![Wireless Networking Wireless Networking](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/wireless_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Hardware Hardware](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/hardware_64.png)
![Linux Linux](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linux_64.png)
NDIS Wrapper For Wireless LAN Cards Under GPL 222
An anonymous reader writes " Shortly after Linuxant has released their commercial
DriverLoader, Pontus Fuchs
has made an NDIS wrapper available under the GPL.
Since some vendors refuse to release specifications or even a binary Linux-driver for
their Wireless LAN cards he has decided to
solve it himself by making a kernel module that can load Microsoft-Windows NDIS drivers.
ndiswrapper
has been tested with some BroadCom miniPCI cards and it seems to work on some laptops . With some more work it
should be possible to support more cards. Hopefully this will be the case for
the many owners of Linux laptops based on Intel's Centrino technology.
Please contact Pontus if you are interested in helping out!"
What, no screen shots?? (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Informative)
Not the best solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Support supported cards (Score:4, Interesting)
That's Easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Support supported cards (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Support supported cards (Score:4, Informative)
Likewise, I've also been able to use the Linux-WLAN-NG [linux-wlan.com] drivers to make various wireless adapters work under Redhat Linux versions 7.2 and 9. The devices that I have actually used successfully are:
I noticed that the README file included in the download mentioned a "BroadCom" wireless card. I'm curious as to whether or not this is the newer Linksys PCI wireless card (WMP11) which used to work with Linux-WLAN-NG before they changed the friggin' chipset from Prism2 to Broadcom.
Re:Support supported cards (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Support supported cards (Score:2)
finally got encryption (albeit 64bit) working with the orinoco_cs driver
I was able to get 128-bit encryption to work with the Linux-Wlan-NG Prism2 driver with the WPC-11 and the Proxim cards. It was just a settings change in the one config file they provide for you.
Re:Support supported cards (Score:2)
As much as it makes me feel dirty, I just bought a Microsoft MN-520 card, and it works beautifully (WEP and all) with the orinoco_cs driver. I looked high and low for another card that I could buy locally (in order avoid waiting for delivery, dealing with potential returns, etc) that had documented linux support, and this was the only one I could find (Office Max). Other locally-available cards were all based on chipsets that aren'
Re:Support supported cards (Score:2)
Double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are in the market for one of these cards, buy from a company that supports your OS of choice...
Re:Double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
We make a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!
So who'd bother writing for OS/2 when I can just write for Win or DOS?
Re:Double edged sword (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't even want closed source binary drivers. We want the specs for the hardware.
I don't think there ever was a OS/2 problem as it is described. Noone wrote for BeOS either and BeOS didn't have ANY apps. Surely it's better to run windows apps than nothing.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Back when IBM attempted to push OS/2 to the buying public, it was a $100+ product, while DOS/Windows was "free" (it seemed free from the end-user perspective, in that it came with every computer and customers couldn't reduce PC cost by declining DOS)
Today, however, Linux is a $0 product, and some buyers now have the option of bare-bones systems where Windows
Re:Double edged sword (Score:2)
Re:Double edged sword (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me that, while the initial reaction was to code to Carbon, most brand-new applications being written (or rewritten) for OS X these days are Cocoa applications.
It's not the same thing as the OS/2 example, exactly, because Apple controls both the Carbon and Cocoa libraries and has pretty much announced the death of OS 9, so backward compatibility is not an issue. But if you consider that even established Mac OS developers have begun coding to Cocoa in spite of their past investments in Carbon/Mac OS 7-9.x development, it seems that some vendors, at least, are capable of seeing the value in doing something the "better" way, rather than just sticking to what they know.
Where hardware vendors and Linux drivers are concerned, we'll just have to wait and see. This seems like a case where everybody really should hope Linux gets "ready for the desktop" -- because a couple million laptops out there running Linux as a primary OS are going to convince the hardware manufacturers a lot more quickly than a bunch of servers will.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:2)
Re:Double edged sword (Score:2)
i agree with the other poster that we don't want binary only drivers but if the alternative is windows (binary) or no driver i guess i'll make concessions.
what incentive do manufacturers have for open sourcing their drivers?
Re:Double edged sword (Score:2)
This is kind of a double edged sword. Now that you can use NDIS drivers under Linux, it will be that much harder to convince these companies that providing a native Linux driver would be good for their business...
If you are in the market for one of these cards, buy from a company that supports your OS of choice...
I completely agree. It's quite obvious that tech is about market share and mind share--gettimg everyone to adopt your product. If people buy your product, you are doing sowething right. I
Re:Double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the same argument that comes up around Wine, or other projects that allow non-native applications to run on a platform- backward compatibility might discourage creation of true native apps.
It's a valid concern. But for the position Linux is in today, it looks like a degree of Windows compatibility will help more than it hurts.
If two systems can share binary applications and drivers, then a barrier for users to switch between those systems has been reduced. Compatibility might encourage switching in either direction- but the rule of thumb is that lowered switching costs helps minority solutions increase their popularity.
Virtually everyone uses Windows(r)... if switching to other things were easier, then more people will switch, and the number of Linux installs will increase.
If you are in the market for one of these cards, buy from a company that supports your OS of choice...
One way a company might "support" linux is by including this wrapper module with the hardware, and pointing Linux customers to instructions on how to use it. This way, hardware vendors can take a gentle slope towards native Linux support: their initial investment in software programming is minimized, but they can get accustomed to the idea that some of their customers are buying for Linux, and that the platform deserves support in the future.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:2)
Re:Double edged sword (Score:2)
I guess we'll find out how true that is, won't we. Just because Microsoft says so doesn't mean it is so. (Nothing against MS there, that's true of any corporation)
Either way it turns out will be good for computing as a whole, I think. Either MS will have to face the facts and make some changes, or the hardware vendors will. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Wrapper should send e-mail to hardware vendor (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wrapper should send e-mail to hardware vendor (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wrapper should send e-mail to hardware vendor (Score:2)
Cross Platform Drivers (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone have any thoughts on why this would or wouldn't work?
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
Because there's absolutely no business reason why Microsoft would care to support such a standard? And if Microsoft isn't on board, it is just an academic exercise with very little real world value?
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
> Microsoft would care to support such a standard?
The adapter I'm describing requires nothing from the OS vendor. Yes, someone will still have to code the OS specific adapter code, but that's not necessarily the vendor. Once completed, the adapter would plug in like a normal driver and all Cross Platform drivers would plug into the adapter.
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
If Microsoft doesn't support the driver model, none of the current Windows IHVs will either.
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
> current Windows IHVs will either.
That depends on how much cross platform support is worth to them. If the ability to release the same driver for Window, Linux, and FreeBSD exists, and you need support for multiple platforms to compete, why not use it? Not to mention that it would simplify porting between Windows versions. Right now, IHVs are screwed over every time Microsoft releases a new version of Windows. Now, instead of going back and
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
Do you think hardware vendors want to have lawyers fucking them with a service pack?
Only if Microsoft wants to keep going to court for Anti-Trust violations. If they kept pulling crap like that, eventually they'll screw up so badly that every judge in the US is going to throw the book at them.
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2, Insightful)
If history is any judge, that book is probably going to be made of tissue. Nothing the judges have thown at Microsoft so far has done anything to deter them.
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2, Informative)
Now, if someone will just write a similar layer for Linux that can load Windows NT filesystem drivers, then I can get read/write access to my NTFS partitions... Hmm...
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
> least it was when I worked with it ~10 years ago.
Are we talking about the same NDIS? The info page describes NDIS as a DLL loader and Windows driver interface. There's nothing there to indicate that it's based on a standard that was around since before Windows 95.
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
Although, I do blame Linus for his poor decision to make kernel drivers version specific...
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:2)
Jan Kratchovil has some software which does exactly this: Captive-NTFS [jankratochvil.net].
It was called I20. Intel really liked the idea. (Score:2)
Re:Cross Platform Drivers (Score:3, Informative)
Here is a link [reference.com] to a page about it.
It's a neat idea, but I'm not sure how popular it is with hardware makers, and it somewhat c
Re:Microsoft. ;) (Score:2)
This is not necessarily good news (Score:5, Interesting)
Bad news : Nobody will bother to write Linux drivers soon enough, they'll all say "why bother, we'll just make a Windows driver and tell people to use the wrapper.
Net results
- This makes card vendors inclined to think only the Windows platform is truly important
- This allows Microsoft to have the option of one day changing, subtly messing up or adding undocumented calls to their API, slowly leaving Linux people in the cold as all card vendors transition.
- I would think native drivers are faster / more efficient / more full featured than drivers running under emulation. That might not be the case though, but more often than not, running alien binaries in any OS isn't known to be as fast as the real McCoy.
Re:This is not necessarily good news (Score:5, Interesting)
This is already happening. The excellent 3COM 990 series (the network cards with a RISC CPU and memory on the card), for example, have their own firmware and API that hugely simplified writing a wrapper for Linux, to the point that there isn't a real driver. While the wrapper-drivers work, you don't get the benefits of CPU offloading and profiling that you get under Windows 2000.
Regards,
--
*Art
Platform independent drivers (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately Caldera was the main weight behind this, back when they actually did something silly like write code to make money instead of sue. They fell on hard times and essentially pulled support, and it's been dead in the water since.
Licensing issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Licensing issues (Score:2)
It works the same way as when you make proprietary programs that link to GPL libraries, i.e. it's not legally totally clear that you can, but so far it's an accepted view that dynamically linking isn't quite the same as statically linking GPL code in yours.
At least that's how I understand the GPL/non-GPL dynamic library linking debate that's been going on for years.
Re:Licensing issues (Score:2, Insightful)
-Mark
Re:Licensing issues (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reason to think that Linus has total control over the licensing restrictions that the kernel is distributed under.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.
Kernel space? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kernel space? (Score:3, Insightful)
Next step: integrate with Windows Update (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like more and more Linux is simply emulating Windows. But if you run Windows drivers and Windows programs via appropriate emulation layers, why not simply run Windows?
Evolution connector? Why not just use Outlook? (Score:2)
Same is true with Wine or running Cygwin under Windows. If the market is one controlled by a monopoly then its up to the users to create interoperable solutions. Plain and simple. This kind of "the sky is falling" attitude is a good way to further marginalize Linux.
In the real wold computers and software have to work with each other thus Wine, Samba, etc. Its only in the fantasy world of fanboys that these things could ever be percieved as bad ideas.
Re:Next step: integrate with Windows Update (Score:2)
If Microsoft did that, they'd have a pile of pissed off companies that would have to re-write their drivers. They'd only be able to make additions, not changes to the API, and then you still have the current versions of the drivers that still use the NDIS API.
Re:Next step: integrate with Windows Update (Score:2)
Uh, because if I run Linux I can then run, like, anything else. Duh.
one bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to run a beta version of Linux, so is there any good reason for this?
Re:one bad thing (Score:4, Informative)
The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people here claiming that we'll never see Linux drivers because of this.
The main reason this is required, however, is because the latest chipsets for wireless give too much control to the software. That means the user can theoretically control transmit levels and frequencies, and make their transmission interfere with other people's communication.
Since the transmit power levels and frequencies are all set differently in different parts of the world, the closed-source software is needed to restrict people's control over the hardware.
And that is a real bummer. It is hard to support closed-source Linux drivers - people don't particularly like them, there are thousands of different kernels out there (each distribution has about fifty or so current at any one time, not to mention all the patches you can download from kernel.org).
As a result, this doesn't surprise me at all. I think it's probably the only way modern WiFi will be supported under Linux. That doesn't translate to the end of the world, however, since the regulatory situation is quite different for almost everything else in the computer.
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a matter of opinion that "restricting people's control over the hardware" is necessary or appropriate. If there is some compelling state interest, then it should be considered a defective and/or dangerous product, which ought to be dispensable only to licensed purchasers.
Treating it as a problem that the consumer owns does not solve the problem. Just because the manufacturer hasn't enabled the consumer to alter the card's programming, doesn't change the fact that the dangerous device has been distributed into the wild.
As soon as some independent party (not subject to the US law-by-agency-order), creates software to unlock these cards, the disabled-by-obscurity features will be open. If that's a problem for the state, then they should have considered it before allowing the product to be sold.
If some product can be converted to a weapon, the fact is, the weapon is in the consumer's hands whether you've told him how to convert it or not. You hold some of the responsibility for this product getting into the consumer's hands.
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
It's a matter of opinion that "restricting people's control over the hardware" is necessary or appropriate.
No, it's a matter of law and economics.
Look, in most parts of the US (all?) you're not allowed to make significant modifications to your own house without getting a license. You CAN do it. You MAY NOT do it.
In most of the world, you're not allowed to broadcast on various frequencies. In much of the world you're not allowed to broadcast at all.
But there are plenty of cons
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
Ford sells you a car without telling you how to operate it, and only lets a Ford driver supplied with the car drive it.... Just because some people might kill their neighbour if they knew how to operate it themselves.
Jeroen
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
Just like hardware vendors sell you cards with requirements - like a computer, an OS, and all those good things.
Just as your Ford doen't run if you put milk in the tank, their hardware won't run without Windows on the Computer.
If the hardware vendor doesn't specify what OS is required, try
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
I don't know what country you live in, but here (The Netherlands) you can buy a car without any of that.... The manufacturer would just sell you a car. If you wan't to drive on the road then the government comes in with restrictions.
Its the same with wireless stuff, you can buy the equipmen
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
It's that way in the US too. You won't be able to secure *financing* without a drivers' license and insurance most likely, but that's not really a requirement for owning a car. I owned a car when I was 15, before I had a drivers license. I couldn't drive it on the road except on farm business (specific exemption for moving feed and equipment from one part of your farm to another), but no problem,
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
Fortunately, you live in the Netherleands, where they'll sell you cars you're not able (allowed) to drive. Similarly, they'll sell you hardware you're not able to use.
All they would have to do is make specs available, they should have documentation for in
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
But the effect is to increase the monopoly position of Microsoft. I don't care about economics or regulations. The thing I notice is that there are NO 802.11g devices for Linux, BSD, or any other OS, available AT ALL. I interpret this as an intentional leveraged attack on competitors to Microsoft.
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
Let me give you a little clue: 3rd party hardware vendors love the monopoly. They only need to develop one set of drivers to sell to 90%+ of the marketplace.
The thing I notice is that there are NO 802.11g devices for Linux, BSD, or any other OS, available AT ALL.
A little cut&paste from the apple store:
"The new PowerBook G4s feature the hot new AirPort Extreme technology, based on the 80
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
You're just looking at the economics. I'm looking at the cultural implications of, say,
linux having no wireless capabilities.
If the video card folks did this, and we had no graphics, that would pretty much kill any notions of "linux on the desktop" would it not?
Do I think the manufactures have any responsibility to "the culture?" No. But it surprises me that nobody in some free country has simply released a reverse-engineered driver for, say, broadcom chips, in
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
You still do not get it. Nobody is shutting out linux. You want something for free. You don't get it. If you PAY for a driver, one will be available. All the windows users pay for their driver - you just close your eyes to the software they get because it does you no good (until now).
but I don't understand how that knowledge is supposed to help me.
A prayer you might consider:
"God, grant me the
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
I realize that I shouldn't expect hardware to work under linux, and I understand the issues.
But, people still seem to be wondering what keeps other OS's from gaining widespread adoption, and I'm saying, here is the answer.
I assure you if the situation were the same with video cards or SCSI controllers, as it is with wireless network cards, there would be a whole lot more no
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
Right. And I want my car to run on H2O. If it doesn't, that's not my fault, right? You're asking the same damn thing.
But, people still seem to be wondering what keeps other OS's from gaining widespread adoption, and I'm saying, here is the answer.
I don't think anyone wonders. I don't - do you?
I assure you if the situation were the same with video cards or SCSI con
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:5, Insightful)
Because every hardware company that releases a product believes that they either
Have a competitive advantage and need to keep it a secret.
or
Have a crap design and need to keep it a secret.
or
Have the same design as everyone else and need to keep it a secret.
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
Right.
In this case it is the opinion of the Federal Communications Commission. They have decided not to license these devices for consumer use unless these sorts of controls are in place. Meanwhile the "control in software" appro
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
From the hardware vendor's point of view, it makes the most sense to make a generic, software programmable transmission device. This way, they need only one hardware design for the entire world, just different drivers (although they won't tell you that, of course).
Imagine how much this stuff would cost if they actually put the limits in the hardware itself (R&D would be insanely expensive). Perhaps some s
bogus argument (Score:2)
How does not giving out the source "restrict people's control over the hardware"? Finding out where parameters like power levels and frequencies are stored is usually quite simple, with source or without. In many cases, all you need to do is compare two different versions of the driver.
People who rely on keeping sour
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
Rich.
Re:The reason that this is required: Interference (Score:2)
MIT license would be better here (Score:2)
We also need... (Score:3)
Re:We also need... (Score:2)
Well, if you want spinlocks bogging down your uniprocessor kernel go right ahead, but I'd prefer not to.
Re:We also need... (Score:2)
Re:We also need... (Score:2)
A five year old ABI might be nice but you are also dragging five year old mistakes along.
Jeroen
Re:We also need... (Score:3, Insightful)
FYI, you CAN do that. (Score:2)
You'd have to build it yourself, then you can play with knives.
But then, it's probably safer if people can't force load older drivers...sometimes a bugfix the changes the semantics of some kernel function or depricates one, even if all the other APIs are the same.
The driver shouldn't still be using it
DMCA - I wonder.. (Score:2)
PowerPC (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask Intel (Score:2, Informative)
Frankly, I'm rather surprised that no Linux company has sued them yet, for unfair competition. Disclosing drivers and documentation to one OS maker and hiding it from the others IS unfair competition.
Re:How (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pontus Fuchs (Score:2)
But I don't want to spoil your joke
Re:Pontus Fuchs (Score:2)
It works even with your pronounciation
Re:Pontus Fuchs (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Excellent News (Score:2)
Why was this modded a Troll ? i need help (Score:2)
Re:What a private business would do to fight this. (Score:2)
It also doesn't have much to do with Microsoft, I think, if anything.
Re:What a private business would do to fight this. (Score:2)
Like it or not moderators, your job is not to mod down things you disagree with. You job to to find and moderate interesting tidbits, opinions, and facts so that the population at large can better enjoy the more interestings stuff.
Re:What a private business would do to fight this. (Score:2)
Perhaps more relevant, the FCC hasn't said you can't undo the bolts on your Fiat, or put BMW parts on it.
Re:What's the best laptop for running Linux? (Score:2)