisible and unmeasurable sales. Nobody will know and can put in a business case that this is why you bought that router.
  I see a lot of these answers, that just say "well it's not a technical problem, so it's not real". Legal liability, losing contracts, bad PR, security concerns and no proven business case are problems even if they're just perceived to be problems. Unless you'd like to buy out some of these companies and bet your fortune on these problems not being real. Yes, I'm being overly pessimistic when I answered here, but it's too easy to think all they needed was a grocery list from slashdot. That's what everyone is looking for in a business case, what's the weaknesses you didn't include and is your downsides soberly assessed? Business cases that only deal with the sunshine scenarios don't usually get through.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
40. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by bit01 · 2010-09-09 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Your reasons seem pretty dubious to me.
  1. Licensing. Our drivers include licensed code from at least two other companies - code that implements algorithms seen as proprietary and valuable by those companies. We don't have the right to publish that code, and couldn't conceivably convince them to do so.
  So don't publish it then, it's not your responsibility in any case. People will either reverse engineer it or code replacements.
  2. Competitive advantage. We have several competitors in our market. The specs that Marketing puts on our datasheets might be optimistic in some scenarios. If we open-sourced our drivers, our competitors could easily demonstrate that to potential customers - if their drivers were closed, we would not have the equivalent opportunity to prove that their liars were worse than our liars.
  Performance is performance. Having the source doesn't change that. In the long term liars, whether yours or theirs, are going to be outed eventually regardless.
  3. Support. If we publish source, we will end up fielding all kinds of questions from all kinds of people about all kinds of aspects of our product. Even if we simply answer "Go away" to all those queries, there's a lot of time spent reading and replying (or simply ignoring) them. Considering that we sell our products to OEMs for a few dollars, there just isn't any margin for end user support.
  Oh, nonsense. Set up an archived mailing list, send occasional email messages detailing the situation (a good opportunity for marketing), and otherwise forget about it. Users will help themselves as best they can.
  4. Security. Say what you will about "security through obscurity", it still has a huge following in the corporate world. Publishing all your source code provides all kinds of opportunities for the scoundrels of the world to take advantage, from the PHB point of view.
  And identical opportunities for white hats also. There are far more white hats than black hats.
  5. Financial. There is no business case to be made to disclose this proprietary information. If I'm not going to make money from something, why should I spend the time/effort to open source it, and perhaps give away information that my competitor could use?
  WHy should others help you when you won't help them? Long term customer good will, bug fixes and general openness are not a good thing? I thought we lived in a free and open society where people try to help each other get ahead and improve. Win-win for everybody. Being small minded is usually not a good long term strategy in a civil society.
  In Broadcom's case, there are probably others also - for example, publishing source for a Wireless card could allow operating the RF section beyond regulatory limits - transmitting/receiving out of band, transmitting with too much power, etc.
  This is a well known problem. Put a warning and disclaimer in the relevant source code (you've done that anyway, right?) and otherwise forget about it. The people doing the modification are the one's responsible.
  This could jeopardize certification (such as FCC certification in the US) or subject the company to unwanted regulatory scrutiny.
  And it could also encourage certification as they see the openness and lack of deceptiveness with which the company operates. It's a wash.
  ---
  Testing is not a substitute for writing good code.
41. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Svartalf · 2010-09-09 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  That depends entirely on whether Broadcom was working with any of the distribution vendors while working on releasing it. If so, you might just see at least a "probably works" driver offered for 10.10. (As an aside, I find it interesting that 10.10 actually reported the mouse support for VirtualBox as it is... What else have they got in store for us this rev?)
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
42. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by jejones · 2010-09-09 09:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >Does this help?
  If you would, please do one more thing: name the company, so I can make a point of avoiding its products.
43. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by djdanlib · 2010-09-09 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They could wait until Nov. 12, and call it Ubuntu 10.11.12
44. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Hatta · 2010-09-09 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  1) You must have already written something up when hiring someone to write those algorithms the first time. Use that.
  2) Lying by marketers is never acceptable. If I can verify your claims by looking at your source code you have an instant advantage over competitors who make unverifiable claims.
  3) So how does this jibe with point 5? If you have a new swarm of customers trying to get support for your product, doesn't that prove that there's a financial case for opening the product?
  4) Fair enough, but I think the OP was asking for non-bullshit reasons.
  5) Here's another business case: You save money on development by having volunteers do the coding you'd have had to pay for otherwise. You also save money on support, as the open source driver will work better, and there will be a community forum where people will be able to get support.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
45. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Svartalf · 2010-09-09 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  1) Great reason (Probably the ONLY really good one, business reasons-wise, you've given- but even it has answers to it...). However, that's the driver functionality you're doing that with (and it leads to "why?" as a question to be asked next- much of the selfsame functionality is there in the Linux kernel without you needing to license anything; you can always build an abstraction layer that smooths away the needs with Windows and MacOS for proprietary license stuff in the driver layer.
  2) Really? I've seen this argument ran up a flagpole repeatedly- typically in the form of, "if they had our source code, they could fabricate a worst-case scenerio against our flaws in the silicon and make us look bad". Calling that "competitive advantage" is the typical play there- and it's merely being sloppy with the silicon and then hiding your sins in the driver layer. I know, at least two of my contract consulting clients for custom driver work have been in that baliwick.
  3) I'd say that you'd have to ask AMD about that one. I think you're going to find that they're not fielding ANYWHERE near the level of that sort of thing as you're implying. They seem to not be regretting what they've done with the Radeon info and have kept doing it right on with the latest stuff- along with helping where they saw it useful for their own goals.
  4) LAME. Seriously. Hiding security flaws by obscurity is a certain way to get someone to eventually stumble across your failings and misuse them. If you've got a bad design, FIX IT. If you can't fix it, don't be selling it. If you sell it, that'd be an EPIC FAIL on your company's part.
  5) I'll point to AMD (and Intel, for that matter) here- they seem to find that there's little to no problems. Same with HP, Epson, and a few others on printers and scanners. In the end, that's a valid argument, but it's a lot weaker than you're making it out to be.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
46. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Ogi_UnixNut · 2010-09-09 10:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I believe one of the reasons is that you must not be able to program your wifi cards radio to work on unauthorized frequencies. This is a FCC requirement. This is one of the reasons that the excellent madwifi driver still needs a binary blob (although the devs have access to the firmware source code, it was by NDA only).
  If you have the ability to modify the firmware, you can make it violate regulations. For example, if you hack the madwifi driver you can make some cards work up to 100mW of power (limit where I live is 30mW).
  If you had the firmware source code you could all sorts of crazy stuff that would be against regulations.
47. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Hatta · 2010-09-09 10:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  1) True. The right thing to do is to go open source from day one.
  2) Being verifiably honest is a competitive advantage.
  3) Perhaps, but a little bit of support time is a small price to pay for free development. It's not going to cost you more than it would have to hire someone to write it. And concerning the 2nd part of your answer, do you have an example of that happening?
  4) I think the OP was asking for good reasons, otherwise we could have answered him simply with "Because PHBs are assholes". That is the only real reason.
  5) Nobody knows whether or not a given advertisement causes me to buy an item either, but we are still saturated with advertising. An open source driver is another bullet point marketing can use to sway people.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
48. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  Only if you don't care about releasing version 10.10 on 10.10.10. And face it: Canonical will force that date, period.
49. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Svartalf · 2010-09-09 10:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  1) Uh... Don't you document your device's interfaces so you can code to them? If not...heh...remind me not to buy your company's tech... >;-D
  2) Puffery is puffery. And worrying about this is in the same vein as the security argument. If you can have a bad situation because of flaws in the framework, what else is broken. I'd not use your product. Keep in mind, though, with me you're likely to be talking 10k+ units worth of revenue if I'm the guy you're talking to. If you're doing this, you may well be a no-buy item for a project I'm trying to bring about.
  3) End users won't if AMD's situation is any indicator. Ditto Intel's.
  4) Heh... I'm sure they'd change their tune if someone as big as Dell, HP, or IBM leaned on them a bit to change that tune of theirs.
  5) I hardly think that any company (Broadcom, even) could sustain a 10-100k unit lost sale these days. Unless you're a niche player somewhere, you can end up experiencing something like it from one of the OEM players in the future.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
50. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Hadlock · 2010-09-09 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're saying is that in 48 hours I should start looking for 100-150mw wifi drivers for my broadcom chipped laptop on the pirate bay?
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
51. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  No, but if the DSP code is what lets your device run on very little power, you don't really want to just allow all of your competitors open access to all of the hard work that you put into it. They obviously can (as this release proves), but there are legitimate business reasons why one would keep their drivers closed source (see: NVidia drivers).
52. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  wait till the year of Linux, it'll come soon
53. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  You spent $99 on win7 rather than $15 on a new Linux compatible card? Don't you think this was a bit silly?
54. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-09 10:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If you had the firmware source code you could all sorts of crazy stuff that would be against regulations.
  Yes. I run Tomato on my WRT54G. It has an option to directly set the desired output power in milliwatts. Don't know how accurate it is, but it does do something. I actually used that feature to reduce the power output. I set it to provide good connectivity throughout the house, yet make it very difficult to get a connection outside.
  
  Nevertheless, I don't like the idea of the FCC essentially requiring hardware vendors to keep source code proprietary when even the vendor wants to release it. That's not the way to advance the state-of-the-art.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
55. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Just+Some+Guy · 2010-09-09 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  5. Invisible and unmeasurable sales. Nobody will know and can put in a business case that this is why you bought that router.
  They do because I tell them. No, seriously. I use the comments form on vendor websites to thank them for making Linux-compatible hardware. I don't do it out of gratitude - they got my real thanks at the cash register - but out of the self-interest of making them aware of the market.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
56. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Lord+Ender · 2010-09-09 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  No. Having cards hanging off your laptop, on the other hand, is really silly.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
57. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by sjames · 2010-09-09 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  There are many reasons. Sometimes there are 3rd party licenses on portions of their code to consider. In other cases, they for some reason think what they have done is entirely unique (rarely true in a driver). Sometimes it's just part of a corporate culture that defaults to no.
  In some cases though, it appears to be to cover up crappy hardware flaws. They don't want you to see that the standard procedure is for the driver to repeat the init sequence a few hundred times until by luck it wins a race condition in the hardware and it actually comes up.
  In still other cases it's to cover fraud. A lot of cheap "raid controllers" for example are just plain old controllers with RAID implemented (badly) in the driver. Winmodems wanted to hide that they offloaded all of the hard work into the driver and CPU back in a time when the CPU really didn't have that many space cycles and the good modems did the same processing on-board.
58. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like someone needs to be educated on the mini-PCIe.
59. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by mr_mischief · 2010-09-09 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  #4 is true in the very short term, until the eyeballs under the white hats see it and fix it. Open source does have security benefits, but they don't apply instantly. Someone needs to write and check in the code.
60. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  #5 also means you lose the support of just about everyone in university, assuming there's an open competing product. That means you are killing your own future.
61. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulations for ignoring all of the real-world problems with open sourcing software. Time to get out of the ivory tower and into the real world.
62. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by mr_mischief · 2010-09-09 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  If they have the very best code, keeping code proprietary might give them an advantage. This is especially true if all the companies that trail in quality also keep their inferior code closed. Only one company can have the best, though. Everyone else who keeps their code private and proprietary is holding on dearly to their relative disadvantage to the leader as much as any advantage they have over last place.
  What opening the source does is get other people (that you don't have to pay because someone else is paying them or they're doing it for themselves) to help take away the competitive advantage of your rivals by putting a larger engineering and software development team behind the quality of your code.
  Even if the open project still isn't the very best on the market, it will overtake competitors one by one until it is near the top. Only the best and brightest development teams will be able to keep up with the advancements, and they will often need more in-house or contract developers to do so. That's money they are spending that gets assigned to their product's cost center in the company budget.
  People who actually care about not being locked in to the vendor's support system for the software part of a project (whether it's all software or software that requires hardware as in the current case) will see an incentive to buy the product that can be improved by the public. If something mostly works but starts inferior to other options, it's sometimes still a good investment to back someone who backs your interests in return by giving you more chances to get the code improved.
63. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by russotto · 2010-09-09 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you have the ability to modify the firmware, you can make it violate regulations. For example, if you hack the madwifi driver you can make some cards work up to 100mW of power (limit where I live is 30mW).
  I've hacked binary blobs (Airport Extreme and an Atheros chipset in a Zyxel router) to run using 802.11g on channel 14 (a prohibited combination everywhere). Open source would just make it a little easier.
64. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by hedwards · 2010-09-09 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  As geeks become less and less willing to use let alone support Windows, I'm sure that will change as well. Win XP will be the last version of Windows to be on any of my personal computers. Meaning that if my friends or family want help, it's going to be somewhat difficult for me to give it to them Realistically though, it seems like MS recycles bugs often enough that I might be able to help anyways.
65. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by mr_mischief · 2010-09-09 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you should buy a laptop that is compatible with the software, or spend $20 on a good MiniPCI card that works with your OS.
  Besides, unless you're selling that PC to a customer, you just put an improperly licensed version of Windows 7 on your system. I know that the biggest difference between OEM and retail is that Microsoft doesn't do tech support for OEM versions. Technically, though, you're supposed to buy retail to use any time you're not actually using Windows as an OEM item on a PC for resale.
  To be really legit, you should have paid close to double that much for Win 7 Home, and close to three times as much for Win 7 Pro or Win 7 Ultimate.
  If you have questions about the OEM licensing for Windows, check out the Microsoft OEM and Volume Licensing FAQ. There are links from there to the actual licenses and license guides.
  Since a truly legit copy of Windows costs as much as a decent mid-range desktop or low-end laptop, I'd recommend specifying the proper hardware from the start or replacing the nonfunctional peripheral hardware with something that works for the software you're planning to use.
  Chances are you'll never have problems with your OEM copy, but don't let Microsoft know you have a habit of violating their licenses. Especially don't try to resell your OEM license for use on some other PC by advertising it widely. Microsoft could cause you quite a bit more frustration than swapping out a PCI or MiniPCI card.
66. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by bruno.fatia · 2010-09-09 12:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Linux will one day be the dominant OS in all the backend servers, the dominant players in the largest percentage of Embedded devices (including cell phones) and in the future will dominate the desktop.
  2012 The Year of Linux on the Desktop?
67. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by natehoy · 2010-09-09 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, does it matter? 10.04 is the latest LTS. LTS is a 2-year cycle. That means we won't see broadcomm open source drivers officially in an LTS until probably 12.04.
  10.10 could easily get a broadcomm driver update for those who use it once the driver has been analyzed and tweaked by a few hundred geeks. 10.04 folks can easily backport something like this if they want to.
  Meanwhile, the binary works pretty well (despite the Linux purists attitude about binaries, which Ubuntu doesn't really go by anyway).
  I applaud Broadcomm for doing this, of course, but there's no huge massive rush.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
68. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Homburg · 2010-09-09 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just the $15 for the hardware, though - there's also the cost of the time to figure out precisely which device you need to buy to get Linux support, and then the time spent combing through shelves or websites to find one of those devices. That's not a huge amount of time, and for me was certainly worth it (aside from not having to spend $99 for Windows, using Linux itself has value). But if spending $99 allows you to avoid the hassle of getting Linux compatible hardware, I can see that might be a reasonable trade-off for some people (that's kind of a big "if," though; I've often had more difficulty getting Windows to work with my hardware than I have had with Linux).
69. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  OK, we'll lose your business - that's $3 worth of revenue that we won't receive, once
  Yeah, once from about 10 million people worldwide every 3 or so years..
  
  We hope that you'll see the value of our products in the future and be willing to consider us then
  The value of purchasing a product which doesn't work because there aren't any device drivers?
  Here's the rinser for all of your arguments. Linux is the future. Open source is the future of software. It's not a question of if you need to open source your drivers, it's a question of when. And it's just a simple argument of cost ... when it's cheaper for a business to buy and maintain a Linux server than it is to pay Microsoft tax on the Windows 'equivalent', they'll switch. It's happening in governments around the globe, and it's going to happen in business.
  In the years to come it won't be possible to ignore open source anymore. Microsoft realized this, Apple realized this, Sun realized this, IBM realized this and now Broadcom has realized this. Go to your CTO and CFO and use statistics to show the growth of open source software and operating systems to assist them in realizing that there's a timeline involved and plan for the point in time when open sourcing will be necessary.
  It's just good business.
70. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  3.
  This is actually very legitimate, once a driver is released open-source into the wild the manufacturer does take some responsibility as far as how it's altered from there. Anyone could find an altered driver and be unaware it is altered and that makes troubleshooting for the manufacturer a lot more difficult, and makes the customer angry when they reach the "i cant do shit for you its not my driver" area.
  4.
  With wireless devices this makes sense really. As far as I know Broadcom uses mostly software to control their radios. The FCC is very picky about compliance and so for a while it may have been seen that closed source drivers to make sure they chips would comply with regulations as they should.
  5.
  Well that's the thing, the manufacturer isn't building the product for you, they're building it for the other 99% of the world. They're out to make as much money as they can, if they think that closed-source drivers with proprietary hardware is the way to do, that's what they'll do.
71. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 13:36 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  In his defense, he wasn't saying 'it's wrong to open source'. he was stating why his company did not; and he is unlikely to be the one with the power to change it.
  Point #1 is at theleast out of his hands.
  Point #2, granted, he worded his reasoning for poorly, but still, it does offer your competitors an insight first into issues you fixed, and then into the areas your struggling in. i know for a fact that i've been able to sell systems to clients before based on proving my stuff could handle an issue their open documents showed they werent really doing well on; even when it was a tiny, tiny outlier situation no one would ever actually hit.
  Point #3. have you ever done customer support? I have, for 5 years, and trust me. people are idiots. give them a little extra, and they will go insane that it doesn't work on everything. When the cable Co i worked for shut down their personal web space, i personally took 8 calls from people not our customers, demanding we re-host the pages they wanted to get to, for either hot-linked images or whatever reason. It was a drop in the bucket for us, but if you're already only a 5-man company that only supports a few OEM's with decent internal support teams; even a couple hundred people emailing you for support on compiling the driver they really shouldn't be messing with anyway is if not a fatal burden, more then you have any reason to bother with.
  Point #4. Yes. when your job is not proving there's merit in your point to a programmer or fellow geek but to the PHB who thinks his name is 'CEO' or 'VP of holding the money in his purple fists of death grip'; it very much matters what he believes, and not what is true. One of my current supervisors thinks Apples biggest mistake was in letting the iPhone charge from anything not an apple designed wall-wart or mac, with the use of heavy crypto to protect the lockin. That 'allowing unlicensed charging' was recklessly irresponsible because 'the charger might have a virus or something that could steal all your info from your phone if you used it. Good luck convincing him that open-sourcing our product code wouldn't make everyone of our customers instantly hacked by the first bad guy to see it.
  Point #5. Some places, sure. My current job makes a little box that downloads monitoring stats from pacemakers. Not sure i'd want to see the 'improvements' they'd make, nor that i'd want to wade through it.
72. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by turbidostato · 2010-09-09 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't like the idea of the FCC essentially requiring hardware vendors to keep source code proprietary when even the vendor wants to release it."
  Have you thought that there would be no way for a system emitting overpower if the hardware was such that it couldn't do it? FCC regulations is security by obscurity at best and lame excuses at worst.
73. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by syousef · 2010-09-09 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  1. I should spend a month or two of engineering time to write specifications for a block that isn't part of my core competency?
  No, a brief description or contact information for the implementing company would be fine
  
  2. Don't take "liar" literally. Marketing is always guilty of Puffery, and in the US this is acceptable. Datasheets always have specifications which, if taken out of context or tested outside the conditions in the tiny print, can be proven wrong. In the market, to remain a viable business, you have to "puff" as much as your competitors do - look at beer, cigarette, car, computer advertising.
  A lie is still a lie. Deception is still deception. It amazes me how acceptable false advertising has become. I feel insulted by most ads I watch. Marketing and advertising is well and truly out of control, and claiming you have not choice in being honest is just LAME.
  
  3. Yes, really.
  So don't provide support. Put a disclaimer in the released code. Done.
  
  4. Yes, I know that's bullshit. Tell that to my CEO and CFO.
  Perhaps instead you should be explaining why security through obscurity is a bad idea.
  
  5. OK, we'll lose your business - that's $3 worth of revenue that we won't receive, once. We hope that you'll see the value of our products in the future and be willing to consider us then.
  You think he's the only one whose business you'll lose? I'm pretty sure there's more than one person out there running Linux
  Amazing how you're willing to defend your actions on a financial basis then dismiss the negative impact those actions also have on your bottom line.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
74. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by FrankSchwab · 2010-09-09 14:53 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What company do you believe that I'm NOT describing?
  If you refused to buy products from everyone that my statements applied to, you might have enough money to move out of your mother's basement.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
75. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  By spending $99 on Windows I saved... how many hours of frustration?
  But how much of your soul did you lose? :P
76. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by LVSlushdat · 2010-09-09 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm starting a side business buying up broken/as-is/parts Dell laptops, repair/refurbing them, putting Ubuntu on them and reselling them. So far, the four Dell systems (D400,D600,D620,Insp 2200) I've picked up from Craigslist/eBay have had Intel wifi, but with this news, I'll not be so upset if future systems come with the normal Dell/Broadcomm card...
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
77. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Compaqt · 2010-09-09 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  >Broadcom wirelss.
  I, for one, welcome our new wireless driver overlords.
  Even if they miss a few bytes here or there.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
78. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by SirCyn · 2010-09-09 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  1. Someone already did; products don't just come into being, someone wrote a spec, a developer implemented it, ya ya.
  2. Don't even pretend like you don't understand how your competitors products work without seeing their drivers' source code.
  3. The idiots are idiots already, and still will be, nothing will change.
  4. If you don't tell the C*O, see #5.
  5. You just lost $3 from that other guy; and $30 from me and my whole family that I buy for; and who knows how many other people. Explain *that* to your C*O.
  
  --
  FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
79. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-09 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't like the idea of the FCC essentially requiring hardware vendors to keep source code proprietary when even the vendor wants to release it."
  Have you thought that there would be no way for a system emitting overpower if the hardware was such that it couldn't do it? FCC regulations is security by obscurity at best and lame excuses at worst.
  True, but I think the reason is more one of business efficiency. Different locales have different regulations, and from a manufacturer's perspective, it's nice if a single design can accommodate multiple markets. For example, my Linksys unit also supports two extra channels that aren't legal in the U.S., but are elsewhere in the world. The stock firmware won't let you select them, of course, because that firmware is targeted for the U.S. market. The author of Tomato had no such restrictions, and thus I have the ability to run my device using unauthorized spectrum. Same goes with power output: other countries may allow higher power output, so it's nice if the same mainboard (with different firmware options) can be used there as well.
  
  The question is more one of whether the benefits of allowing third-party and open-source products is worth the risk of someone operating his equipment outside of local regulations. Given the functional superiority of Tomato, DD-WRT and the like, I'd say the answer is "Yes". I've used so-called corporate-level firewalls that weren't as c capable (or as customizable) as Tomato.
  
  Frankly, I think Linksys ought to just hire the guy, or at least license his firmware. It's far and away a better product than what they offer. Now that Linksys is owned and operated by Cisco, my guess is they don't want their $50 routers competing on functionality with their higher-end equipment.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
80. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Compaqt · 2010-09-09 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing is, the thread originator's 5 points are all obviated by Broadcom's open source release. I mean, how much more IP or security concerns or PHBs can small/medium companies like his have than Broadcom?
  And if you say he's just making scientific equipment for a small market, that's all the more reason to give driver source so people can customize it with Scientific Linux or whatever.
  In fact, all the arguments can basically be inverted: if you don't open source, your competitor will.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
81. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Compaqt · 2010-09-09 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Good point. That's the reason people evangelize--they have a self-interest in being part of a large(ish) community (Linux, Ubuntu, whatever).
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
82. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Compaqt · 2010-09-09 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing is, people always talk about the "business case" for stuff they don't want to do.
  But they never question the business case for their fringe benefits, like Aeron chairs, 30" monitors, pool tables, gleaming new furniture.
  Yeah, you can come up with some kind of lame justification for all of these. But don't then question the business case for letting your customers run your hardware the way it works for them.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
83. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by troll8901 · 2010-09-09 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  1) Uh... Don't you document your device's interfaces so you can code to them?
  Um, no. For using the other two companies' libraries, they are supposed to write those docs, so that he can use them.
  Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with documenting his device's interfaces.
  I have the feeling I'm about to eat a really, really huge humble pie, though.
84. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by LingNoi · 2010-09-09 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's really a non-issue though. Simply because people can modify products to violate FCC rules doesn't make the manufacturer liable.
85. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Cato · 2010-09-09 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing that really matters to your business is whether it will make or lose money by open sourcing drivers. It seems that Broadcom was forced into open sourcing its drivers by the OEMs (Dell, HP, etc) who in turn were required to use FOSS drivers by some of their large customers requiring this for better Linux support. See http://lwn.net/Articles/404376/
  If your company is going to lose money through not open sourcing drivers, the decision is obvious and the other issues can be resolved to make this happen.
86. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, don't forget that this open-source release support only newer chips! One of my older HP laptops has one of the older chips which won't benefit. It would be nice if Broadcom could at least authorize redistribution of the firmware for their older chips so b43-fwcutter won't be needed anymore, and that as one who suffered the pains of downloading it.
87. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 18:48 · Score: 0
  
  Not very soon. Many of these chips require a special firmware binary blob to be function and those can't be included in the distributions due to copyright.
88. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:17 · Score: 0
  
  "Yes. I run Tomato on my WRT54G. It has an option to directly set the desired output power in milliwatts. Don't know how accurate it is, but it does do something. I actually used that feature to reduce the power output. I set it to provide good connectivity throughout the house, yet make it very difficult to get a connection outside."
  I understand your line of thinking. Well, kind of... you just don't people outside leeching your Internet connection, right? Why not just use encryption and be done with it? That way, if you have a laptop or some other portable WiFi-capable device, you could be in your car in the driveway or street checking something online, without having to go inside to do it... and yet, other people won't be able to break in and leech your connection.
89. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anne+Thwacks · 2010-09-09 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like, how I can drive my car at 85MPH in a 30MPH limit?
  You Americans really ought to ask your government for your freedoms back!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
90. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  5.s taking over the and in the future will dominate the desktop.
  
  Ahe yes... the fabled year of linux on the desktop.
91. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anne+Thwacks · 2010-09-09 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  At a guess, nearer $30 from the people supported by each reader of /.
  IBM learned the hard way that if you support the geeks, they promote your offerings. If you don't, they will let everyone know about your support policy, and they are the ones people ask and trust.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
92. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:49 · Score: 0
  
  What company do you believe that I'm NOT describing?
  Broadcom.
93. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Pastis · 2010-09-09 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  Was this to allow sending packets in a way that is not traceable by common sniffers ?
  
  --
  Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
94. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Jesus_666 · 2010-09-09 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. For example the maximum transmit power in the 2.4 GHz band (802.11b/g) for the USA is 300 mW, whereas for Germany it's 100 mW. The USA have 11 channels in that band while Europa has 13 and Japan has 14. Until recently, Spain only had channels 10 and 11 while France only had 10 and 13.
  
  Without a board capable of doing all acceptable powers at all frequencies you'd have to develop and release different hardware revisions for each country on Earth.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
95. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Jesus_666 · 2010-09-09 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Linux driver compliance" most likely translated to "we're fine with binary blobs for x86 and x86_64 as long as you release versions compatible with the current kernel every half year or so". "Linux driver" means "a pirece of software that allows Linux to use the device", not "a piece of software Richard Stallman would like".
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
96. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by vadim_t · 2010-09-09 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, it means "comes included in the vanilla kernel".
  If you don't have it there, I'm not interested unless the hardware you have is something very, very specific that I really need. Which normal network and wifi cards aren't.
97. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 23:26 · Score: 0
  
  People don't do the smart thing on purpose. It's mostly a happy accident. If what they're doing isn't the smart thing, don't expect pointing it out to help.
  In all the replies where people (claim to) work for hardware companies and say they have legitimate reasons not to release source, ask a follow-up:
  "Do you use best-in-class revision control software? scheduling software? ticket tracking?"
  And then you'll get treated to the same rationalisations. They're in a trap, where to admit that you could do better is to admit failure, and so whatever stupid, idiot thing you are doing must be believed to be ideal.
  The real eye-opener is class compliance. Companies that think this way always resist class compliance, believing that _their_ proprietary thing is better than the class. Over the next months and years consumers vote with their wallets and the class compliant products take over the market.
  In the parallel universe where these idiots set the agenda, they just announced a 2GB USB flash drive. It only comes with drivers for Vista (but Windows 7 and OS X will be supported "soon") and it costs $100. "Our proprietary technology delivers the high capacity consumers demand, at a reasonable price" said the press release.
98. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  Uh oh, a "mother's basement" insult. You got told!
99. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  And work in Linux was completed long ago to have the firmware to be uploaded decoupled from the device driver and a standard mechanism for uploading the vendor's firmware blob to the device.
100. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by andersking · 2010-09-10 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  d'oh undoing redundant mod. (insightful)
101. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  first off all thank you for being so clear, even thought i myself perhaps allready knew this, its good to have this in the open.
  as oposed to opensourcing your drivers, your could also just open the specifications to the hardware, in other words let us know how your drivers work, so we dont have to rely on reverse engenearing.
  its not the code that most people need its the way it works, a linux kernel is supstentually diferent from a bsd kerel or an NT kernel, just open the specs and everyone can implement it the way that it best suites the OS.
  a reference driver (closed source) could be availible to suitable platfroms like, Suse and/or Redhat enterprice linux, and windows.
  its that common mistake that ODM's often make, thinking that they should own, and support drivers all the time (even for systems they know near to nothing about).
  there are so many firmware's out there that could have been better if only the datasheets where there. look at Linksys routers for example. its safe to say that its opensource non supported fireware alternatives are a selling point for otherwise not so special hardware.
102. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Does your company make drivers for Linux for the devices you make? If not then you do lose a lot of business. A lot of the people that do the actual buying of devices for PCs are engineers that run Linux. When buying products they tend to shun products that don't support Linux even when buying for customers that are running Windows. In the case of Broadcom when I spec out a purchase of laptops for our clients the answer is NO! to broadcom wifi even if the laptop is going to run Windows. Why? If you are not going to support all operating systems then to hell with your product. You don't get my money.
103. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Tacvek · 2010-09-10 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. On the other hand this new source code contains several tables that map the channel numbers to frequency. If i went in and changed the value to something reasonably close, but outside the current frequency range, I suspsect that might indeed cause it to broadcast on the new frequency.
  The source code also has tables for things like the transmission gain, which might make it entirely possible to broadcast above legal power, etc. That would probably depend on the hardware itself.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
104. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  I am through with playing around to get things to work in Linux. I don't want to muck around with this wrapper and that wrapper anymore. I just want wifi to work right out of the box. So Broadcom will get another $3 in revenue from me.
105. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by russotto · 2010-09-10 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  No, it was mostly just for the fun of it, and partly to see if using channel 14 was much better than the other 802.11b/g channels in my very RF-crowded neighborhood. It was much better, but I only ran it for a short while before switching back over to 802.11a exclusively.
106. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by freezin+fat+guy · 2010-09-10 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  5. OK, we'll lose your business - that's $3 worth of revenue that we won't receive, once. We hope that you'll see the value of our products in the future and be willing to consider us then.
  Yes, because Hatta is the only person in the entire world with this sentiment. No one has ever seen or will ever see again, anyone on any Slashdot thread speaking up that they put their $ to hardware with open source drivers.
  There was a time when GM was happy to lose one customer to Toyota.
107. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  3. Support. If we publish source, we will end up fielding all kinds of questions from all kinds of people about all kinds of aspects of our product. Even if we simply answer "Go away" to all those queries, there's a lot of time spent reading and replying (or simply ignoring) them. Considering that we sell our products to OEMs for a few dollars, there just isn't any margin for end user support.
  I know what you mean, I spent alot of time ignoring your post. ;)
108. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by umrguy76 · 2010-09-10 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  2) Being verifiably honest is a competitive advantage.
  Maybe in a perfect world it would be. As a former, honest, small business owner I can tell you that the liars and cheaters will make more money. Being honest gained me a very loyal, but small, customer base but the big contracts almost always went to the slick talking snake oil salesmen.
109. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Ogi_UnixNut · 2010-09-10 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Unlikely, if Broadcom can open source their entire driver, it means there are some hardware restrictions in place to prevent such tampering from occuring.
110. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by judeancodersfront · 2010-09-10 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Most admins could care less if a network driver is tied to RHEL 5.X. I can list numerous RAID cards that only work with RHEL and SUSE.
  
  Open source is a minority religion even among Linux admins. You wouldn't expect that by reading Slashdot but in the real world Linux is used because it is free and works as well as Unix.
111. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by vadim_t · 2010-09-10 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I can tell you that if I go buy a RAID card, or set up a machine for the long term, I check if it's in the vanilla kernel.
  It's not so much about OSS as about long term reliability. I had systems on 2.2 in 2008. Thousands of devices spread all around the country, hard to replace. It's been a pain so now I make sure I don't depend on the vendor.
  What you see as religion is for me just long term planning. It does me no good to have hardware decide what software I can run. Been there, dealt with it, explained it to the boss, didn't like it. So since then it's either in the kernel or I don't care about it. Even if I probably never will look at the code.
112. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-10 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just use encryption and be done with it?
  Trust me, I do, and my security is layered: I don't depend upon WPA2 only. Good luck leeching anything from me regardless of my transmit power. It's just that where I live I don't have any need for access outside the house, so I didn't see any reason to allow it. That'll probably change when we move to our next place though. Then I'll probably crank the power up to the legal max.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
113. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by Laser_iCE · 2010-09-11 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  We'll be dead by the time the Year of Linux will be around.
  
  oh wait
114. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by quickOnTheUptake · 2010-09-11 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  But by the time you start doubting the NIC driver (from the manufacturer), haven't you pretty much worked yourself into a corner. I mean, there is nothing (that I can tell) that would keep the manufacturer from just sticking the nasty bits into the chip itself, if he were set on hurting you). At some point you have to just trust the company.
  
  --
  Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
  Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
115. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by judeancodersfront · 2010-09-12 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Getting tied to a kernel version is a legitimate concern with RAID drivers. Preferring open source for utilitarian reasons is a different matter.
  
  It's separate from the ideological belief that all source should be open. Open source ideology holds the source itself to be morally superior. That's ridiculous and like I said only a minority of Linux admins hold that belief.
116. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by PenisLands · 2010-09-14 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Whoooa! The 'mother's basement' line! Shit man, you really got him with that one. Nice work.
117. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by PenisLands · 2010-09-14 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  You might find it hard to believe, but PENIS! Heh heh! Oh, boy! COCKIN'.
  
  I don't mean to offend anyone with this comment.
118. Re:The world just got a bit nicer. :) by jejones · 2010-09-16 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, but I think my condo counts as a basement of sorts. (No, it wasn't inherited.)
Fantastic news for Linux tourists by mfluder47 · 2010-09-09 07:48 · Score: 1

This might get me to go back to my old dual-boot setup. I very much a linux beginner, and used Ubuntu pretty exclusively for the first couple of years of grad school. I loved aspects of it, but going round the houses with madwifi, ndiswrapper, and the like to get my broadcom wifi adapter to behave properly just became too difficult. For me this may significantly lower a major barrier of entry to using linux distros as everyday operating systems.
almost 10 years! by vivek7006 · 2010-09-09 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

It took them almost 10 years before they released open-source drivers. Must be freaking smart
DD-WRT by QuantumBeep · 2010-09-09 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Looking forward to much broader DD-WRT support for Broadcom hardware in the near future
1. Re:DD-WRT by domatic · 2010-09-09 08:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It could also mean more 2.6.x kernels. Many of these devices gave you the choice of either using the binary blob drivers and a 2.4 based firmware or you could go to 2.6 and hope for the best with the reverse engineered drivers.
2. Re:DD-WRT by xmff · 2010-09-09 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  No hw crypto, no ap mode, only current generation 11n chips supported. Also given the fact that DD-Wrt not event adopted ath9k yet in favor to hacked up half open atheros drivers I wouldn't hope for opensource brcm support anytime soon.
3. Re:DD-WRT by Big_Breaker · 2010-09-09 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  This is huge. 2.4 kernels are so old that a lot of desirable software doesn't work properly. A modern kernel allows for much easier porting, IE optware.
4. Re:DD-WRT by mirix · 2010-09-09 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  amen. I'm sick of being stuck with 2.4, or having non-functional wifi. Definitely a step in the right direction!
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
5. Re:DD-WRT by Jesus_666 · 2010-09-09 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Do you knwo which other firmwares behave better? I'm aware of OpenWRT and Tomato but I haven't done much to compare them - one of my router runs OpenWRT because that's what I heard of first (and it does everything I need) and the other one runs DD-WRT micro because OpenWRT doesn't support it. When I finally make the jump to 802.11n it'd be great to know the relative strengths and weaknesses of my firmware options.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Yay by MBGMorden · 2010-09-09 07:54 · Score: 1

Yay! This is definitely nice. Granted, I luckily didn't run into a bit of trouble getting the broadcom card in my laptop to work using the NDIS wrapper last time I set it up on Ubuntu 10.04, but either way it's good to have open source drivers rather than finding quirky ways to make proprietary ones work.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Linux swallowing Windows Semen by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:55 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Yes, 0.83% market share vs 90% does not lie, while you are modding this down I am getting laid with Windows users.
1. Re:Linux swallowing Windows Semen by Tetsujin · 2010-09-09 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, they're computer programs. Get a grip.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
2. Re:Linux swallowing Windows Semen by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Iam getting laid with Windows users.
  You should be careful - most Windows users have viruses.
3. Re:Linux swallowing Windows Semen by hedwards · 2010-09-09 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to Linux users that never get the chance?
Holy overstatement by damn_registrars · 2010-09-09 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

and that means no Linux Wi-Fi problem for new devices and upcoming distributions at all.
Yes, because open source drivers means that they always work, no matter how strange or obscure your hardware and software combination is. That's right, just like all other open source software that never, ever, fails to live up to expectations under any situation. In fact the news is so remarkable that the sun just came out where I live, and I think some very peaceful velociraptors just woke from a very long sleep and are peacefully munching on cabbage, all thanks to this incredible news.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Holy overstatement by JonJ · 2010-09-09 07:58 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Fuck no, don't say that. You'll get modded troll and flamebait. Because the open drivers always work and never fail. Ever. It just works(tm).(See what I did there?)
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
2. Re:Holy overstatement by f3rret · 2010-09-09 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well to be fair most open source "just works".
  It's whether it "just works" well that's the big question.-
  
  --
  Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
3. Re:Holy overstatement by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  What's the difference between an open/closed source driver?
  With an open source driver, somebody somewhere has a chance to fix it and make it work for your obscure hardware setup. Yes it's not a panacea, but it's a darn sight better than anything else! Quit your bitching, this is a good thing.
4. Re:Holy overstatement by JonJ · 2010-09-09 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody anywhere has claimed that this makes it harder to fix, or that it's a bad thing. It's just annoying hyperbole with no connection with regards to reality.
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
5. Re:Holy overstatement by hedwards · 2010-09-09 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, that's what turned me off of Linux when I tried it in 2002. The sound card for my laptop wasn't supported under FreeBSD, but it was claimed to be under Linux. I gave it a shot, the only problem was that while the chipset was supported, it was really crackly and not particularly useful. It's a lot better since then, but that was not a particularly positive impression to leave.
6. Re:Holy overstatement by Risen888 · 2010-09-09 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  because open source drivers means that they always work, no matter how strange or obscure your hardware and software combination is.
  Pretty damn much, yeah. They certainly beat the piss out the nonfree competition.
  As someone who runs Linux exclusively on a decently broad variety of hardware, I can say without qualification that the devices I've owned with free drivers (be they wireless cards or video chipsets or sound cards or what have you) have. Always. Worked. Full stop. Not always flawlessly, to be sure. In the case of a certain maker of low end desktop video chipsets who may or may not be named Intel, often not flawlessly. But by the same token, I've never seen it crash X, I've never not been able to get to KDM. Not ever once ever ever. For ever ever? For ever ever.
  The flip side of this, of course, is that everything I've ever had with a nonfree driver has without exception caused me grief. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday, and for the rest of our lives. One day that sucker's gonna shit the bed and you will never know why. Guaranteed.
  YMMV, and God knows there's gonna be plenty of people who could give me counterexamples and I'm not calling them liars by any means, but this has been my overwhelmingly prevalent experience for years, and I'm morally certain what I have just said is true a solid 95% of the time.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
7. Re:Holy overstatement by LingNoi · 2010-09-09 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  You see the part before where you quoted which talked about distribution? That's called context. The problems are referring to the distribution problems. Not software bugs.
8. Re:Holy overstatement by bigrockpeltr · 2010-09-13 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  drivers dont have gui's to worry about so of course open source drivers are perfect
  
  *runs and hides*
  
  --
  $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
Sooo now I can give Linux a serious try? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

I tried Ubuntu quite some time ago on my aging Acer Aspire 5000. I really like the idea behind linux and open source. Got everything to work. Except for the WiFi. Well since being wired all the time is a drag, I was forced to go back to dreaded XP. I'm not a complete n00b when it comes to computers. But fiddling with WiFi for a few hours was just to much effort for me as a casual user. Hopefully I can now finally switch.
1. Re:Sooo now I can give Linux a serious try? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Ubuntu has been able to install the propietary drivers automatically for a long time now.
2. Re:Sooo now I can give Linux a serious try? by zmollusc · 2010-09-09 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  On my HP 6xxx laptop the automagical hardware driver download worked a treat, b43 on the broadcom whatsit runs like a good 'un.
  
  --
  They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
3. Re:Sooo now I can give Linux a serious try? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  It's hard to automatically install a proprietary network driver via the network. A lot of people get laptops to avoid wiring everything together and asking them to download a random package from some site on a working computer and burning it to a disc and typing some magic words on the commandline would make them feel like they are about to preform brain surgery. This is a hassle that would turn off almost every normal person who isn't as fascinated in computing as the slashdot crowd.
4. Re:Sooo now I can give Linux a serious try? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and they didn't always work.
5. Re:Sooo now I can give Linux a serious try? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  It's been a long time since you had to do something like that. After I installed Kubuntu 10.04 on my new laptop last week, I just plugged it into my router (What?! You can't expect ordinary people to plug something in--that's too technical!) and clicked on Hardware Drivers in the menu.
NDISWRAPPER by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:03 · Score: 0

We have Broadcom's ineptitude up until this point to thank for NDISWRAPPER IMHO.
I think the single largest source of linux troubles on laptops has been due to Broadcom devices. They have a HUGE marketshare.
Thanks broadcom. Who knows what good will come from the next time you drag your heels?
Seriously though: I hope this is a sign of things to come.
That could be very nice for Tomato Firmware by Nimey · 2010-09-09 08:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Tomato Firmware is still stuck on Linux 2.4 because Broadcom's driver blob hasn't been ported to 2.6, Don't know how much of a difference it'd make for my WRT54GL, really, but it'd still be nice to be more modern than ~2.4.17.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
1. Re:That could be very nice for Tomato Firmware by pankkake · 2010-09-09 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And it could be ported to other kernels, a BSD for instance.
  
  --
  Kill all hipsters.
2. Re:That could be very nice for Tomato Firmware by LWATCDR · 2010-09-09 08:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes and it opens up the option to use Broadcom chips on all sorts of embedded devices.
  Including those running on ARM, PPC, Mips, SH4 and goodness knows what else.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
3. Re:That could be very nice for Tomato Firmware by Just+Some+Guy · 2010-09-09 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  And it could be ported to other kernels, a BSD for instance.
  I'd love to run OpenBSD on my Wi-Fi router. It's so much easier for me to administer a standard BSD installation than an ad-hoc Linux system with distro-specific configuration and init scripts.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
4. Re:That could be very nice for Tomato Firmware by phizi0n · 2010-09-09 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Tomato does release kernel 2.6 based builds but only for the newer N spec models that need it. FYI the WRT54GL's CFE (boot loader) doesn't allocate enough space for kernel 2.6 and Broadcom's 2.6 compatible driver blob to load, you can read more about it on the DD-WRT forums.
5. Re:That could be very nice for Tomato Firmware by QuestionsNotAnswers · 2010-09-09 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Tomato Firmware is still stuck on Linux 2.4 because Broadcom's driver blob
  The Beta Tomato firmware uses 2.6 and supports many broadcom devices using the open source b43 driver. e.g. from my Asus520GU:
  Tomato Firmware v1.28.9048 MIPSR1-beta18 K26 USB Lite
  USB support integration and GUI, Linux kernel 2.6.22.19 and Broadcom Wireless Driver 5.10.56.46 updates
  
  --
  Happy moony
Like AMD by codewarren · 2010-09-09 08:04 · Score: -1, Troll

Now we'll have drivers for wi-fi that are just as flawless as those ATI drivers we have now. Yay.
believe it! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:05 · Score: 0

First post!
Don't get too excited for the old equipment by phikapjames · 2010-09-09 08:05 · Score: 1, Interesting

As the article states, the source only supports the newer 11n chipsets, which is currently BCM4313, BCM43224, and BCM43225. G and lower chipsets still have to use the older crusty stuff. Still something good to look towards the future for. I'm going to be keeping an eye out for routers that have those chipsets and are dd-wrt compatible in the future when I move to N now.
1. Re:Don't get too excited for the old equipment by mirix · 2010-09-09 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  oh drat. I was looking forward to having openwrt with 2.6 on my broadcom based G routers.
  But this is still better than a kick in the teeth, I'll take it.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
Thanks by msclrhd · 2010-09-09 08:06 · Score: 4, Informative

To the Broadcom team and everyone else who made this happen: you have my heartfelt thanks.
Where's the code? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:06 · Score: 0

If you go look where the code is said to be, it's not there:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging-next-2.6.git;a=tree;f=drivers/staging
And where's the license?
1. Re:Where's the code? by NiteMair · 2010-09-09 08:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I found it here:
  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging-next-2.6.git;a=commit;h=a9533e7ea3c410fed2f4cd8b3e1e213e48529b75
  Looks like MIT/BSD style license.
Hallelujah!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:12 · Score: 0

Sooo.... when does it trickle down to my laptop, so I can finally use it for some serious work for a change?
Documentation by sshore · 2010-09-09 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's good that they've released source for drivers.
It would be better still if they released documentation for their hardware that would be adequate to write a driver.
It's said that source code is the best documentation, but it only documents what the source is doing; not why it's doing it, what it could do, and what it shouldn't do.
1. Re:Documentation by domatic · 2010-09-09 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  True but I bet these drivers speak volumes to the devs who have been producing reverse engineered drivers. Since these will doubtless have to be tweaked to get into the Linux and BSD kernels I suppose the opportunity is there comment them enough to be fairish documentation.
I can't find the source code by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:13 · Score: 0

"""
The driver is currently available in staging-next git tree, available at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging-next-2.6.git
in the drivers/staging/brcm80211 directory.
"""
Do you see a brcm80211 directory here? I don't.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging-next-2.6.git;a=tree;f=drivers/staging;h=3a9ba849b916d04ebe7f79dc02c31a46cea815e0;hb=HEAD
How about bnx2 gig-e blob firmware by bofkentucky · 2010-09-09 08:16 · Score: 1

I hate having to jump through hoops to install debian on dell hardware.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
1. Re:How about bnx2 gig-e blob firmware by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  I expect the big binary blob is not open sourced. Just the driver. I hope i am wrong, time will tell.
  From research long ago (in internet tiime) i beleve that the broadcom chips contain several RISC
  processors, doing things that hardware would do in traditional cards. The blob, downloaded to the card,
  provided the code for these. They had a VERY raw interface to the hardware. SMALL errrors in places
  would make unexpected problems elsewere, besides allowing illegal use of the radios.
  I hop e i am wrong, and the drivers contain all the bits.
2. Re:How about bnx2 gig-e blob firmware by jonwil · 2010-09-09 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  To my mind, if the drivers include source for all the host-side x86 bits including the bit that downloads the blob to the card and the blob in question is suitably licenced then the source code to the secret bits that run on seperate CPUs on the card itself is not required.
Hooray! by ReederDa · 2010-09-09 08:18 · Score: 1

This will be awesome! I've been waiting and waiting for drivers for my wireless card to be released. Halelujiah!
Best documentation for a reason... by Junta · 2010-09-09 08:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Speaking as one who routinely works on open and closed projects, believing the documentation would be tempting, but usually a mistake.
The driver reflects the reality. If well commented (particularly if it has developers venting frustration), it really reflects the reality of how that doc got implemented in reality.
Often documentation is first written, then parts fabricated/code developed. When the fabricated parts come in, often there are minor different and/or incorrect interpretations of the spec, major enough to make the doc unusable, often minor enough to work with a change to the driver. When this happens, the driver will get updated, but going back to the documentation... No, not so much.
Particularly when it comes to the 'what it could do' part, at best it's not already done because they decided not to fund it and it is simply untested and may or may not work. Frequently it's because that capability was so fubared in testing that the feature was thrown over the fence to make a schedule.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Then you're doing it wrong by Rix · 2010-09-09 08:29 · Score: 1

Proper code has comments with exactly that.
Is it too late for Ubuntu 10.10 support? by Hadlock · 2010-09-09 08:29 · Score: 1

Ubuntu 10.10 is in Beta, and presumably a feature freeze -- is it possible to sneak these into the development for 10.10? If there's one thing I hate about installing Linux on my netbook, it's getting the fscking wifi drivers working shuttling files via USB thumb drive because I lost the eithernet cable or don't have access to a physical port.

Yes, this is a real problem for some people, and many college dorms are starting to go wifi only, meaning you have to hijack a library or computerlab eithernet connection to fix the wifi on your linux netbook.

--
moox. for a new generation.
1. Re:Is it too late for Ubuntu 10.10 support? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:34 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I asked about this and someone from the Ubuntu kernel team responded, looks like we'll even get a backport for 10.04!
2. Re:Is it too late for Ubuntu 10.10 support? by Hadlock · 2010-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Official support for backporting it to the 10.04 LTS release is fantastic news. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see unofficial backport support for 8.10-9.10. In this era, this is something that is just as important for laptop users as basic VGA or USB support.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
3. Re:Is it too late for Ubuntu 10.10 support? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  Ars says, that Ubuntu dev says, yes.
  http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/09/broadcom-announces-official-open-source-drivers-for-linux.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
4. Re:Is it too late for Ubuntu 10.10 support? by Compaqt · 2010-09-09 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the "official" feature freeze policy has prevented sneaking stuff in at the last moment before has it? Broken or otherwise.
  Certainly couldn't be worse than some of the other fiascos (Hardy PulseAudio, etc.).
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
LiveCD win! by scrib · 2010-09-09 08:54 · Score: 1, Informative

One of the biggest problems I faced was using a LiveCD to show off Linux.
"Here, boot with this and check it out!"
"Eh, kinda neat lookin'. How do I get online?"
"Well, hook your laptop to the router for a bit, or download some stuff onto a flash drive with another computer. Then you have to figure out exactly what model of wireless card you have and follow these arcane steps. No, it's easy, but you have to download these tools, too, to split the Windows driver files in... Wait, why are you booting back into Windows?"
It's really difficult to convince someone that Linux is as easy to use as Windows (in general, day to day work) when their first experience is struggling to make such basic things work.

--
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
1. Re:LiveCD win! by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2010-09-09 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's really difficult to convince someone that Linux is as easy to use as Windows (in general, day to day work) when their first experience is struggling to make such basic things work.
  So basically what you're saying is - it's difficult to convince someone of something that's demonstrably untrue?
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:LiveCD win! by Bert64 · 2010-09-09 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Windows doesn't come with wireless drivers for every chipset either... Unless you're using an OEM install which has them added in (and you could do the same with linux) you will have to acquire and install the drivers somehow too. Linux generally does better than windows because distros are updated more often and therefore more likely to have the necessary drivers.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
3. Re:LiveCD win! by scrib · 2010-09-09 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  You make an excellent point. However, most people don't see this and Windows doesn't offer the "LiveCD" method of booting. A "LiveCD" needs to rise to the challenge of supporting as much hardware as possible from a static disc.
  
  --
  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
4. Re:LiveCD win! by scrib · 2010-09-09 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ha ha, very funny. Installation issues are not the same thing at all as general, daily use issues. Linux can be a bit harder to set up (though as your younger sibling post points out, often this is just because computers ship with Windows drivers). Once Linux and Windows machines are completely configured, there's very little difference in how difficult they are to use.
  
  --
  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
5. Re:LiveCD win! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  The reason those drivers are not included on the CD is not because they're evil binary blobs, but because their license doesn't allow distribution by a 3rd party.
  So thank hardware mfgs and the stupid licenses they put on their binary drivers for that mess.
6. Re:LiveCD win! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, why are you booting back into Windows?
  To do the downloading, then thanks to NTFS-3G, the LiveCD can read the files.
Bye-Bye Broadcom by cdrguru · 2010-09-09 09:15 · Score: 1

The only reason ultra-cheap Chinese clones of Broadcom hardware aren't common today is because the lack of documentation. Anyone can tear the hardware apart and see what chips they are using and even, with an electron microscope, reverse-engineer a custom chip. But without the drivers and/or documentation there is no value in the hardware alone.
Now, with the complete documentation (the drivers are the documentation), there is no reason for anyone to spend more on Broadcom devices when they can just as easily just much cheaper clones. This will be a net win for manufacturers who will reap greater profits while not passing the savings along to customers. It pretty much means the end for Broadcom because they can't possibly compete with the clone makers.
1. Re:Bye-Bye Broadcom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Cocks in your ass.
2. Re:Bye-Bye Broadcom by Ogi_UnixNut · 2010-09-09 10:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If that was true then Atheros should have gone by now. They open sourced their drivers almost a decade ago, yet they are still around. In fact, due to the excellent Linux support, I've only been buying and recommending to others the Atheros chipset WiFi cards. Not to mention all the extra abilities it gained from the OS community (like the ability to simultaneously act as an AP and client, which brought about mesh networking and community wifi).
  They probably gained a lot indirectly in the form of higher sales of hardware due to this, plus the reduction in costs because they didn't have to pay a dev team all this time.
3. Re:Bye-Bye Broadcom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  In what world do you live where Atheros released their drivers a decade ago? The DD-wrt asshole made a killing by signing the Atheros NDA and then selling DD-wrt users ``unlock codez'' to make the driver configure higher power levels and licensed bands. He's probably still at it, because fully-open ath5k is quite new, and still not even working well as an AP.
4. Re:Bye-Bye Broadcom by mirix · 2010-09-09 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I seriously doubt that. these aren't 1960's logic gates, this is heavily integrated stuff. lots of work and fancy equipment required, and at the end of the day, there isn't a hell of a lot of margin on it either.
  Besides, Broadcom makes a ton of decoder / transcoder type stuff for set top boxes and the like, which is firmly under lock and key and has a large portion of the market. they ain't going anywhere anytime soon.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
5. Re:Bye-Bye Broadcom by Qzukk · 2010-09-09 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone can tear the hardware apart and see what chips they are using and even, with an electron microscope, reverse-engineer a custom chip. But without the drivers and/or documentation there is no value in the hardware alone.
  If I was going to go through the work to reverse engineer their chips with all that equipment and make a clone of their hardware, reverse engineering their driver and firmware from the binary blob would be child's play.
  If I went broke buying the microscope, then I'd just do a string replace for Broadcom against the driver and just release it.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
6. Re:Bye-Bye Broadcom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  That sounds pretty speculative. Can you give us a reason to believe you know wtf you are talking about? For example, you might give a specific story about one particular chip that has been illegally cloned in this way.
7. Re:Bye-Bye Broadcom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit. Stop trolling. This isn't 4chan.
  If Chinese could make perfect copies of the chip and sell it as their own, 100% compatible chip, then they would just run with Broadcom drivers. Yet, that ain't happening, is it?
8. Re:Bye-Bye Broadcom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-11 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  The ath5k driver still sucks for many things but there is madwif
  ath9k however is awesome.
Hmmm I wonder by ddubbleya · 2010-09-09 09:15 · Score: 1

I am actually acquainted with a guy that works for Broadcom. I remember he and I, at a gathering a few months ago, having a very heated discussion about the state of their wireless drivers for Linux. More like me ranting to him. He said that they have a team of programmers that put out their Linux drivers and bla bla bla ( I pretty intoxicated). I was bitching because the only distro that worked out of the box, for me anyways, was Ubuntu. I know he's some sort of manager that works on the wireless card side of things. I wonder...
Thank you Broadcom by TravisBy · 2010-09-09 09:16 · Score: 1

Thank you Broadcom! I've been waiting for this to finally happen. I will admit, I'm not happy with the present state of the 'wl' drivers, and this will at least create potential for others to improve on it. Thank you! :D [any chance of the bluetooth drivers too? I have one of the cheap dongles.... that needs *NIX support. :D]
1. Re:Thank you Broadcom by interval1066 · 2010-09-09 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Its about time, but this doesn't mean I'll actually be seeking Broadcom hardware now... for me, this is only insanely great if I buy a laptop (the only time I buy a name brand rig, btw, a little hard to make one from off-the-shelf components) that I really want and it includes a Broadcom wifi component. Otherwise, Broadcom can suck it, I really don't care for their crap all that much.
  
  By the way, I have two of their bt dongles and both have worked in Ubuntu. They just won't go into bt ubiquitous mode (or chatter mode, or whatever its called when you tell a bt controller to show all messages). Again, I don't really care for the crap they push.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
2. Re:Thank you Broadcom by oliverthered · 2010-09-09 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  packet injection.
  
  --
  thank God the internet isn't a human right.
IP and DRM by tepples · 2010-09-09 09:17 · Score: -1, Troll

And even that almost-from-scratch rewrite has to pass through a fairly serious legal review to make sure they're not revealing too much IP.
"IP" meaning anything other than Internet Protocol is confusing. Did you mean copyright, patent, or trade secret?

Most of the shit in the graphics drivers is caused by DRM though, they can't release any low-level stuff or you would be able to see the DRM'd bits being moved around and decrypted, even if you don't know the DRM bits.
What complication would a Direct Rendering Manager introduce? *beat* Oh, you meant digital restrictions management.
1. Re:IP and DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  You're not being clever. You're being a prick and adding nothing of value to the discussion.
These drivers will not help the desktop very much by Burz · 2010-09-09 09:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Due to some unfortunate attitudes/politics in the FOSS world, "Linux" is still only loosely defined as a desktop platform.
Without being defined more clearly with a platform spec -- including UI -- and an SDK to make app developers feel at home, the usability and fragility of the desktop-oriented features (*cough* sound *cough* graphics *cough*) will not much improve, nor will top-notch app developers feel more attracted to the amorphous non-platform.
Fortunately, that problem doesn't extend as much into the cellphone/PDA world, so a lot of progress is being made there. Google was not savagely attacked for 'taking away our UI freedom' when they started Android as an open-source project. Same thing for WebOS and others. Note that Android has an SDK and is relatively well-defined as a platform, and even the nut-less Linux Foundation now has an SDK for their mobile offering (something they won't do with the desktop).
And also note: Last I checked none of the desktop Linux-based distros had a platform spec or SDK either. My take on what went wrong is that the issue of creating a desktop Linux became politicized early-on by hackers and other CLI-jockeys when they held a lot more sway than they do now. So having a mandatory/standard GUI was seen as chaining users to something big and overly-complex that many hackers did not want. (My answer to that is, run a non-desktop distro if you want the GUI to be optional.)
Open source works mainly when the audience being served is programmers and system admins because these types are familiar with and appreciate tweaking to get something to work (and even then, only to a point). Projects that truly focus on end-users' needs are rare: Mozilla, OpenOffice.org, Android and maybe a couple others. The rest are either very nuts-and-bolts, or they are nuts-and-bolts with a thick candy coating.
FUSE: bringing ukernel-style file systems to Linux by tepples · 2010-09-09 09:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Then perhaps a hybrid kernel might be better: trusted drivers run in the monolithic core, while untrusted drivers run as user processes in a sort of microkernel. See FUSE for an example of this.
NDISwrapper! by CranberryKing · 2010-09-09 09:55 · Score: 1

Yall can kiss my ass foreva!
MOD PARENT UP by CompMD · 2010-09-09 10:08 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Parent is absolutely correct.
Looks like some folks with mod points are abusing them by downmodding people they don't agree with.
1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by damn_registrars · 2010-09-10 00:57 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Looks like some folks with mod points are abusing them by downmodding people they don't agree with.
  We certainly have some hacks with mod points running around and mod-trolling this discussion.
  
  However, I also have some idiot trying to mod-bomb me. Be careful what you wish for, or they might think you are me ...
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Simply buying a card" for laptops by tepples · 2010-09-09 10:24 · Score: 1

And before I drop any cash on a stand-alone network monitor, I will at least consider simply buying a card that has a legit driver.
That might work for desktop PCs. But once you've bought USB dongles to replace your laptop's Linux-incompatible internal hardware, you'll need a hub to plug them all in, and then you'll need a case to carry the dongles and the hub.
1. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by mr_mischief · 2010-09-09 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  If he can't spec which company's wireless hardware he wants in his laptop before he buys he's already way behind. They put that information right on the web page for the laptop model usually, and it pays to check it.
  Many of these things are still MiniPCI, in which case you remove screw or maybe two in order to swap the cards. If you're buying a laptop with networking hardware integrated on the mother board and it doesn't meet your needs, you're just asking to need USB.
2. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by tepples · 2010-09-09 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  If he can't spec which company's wireless hardware he wants in his laptop before he buys he's already way behind. They put that information right on the web page for the laptop model usually
  This can work provided you have web access when you walk into the store to buy a laptop, or provided that you are willing to make two trips: one to write down model numbers and one to make the purchase. You could try buying online before you try the laptop, but then you are likely to end up having to pay the 15 percent restocking fee when the keyboard or screen doesn't meet your standards.
3. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by mr_mischief · 2010-09-09 12:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your issues assume that someone can't look at the specs online for a model that is at the store. Most brick-and-mortar computer and electronics stores actually do have websites. You can even print out the specs and take the paper to the store with you. Most of this information even happens to be on the box or in the spec book at the store. Many stores even really do have Internet (or at least Intranet to their own site which has different pricing than the public Internet site, but that problem was uncovered years ago) access at the store for customers to look online at specs and prices.
  If you're not dealing with Best Buy, Fry's, CompUSA, Electronics Superstore, Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, or some similarly large chain (all of which have specs and prices online for what they sell in the stores) and are not dealing with a mom-and-pop place with enough brains to have Internet access in their store, then why are you buying at that particular brick-and-mortar store?
  Also, if you find a laptop model in a brick-and-mortar store that is popular enough to have an out-of-box running display for you to try, you should be really suspicious if you can't find that model online at the manufacturer's site or at least some other store's site.
  I know laptops are less expensive (and sometimes actually cheaper, as in cheaper builds and materials) than they used to be, but it's still not a cheeseburger. If you're spending hundreds of dollars on something you'll be using for hours or tens of hours a week, perhaps it's worth more of your time to research than walking into the store and checking the key pitch and travel before buying.
4. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by tepples · 2010-09-09 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  You can even print out the specs and take the paper to the store with you.
  So in other words, make two trips: one to write down model numbers of models in stock and one to bring in the printed specs, so that I don't print a dozen models that the store doesn't even carry. And how do you recommend that I print out the specs if I'm shopping for a printer too?
  
  Most of this information even happens to be on the box or in the spec book at the store.
  The last time I looked at the box of a laptop PC, it didn't state what make and model of WLAN chipset was included. And what's the magic word to get a Best Buy sales associate to drag out a "spec book"?
5. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by mr_mischief · 2010-09-09 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Most stores that sell computers have places to view web pages in the store, and that usually even includes printing things out (or you could write it on a notepad -- an actual, physical, paper one (THE HORROR!)).
  Well, if you can't get a list of specs from the sales critter, try looking in the hardware info in Windows. If the won't let you do that, don't buy from them.
  If you want to keep arguing about how you're right, go ahead. If you want to actually think for a minute and see that it's not a problem, just read the post again and take a breath.
6. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by tepples · 2010-09-10 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  try looking in the hardware info in Windows.
  Now how are we going to train the vast majority of end users to do this before buying a new computer?
7. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by mr_mischief · 2010-09-10 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  "The vast majority of end users" aren't going to buy a Windows PC and install some version of Linux on it. They'll either buy a PC (the vast majority of that vast majority of yours will do this) with Windows and leave it that way or (a small portion of your vast majority will do this) they'll buy a PC preloaded with Linux.
  Those who actually know how to install and administer Linux themselves are probably savvy enough on Windows as well to check the hardware info.
8. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by tepples · 2010-09-10 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  or (a small portion of your vast majority will do this) they'll buy a PC preloaded with Linux.
  I wish that were easier. Most PC shops I've walked into, both national chains and independent shops, don't sell or build Linux PCs. Unless they're Apple dealers, they deal exclusively in Windows PCs.
9. Re:"Simply buying a card" for laptops by mr_mischief · 2010-09-12 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I wish it was easier, too. It is possible to find systems preloaded with Linux, but it would be nice if there were more places that offered the option.
Something everybody seems to be missing.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:42 · Score: 0

...having not RTFA is that this only applies to their LATEST 802.11N based chipsets. IE all us schmucks with older a/b/g cards are still SOL, although hopefully the drivers can be backported to utilize older firmware images to allow better interoperation.
Honestly I've got a 4ish year old Compaq with a broadcom chipset in it (43xx, don't remember model, but not the 4313 listed.) and while the open source effort to support the chips was iffy, the closed source driver ubuntu has been supporting for a while has worked wonders on that laptop.
Here's hoping the open source drivers do the same, for what chipsets they DO support.
N900 by CarpetShark · 2010-09-09 10:42 · Score: 1

Broadcom wireless chipsets are used in a staggering number of linux-based embedded devices, such as the venerable WRT54G.
Exactly. The Nokia N900 springs to mind. Nokia essentially abandoned it (to "community support") when they moved to their new OS (meego), citing the N900's closed hardware as something they couldn't support 100% going forward with a new, fully open OS. It'll be interesting to see if they change their tune now that broadcom drivers are open. I doubt there's much else in an n900 that's closed hardware, given that it IS linux, most drivers tend to be open source for it, and that much of the functionality is in the main mobile CPU chip (OMAP3?), which is well known (and, I believe, open).
1. Re:N900 by Svartalf · 2010-09-09 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  The only remaining driver would be the SGX drivers for the GPU on the SoC. Can't get away from that one. You're still facing...heh...interesting issues there and I'd love to see them reconcile their stance in light of there being really NO credible mobile solution GPUs that're Open Source friendly- they're all closed source blobs from start to finish except for the command dispatch end that sits in kernel space.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Slashdot community. by CherniyVolk · 2010-09-09 10:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Please, when talking about what someone said, a personal blog link or a link to a journalists entry of some sort displaying the quote. When talking about government / military things, please make sure "proof" links end either in .gov or .mil and nothing else. The above link, talks about Broadcom (who has their own website) open sourcing some of their linux device drivers, yet the link takes you to OS News, which also has another link.
Now, this isn't to challenge the post itself, just how slashdot entries tend to always do this sort of thing.
"Steve Jobs announces new device!!!! HERE"S PROOF 'link to macrumors, ars technica, bbc tech news, Times or something other than apple.com'" please start providing real links my fellow members of slashdot.
1. Re:Slashdot community. by Jesus_666 · 2010-09-09 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, "Steve Jobs announces new device" goes pretty well with a Mac Rumors link. The various rumor sites usually have live tickers (complete with photo streams) during his keynotes, thus they do have the news first. I think it's perfectly reasonable to first quote their ticker and then follow up with a link to Apple once the site is updated.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Firmware? by david.given · 2010-09-09 10:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I haven't looked at the source code --- I can't find it; shouldn't it be visible in in this directory? --- but the announcement doesn't mention any firmware.
A lot (but not all) of wireless cards are usually embedded ARM processors with a radio glued on. The operating system driver just talks to the firmware, and the firmware does most of the heavy lifting. Some cards store firmware in flash, but some store it in RAM and it has to be uploaded from the host computer every time the device is reset.
Does anyone know whether these chipsets do require firmware, and if so whether it's included in the source release?
1. Re:Firmware? by david.given · 2010-09-09 11:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Right, I found the source (for some reason cut-and-paste isn't working into a Slashdot text box, but it's prominently linked by another story).
  Yes, these drivers require firmware. No, this release does not include source for the firmware. You still need to have the binary blob from Broadcom to make the drivers work.
2. Re:Firmware? by SanityInAnarchy · 2010-09-09 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Which also means, in other words, that this is nearly entirely useless -- at least, I wasn't having any issues whatsoever with the reverse-engineered drivers other than the lack of firmware.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
3. Re:Firmware? by MrPeach · 2010-09-09 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  yes and no.
4. Re:Firmware? by ModelX · 2010-09-09 21:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I had tons of linux issues with Broadcom drivers and figured out both driver software and firmware were problematic. The Broadcom binary driver for my Broadcom chip version is not available, only the general linux driver, which nearly works. Now the tricky part is the firmware. Windows drivers update firmware on the fly whereas linux drivers don't. In fact, changes in firmware cause linux driver to work intermittently. Sometimes linux driver will fail to initialize connection due to some problem with firmware connecting to a particular switch, whereas windows driver has no such problem.
  The key problem is firmware updates are not included in linux drivers due to legal reasons, it's not too difficult to reverse engineer that part from windows drivers.
  So what Broadcom needs to do is to open source drivers and give permission to distribute firmware update code with open source drivers.
5. Re:Firmware? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  well yes it does require a firmware still however now one is free to distribute said firmware
  provided by the kernel under this firmware license
  so it would be in the linux-firmware package or something usually already installed for with your
  distrobution of choice.
  so they've released the firmware too but only in binary form under thier license
6. Re:Firmware? by katana_steel · 2010-09-13 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Well yes it does require a firmware still however now one is free to distribute said firmware
  provided by the kernel under this firmware license
  (provided in git commit: 8ce599d7e75d7e998a325408ae9507bf9e3388c0)
  So it would be in the linux-firmware package or something, usually already installed for with your
  distrobution of choice.
  so they've released the firmware too but only in binary form under thier license
Way too late by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:58 · Score: 0

This is a little late for anyone to cheer them. They should have done this 4 years ago.
In the News Today by fast+turtle · 2010-09-09 11:14 · Score: 1

Instances of Porcine Flyers and the current temp in Hell is -50 and dropping fast after an accidental release of Nitrous Oxide affected the Thermostats.

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
1. Re:In the News Today by Compaqt · 2010-09-10 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Waiting for the other shoe to drop: nVidia open source drivers.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Bug in channel 216? by jeremycole · 2010-09-09 11:15 · Score: 1

Is this a bug in phy/wlc_phy_cmn.c? Channel 216 doesn't follow the pattern set forth above it -- or is channel 216 really at presumably 50.8GHz instead of 5.08GHz?
increased availabilty by DrYak · 2010-09-09 12:20 · Score: 1

at least, as the drivers are open sourced :
- a bigger number of distributions can ship them as standard packages. (not all distribution can ship binary drivers, some time due to plain stupid copyright problems)
- such driver are easier to update (if the kernel versions increases, the distribution provides an adapted package, whereas with proprietary, the user has to recompile the glue .ko code - sometimes manually)
- in case of newer distribution,the distro makers are free to adapt and compile a newer package of the driver. (with proprietary they would depend on the company providing a newer driver, and the company may lag behind, because they prioritise windows)
- in case of bugs or exploit, at least the linux world has a possibility to fix the problems. Whereas with proprietary, one has to wait until the company provides a fix - which could suffer from delay, specially if the hardware is old and the company has no economic incentive to keep supporting it.
so indeed "open source" isn't some magic pixie dust that will make all problems go away. On the other hand, it will increase the availability and gives more means to correct said problems apart from "wait for the company to fix it".

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
no Linux Wi-Fi problems by oliverthered · 2010-09-09 12:52 · Score: 1

usb_modeswitch.....
ok, so not branded 'wi-fi', but mobile broadband.

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:These drivers will not help the desktop very mu by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 14:02 · Score: 0

No platform? What about the Linux Standard Base?
Thats what they have backports for. by voss · 2010-09-09 14:21 · Score: 1

A backport makes more sense than waiting 6 months
Vote with your wallets and let companies know by voss · 2010-09-09 14:30 · Score: 1

atheros chipset drivers have had open source drivers for sometime which is why I choose atheros chipsets for my network needs.
I wrote an email to TP-link telling them this and they wrote me back thanking me.
The good thing for TP-Link is that they dont have to make linux drivers they just make products
that support the existing atheros drivers.
Android and the HD2 by NuShrike · 2010-09-09 15:08 · Score: 1

This explains why the HD2 running Froyo 2.2 suddenly got fully working Broadcom WiFi drivers dropped into the git tree a couple of weeks ago.
http://git.linuxtogo.org/?p=groups/mobile-linux/kernel.git;a=commit;h=26c66976c838c956c7b003cec8fd96c7cdac4026
WTF by MrPeach · 2010-09-09 15:21 · Score: 1

These are the same drivers we've been repeatedly told are a firing offense if we accidentally release them to customers?
WTF, just WTF.
Re:These drivers will not help the desktop very mu by Burz · 2010-09-09 16:33 · Score: 1

LSB doesn't define the desktop environment, nor other features like app installation interfaces (both UI and programmatic). People get lost (or even if they don't, they tend to FEEL a bit lost) without such features.
No one can write a guideline for copying/moving app data files (say, photos) or making basic configuration changes using the LSB as a guide. Nor can they write instructions for installing software (defining the package format as LSB does is not enough).
Mark Shuttleworth is also right to say that LSB doesn't properly handle the question of revision numbers for all the different components in the OS: There isn't enough synchronization. Sadly though, he seems to miss all the other points I brought up and instead of bringing in high-level design people he's got his team aping the look of Mac OS X.
The whole concept of "Linux" as a desktop platform is empty, a sort of mass delusion among hackers. Linux is just a kernel. Yet people write apps on Ubuntu expecting them to work on Mandriva and Fedora too. The same thing doesn't occur with Linux-based mobile platforms: Who writes an app for Android (which BTW does not have "Linux" in the title) and expects it to run on WebOS and Meego??
Android is a full OS platform, one that benefits from being paired with complete hardware builds by the mfg. with some help from Google. The desktop "Linux" morass has no such dynamic, making it an inferior choice for most non-hackers and I dare say even most techies.
Marketing by troll8901 · 2010-09-09 17:36 · Score: 1

2) Being verifiably honest is a competitive advantage.
Question 1: My hard disk can sustain between 30MB/sec to 80MB/sec sequential transfer, while my competitor's can sustain up to 286MB/sec. Which will you buy?
Question 2: My laser printer can sustain 1.5 ppm, while my competitor's up to 10 ppm. Which to recommend?
----
Hint 1: 286MB/sec is the upper limit for SATA 2.
Hint 2: "My" measurements are inclusive of "cooling breaks between prints" during high volume prints, and includes a medium-resolution graphic (30MB size perhaps).
1. Re:Marketing by Anne+Thwacks · 2010-09-09 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  The tyre shop a the end of my street offers "used tyres from £3". Ask them "How far from £3?" and the answer is "a very long way" For average cars, approximately £60 away.
  My grandmother used to say "The adverts speak very highly of it!", meaning: no one else does.
  We all know marketing execs are taught "there's one born every minute". Those days are over. No, its not 1999 any more: almost everyone on the planet has used a computer, and before they buy another one, they will be asking some relevant questions, or getting someone else to - like "Will I have to throw it away next month cos of virus infestation?". And, they wont be asking the sales person in Walmart, either.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
2. Re:Marketing by troll8901 · 2010-09-09 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Those days are over... before they buy another one, they will be asking some relevant questions
  *unable to utter a sound*
  Rebutted on Slashdot, humbled again! Oh well.
3. Re:Marketing by vadim_t · 2010-09-09 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Question 1:
  Unless it's a SSD, I think they're full of it, and go with your. In any case it's not the manufacturer's claims I'll look at, but Tom Hardware's benchmarks or any such site's. I'll pay special attention to dirty tricks like pretending to flush the cache.
  Question 2:
  If printing speed is important, I look for benchmarks/testing the unit myself. If it's not, then I don't care what it is.
Re:These drivers will not help the desktop very mu by the_womble · 2010-09-09 18:16 · Score: 2, Informative

First you say that Linux is too hard for developers, then you say that it works well for developers but not for end users.
Apart from sound (and that is not too hard a problem, given everyone uses Pulseaudio these days, and it can play ALSA and OSS stuff if the distro configures it correctly, and ALSA can also emulate OSS), I have never heard either developers or end users complain.
... and the unstated reason by turing_m · 2010-09-09 18:24 · Score: 1

6. It would mean we'd have to clean up our code.

--
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
And the battery charging stuff... by Qubit · 2010-09-09 19:55 · Score: 1

AFAIK they still haven't released the driver for interfacing with the battery to charge it... the stock reason was that they were afraid people would blow up their batteries.
Now public safety is a lofty goal, but honestly if Nokia wants more people to believe in their commitment to an open future, and wants them to jump on the MeeGo train, they're really going to have to make some big gestures, and a push to open all they can on the n900 would really be a good start.
What's the next gen of hardware? The N9 is it? Heck, better than the N9, if Nokia really wants to show off they could try to get 100% open drivers there. It'll be tough/impossible if they go with an Imagination GPU (so I think that would rule out OMAP), so maybe it'd be everything but the GPU.

--

coding is life /* the rest is */
ad hominm by IBitOBear · 2010-09-09 20:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I (not the original poster) make six figures a year. I buy a lot of gear. I own my own house (etc) and I select strongly against companies that do not open source their specs and drivers. Granted I cannot avoid such things completely. But I do try and I do substantially succeed.
I work in defense contracting. My projects substantially select against hardware that doesn't open source their drivers. Granted they do not avoid such things completely, but they do dry and substantially succeed.
See the pattern?
In both cases this is rampant self interest. And why shouldn't it be? Both options cost the same, the open sourced (or open source compatible) option works just as well, but in one I have more options and choices and it cost the company nothing and profited them my business.
Closed source code is a freak outcome of the 1980's PC culture as fostered by MS. For decades before that all software came with source. Heck, the original PC Technical Manual contained a printout of the BIOS for the IBM PC.
"Closed Source" information theory died in the renaissance, it came back for a bit these last twenty years, but it is just a blip.

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 21:04 · Score: 0

Do you think this has anything to do with HTC and their Android phones not having WiFi N for a while, and maybe even the long times that OEMs take to update Android versions? If OEMs want open-source drivers to speed along the process and have full access to hardware then that could be a big reason to push companies to open-source their drivers. That's my educated guess, HTC made them do it.
mod parent up by Compaqt · 2010-09-09 22:15 · Score: 1

Good point.
I've already replied so I can't mod you up.
I think it might be enough to be able to not include the firmware in the repositories, but to dynamically download the firmware from a specified FTP site and then apply it.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 22:31 · Score: 0

My Dell Studio is incompatible with Linux, XP, Windows 7 (functional only), while Vista is incompatible with itself and unusable.
I'm setting my hopes for Windows though, since Linux Broadcom drivers didn't work properly in any distribution, using any methods.
This is a good move, but too late for me.
Lesson learned: Don't buy Dell ever, ever, ever again. Not Apple either.. Certainly not Sony. Anyone else?
Finally. by benacheson · 2010-09-09 22:46 · Score: 1

Finally. WiFi support for Linux.

--
Ben Acheson
Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 23:18 · Score: 0

Thank you Broadcom!!!
Progress makes perfect by Qubit · 2010-09-10 00:54 · Score: 1

I think it might be enough to be able to not include the firmware in the repositories, but to dynamically download the firmware from a specified FTP site and then apply it.
But what about people installing off a usb thumbdrive on a system with a wireless card but no ethernet jack (or at least no ethernet cable handy) ?
The real solution here is to open the firmware. I'm no expert here, but I believe that the current atheros chips have both open drivers and open firmware. So you don't have any distribution, linking, derivative work, etc... issues.
To sum up:
- Kudos to Broadcom. We didn't think you'd do this in 2010!
- Dear Broadcom, please consider releasing the firmware as well (and drivers/firmware for older models...we're still using them!)
- Dear Users, please consider how open broadcom and atheros chipsets are when you buy stuff!

--

coding is life /* the rest is */
1. Re:Progress makes perfect by Compaqt · 2010-09-10 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Are there any chipsets other than Atheros or Broadcom? (I don't know.)
  I guess I had assumed that this meant that you could basically buy laptops blind now (Atheros, Broadcom, Intel all being covered).
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
What law and how difficult? by Qubit · 2010-09-10 00:58 · Score: 1

The key problem is firmware updates are not included in linux drivers due to legal reasons
What law? What about the ath9k stuff from Atheros. AFAIK they're funding that work and the firmware is as open as an unpatched windows machine...

it's not too difficult to reverse engineer that part from windows drivers
Sure, but it's probably much easier to just write the firmware when you have the spec in hand! Also, how legal is it to reverse-engineer the windows drivers? I know that the rules are often different across the pond...

--

coding is life /* the rest is */
just one example of many in all probability... by helios17 · 2010-09-10 02:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Five years ago, my company budgeted for the purchase of several dozen printers at a cost of over $4000.00...having just migrated to Linux, I had the task of researching the most productive printers for the Linux environment. I was told to "lean" toward Canon printers. Like that was going to happen. I took the time to write to Canon and tell them that we would not be purchasing their product due to their lack of support for Linux. You can see a copy of their response here half way down the page here: http://linux-blog.org/more-printer-mayhem/ Canon may have, by now, released drivers for Linux. I could care less. They were not available for me when I needed them. HP and Samsung were and still are and any printer purchases we make will be through those companies. I wonder at how many decision-makers have done the same.

--
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
Re:These drivers will not help the desktop very mu by Burz · 2010-09-10 03:26 · Score: 1

Yes, it works well for enthusiast system developers. It's awful for app developers. I should have been more clear on those points.
Or putting it another way, if you're scratching your own itch as a developer, your contribution will be valuable to other devs and perhaps sysadmins too. But if you're thinking about typical end-users as your target, then "desktop Linux" doesn't look appealing at all. This is especially true if you want to distribute commercially as you would have to support DISTROS x VERSIONS number of OS variations, not to mention that the system won't quite treat your app as normal software because the package-handling assumptions revolve around the idea that all software comes through free repositories.
Audio is still a mess, less so on the blocking/mixing issue, but still having problems with hardware support: One OEM can wire outputs very differently from another even given the same audio chip meaning that reasonable defaults are a game of chance... you can install Ubuntu and get L-R front speakers on your surrounds, headphones, or some lines that didn't get a jack connected to them on that computer.
And audio can still disappear without a trace after system updates... much the same case as with X11 video disappearing (it still does this on many systems even with minor settings changes).
AND THEN there is the problem with large OEMs like Dell taking widely-available chips for which Linux drivers exist, and asking the mfg. to knock a few dollars off. My experience has been that Linux drivers often work with these variations, but not well.
Finally! by semperos · 2010-09-10 03:37 · Score: 1

Finally. Hours of my life have been wasted trying to get Broadcom drivers to work in the past - no more.
Re:FUSE: bringing ukernel-style file systems to Li by badkarmadayaccount · 2010-09-10 04:35 · Score: 1

Tagged TLBs are only available on the latest AMD and Intel CPUs. You need those, trust me. (The TLB)

--
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
If anything RHEL will dominate backend servers by judeancodersfront · 2010-09-10 08:58 · Score: 1

and there are already proprietary drivers for RHEL.
Re:These drivers will not help the desktop very mu by judeancodersfront · 2010-09-10 09:04 · Score: 1

You haven't read many game development threads then.
Year of the Linux laptop is every third year by judeancodersfront · 2010-09-10 09:09 · Score: 1

This is the year of the Linux smartphone and kitchen appliance.
Re:These drivers will not help the desktop very mu by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-12 23:14 · Score: 0

You say there are no SDK to make app developers feel at home for the "desktop-platform"
but there are, and even quite a few well defined ones, however that has nothing to do with
low-level support of hardware that has to go through the kernel.
The thing is with the Desktop Platform the hardware specs are usually very versatile, in the
embedded device platform you have X spec for X model and Y spec for model Y.
I'd love to see the SDK that will enable developers making kernel "plugins" or others things
for the Android platform you mention however anything the SDK enables is the VM enviroment
where the software has to request hardware access and still let the VM handle that.
To give my 10 bits, for an SDK for the Desktop, whether UI or other, I am very fond of the Qt
one, it has a good deal of everything (sound, UI & DB) however GTK+ as UI is very well defined
also.