Reverse Engineered 802.11b+ Drivers 272
orv writes "When Andreas Mohr found that his new wireless networking card wasn't supported under Linux rather than returning the card and getting himself a supported one, he decided to set up a project to write his own drivers instead - http://acx100.sourceforge.net.
Companies such as D-Link had initially promised to release linux drivers for these cards but later backed down from that promise and announced that Linux would not be supported and that customers should not hold on to the cards in the hope of getting them working, as shown on their current FAQ.
Texas Instruments, the makers of the chipsets upon which these 802.11b+ cards are based refused to release code or specifications for the cards, no doubt for similar reasons that were recently discussed here.
The fact that the current alpha release is certainly as good, and in some areas better, than the binary drivers that escaped from one of the card manufactureres speaks volumes for the quality and determination of the team to create their own drivers."
So what actually works? (Score:3, Informative)
Only reason I'm asking is that the salesdrone at OfficeDepot didn't know what the integrated wireless on the Averatec [averatec.com] 3150P was based on yesterday, and I'm not keen on paying an extra hundred bucks for the feature if it won't work in my OS of choice. Then again, I could save myself the dough and get the model w/o the integrated 802.11b, but still...
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Informative)
More generally, reverse engineering is (stolen from FOLDOC)...
The process of analysing an existing system to identify its
components and their interrelationships and create
representations of the system in another form or at a higher
level of abstraction. Reverse engineering is usually
undertaken in order to redesign the system for better
maintainability or to produce a copy of a system without
access to the design from which it was originally produced.
For example, one might take the {executable} code of a
computer program, run it to study how it behaved with
different input and then attempt to write a program oneself
which behaved identially (or better). An {integrated circuit}
might also be reverse engineered by an unscrupulous company
wishing to make unlicensed copies of a popular chip.
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what actually works? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Don't buy unsupported hardware (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DCMA Anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And yet, the UN suggests WiFi laptops??? (Score:2, Informative)
This is not surprising, as Linux hardware support always lags a little. The same experience can be had with motherboard chipsets...(this is not a flame, just current reality).
Re:DCMA Anyone? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Don't buy unsupported hardware (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, that's a very bad thing indeed.
So bad that we decided to dedicate a major part of the README file to it:
--- AND FINALLY... ---
Let me mention that we REALLY dislike the way very stupid hardware vendors
name their cards containing DIFFERENT chipsets!!
One of these vendors is SpeedStream/Siemens: a card that uses the same
name "SS1021" is available in both Orinoco chip and ACX100 chip versions.
Another one is D-Link: they have "DWL-650" and "DWL-650+".
"DWL-650+" is simply an improved version of the "DWL-650", right?
WRONG!
The standard versions use Prism2.5, whereas the "+" versions use ACX100
chipset. Good luck in finding a (correct) driver!!
And it's even WORSE: I just found out that there is some newer
version of the "DWL-650" out that also contains the ACX100
(it uses the same hardware as the "+" versions).
This BRAINDEAD STUPIDITY in device naming easily entitles D-Link
for the "Most Braindead Hardware Vendor 2003" award. And of course
they were also talking about developing another Linux driver for some time,
without any results (although I guess that's because they wanted to
develop it, but were not allowed to, unfortunately, so it's understandable).
IF you dare to release cards with a different incompatible chipset
that doesn't even have proper driver support for a popular alternative OS,
then AT LEAST change the card name in order to let people know and discern
which hardware to avoid like the plague, for heaven's sake!
This is such a [CENSORED], I could [OUCH, CENSORED!]...
It's one thing to decide to not release Linux drivers and/or specs for a popular chipset (and frankly, we sort of have to respect such a decision, even though it hurts a lot), but it's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (and much worse!) thing to release cards with DIFFERENT chipsets using the SAME card name as older, well-supported chipsets.
That's a capital crime which should by punished by revoking any and all hardware development rights and/or licenses of the relevant company
(heck, or maybe I should have removed that smiley after all, since it IS a very infuriating action after all
But I think I should stop now since I already wrote most of that in the README file paragraph pasted above
Anyway, let me also mention that I'm glad how well the development process of our driver is coming along. We are fixing many bugs (and implementing many improvements!) on a daily basis, and the team work is definitely great!
Also, we had several users donate money and/or hardware (access points!) to the main developers,
which is very astonishing to me, but that's not to say that I don't like that
In fact the access point that has been donated to me arrived today
Finally, let's hope that we might even attract proper driver and spec support by Texas Instruments, by showing that a really good driver IS possible.
(admittedly we're still "a bit" far off from a perfect driver, but we're definitely working on it
That's it. Have fun using our driver!
Andreas Mohr
Re:DCMA Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
from what I gather... (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally the behaviour of the card and correct initialisation process was determined by analysing the ARM disassembly of the firmware and watching the traffic that goes between the access point board and its embedded PCcard.
Reason They Aren't Releasing Drivers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DCMA Anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:DCMA Anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about other chipsets? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Don't buy unsupported hardware (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DCMA Anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
You are mostly right, except for Nr. 3. Skylarov came to the U.S. to give a talk on his program at Defcon, and was detained (captured) by the FBI in Las Vegas as he was getting ready to leave his Hotel and go to the airport. He ended up in San Francisco after being flown/driven several different locations. He was stuck in San Fran for several months before he was finally allowed to go home to Russia until the trial.
Re:Don't buy unsupported hardware (Score:4, Informative)
To phrase this in language that even suits can understand:
This is poor businss practice, not just it's difficult for anyone deploying these devices to know what they've bought (because who gives a fuck once you've got their money, right?), but because it adds to your support costs because when half of your DWL-650 doesn't work, and the guy deploying them calls your support drones - even at $1.99/h in India - it's a waste of your money to have them spend 20 minutes figuring out whether it's a chipset/driver problem that makes the difference between the working and non-working units.
Your current way of screwing the customer is cutting into your margins because it increases your support costs. Find a more profitable way of screwing the customer. I think you could screw them more profitably by using different product names on different products.
Wireless all that valuable? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm still a little dubious as to the actual value of laptops, much less with wireless support.
Such things are very convenient, and certainly popular in offices, but I'm dubious that desktops don't provide much of the same benefit. Sure, some work may get done on the road, but some not (and the increasing availability of Internet access means that companies can decrease travel and save costs). Some work that might not have gotten done otherwise might get done at home, but honestly, most folks don't want to go home and then work more, and I think that most don't actually do that much at home (as an addition to work at work, not as a replacement). You can carry laptops to meetings, but honestly, about half the people where I work just use a notepad (partly because quick sketches are currently easier on paper). You usually aren't transcribing vast amounts of text, just jotting down names or some points to remember. So most of the benefits of laptops seem to be less big than one would thing.
The downsides are significant. Laptops (with the notable exception of hard drives) tend to be less durable than desktops, and tend to get rougher treatment. This tends towards producing shorter lifespans. Laptops are a major target of theft, especially in the developing countries where they want to deploy these. Laptops are more expensive than desktops to produce, and manufacturers are still making higher profit margins on laptops. Most laptop manufacturers are big name (first world) companies, given the far greater engineering work required to put together a laptop. So it makes it harder to keep the funds spent *in* those developing countries when making purchases.
Wireless networking is cute, but it costs a *lot* to deploy the thing all over as opposed to just the offices and conference rooms where you'd put wired Ethernet. If you just slap it in those two places, wired can be more expensive, but installation of wires can be done by local contractors, which keeps funds in country and produces jobs. Most people that I see doing actual work on their laptops tend to work in either meeting rooms or their offices. Usually, this translates to just meaning that they don't have to plug in a cable. Somewhat convenient, but possibly (especially given security and performance issues) not cost-effective. Wireless is still a bit of a luxury item.
This wireless laptop initiative seems more based around what a laptop *company* would like to see happening than what's best for developing countries, IMHO.
Re:but there is a binary driver (Score:4, Informative)
So no wash.