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
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.
As somebody who works in 3Com (in the support dep.) I can tell you that there is more than just feature differences between them. As far as I know, the WOL is one of the only user noticable features, but the card is different in other ways (e.g. different chipset, causing different tollerances of noises on the cable etc.)
:) )
Also, this driver is supported by 3Com (by email, but still...).
Anyway I've wanted this for a while now, and an happy that I can stop telling people that we don't support Linux (and then try to help them anyway
"It's a good thing"
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 will *ALWAYS* be able to wait a few months and get faster hardware than you could have before.. it is a matter of support- if a company is only partially serious about supporting linux, they can release a driver that doesn't work, keep it in beta, then eventually have it fade out to obsolecence because they don't keep it up-to-date with libc, linux kernel, etc. If you release the source (or documentation on the part, as Matrox did) then the users become maintainers, at least in the linux world where the users have good heads on their shoulders. Look at the SBLive!, the damn thing still won't work for me and they are on their third release. I paid $120 for it, and I am almost ready to buy a $12 sound card and scrap the thing, so that I can at least listen to CDs in Linux. That said, nVidia released rather undocumented, obfusciatory (thats the word of the day) source, and nobody is maintaining it because you can't really understand what it does. You can't add things to it, for instance DRI support or AGP support, because those features aren't in the original code, so there is no way to know what the setup registers are. I'd prefer to vote with my money NOW and get a G400 Max, and then if other vendors wise up (and make a significantly faster/better part) then buying that part later as an upgrade. G400 Max is blazingly fast in Linux with GLX, and has people actively handling bugs, not releasing source and dissappearing into the ether like nVidia did, or having one person who doesn't even work for them handle all bugs in their spare time like 3Dfx.
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
Well if you read the README file that comes with the drivers, it states that the tar ball comes with precompiled modules. A precompiled module may not work with other distributions and that is why they stated RH 5.2/6.0. (Notice 2 different tar balls)
There is NOTHING stoping you from compiling the sources yourself for another distro.
Ex-Nt-User
> My question is "how did they come up with the drivers for Linux?" 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?
.c file it says they have used Becker's skeleton for ethernet drivers, but everything else seems to be theirs (correct me if I'm wrong)
If you read the
-- Andreas
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
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.
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.
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
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
"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
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.
--
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.
A company certainly does have the right to chose which OSes they want to support and which they don't. What makes you believe that 3Com specifically decided to deny the use of their code to the BSD crowd, though? Often I find that companies and individuals chosing the GPL their code do so without the knowledge that they are cutting off part of the free software crowd by doing so.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Maybe they don't want Microsoft being able to steal the source code for their drivers. Maybe they want to ensure that all enhancements done to the drivers stay in the community. Maybe Linux and the GPL have so much hype that they decided this was the best move to make.
-matt
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
I've had my share or problems with those drivers, as has many others. However this is with new cards, ie 3c905C etc. The benefit of 3Com releasing drivers are of course that new cards will be supported faster. Their driver supports the 3C980 series for example - something Don's doesn't. They do acknowledge Don however and also have no intention, as far as I can tell, to support older cards like 3c509.
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.
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.
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!
Yes it makes sense to me.
Others have already noted that the drivers appear to be distribution neutral with some redhat-specific patches. The patches appear to be targeted at kernel versions specific to 6.0 and 5.2.
I would suspect that this is more about publicity than trying to lock anyone into a RedHat distribution. When the headline shows up on the technology news ticker at yahoo it will say "3Com supports RedHat Linux" rather than "3Com released distribution-neutral, GPLed network card driver sources for Linux - with RedHat-specific patches".
So, it seems to me that they did the right thing (released driver source under the GPL) and tried to put an investor-friendly announcement out there to maximize the stock value. I'm sorry if I don't see all that much wrong here.
The installation instructions seem pretty good, too.
It sure does make 3com sound a little clueless about Linux distributions; probably 3com's programmers weren't given anything to work with other than RedHat (it sure does help being an IPO darling, don't it?).
My question is "how did they come up with the drivers for Linux?" 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?
BSD point: to those complaining about not directly supporting BSD -- hint, you have source code now (well, you had it before, but now you have it from the horse's programmers). The open-sourcing of drivers, etc. for Linux at least indirectly benefits BSD (or is this wrong? This is what seems to me to be the case, since I don't know enough of the technical details of the Linux vs. BSD kernels).
Oh, and it doesn't hurt that this hurts MS a bit too =)
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Sure, they worked well, but for some it's a political choice. As of right now, for instance, my nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra isn't quite as fast for 3D as the 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee card I had before. (This is expected to change dramatically with XFree 4.0's DRI, but that's neither here nor there). However, nVidia has done the "Right Thing", releasing programming specs and driver source code, whereas 3Dfx staunchly refuses to give up their precious source, and releases binary-only drivers. This makes nVidia more valuable to me, both for supporting the OSS movement and because I know that even if nVidia ceases to exist tomorrow, it is possible for support for my card to evolve and improve through community effort. Well, if 3Com has done the "Right Thing", then it's worthwhile to support them, it would be worthwhile even if the drivers WEREN'T already of the high quality that they are, because they are showing that they care to expand their customers' freedom of choice.
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.
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.