[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ipw3945 packaging



Dax Kelson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 18:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:

sorry, I'll take it back. I found the article (for German readers):

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/meldung/70092&words=ipw3945

and the quote was from Dax Kelson:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/32622

So, indeed no love for ipw3945.

Correct, my quote was not about the firmware it was:

"It is very disappointing to see this binary user space daemon (that
must run as root, presumably to write into /sys/) requirement. I
recognize that it is a better poison than a binary kernel module."

Basically, I'd rather have a closed userspace app whisper the secret
numbers to the hardware than have a close/binary only kernel module do
the same.

Presumable somebody can sniff out what those secret numbers are (in a
legal fashion) then the someone can fork a new driver that includes that
functionality. Goodbye closed userspace app!

The question is, would Jeff Garzik / Linus accept the forked driver into
the kernel?

Also, will Intel, who are the only ones who know what the card is doing, continue to contribute to the driver?

I suspect it'd actually be better to keep it split, and just replace the proprietary userland daemon with a free one, even though there's not strictly a *technical* need to have it there.

--
  Peter


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]