[LUGSB] Wireless card

[Ilya Sukhanov (dotCOMmie)]

Chris Wright wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2007 01:40:42 -0000, Ilya Sukhanov (dotCOMmie)
> <lugsb at sukhanov.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/7/2007, "William Joseph Lahti" <wlahti at ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Avishay,
>> >
>> >Have you tried working with ndiswrapper to get your current wireless to
>> >work?
>>
>> Ndiswrapper is evil and should be avoided at all costs.
> 
> What's evil about it? It's a security concern, if a minor one, since
> any untoward code probably relies on the NT kernel and wouldn't be
> supported by ndiswrapper (Linux-native binary blobs are a much greater
> concern); it's a stability concern, though there are enough people
> using each wireless card that that is probably minimal. As a practical
> matter, it's a low-risk but uncertain means of achieving important
> functionality.

Linux wifi drivers provide more functionality than the windows ones; rfmon, 
master.. etc. Sure some people don't need these things, but they are nice to have.

You differentiate between Blobs and the windows drivers. Technically what is the 
difference? and why would Linux blobs be of more concern? Both run in kernel 
space and you have no idea what they do, how is one more secure than other? 
While all blobs sucks, smaller blobs are better (from a functionality 
perspective, security wise they are the same) than larger blobs because it 
decreases the number of bugs which cannot be fixed by 3rd parties.


> Politically, if you care about that (not everyone who uses Linux cares
> about OS politics), ndiswrapper is a step away from corporate hardware
> support for Linux, but a step toward a universal driver format and a
> means of increasing the Linux userbase.

I do care for politics of the issue, but I am not radical. I am simply 
discouraging users from settling for options which limit their rights. They 
should be aware that some things are not nice. Beyond that they can do their own 
research and draw their own conclusions.

Step away from corporate hardware support? What do you mean? There are good, 
corporate linux drivers.

Are you suggesting we should use windows as a "standard" for technologies? 
Microsoft is notorious for crappy solutions. In addition, does it make sense to 
tangle ourselves in the microsoft patents?

Its not that there is a lack of linux developers where we need universal drivers 
if companies just released specs we wouldn't need ndiswrapper. Ndiswrapper gives 
companies a weapon, if they don't want to release specs they can say "Why should 
we, our hardware works under linux.. use ndiswrapper"

> Religiously, of course, you are entirely correct. A modern Buddha
> would (and indeed has!) declared that binary drivers are the work of
> Angra Mainyu, the destructive spirit. Not to mention the opinions J.R.
> "Bob" Dobbs. Though according to the prophet of Enlil, the open source
> movement is a source of moral decay, if not a notable one.
> Unfortunately, since Emperor Norton I of America is dead, we are
> unlikely to achieve a definitive answer to this conundrum.

I am not sure I understand, especially the Enlil reference.