On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:51:12PM +0200, bas.mevissen@hetnet.nl wrote:
> > Don't expect specs or opensource drivers for any of these pieces
> > of hardware until these vendors figure out a way to hide the frequency
> > programming interface.
>
> What did Intersil do? How did the linux-wlan-ng project handle this?
The linux-wlan-ng project only handles the prism2/2.5/3 chipsets, which
are *extremely* well documented (and 2.4G-only), so there really isn't
anything to "handle"; from the driver perspective you just say "give
me channel X" and that's it. If the eeprom-based tables say you can
use the channel, it lets you; otherwise it's No Soup For You.
Intersil is a poor example; they've generally been quite forthcoming
with documentation. Granted, the docs for the PrismGT/etc stuff are
pretty bad, but you can get them without selling your soul.
(it's also worth mentioning that Intersil partially funded
linux-wlan-ng's development)
RF tables and regulation might be an excuse chipset companies use to
hide their specs, but the real reasons tend to be a bit more along the
lines of:
"We want to protect our valuable IP"
...which translates to:
"We want to protect our violations of other people's valuable IP"
It's CYA, plain and simple. They're so terrified of litigation that
they feel that *any* semi-public information (even if only source code)
is a threat.
Many of them genuinely want to provide Linux support, in the form of
binary drivers much like Windows has. Then they balk when realizing
what a support hell (and $$$) it will be to pull it off without
providing source code, thanks to the monolothic nature of the Linux
kernel.
Or at least that's been my experience in the past year.
- Pizza
--
Solomon Peachy pizza@f*cktheusers.org
ICQ #1318444
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Melbourne, FL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:32 EST