What if someone wanted to build an embedded device using a MIPS or ARM CPU.
Portability... very good point. I didn't have it in mind at the time, but it is another excellent reason against binary blob drivers.
As to the FCC being a reason why they are not releasing the information. I can honestly say that it is an educated guess based on working with the FCC on getting a device certified.
One would hope that the controls for such restricted functionality would lie within the device's firmware, not in the kernel space code. If it's not, I'd probably consider it sub par engineering. It would explain the lack of frankness about the issue.
He should probably be asking what can we do to include your firmware and blog in our tree?
I believe that the OpenBSD crew has made it clear that they repeatedly attempt to be amicable with hardware vendors before raising flags in the user community. Such tactics have always been a last resort. It's unfortunate that they become necessary before giving up altogether.
1. Hardware documentation for wireless chipsets 2. Redistribution rights for wireless chipset firmware
In regards to #1, if Intel cannot or will not provide such documentation, it's a shame. However, they could at least be up front about it. Provide a reason, be it regulatory or otherwise.
Why does the OpenBSD team repeatedly fan the flames around this issue?
Security.
Accepting a binary driver in kernel space is unacceptable (as opposed to hardware firmware, coming up in request #2). A binary driver is a black box within the kernel, which the developers are unable to audit for security, stability and functionality.
Security is the OpenBSD project's stated goal. It shouldn't be a surprise to see them clamor around this issue.
When it comes to #2, there's no obvious reason for not granting this request. As mentioned in the mailing list post, Intel already grants agreeable distribution rights to other hardware's firmware.
Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with the source code of the said firmware. Since this code runs on the hardware itself, as opposed to within the kernel, there's no pressing need for system developers to have visibility at the source code level. All the OpenBSD team wants is the right to include the binary firmware in the distribution tree. This makes it simpler for users (i.e. working wireless interfaces upon installation media bootup).
The alternative is necessitating a visit to Intel's web site to download the firmware any time the device is setup on the system. (What if I don't have an internet connection at the moment? what if Intel's web site is down? What if...?)
It only ends up being a useless hurdle that detriments the purchasers of the hardware.
Can someone who has used something like FreeBSD, Debian or Slackware on the desktop for extended periods of time tell us this "*ROCKS?" I quite doubt it.
I can. I still use Debian on my other machine, but I installed Gentoo on my desktop computer at about the same time CyberDruid did. I've previously used both Debian and Slackware as my primary operating system (for extended periods of time). I've always had a Windows 2000 partition to fall back on for games and such, but Gentoo has provided such a good user experience that I've done away with the Win2K partition altogether.
The portage system surprised me just as much as apt did when moving from an RPM based distribution. I haven't gotten around to trying any of the *BSDs, so I had no idea what they were referring to when describing it as a ports-like system.
In short, Gentoo probably doesn't rock...
If you haven't even tried it, why are you deriding it?
If you call up the call centre with Windows XP you don't really know if your going to get support or not.
Which is exactly why Road Runner is officially proclaiming that we don't support XP. What I was trying to say is that most people will probably get help, but not all situations are going to be covered.
If this is really a surprise to you, you must be new to the whole tech support thing. I recommend you search the web for one of the many "Tech Support Hell" sites. They're good for a laugh and give you insight into the tech support world.
Whenever anybody calls, the question of whether or not they get support is answered by the situation their in. For example, I had one guy call in with a problem with logging into msn.com. I had to spend time explaining to him that all we provide is a connection to the internet and that we can't resolve login issues with servers hosted and owned by others. He didn't seem to get it and hung up on me. And now he's one of the people out there complaining about how Road Runner tech support is worthless.
- chuckx | Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx at cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -
I happen to work for Time Warner doing Road Runner tech support. Right now, we've only had preliminary training on XP, so the people who don't have experience with 2000 and/or XP wouldn't be of much help to you. Others (like me) will give you as much support as possible.
Another factor affecting our users is the USB driver situation. As of yet, Toshiba still hasn't finalized their XP drivers for their cable modems, so our users are having problems getting their USB connections setup (the Win2K drivers are for the most part compatible with XP, so it's not a huge issue). With 3COM, they don't even produce their cable modems anymore, so I'm not to optimistic about an XP driver being released. Basically, if a customer calls me wanting to get Road Runner installed and has XP, I tell them to get a network card (which is a good idea anyway).
I mean, technically we don't "support" networking. That doesn't mean you can't network your computers. All it means is that we don't do it for you and we can't help you troubleshoot them. However, if somebody calls in with a networking problem, I'm more than happy to help them to best of my ability (that's just me, other coworkers of mine will end the conversation with, "We don't support networks"). I'm the same way when it comes to older computers that don't meet the requirements to run the automated installation, Linux, etc. If I can help you, I will.
All in all, we support XP, it's just that you won't get the same level of support that you do with Windows 9x.
- chuckx | Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx at cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -
You don't have to pay them money at all. Registration is free.
The only way money is involved is if you pay for the "personal download server", which means you don't have to wait in line for an open spot on the public servers to download a file.
The idea was always there that congress might have to restrict the freedoms of those living within the republic to protect the common good, especially where individuals were trying to provoke the unimaginable horrors of war. Sure you can have a long debate on exactly where to draw the line, you can disagree with where they are currently suggesting the line be drawn, but lets not pretend its quite as simplistic as your one quote implied.
I was listening to National Public Radio last night while they were taking calls.
The funny thing is that the situation seems to be the exact opposite from what you describe, at least from the American side of the situation. People calling in would state how they believe the nation should take a step back for a moment and not jump into armed retaliation too quickly. A rash decision regarding who and how we strike could obviously have dire consequences for the whole nation and other nations around the world. A lot of the people calling in expressed that jumping into a situation where a full scale war is waged will be hard to back out of.
However, the Pentagon correspondant/official was talking about how our government is busy deciding how we're are going to retaliate. References to a global war on terrorism were often made. President Bush is already calling on the reserves to bolster our military force. With the government on the track they're on now, it's scary to imagine what the situation may be in since months time.
While, like most everybody else, I'm trying to keep abreast on the latest updates to the national situation, it seems to me that the government, not the people, are pursuing the option of war. What makes me even more worried is that when I watch the news, all I ever hear is about what happened and what's being done to help those affected. I never hear speculation as to why it was done and what the official US response will be.
Right. A full T1 is only 1.5 Mbps, remember. At best, cable is about that downstream and no more than half that upstream.
I work for RoadRunner in Kansas City and our modems are capped a 2.0 megabits/sec downstream and 384 kilobits/sec upstream. At least her in KC, downstream you're getting > T1 speeds.
The first computer I personally owned was handed down to me by a friend from military school. It had an AMD K5 PR75, PR standing for Pentium Rating. I still have the processor lying around at home somewhere.
I used to work in a Barnes & Noble cafe, and I doubt that this would effect them.
It's technically a 'B&N Cafe' not a Starbuck's one. They just get their coffee from them, and even then they do not have the full range of coffee's and various products that you would find in a Starbuck's cafe.
If I had a laptop computer and/or a wireless PC'esque device, this may have given me reason to venture into a Starbuck's every once in a while. But I don't see my poor self buying new gear like that anytime soon.:P
...but is technology capable of it? We need to make a notation of the limits of technology, and they do exist.
Technology is definitely capable of expanding our capabilities beyond previous boudaries. For example, try traveling a mile in one minute by walking. Then try it again in a vehicle. There's technology making the previously impossible possible. Of course there are limits to what technology can do. But autonomy isn't beyond the bounds of technology.
I wouldn't put so much "faith" in technology -- at least not any more than you put in the people behind it.
Faith in technology is faith in the people behind it.
technology will always only be as smart as those who made it, never smarter
The whole essence of technology is to create tools that expand and further our abilities. It began with chipped rocks that allowed apes to hunt and eat more efficiently. To wheels that allow for easier hauling of materials. To engines that allow for faster travel. These are only the most simple of examples, but the list goes on and on.
Computers are tools made to assist us in dealing with information. They are already (and have been) more capable than humans when it comes certain forms of information processing (ie. arithmetic).
Now that emphasis is being placed on creating intelligence within machines, it is only a matter of time before they surpass us in capacity. Expanding our capabilities beyond previous boundaries is the whole point of technology in the first place.
but I personally would much rather have the actual tape or video
I definitely agree with you here. However, I know people who don't. A lot of people are more than content with copies, whether they come from a friend's CD burner or a fellow Napster user.
Lastly, the MPAA need to calm the heck down. They see a new technology they don't understand, and panic because all these younger people do understand, and are taking advantage of it.
Computing technology is making profound changes to the way many business work. Old business models just won't work anymore. I don't think the MPAA/RIAA/etc. are capable of calming down, because computers are underming the stronghold they are trying to put on media distrobution.
Whether they like it or not, things are changing. The best thing for business's to do is to adapt and thrive with technology, instead of trying to restrict people's rights in a feeble attempt to keep the media industry as it was.
One puzzle I have pondered is that machine intelligence will likely have no emotions/feelings. They won't have the built biological circuits for pain or irritability. Does that mean they probably won't develop without our help or will they develop a completely different goal-reward system to spur them on?
It seems to me that if AI were to somehow develop it's own goal-reward system, it would end up being a significantly alien intelligence. Hence, being able to communicate with it meaningly would be hindered. Of course, having it's infratructure on a medium created by humans would make it that much easier to dissect and understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Portability... very good point. I didn't have it in mind at the time, but it is another excellent reason against binary blob drivers.
One would hope that the controls for such restricted functionality would lie within the device's firmware, not in the kernel space code. If it's not, I'd probably consider it sub par engineering. It would explain the lack of frankness about the issue.
I believe that the OpenBSD crew has made it clear that they repeatedly attempt to be amicable with hardware vendors before raising flags in the user community. Such tactics have always been a last resort. It's unfortunate that they become necessary before giving up altogether.
FYI, there are two reqeusts here.
1. Hardware documentation for wireless chipsets
2. Redistribution rights for wireless chipset firmware
In regards to #1, if Intel cannot or will not provide such documentation, it's a shame. However, they could at least be up front about it. Provide a reason, be it regulatory or otherwise.
Why does the OpenBSD team repeatedly fan the flames around this issue?
Security.
Accepting a binary driver in kernel space is unacceptable (as opposed to hardware firmware, coming up in request #2). A binary driver is a black box within the kernel, which the developers are unable to audit for security, stability and functionality.
Security is the OpenBSD project's stated goal. It shouldn't be a surprise to see them clamor around this issue.
When it comes to #2, there's no obvious reason for not granting this request. As mentioned in the mailing list post, Intel already grants agreeable distribution rights to other hardware's firmware.
Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with the source code of the said firmware. Since this code runs on the hardware itself, as opposed to within the kernel, there's no pressing need for system developers to have visibility at the source code level. All the OpenBSD team wants is the right to include the binary firmware in the distribution tree. This makes it simpler for users (i.e. working wireless interfaces upon installation media bootup).
The alternative is necessitating a visit to Intel's web site to download the firmware any time the device is setup on the system. (What if I don't have an internet connection at the moment? what if Intel's web site is down? What if...?)
It only ends up being a useless hurdle that detriments the purchasers of the hardware.
The portage system surprised me just as much as apt did when moving from an RPM based distribution. I haven't gotten around to trying any of the *BSDs, so I had no idea what they were referring to when describing it as a ports-like system.
If you haven't even tried it, why are you deriding it?
-chuckx
If you call up the call centre with Windows XP you don't really know if your going to get support or not.
Which is exactly why Road Runner is officially proclaiming that we don't support XP. What I was trying to say is that most people will probably get help, but not all situations are going to be covered.
If this is really a surprise to you, you must be new to the whole tech support thing. I recommend you search the web for one of the many "Tech Support Hell" sites. They're good for a laugh and give you insight into the tech support world.
Whenever anybody calls, the question of whether or not they get support is answered by the situation their in. For example, I had one guy call in with a problem with logging into msn.com. I had to spend time explaining to him that all we provide is a connection to the internet and that we can't resolve login issues with servers hosted and owned by others. He didn't seem to get it and hung up on me. And now he's one of the people out there complaining about how Road Runner tech support is worthless.
- chuckx | Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx at cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -
I happen to work for Time Warner doing Road Runner tech support. Right now, we've only had preliminary training on XP, so the people who don't have experience with 2000 and/or XP wouldn't be of much help to you. Others (like me) will give you as much support as possible.
Another factor affecting our users is the USB driver situation. As of yet, Toshiba still hasn't finalized their XP drivers for their cable modems, so our users are having problems getting their USB connections setup (the Win2K drivers are for the most part compatible with XP, so it's not a huge issue). With 3COM, they don't even produce their cable modems anymore, so I'm not to optimistic about an XP driver being released. Basically, if a customer calls me wanting to get Road Runner installed and has XP, I tell them to get a network card (which is a good idea anyway).
I mean, technically we don't "support" networking. That doesn't mean you can't network your computers. All it means is that we don't do it for you and we can't help you troubleshoot them. However, if somebody calls in with a networking problem, I'm more than happy to help them to best of my ability (that's just me, other coworkers of mine will end the conversation with, "We don't support networks"). I'm the same way when it comes to older computers that don't meet the requirements to run the automated installation, Linux, etc. If I can help you, I will.
All in all, we support XP, it's just that you won't get the same level of support that you do with Windows 9x.
- chuckx | Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx at cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -
You don't have to pay them money at all. Registration is free.
The only way money is involved is if you pay for the "personal download server", which means you don't have to wait in line for an open spot on the public servers to download a file.
-chuckx
I was listening to National Public Radio last night while they were taking calls.
The funny thing is that the situation seems to be the exact opposite from what you describe, at least from the American side of the situation. People calling in would state how they believe the nation should take a step back for a moment and not jump into armed retaliation too quickly. A rash decision regarding who and how we strike could obviously have dire consequences for the whole nation and other nations around the world. A lot of the people calling in expressed that jumping into a situation where a full scale war is waged will be hard to back out of.
However, the Pentagon correspondant/official was talking about how our government is busy deciding how we're are going to retaliate. References to a global war on terrorism were often made. President Bush is already calling on the reserves to bolster our military force. With the government on the track they're on now, it's scary to imagine what the situation may be in since months time.
While, like most everybody else, I'm trying to keep abreast on the latest updates to the national situation, it seems to me that the government, not the people, are pursuing the option of war. What makes me even more worried is that when I watch the news, all I ever hear is about what happened and what's being done to help those affected. I never hear speculation as to why it was done and what the official US response will be.
- ChuckX - www.cold-sun.com -
I work for RoadRunner in Kansas City and our modems are capped a 2.0 megabits/sec downstream and 384 kilobits/sec upstream. At least her in KC, downstream you're getting > T1 speeds.
Yeah, they've already done this.
The first computer I personally owned was handed down to me by a friend from military school. It had an AMD K5 PR75, PR standing for Pentium Rating. I still have the processor lying around at home somewhere.
-chuckx
I used to work in a Barnes & Noble cafe, and I doubt that this would effect them.
:P
It's technically a 'B&N Cafe' not a Starbuck's one. They just get their coffee from them, and even then they do not have the full range of coffee's and various products that you would find in a Starbuck's cafe.
If I had a laptop computer and/or a wireless PC'esque device, this may have given me reason to venture into a Starbuck's every once in a while. But I don't see my poor self buying new gear like that anytime soon.
ChuckX
www.chuckx.com
...but is technology capable of it? We need to make a notation of the limits of technology, and they do exist.
Technology is definitely capable of expanding our capabilities beyond previous boudaries. For example, try traveling a mile in one minute by walking. Then try it again in a vehicle. There's technology making the previously impossible possible. Of course there are limits to what technology can do. But autonomy isn't beyond the bounds of technology.
I wouldn't put so much "faith" in technology -- at least not any more than you put in the people behind it.
Faith in technology is faith in the people behind it.
technology will always only be as smart as those who made it, never smarter
The whole essence of technology is to create tools that expand and further our abilities. It began with chipped rocks that allowed apes to hunt and eat more efficiently. To wheels that allow for easier hauling of materials. To engines that allow for faster travel. These are only the most simple of examples, but the list goes on and on.
Computers are tools made to assist us in dealing with information. They are already (and have been) more capable than humans when it comes certain forms of information processing (ie. arithmetic).
Now that emphasis is being placed on creating intelligence within machines, it is only a matter of time before they surpass us in capacity. Expanding our capabilities beyond previous boundaries is the whole point of technology in the first place.
but I personally would much rather have the actual tape or video
I definitely agree with you here. However, I know people who don't. A lot of people are more than content with copies, whether they come from a friend's CD burner or a fellow Napster user.
Lastly, the MPAA need to calm the heck down. They see a new technology they don't understand, and panic because all these younger people do understand, and are taking advantage of it.
Computing technology is making profound changes to the way many business work. Old business models just won't work anymore. I don't think the MPAA/RIAA/etc. are capable of calming down, because computers are underming the stronghold they are trying to put on media distrobution.
Whether they like it or not, things are changing. The best thing for business's to do is to adapt and thrive with technology, instead of trying to restrict people's rights in a feeble attempt to keep the media industry as it was.
One puzzle I have pondered is that machine intelligence will likely have no emotions/feelings. They won't have the built biological circuits for pain or irritability. Does that mean they probably won't develop without our help or will they develop a completely different goal-reward system to spur them on?
It seems to me that if AI were to somehow develop it's own goal-reward system, it would end up being a significantly alien intelligence. Hence, being able to communicate with it meaningly would be hindered. Of course, having it's infratructure on a medium created by humans would make it that much easier to dissect and understand.