Slashdot Mirror
3Com Releases GPL'd Drivers
A reader wrote with the news of
GPL'd drivers for Linux. Looks like right now, they only have Red Hat in the list-but it's a great step, and I'm sure more support is on the way. That comes on the heels of their April announcement of supporting Linux. Due credit, of course, is given to Donald Becker, our demigod of networking.
disclaimer:Hemos owns shares in Red Hat
Note: The 3C59x, 3C900 and 3C905 series NICs are supported by Donald Becker's driver. This driver can be obtained at the below URL: The above is from 3COM site, which means they only providing a link for people want a driver. I think they does help the development a bit by giving away the hardware control doc, not I don't think they ever help on the coding side. Besides, I am using the driver since 0.99x ... nothing change to me.
Do you complain about your christmas presents too? Shesh.
BSD would get more drivers if it would take suggestions about minor kernel changes from driver writers like Donald Becker. He said he tried to work with them on some drivers but when he suggested some kernel changes, they just showed egos.
I was wondering which one, the 3Com or The Donald Becker's driver gives me the best performance?
No matter how hard they try, they still get attacked! I think the previous poster was inquiring as opposed to attacking. If 3com wanted to get the most support, they should have used a BSD-like license. Linux as well as the BSD's could have used it, therefore, there would have been more developers.
AFAIK, in the US, yes. LT's MMV in other countries. (see this post for more info on how trademarks work).
There are instructions in the README to allow you to build it as a part of the kernel and not just a module, Don't know if anyone else picked up on that.
3Com makes hardware, they should have released this source under a very free license so that all free Unix' could incorporate it without a pointless rewriting or handling of it.
-T
You don't see the logic in waiting a couple months to get faster 3D than you could have before? -W.W.
> but if the NIC I got breaks (which it hasn't yet), I can get another one and still be paying
> less than 1 3com card.
That may be true, but 3com's cards are guaranteed for life--- you will never need to buy another one if the one you buy breaks.
> Did they just tweak Becker's drivers (pardon me if it was someone else), or write them from
> scratch, or port them from Unices, or what?
I looked at the source code, and what they did is port their NT drivers to Linux!
I just did, thanks for the convenient link!! Yes, we need to do that more often. it comes to show the well to do spirit of the pinguins!!! THANKS
Sorry to respond to my own post, but I've seen two arguments:
One is that 3Com had its own motives for just labelling the modules "for Red Hat": first, that's all they had the time/resources/whatever to test on, and second for publicity/stock value/whatever. That's fine, it just adds 3com to the list of companies that have pursued the same (distasteful, IMHO) strategy.
The other is that those modules are precompiled for kernel versions "specific to Red Hat 5.2 and 6.0". Okay, time out. There's no such thing as a kernel version specific to a distribution. If there is, for instance if a distribution is using nonstandard numbering of kernel versions, then that speaks to me of some fundamental problems with the distribution. At any rate, those modules should still be labelled "for use with Linux kernel version 2.x.xx". Not in the documentation, on the face of them, where that big "Red Hat" bumper sticker is right now.
> It is simple, when I use a GPL'd product as my base, I lose my rights to my work.
No, you retain all rights to the work that you did, and you can distribute it under your own terms minus the GPL component if you wish.
If you had used a Microsoft product as your base you would likely have no rights to distribute the combination at all.
("This is my new accounting program I wrote based on Excel macros and sheets, why can't I give out Excel with each copy? It's the base of my work!!!")
All right, BSD flamers, listen up:
(1) 3Com wanted to get their driver working on Linux, which is what they did: download the source and you'll see it is a port of their NT driver to the Linux network subsystem.
(2) 3Com obviously was not interested in getting it running on BSD, because they did not port it to BSD.
(3) That being said, they probably wouldn't particularly mind releasing their NT driver under a BSD compatible license so that _you_ can port it.
(4) The thing for you to do, therefore, is to ASK 3Com if you can port their original NT driver to BSD, NOT to flame on Slashdot-- and NOT to get all upset because 3Com didn't decide to support BSD out of the box.
> Lots and lots of hype, but why?
:)
> 1. Almost all 3com cards run like a lightning with Donald Becker's drivers.
This new driver supports the 3c980 'server' card, which I think was previously unsupported.
> 2. The driver from first glimpse did not look 64 bit clean to me.
My thoughts exactly! What's more, it looks like a port of the NT driver to me... I think Microsoft is going to be in for a lot of shit before they ever get Windows NT working properly on a 64-bit CPU
> 4. I would much rather prefer 3com to release specs/drivers for their modems then releasing a
> driver for something that is well supported already.
This driver does support previously unsupported cards, read above.
Winmodems still suck.
> If I create a database based on Access orr if I use a template or theme to create my website,
> Microsoft makes no claim to my work.
And if you use gcc to compile a program, which I am sure as hell you do, you don't have to GPL the source or binary either.
But you can't give away a copy of Access or FrontPage with every product that you sell, just because you used it as a 'base' for your 'work'.
I doubt it. They just wanted it to work on Linux, and a GPL-ed driver was the end result.
:)
I think the BSD people are just upset that they didn't consider BSD important enough to port to
3Com need to do a little debugging. On our Dell Precision 410's (motherboard integrated 3C905B NIC) the new driver from 3Com locks Linux (2.2.5-15) hard after about an hour or so of operation. Donald Becker's driver works like a champ on these same machines. We're sticking with the Demigod's driver until 3Com has a fix out. Furter proof that you should never run any software with a revision number ending in .0
no need to reinvent/reimplement the wheel. if the work is already done, USE IT. how is this bad?
unfortunately, you are still looking at software through the glasses of production-driven competitive software. this is about cooperation and reuse of effort creating leaps in technology, not fear of the other guys getting ahead, or self-agrandizement through the concept of "MY PROJECT". fact of the matter is: it works. *shrug*
It's not a matter of being "compatbile across distributions", it's a matter of supporting kernel 2.x.x. If 3com had said GPLed source for Linux 2.2.x and 2.0.x, and made a subnote of precompiled binaries of RH 5.2 and 6.0 this discussion would never have taken place. I love the fact that 3com is releasing the source to their drivers and I don't even mind them releaseing precompiled binaries for distrbution X. But the message that needs to be communicated to the rest of the world is distrubtion X is not linux.
Man this is one large thread eh? =) like a great man ounce said.. 'If you dont like it, dont use it!' its as simple as *that*.. simple!
I just replaced a 3c905c card with intel 10/100 pro
Linksys has been shipping their network products with several mentioning Linux on the boxes in plain sight. Their website has drivers/information for the rest easily available (some or even most of this is probably thanks to Donald Becker, I'm sure). I've been buying Linksys products almost exclusively for a while now. I recently bought one of their PCI 10/100 network cards, and it turned out to be "version 2" of the card, which has no driver in the shipped versions of Linux around... but, incredibly, there was a usable source file INCLUDED IN THE FLOPPY IN THE BOX! There were also comments on the website about it. It's a Brave New World, friends, when the old Windowsy intuition of looking on a manufacturers web site for drivers is now starting to be applicable to Linux. Erich Boleyn erich@uruk.org
The bottom line is that BSDish licenses are a poor choice for corporate public releases. I don't care what ethic you call upon to expound on BSD. Corporations must be careful about things being so "free" that their competitors can make even nominal use of them.
I don't know how SMC might capitalize on a BSD 3Com driver. I don't care, but 3Com is obligated to worry it. They know there is little SMC can do with it under the GPL.
I suspect few well laywered Corporations will release much under BSD. If the do, it will likely be in the form of end-user enhancements to an existing BSD package, such as PostgreSQL.
The potential return on BSDed code is lower than GPLed. Corps operate in terms of risk/reward. Until BSD carries lower risk, or higher potential for reward, it will play second fiddle to the GPL.
Linksys has been shipping their network products with several mentioning Linux on the boxes in plain sight. Their website has drivers/information for the rest easily available (some or even most of this is probably thanks to Donald Becker, I'm sure). I've been buying Linksys products almost exclusively for a while now. I recently bought one of their PCI 10/100 network cards, and it turned out to be "version 2" of the card, which has no driver in the shipped versions of Linux around... but, incredibly, there was a usable source file INCLUDED IN THE FLOPPY IN THE BOX! There were also comments on the website about it. It's a Brave New World, friends, when the old Windowsy intuition of looking on a manufacturers web site for drivers is now starting to be applicable to Linux. Erich Boleyn erich@uruk.org
Of course... I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the fact that the precompiled modules have "Red Hat" stamped on them instead of "Linux".
Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad they're doing this. I'm just saying there's no good reason for those modules to be labelled "Red Hat". It's misleading.
> So instead (since GIMP was previously mentioned, I'll use it). Since GIMP is GPL'd, what are the
> odds of a competing free software image editor appearing?
There already are several 'competing' programs: xpaint precedes the GIMP and is under the MIT license, the KDE people are writing or planning to write an 'easier to use' paint program called KImageShop; there is GPhoto which is a GPLed program to interface with digital cameras and includes some image-editing features as well.
I don't see how the existence of the GIMP precludes you from writing your own program.
> Since the GPL prevents code forks...., nobody is likely to fork GIMP and create SuperFoo PixTool
> which is also open source but meets the needs of a different group of users.
Actually, GIMP is maintained in CVS and there are several different branches which you may consider 'forks': one that comes to mind is a project for handling images with greater color resolution for film work, you can check it out at http://film.gimp.org.
There was also a 'fork' of Gimp which was ported to Windows, although now it is mostly merged with the main Gimp code.
Personally I never bought the 'prevents code fork' argument regarding the GNU GPL, I think the real issue was 'prevents a proprietary code fork' which has nothing to do with the idea of code forking anyway.
You know, the poster never replied to the comment of how the GPL sucked away his freedom after it was pointed out that he could use GPLed code as a base and develop a new product from it without loosing his own rights to it. The nice thing about GPL is that I can take parts of many different GPLed programs and make a new one and not have to fear it's takeover by someone else. What if GNOME or KDE were under BSDL? can you imagine microsoft's perversion of those desktops and then selling "Windows Explorer for Linux or BSD". Significant enhancements would bave been made ot GNOME/KDE and the teams would still be no further than what they are before a company that can afford thousands of programmers working full time could achieve. OK... let's make this thread even longer. GNOME SUCKS KDE SUCKS same basic argument. Oh, while we're at it... Apple sucks for no other reason than I've never used it and I'm too scared to leave my x86 box!
fuck you. Apple rules!
3Com's drivers are for their RETAIL cards. The nics integrated into Dell's systems are NOT retail, and NOT supported by 3Com retail. Dell is responsible for the drivers of their stuff.
Admitted, sometimes 3Com's drivers do work on the Dell chips but that isn't guarenteed.
And I should know, as I am in the retail support.
I don't think that the GPL will be challenged in court. It's held up informally for too long, and it was originally drafted with the help of laywers.
Besides, if a court overturned any of the underpinning ideas of the GPL (like signature-less licenses), it would probably spell disaster for all the other commerical software licenses out there-- a risk that many rich people would not want to take.
> because of patent issues and intellectual property associated with the innovations I may
> have, being able to keep my source (or even just part of my source, I have released open source
> windows code) secure is the only thing that gets it released to a consumer market.
Huh? If your ideas are patented, there is no reason to keep the source secret because no one will be allowed to use it without paying you. The worst that could happen is that someone might fix some of your bugs for you.
Now, if you're trying to use someone else's patented idea without paying them, and you are attempting to conceal the fact by withholding the source code, why don't you just say so?
(BTW, if you are, bad idea: you just made all of your "consumers" liable to be sued for the infringement!)
> This is why I consider the GNU community to be a type of proprietorship.
It is. But it is a proprietorship with very simple and equal rules for access to the code: you can do anything you want with it except restrict someone else from doing the same.
Now, you can either like this or not, but you'll have to come up with a better reason as to why this is BAD to convince others to agree with you.
Are there any examples of this? That is, BSD code being taken and inserted into a GPL product? On a different note, suppose project ABC is licensed under BSDL, and someone then licenses it under the GPL, say with minor changes. does this mean the original BSDL code is now GPLed as well?
I used the precompiled 3c90x.o for my Red Hat 6.0 system(2.2.5-15smp) and it consistantly crashes after a few minutes of uptime (it works for a while). I'm using a 3c905b-TX.(yes it's the retail version although I doubt it matters) I had to switch back to Donald Beckers 3c59x driver which has always worked fine
Becker's drivers do not work with at least the 3c980B used in the EtherLink Server nics. Trust me on this one, I learned the hard way. Today is a happy day.
Well, 3Com may not officially support the Dell integrated nics, but I reported the bug to 3Com support and they sent me back a nice note stating that they were able to reproduce the problem and were working on a fix. If that's not support, I don't know what is.
Does it make sense to anyone here that the drivers are listed for "Red Hat 6.0" and "Red Hat 5.2" and not "Linux kernel versions 2.x.xx"?
It was ridiculous when apps were announced for given distributions, but drivers? Come on.
Thats why it's GPL'd. It's not 3Coms job to do everything. They gave the source so people like you can port.
What the hell is wrong with you? Doesn't the author of the code get to choose how he wants his/her code licenses? If he/she chooses to do it under the GPL, which prevents incorporation into proprietary projects, then that's his/her choice. If you don't like it, code your own! How can you criticize someone who labored for their own code, releases it to the public, and doesn't let you use it exclusively for your own stuff?
Targeting the drivers as "Red Hat 5.2" and "Red Hat 6.0" might lead to confusion for the 999999 new users flocking to linux each day and blindly installing RH.
Suppose, for example, that newbie has installed RH 5.2 and, being new, newbie's friend has helped with the install and updated to kernel 2.2.x.
Newbie might think along the lines of "Ummm, I have Linus 5.2 or something" and grab the patch for 2.0.x.
Agreed its great to see any release like this under GPL and it shows a great deal of foresight on 3Coms part but some companies might feel a bit red-faced if they end up standing corrected in a big way.
I'm in no way suggesting that this should stop anyone from speaking their views on any bit of code, just that I can see some companies turning shy of releasing source for this reason.
BTW, I'm buying a laptop and this is going to ensure that it'll be using a 3com card. If only because I think this is a great step in the right direction and it gives me a lot more confidence in using 3com hardware in the future.
A company, a large and well known one at that, gets a clue, and releases "true" open source software using GPL. This is unlike Sun, or even Netscape, which comes up with thier own license that we debate back and forth if it really is open source / free software or not. But 3Com saves us that trouble, and uses what is well known as valid open source / free software license. And what do people do? They still attack them for not doing things such that BSD and other non-GPL OS can play!
No wonder some companies are hesitant to get involved with open source, or worse come up with thier own license. No matter how hard they try, they still get attacked!
These drivers are for Linux and only Linux. Not to menition they are derivates off of Donald Becker's drivers anyway, which are GPL to begin with. So, in other words, 3Com did a "good thing", so layoff!- -----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
-------------------------------
"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." - Phil. 1:21 (KJV)
You've just made me join the ranks of converts from Intel. I'm currently helping a friend of mine with a home network now that he has DSL. I had spec'd Intel, but I just fired off an e-mail telling him to buy the 3coms instead. Thank you for finally realizing that Open Source users are customers too!
Yeah, that was the first time I was ever happy to click on the `agree' button. Man, that felt good. Unfortunatly, I'd just ordered two CNet cards (they were less than half the price @ $37 + GST (12.5%)), so I won't be buying from 3com soon (for myself, anyway), but if any cards here at work go belly up, I know which cards I'll recommend (even though all the PC's here are 9x/NT (but I've got a sparc running Linux:)).
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
You said it! One of the reasons that a friend of mine was reluctant to utilize Linux was because it didn't (or so he asserted) have much vendor support; now that appears to be changing for the better. I would become a 3Com customer but for one thing... I'm already a 3Com customer! I will remain a 3Com customer because of their foresight in supporting a wonderful OS like Linux.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Nice to see more hardware vendors supporting linux with open source drivers.
no, he is arguing that the license stiffles innovation, and argued for one counterexample. (and now I will be marked flamebait, just like every single post he has made has been..)
Err, they don't? Microsoft does not limit my creativity or freedom in any ways, unlike the GPL. Indeed, because of patent issues and intellectual property associated with the innovations I may have, being able to keep my source (or even just part of my source, I have released open source windows code) secure is the only thing that gets it released to a consumer market.
Is the purpose of a license to innovate? We are way off on a tangent here. This is worse than discussing politics or religion!
Doesn't a company have the right to choose which operating systems it releases drivers for? 3Com just added one more OS. If they choose not to support BSD by choosing the GPL, well, that's their choice to make.
Unfortunately I already got rid of my 3com card for an older, technically slower one which happens to transmit at about 50-100 times the rate I previously got using the Linux drivers. (don't ask)
Oh well.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
The 574 drivers in pcmcia-cs included with RedHat 6.0 is flaky, however updating to the latest version seem to fix the bugs.
I will probably be in the market for an Ethernet card since I need one to connect to an ADSL bridge that I will (finally!) be getting soon.
3Com: GPLing your drivers makes it VERY likely that I'll buy one of yours. Way to go!
In Liberty, Rene
I guess this means it's official: Linux is now a hardware platform that (most) vendors are expected to support.
This is great news -- I remember, about five years ago, spending 2 days going through hardware compatibility lists to find hardware that was supported by Linux.
What's especially good about this is that 3com is releasing the source code, unlike some other companies who only release a binary module. Let's encourage them by buying their cards!
-- Slashdot sucks.
Realtek haven't written their driver themselves, but afaik they've been helpful in the development process?
Of course most of us need more high-end cards than the RTL8xxx's.
-- Andreas
I'm tempted to just wipe 98 and install Linux, but I'd lose too many cool features, like the hot swappable device bay, the special Synaptics touchpad features, and most of all, the hardware DVD player. I know it's not a defective card because I tried my roommate's 3c575 (which works fine on his Dell Inspiron 3200) and I have the same problem. So either the recent drivers are buggy or they're not quite compatible with 98 "SE".
I sent a tech support request to Dell, and I hear they have very good tech support on their laptops, so I hope I can get this resolved. But either way, I just wish I could bill Microsoft for the time I wasted on this stupid bug!
--
Jake
Ha ha ha ha ha. Go and get a clue. If GPL destroys creativity, why has so much usful, innovative software been released under the GPL? As for destroying personal freedom, that's just laughable. Personal freedom is the one thing it strives to protect. If you don't like the GPL, fine, don't use it on your software, but don't try and make it out to be something it isn't. I'll continue to use GPL for my software because it meets my requirements -- the BSD license doesn't, a point that was reinforced when a friend of mine released a BSD-licensed program that was later turned proprietary by it's subsequent maintainer.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Huh? Why not? The 3c589d worked fine straight out of the box for me, and has done so for some time now. I've tried it with both 2.0.x and 2.2.x kernels without problems. The card services stuff shipped with Red Hat 5.2 was slightly too old, so I had to get a new one from the net, but the ones shipped with 6.0 are OK.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
In the event of a legal challenge against the GPL, or a case seeking the enforcement of the GPL; does it help that a company like 3Com is using it, posting it on its site, etc? A company like 3Com is likely to be familiar to the people deciding a case as one that has a significant market share, etc.
I've used 3Coms in Linux boxes for years -- from terrible old 3c501s to 3c509s and now a 3c905. Don Becker's drivers have always worked perfectly for me.
Because 3Com is looking to benefit its customers, not its competitors.
... likewise benefiting the community and indirectly giving credit to 3Com ...
It's been said before that 3Com makes good ( great?) cards and comperable drivers for said cards ; so why would they want to give their competitors an insight into the drivers without asking something back?
With the BSDL, their competitors could take the source, use the REALLY good bits for their own drivers, and release binary-only drivers of their own.
With GPL however, anyone who uses this code has to re-release the altered code
As has been said, the GPL makes a great deal of sense for drivers!
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
Why, pray tell, does only Hemos own shares in Redhat? What happened, Rob?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Becker's 3Com drivers have worked flawlessly for as long as I can remember. I don't want to harp on 3Com for GLPing their driver - hell, it brightens my day, what with them being the one of the largest networking companies in the world - but the whole thing seems a little redundant.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Well, I work for 3Com now, but a couple of years ago, when I worked for Zenith, I asked 3Com for the specifications for a NIC so I could write a Linux driver for it. I didn't expect much. What I got amazed me. The Very Next Day, by express mail, I got several books on the NIC, and example driver code. Far more than enough. (Then, I discovered that Donald Becker had just added support for the NIC I was interested in, and I simply used his driver. Thanks, Don!)
Dog is my co-pilot.
Sure, I said they did a "good thing", but they could have done a great thing.
I am opposed to all usage of the GPL because it destroys creativity and personal freedom (and is slighly more immoral than say, a Microsoft license, Microsoft would never try to claim ownership or rights to my work). But it is simpler to fight the GPL one instance at a time.
If 3Com were truly interested in supporting their product, they'd have made it as simple as possible. Before this announcement it was an uphill battle for all but Microsoft, now it is an uphill battle for all but Microsoft and Linux. Considering I use neither on a daily basis, I do not see the difference.
Wait, we are looking for "useful and innovative software released under the GPL". While GIMP is indeed useful, it is not innovative. Jasc Paintshop and Adobe Photoshop both did what GIMP does long ago. I even prefer Photoshop though I usually have both Photoshop and Paintshop open at any given time.
Back to the point, no piece of software has ever been released under the GPL without their being an equivalent under a different license beforehand. The GPL does not innovate under any circumstances.
While releasing them open source under the GPL will permit usage with Linux, 3COM could have also supported the *BSD (and any closed source project) using either a 2-clause Berkeley license or an XFree86/X Consortium license. This is what hardware vendors need to learn.
Microsoft licenses do not limit creativity and freedom. That's why we cannot ask that.
As for the GPL giving equal freedom, it would be better phrased as the GPL taking equal freedom from everyone.
Creativity is hampered ("destroyed") when one cannot be guarunteed that their work won't be misused (such as stolen for a proprietary product by, say, Microsoft). The GPL provides guaruntees for this, BSDL does not.
How many different systems have incorporated X? Are you running Linux? Do you have an X with source? The GPL does not prevent code from being "stolen" any more than the BSD/X licenses do.
The GPL protects my freedom to use my own, and
other's code, and be assured that I'll have access to fixes and improvements as they are made.
In other words, you are demanding rights to my hard work.
Morality has nothing to do with either licensing scheme. Take your religion back to church.
I keep hearing how various Evilsoft companies are immoral beasts. I just thought I'd point out that at least Evilsoft knows right from wrong.
The GPL being very good at preventing code forking, as all changes are contributed back for (possible) inclusion in the main tree (for
example, how many versions of BSD and on a similar note, proprietary X servers are there, vs. how many forks of the Linux kernel? Of KDE? Of gnome? Of gcc (there was egcs, but the two merged again despite some severe personality conflicts)?
So the BSD/X licenses spurn choice? Whereas the GPL only leaves you with one choice. I keep hearing how choice is good from the GNU community, let's see it backed up.
It is simple, when I use a GPL'd product as my base, I lose my rights to my work. It is wrong for person X to assert any rights to use and distribution of my work. He can do it with his work all he wants, but not mine.
Did they include seperate specifications or merely an implementation? If only an implementation, then a freely redistributable clean room reimplementation would not be possible.
If I create a database based on Access orr if I use a template or theme to create my website, Microsoft makes no claim to my work.
Furthermore, do you recall the recent debacle with the so-called OSF and X?
Yes, do you recall XFree86 announcing that they would continue to produce a version off the X11R3 sources? The code wasn't made non-free. X11R3 will be free in perpetuity. Nothing can change that.
Implying that the Linux community does not. An ad Hominim attack, and a complete absurdity to boot.
I know it is completely absurd, but it contains as much factual background and sanity as any pro-GPL argument.
Implying that the Linux community does not. An ad Hominim attack, and a complete absurdity to boot.
So instead (since GIMP was previously mentioned, I'll use it). Since GIMP is GPL'd, what are the odds of a competing free software image editor appearing? Since the GPL prevents code forks (how this works is beyond me, I've yet to see proof, past examples are invalid and not an indicator of future performance, a lot of past examples are bogus anyway since they have forked), nobody is likely to fork GIMP and create SuperFoo PixTool which is also open source but meets the needs of a different group of users.
Yes, an example would be Linux. The original code is not GPLd. This example is bad anyway because the GPL prevents the inclusion of BSDL code.
3Com's new drivers _do_ fix problems with some of their newer cards. for the last few weeks i have been wrestling with one of the newer 3c905xx cards, trying to force it to go half-duplex, to no avail. these new drivers work like they are supposed to for the newest nic's -- and GPL'd to boot. i say, way to go 3Com.
later,
ian
Did anyone else notice the bit at the end of the license, going on about Gnomovision, Yoyodyne, James Hacker and Ty Coon etc?
At least I found this very amusing! :-) I mean, 3Com is a big company, and one would assume that someone from their legal department would at least read the license which they are using...
Heh.. I got my 3c905B for $40.00.
Go e-bay!
;-)
I know what you mean... I felt the same when I downloaded cygwin32 and saw the GPL in the license box in InstallShield. It really feels great to see the GPL in a place where you are used to seeing the usual restrictive licenses.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Incidentally, any driver guys want to comment on the relative ease of writing Linux NIC/PCMCIA drivers versus Windows drivers? It seems like writing for Linux would be easier, that the interface would be a bit higher-level. I don't know anything, but I'm curious.
phil
Most (all?) 3com cards come with a limited lifetime warranty. Just send the card back, and they'll send you another. You have to pay for shipping of course.
And of course, if you wanted to develop a driver with a BSD license, being able to read the source for an existing one is an enormous help.
Take me as an example, I've been working on some IR driver code for Windows NT (yes, I know, yuck). Being able to look at the IR drivers under Linux has made my job considerably easier. I certainly can't just copy the code (it's going into a propriatary product) but I'm glad for the existance of a free driver anyway, even if I can't use it directly (as I could with a BSD licensed module). I'm sure that the original writer of the driver won't mind if I learn the interface off his code, or use an algorithm or two.
I try to give back to the community too. There's a little OSS code out there that I've written, and there'll be more in the future. Any kind of true OSS is cool.
BSD licensing is particularily good when you just want people to use your stuff. I"d use BSD if I was trying to make a protocol popular, to encourage non-free programs to be compatible with it. in nearly all the other cases, it's just a matter of priority: do you want people to be able to make proprietary versions of your code? if so, use BSD, if not use GPL. it's as simple as that. 3Com obviously doesn't want that, if they're using GPL. then again, if they based their driver on an existing one, maybe they didn't have a choice.
Does Foogle own shares in RHAT?
I hear ye, brother! I'm going to order a new Linux box (my first computer dedicated to Linux, yay me!) in a few hours and now I'm replace my Intel Etherexpress NIC with a card from 3Com.
How many different systems have incorporated X? Are you running Linux? Do you have an X with source? The GPL does not prevent code from being "stolen" any more than the BSD/X licenses do.
The GPL does prevent an entity (I'll use Microsoft as an example, as they have a reputation far and wide for doing such things) from taking my code, embracing and extending it, and using it to deny everyone else access to a particular marketplace. This is IMHO theft, and the GPL does prevent it, at least on paper. You may need lawyers to get (MS) to adhere to the law, but the the BSDL you don't have any recourse, whatsover.
Furthermore, do you recall the recent debacle with the so-called OSF and X? The BSD license didn't provide any protection for contributing authors, many of whom donated hundreds of hours to what they thought was a free project, only to have the OSF dump the BSD-style X license in favor of a much more restricted, non-free license. Later they backed down due to public pressure, but nothing in the X license required them to. This attempt is perhaps one of the most startling examples of the kind of theft that BSD-style licensing does not provide adequate protection against, and we can all count ourselves extremely fortunate that the OSF bowed to public pressure and backed down.
In other words, you are demanding rights to my hard work.
No. I'm allowing you to use MY hard work, at no cost, with a few very reasonable strings attached, such as "share and share alike." Nobody is holding a gun to your head insisting that you use GPLed software.
I keep hearing how various Evilsoft companies are immoral beasts. I just thought I'd point out that at least Evilsoft knows right from wrong.
Implying that the Linux community does not. An ad Hominim attack, and a complete absurdity to boot. Perhaps Evilsoft does know the differerence between right and wrong. If so, that makes their conscious choice to do wrong even more unconscionable.
So the BSD/X licenses spurn choice? Whereas the GPL only leaves you with one choice. I keep hearing how choice is good from the GNU community, let's see it backed up.
This entire thread is taking on the tone of flamebait. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your passion for your point of view is getting you carried away. With that in mind, how many examples of the GPL leading to a plethora of choices do you need?
The GPL has done a very good job of allowing choice while maintaining the coherency of projects. Examples of this include (but certainly are not limited to) the various distributions of Linux, various ad-hoc patches and modifications to the kernel and OS utilities (the Linux Router Project, microlinux, and so on), various desktop and window managers (gnome, KDE, and so on). The beauty of it is, anyone can take pieces from any of those products and combine them to make a completely new product, creating yet more choice. The GPL assures everyone of that right, while preventing the kind of splintering that threatened to destroy UNIX not so long ago.
Splintering of projects is not necessarilly the same as offering choice. Indeed, as the history of UNIX has shown, it can have the opposite effect, locking a business (or individual) into one vendor for hardware, OS, and software alike.
Software licenses aren't about religion, they are about achieving one's goals and protecting one's rights. The GPL allows many of us to achieve our goals and provides us with protections we feel are important. It has proven itself with many successful projects and continues to prove itself. That the BSDL does the same for you is great. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy in to your personal vision.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"I am opposed to all usage of the BSD License because it destroys creativity and personal freedom (and is slightly more immoral than say, a Microsoft License, Microsoft would never try to claim ownership rights of my work). But it is simpler to fight the BSD License one instance at a time."
:-) To read about those less fortunate, might I suggest back issues of The Wallstreet Journal, the New York Times, and numerous other news periodicals?
It can be argued that:
* Creativity is hampered ("destroyed") when one cannot be guarunteed that their work won't be misused (such as stolen for a proprietary product by, say, Microsoft). The GPL provides guaruntees for this, BSDL does not.
* Personal freedom is completely eliminated when code is taken into a prorpeitary project, "embraced and extended" and never given back. You are no longer free to touch your own (modified) code, and have no legal recourse! The GPL protects my freedom to use my own, and other's code, and be assured that I'll have access to fixes and improvements as they are made.
* Morality has nothing to do with either licensing scheme. Take your religion back to church.
* This is an old philisophical debate. Your sour grapes because the GPL is proving (in the Free World of Free Software) to be more popular (some would say successful, but I disagree as both licenses serve their specific purposes well) than the BSDL is hardly constructive. Reasons for the GPLs success probably include
- The GPL being very good at preventing code forking, as all changes are contributed back for (possible) inclusion in the main tree (for example, how many versions of BSD and on a similar note, proprietary X servers are there, vs. how many forks of the Linux kernel? Of KDE? Of gnome? Of gcc (there was egcs, but the two merged again despite some severe personality conflicts)?
- Developers can be assured that their hard work will remain available for others to freely use and improve (as long as those others don't try to horde their changes or steal one's work altogether). Protection against theft from Joe Shmoe as well as Microsoft or Sun is very appealing to many, myself included. Did it occur to you that this very protection may be why a commercial enterprise such as 3com chose the GPL over BSDL?
- The continuity of the project is supported and to a degree assured by the GPL, for reasons above, which makes using the product in a commercial as well as private setting much more appealing than, say, a propreitary product. BSDL is good for this as well, but GPL offers more assurances in this respect and is IMHO better.
BSD is better if you don't mind the possibility of your code or project being used by Sun, Microsoft, and others for their own proprietary projects. Nothing wrong with this, if this is your intent, but those of us who use the GLP do not want this, and our license has and continues to serve us very well. Presumably the BSDL serves you well. Fine. But do not presume to think you are qualified to tell the rest of us how we should license the code we write.
As for your comment about Microsoft not claiming rights to your work, you may be one of the lucky ones.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I do not read news. They are usually full of crap. There were some msgs on linux-kernel but nothing really problematic.
I have used all sorts of vortex descendants for years and I am using them in mission critical equipment now. They have their problems (especially some batches) but they are hardly driver related. These are usually tranciever incompatibilities with some "new and hot" network equipment or unfortunately deffects (3com no longer has its quality of the 3c509 years when out of 10000 boards none gave a single fault for a year).
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Lots and lots of hype, but why?
1. Almost all 3com cards run like a lightning with Donald Becker's drivers.
2. The driver from first glimpse did not look 64 bit clean to me. There were some really wierd (in Sparc and Alpha context) defines related to IRQ's and stuff. I do not have a spare to try at the moment, but I have some doubts... Like the commented alpha defines in the include file.
3. The source looks pretty clean, but still I will definitely give a triple read before even trying to use it.
4. I would much rather prefer 3com to release specs/drivers for their modems then releasing a driver for something that is well supported already.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Well, I can finally say that I've seen at all. This is the first instance I can remember of going to download some stuff, and when it comes to the customary "click here to agree to the license agreement" part, I get to see the GPL.
Well, no, on second thought, I haven't seen at all just yet. I will have seen at all when I see the GPL being presented in the license box for any Microsoft product.
--
Maybe you can clear up something for me. Is linux really tm linus?
Thank you for not thinking.
Do you have some hard evidence of this? NetBSD's driver model, for example, is quite different (and far, far superior to) the one that Linux uses; moving a driver across is not just a matter of a few minor code changes. What changes was he requesting that would make it possible to easily port drivers?
Also, keep in mind that a lot of people who are fairly good hackers otherwise tend to criticise systems they're not familiar with before finding out the (often good) reasons behind certain design decisions. An experienced FreeBSD hacker I quite respect was convinced that some of the things NetBSD was doing in terms of driver interface were a waste of time, until he had a closer look at them and eventually came around. Given that Linux has basically no orientation toward multiple-architecture device independence, I would not be surprised if many Linux developers don't understand why we would do things a certain way in NetBSD.
Anyway, if you want to point out the specific things you or DB think should be changed in NetBSD, I'm happy to look at getting them implemented, or I'll give you a good technical argument why they shouldn't be. That should put an end to accusations of ego being the problem, at any rate.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Some people prefer BSD, others prefer GPL, others still may prefer QPL, NPL. 3com went with GPL, that was their choice. It's pointless to argue over which license is the best, they all have their good and bad points and all of the arguements have been made a million times already. If product X is released under license Y and you don't like it, write your own version under license Z.
-matt
Basically, even though Linux is Linux, distributions differ. It is not always easy to develop generic Linux stuff that works on them all.
So don't use a GPL'd product as your base.
Look at the code, see how it works, then develop something new using insights gained from looking at open source. I thought that was the whole point of it all. You can *see* the source, and because the original author wants the software to be *free* (as in non-proprietary) then it will stay that what no matter who picks up the product for maintenance after he is done working on it. His work isn't wasted feeding the greed of another individual. If you want to make $$$ off something like that, go start from scratch and code a competing product. Although I'd advise coming up with features that make your particular product worth the money people would spend on it.
What 3Com is doing with their drivers is ensuring that no third party vendor will take their drivers and make a commercial version that has "new features" and "enhancements" and end up giving 3Com tech support grief, etc. I believe its the only way if you want to do an open-source release and still prevent that kind of thing...?
3com's pricing stopped me from buying one of their cards. Yes, their support is very good, but if the NIC I got breaks (which it hasn't yet), I can get another one and still be paying less than 1 3com card.
Regardless, it's wonderful to see 3com doing this. Given how much corporate types LOVE 3com NICs, this should be helpful in getting Linux in more companies.
Well,
PCT's winmodem (PCI bus) has been released for Linux too. At least OEM's can get them for now!
So, there is no end to winmodems unless you mean that now it is winmodem/linuxmodem
The kernel needs a Gtk/Gnome-based post-install device configuration tools "a la" make xconfig. (Better sig coming soon
3com may not know it, but they've just stopped me from buying someone else's network card. I need a new one, and given the problems I've had with my old 3com I'd more or less decided on something else. Not any more.
I don't think I'll be the only one, either.
This little bit from the end of the license amused a bit:
;-)
Copyright (C) 19yy [name of author].
The license is only good for a couple more months!
--The more you know, the less you know.
i would think you could get the dirty team to look through the source, write up specs from it, and give those to the clean team to build the clean drivers. Of course, IANAL.
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
Generally when your talking about drivers, the source code is almost as good as the specs itself. As the source will generally include nearly all the protocols for properly interfacing with the hardware. It just has to be figured out.
This is for all the people yelling about it only being for RedHat, and not being BSD'd
It was released as GPL!!!! meaning they included the the specs. OTHER people can go back now and FIX the drivers, or create new ones using the specs. As long as the new drivers are GPL!!! This is a good thing. The community would be happy with just the specs. But they went one step farther and released and implimentation of those specs, helping out the community farther. So stop bitching everyone. And those specs can also be used in a cleanroom environment to create a BSD licensed version. So everyone can relax and be happy.
If I'm using a *BSD system, I could still use the GPL'd code to create a driver for the card, and use it, right? GPL'd code isn't allowed in the BSD distro, but that doesn't mean I can't add it on my own.
Also, as someone mentioned above, the drivers these are based on are GPL'd, so these must also be GPL'd.
Does the phoenix tire, Rising from Ash, as I from bed?
Hey guys, these drivers are provided as source code (and GPLed oh dear !). It shouldn't bee too hard to have them work with vanilla Linux kernel (to which I think general purpose distro suppliers should stick - don't you think so ?).
Will they eventually get their to the core linux kernel ?
Have a nice day
gdon
Why not mail 3com's linux drivers address, and thank them for all their hard work?
Here, I'll make it easy for you all. linux_drivers@3com.com.. I've already sent them mail thanking them for releasing the source under the GPL, and affirmed that they'll be part of my next purchasing list because of it.
This sort of positive advocacy is what Open Source really lacks; so, come on, click through and mail!
This is no flamebait - it's just funny.
The installation instructions seem pretty good, too.
Myself work as sysadmin in the academic world, where most people know of and like linux. In this context there is no need to be "redhat-specific".
;)
A couple of my friends works at a consulting firm here in sweden. They have recently begun working on some more linux/opensource specific project. Some of the "concepts" that they have presented to some of their customers are based on linux. Hot2000 - pxe/netbooted thin clients with acces to legacy aplications using citrix metaframe. "Full rulle (lot's of speed)" - a webproxy/border manager using squid/ip-chains. It has been somewhat successfull.
They are all "out there" in the corporate world. And the main leasson they have learned is that people are scared of linux, mainly because they don't know what it is. And the only thing people ever have heard of is redhat.
Hence I think that 3com is doing the right thing here, realesing drivers for redhat. It keeps the corporate people happy and increases linux chances of succces in that world.
And we, the linux comunity, that do have some clue should be able to read through the lines of the anouncement. The driver is GPL dammit. And could easily be integrated into the mainstream kernel (if there is need for that). This is code! And it's GPL'd. Honestly, what more could we ask for?
(The ability to team multiple network cards into a group perhaps, but that is another story
Nope... Crying shame too. Sometime's I think the moderators are just itching to attack.
I suppose there should be some advantage to using this 3c90x driver over the 3x59x driver that I'm currently using (I have a 3c900B). Does anyone know more about this?
I'm glad. As another person had already noted, and as I had noted while looking at the driver page, 3Com had listed the drivers by Red Hat distro #, which I didn't like. And even if they are useable across distro as you've said, I figure they could have simply listed them that way, by kernel, and then put the Red Hat specific [add-on] packages at the bottom of the list, for those who need/want them.
Insert mind here.
It's great to see hardware vendors supporting Linux, but every 3com card I have tried in linux worked great before. It seems like they are reinventing the wheel. Do these new drivers offer any benefits?
Before even reading this article, I knew someone would complain "it's not BSD". I was right.
The BSD license is perfect in a world where all software is free software (Open Source?). It essentially puts the software in the public domain, and is full of the spirit of free software. Unfortunately, the real world has companies who would prefer to produce proprietary software, and who would embrace and extend anything they could, and sell it as their own.
The bottom line: While the GPL encourages free software, the BSDL only is free software.
In order for free software to become, and remain, better than its proprietary counterparts, it must remain separated from proprietary software. One of the big advantages of free software is the way it grows so fast, but if closed software houses could periodically dip into free software, they could FUD their way back into the market saying "We're professionals, our software is just as good. Are you sure you want to trust a bunch of socially challenged geeks?". Linux would have been assimilated long ago, had it not been for the GPL.
The BSD people should do one of two things:
1) Accept GPLled software into their distributions
2) Write their own BSDLed drivers.
Please excuse my awful grammar. Could a born-writer please understand what I mean and re-post it in English? Thanx.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I just emailed 3Com a letter congratulating them on this move. The previous poster is right. If they get feedback from users, and more importantly, an increase in sales, not only will 3com better support Linux users in the future, but other hesitant companies will follow suit.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
now we just need 3com to make drivers for the 574 pcmcia ethernet card, because as anyone who has ever tried to get that damn card to work with the existing drivers knows, it just never works right...
The GPL isn't all about "destruction". It's about giving people a choice.
...
Only one choice under one group.
At any rate, the GPL gives equal freedom to everyone,
...as long as you abide by the GPL and give everything back to GNU. Proprietary to a specific community. This is NOT freedom.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it destroys your freedom.
Just because you do like it doesn't mean it won't destroy freedom.
I can use BSD code in a GPL project. I can't use GPL code in a BSD project.
I will play on the GNU belief that BSD code that is used in a proprietary project is "stolen". GNU believes that freedom is lost because of this. If this is true, then using BSD code in a GPL project is also "lost freedom" since it cannot be freed back to the BSD project. This is why I consider the GNU community to be a type of proprietorship.
What 3Com is doing with their drivers is ensuring that no third party vendor will take their drivers and make a commercial version that has "new features" and "enhancements" and end up giving 3Com tech support grief, etc.
So when enhancements come out for Linux (under the GPL) and tech support gets calls (and they will), this will not be considered grief?
If a commercial version came out, why would that company claim it came from 3com? They are trying to sell something as theirs.
It is hypocritical to be upset with other companies or groups that assert proprietary rights over their code, but keep your code closed to all except those within the GPL proprietorship.
...very simple and equal rules...
Either you want to share with others or you don't. Trying to do both smacks of hypocracy.
Very simple would be the BSDL. The GPL is quite long and complex. As for the GPL's rules, I don't like licenses which require my code to apply the same rules as those of the code being "shared" to me. This is not sharing.
Before you say it, I do realize that I am not forced to use GPL code in my projects. Believe me, I am most thankful!
I saw a rep from 3Com looking for someone to do contract labor for them while perusing the linuxppc-dev-digest. It looks like they are really wanting to work with everyone! This is a good thing ;)
Look more closely. 3Dfx has released the 2D source and even the register specs for 2D programming, hence the X-Server and, IIRC, an SVGALib driver that is underway. However, the 3D driver was done mainly by volunteer Daryll Strauss, who has since moved on to work with Precision Insight. They were done under NDA, and the source hasn't yet been released, neither the programming specs.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
A lot of folks are complaining that the 3Com drivers are labeled RedHat, and while I am a strong advocate of developing for Linux and not for a single distribution, I don't think 3Com is choosing to advocate one distribution. It would appear that the modules will work with multiple distributions, while the kernel patch will not. This is probably fine, as the modules should be much more widely used.
I suspect 3Com developed on Redhat and didn't have the resources to test on a bunch of distributions, so they chose not to make claims they cannot support.
Instead of indicating malevolence on 3Com's part, I think this is a harbinger of problems we will soon encounter, namely: can we really lobby for hardware vendors to not only support Linux, but also to ensure compatibly across distributions? Doing so in an honest manner requires testing on a number of distributions, which can increase the amount of effort to develop these drivers beyond what may be considered an acceptable threshold.
Instead of coming down on 3Com, we should be reminding the RedHat, Debian, etc. that they need to create distributions that are universally Linux compatible. This may be a concept antithetical to their business instincts, but it is necessary to maintain the support and loyalty of the Linux community.
Hey, I think this is great, but the fact that they are distributing the driver dependent on Red Hat should be worked on- I suppose the idea is that if it is "Red Hat 5.2" or "Red Hat 6.0," then they know precisely which kernel version is being used (or what should be running, anyways). Without that, then the kernel version that is being used is anybody's guess, and the driver may not function. The key would be to get the source in the kernel tree (I'm sure that will happen soon, anyway).
That way it will be a module with everything else.
has anyone actually looked at what 3com coded? i mean, what did they add? afaik, the 3com drivers worked just fine and weren't lacking any features.
I'd rather have my ethernet drivers written by NASA anyway. :)
http://www.linux3d.org/3DfxRPMS_vb_glibc.html
actually it is the same driver as for your 3dfx card, but I have a voodoo3.
it only takes a couple of companies to start taking an interest in linux and the others start to follow suite..
As a result of this, there should be more hardware support coming our way very very soon :-)
"I have a clue. If the GPL does not limit creativity and freedom, why is there more software based on BSD and X out there then GPL'd software?"
Why not just ask why there is more software released for Windows if Microsoft does not limit creativity and freedom? I don't see how these things have any relavence.
The GPL isn't all about "destruction". It's about giving people a choice. An alternative to all the commercial software. Why are their proponents for the GPL today? Because of companies like Microsoft, and other "industry leaders" who don't care about the customer, just the bottom line. We use the GPL to compete with such companies. It effectively shuts out their ability to buy us out, and they can't pin us down because it allows us to develop innovative software at an incredible rate.
I think that the XFree86 and BSD licenses are good ones. What the GPL restricts, however, is turning GPLed software into proprietary software. Thus, all that is leveraged against you is your ability to "make a buck" (sure, you could sell GPLed stuff, but it would quickly become a waste of time in most cases). At any rate, the GPL gives equal freedom to everyone, rather than pushing those freedoms into any one direction. What's wrong with that? If you don't like it, don't use it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it destroys your freedom.
~ Kish
Any product I could possibly name would just start another debate of some kind. What you should really be asking is how stable is GPLed stuff to comparable closed source stuff? How does the quality differ? Better yet, what does the GPLed stuff do for us that the closed source stuff doesn't? The example I always think about is the GIMP. Would you rather pay the big bucks for Adobe Photoshop (and subsequent upgrades), or download the GIMP for that same low price you have pay for every upgrade: nothing..?
~ Kish
Sure. Well, whatever you want to believe. Should I take that to mean that GNU and Linux are inherently evil, then, because of the GPL? Should I be restricted to the BSD license because it is "free-er", and allows the corporate big boys to play a little easier on their own terms? I think the BSD OSes are great and all, but.. All of this is really silly. Perhaps you could explain why you think the GPL sucks away your freedom instead of simply asserting so?
~ Kish
Does anyone know what the performance of the 3Com driver is compared with Donald Becker's driver? I've got a lot of 3Com 3C905B cards (supported by both drivers), and I'm wondering if it'd be worth sticking with Donald's driver, or moving to the 3Com one.