Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Communications Hardware

'Economist' Calls For Open WiFi Specs 139

Posted by timothy from the some-left-wing-commie-rag dept.
DavidNWelton writes "An interesting and well thought-out call for Wifi manufacturers to open up their specs, at least partially, written by The Economist. 'So it is hard to see what the problem is beyond a dog-in-the-mangerish desire not to give anything away. Time to open it up, boys.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Economist' Calls For Open WiFi Specs More

'Economist' Calls For Open WiFi Specs

Comments Filter:

  • You know ... something about this article ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DikSeaCup ( 767041 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:52AM (#11406643) Homepage
    I'm not saying it's wrong but as I started to read it, my brain switched to scanning mode, and I reflexively developed the opinion:

    This guy saw something that he can consider "closed" and decided to write an article saying it should be "open" just to get people to agree with him.

    Kind of like a Slashdot karma whore.

    I'll have to try to read it all again.

    • Actually, the article describes people asking for something along the lines of an API to allow programmers to use exsiting functionality in new ways, in this case to make wireless repeaters.

      But the manufacturers are deciding that even the API is secret, and then claiming that it can't be opened up because it would violate federal law (by allowing people to broadcast out of proper power ranges and out of spectrum). By this line of thinking, the wireless manufactureres are doing a public service by keeping

      • Unfortunately, the laws they reference have to do with computer controlled radio stations, not wireless networks.

        Are you talking computer controlled transmitters or computer controlled music programming?

      • Unfortunately, the laws they reference have to do with computer controlled radio stations, not wireless networks.

        A computer with a wireless card is a computer controlled radio station.

      • Abuses of the wireless spectrum happen all the time, odds are that somewhere right now, someone is violating an aspect of the FCC guidelines.

        This probably happens much more frequently than you realize.

        For example, I heard a story about wireless recievers not working properly at a NASCAR race. They traced the problem down to a faulty microwave oven in a trailer in the infield. Multi-million dollar equipment not working because of a microwave.

    • I sort of have to agree (karma whore alert) of all the closed things to complain about today, the API specs for WiFi chips doesn't exactly make my top ten.

      Now if he had written an article about all the VoIP providers who won't allow subscribers, other VoIP providers or CPE manufacturers to interoperate with their SIP servers that would have been interesting. I saw a presentation from Jeffrey Citron, CEO of Vonage, recently and when he started talking about their "proprietary SIP network" I almost laughed
  • The ads on the page make my IE take 99% of the cpu.

  • not that well thought out.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:02AM (#11406676) Homepage Journal
    **Broadcom and Atheros say that making the interface information public would be illegal, because it could allow users to change the parameters of a chip in ways that violate the rules for using unlicensed spectrum (for example, by increasing its power or changing its operating frequency). That is a worry, but it depends on rather a conservative interpretation of the law. The current rules apply to so-called "software-defined radios" (where the ability to send and receive signals is modifiable on the chip), and do not apply directly to Wi-Fi. Also, by supplying the data, manufacturers would not be held liable if a user chose to tweak the chip in unlawful ways. And in any case, if the firms are really worried, they could release most of the interface, keeping back those features that are legally sensitive.

    Nor is the interface information commercially sensitive. Engineers are not asking for the computer code that drives the interfaces, merely for the means to talk to them. And having the interface information in the public domain should eventually result in more chips being sold. So it is hard to see what the problem is beyond a dog-in-the-mangerish desire not to give anything away. Time to open it up, boys.**

    why would not "software-defined radios" apply directly to wifi? because it doesn't say wifi specifially? gimme a break.

    would you expect that they could sell itrip with a dial and extender that you could use to boost the output to 100wats, and not get in trouble with fcc?

    and of the " Engineers are not asking for the computer code that drives the interfaces, merely for the means to talk to them." bit.. you would still need that computer code that drives the interfaces for the 'interfaces' to work at all. the code the 'engineers' would like to write would need to talk through the properiaty code, or is he really suggesting that the engineers would be totally rewriting all the software - and that the things would still work as intended?

    just make the damn linux drivers, or build the windows drivers so that they're easy to interact with for use in other os'ses as well..

    • Re:not that well thought out.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wifi devices are software defined radios. The band limits are different in the USA (11 channels), Europe (13 channels) and Japan (14 channels). That hasn't stopped the companies from offering firmwares for these devices which allow ordinary users to illegally use channels 12 to 14 by simply using the Japanese firmware instead of the firmware for the US market. Sometimes it's just a simple "Where are you?" question during setup that decides which channels are accessible. That is where the hypocrisy is. On on
    • Also, Atheros seems to think they're in a bubble as far as mfg's go, as other manufacturers such as Senao, turn conventional Prism2.5 cards into what Atheros avoids in the the first place, output adjustable cards. So far, the FCC hasnt ordered them to stop doing what they did to Prism chips, or the cards to be recalled - Atheros just has something to hide. This card is what I paid for, why should you prevent me from cranking it up to its maximum capability?
    • just make the damn linux drivers, or build the windows drivers so that they're easy to interact with for use in other os'ses as well..

      Umm, yeah, that's what their asking for. The API to talk to the driver.

  • don't make no sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rich42 ( 633659 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:03AM (#11406679) Homepage
    from the sound of the article - the chip manufacturers are refusing to share information that's not "commercially sensitive" with engineers who are working on devices that would provide a market for their chips.

    this don't make no sense.

    either:
    1. the information -is- "commercially sensitive"
    2. the companies in question have some lame policies - in which case they will lose the business to the competition
    3. the article isn't accurate
    or
    4. something else entirely (to cover my ass)

    • Re:don't make no sense (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Vo0k ( 760020 )
      2. the companies in question have some lame policies

      All of them. No "competition".
    • Well, the thing WiFi adapters are basically computer-controlled radio emmiters, on a tightly controlled band - releasing full specs for these devices could enable them to transmit in unwanted frequencies, which means they would have problems with organisms like the FCC.

      Of all the hardware whose manufacturers refuse to release specs, WiFi adapters are perhaps the more justified. Still, atleast partial specs (enough to have a basic, working driver) would calm the OSS zealots and give a start to develope
      • The FCC doesn't have any say, what-so-ever, over this. You could start a company tomorrow making cards that'll transmit on any frequency and even if they don't like it there's nothing they can do. Now, that being said, if I were to purchase one of your cards and start illegally broadcasting on restricted frequencies then they're free to nail my ass to the wall because I have then broken the law.

        If you don't believe me then how about this... anyone (in the United States, at least) can buy a ham radio that'l
        • Touche. I thought radio devices in the US were regulated in some way (readed it in ./ sometime, what do you know :). I stand corrected.

          • Re:don't make no sense (Score:3, Informative)

            by Detritus ( 11846 )
            They are. However, the operator has the final responsibility for operating the radio in accordance with FCC regulations.
          • Agreed which is why all radio's are wired with explosives that destroy themselves when you open them out.

            Terrorists using radio's to send out waves could have devestating consequences to the airline industry.

            We need things closed.

        • Re:don't make no sense (Score:3, Informative)

          by yaff ( 695800 )

          The FCC certainly does have a say-so in this. WiFi operates in the 15.247 unlicensed ISM bands [akamaitech.net], and there are very specific rules that your transmitter must pass to sell equipment for those bands.

          Certainly, the ultimate resposibility lies with the operator, but the FCC demands that you make it difficult for the user to break the rules. For example, many pieces of ISM gear have either integrated antennas or really funny antenna connectors. That's not an accident. If you sell ISM gear to the general pub

        • Re:don't make no sense (Score:4, Informative)

          by Nate B. ( 2907 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @10:50AM (#11408548) Homepage Journal
          Actually, the FCC does indeed have rules covering the sale of transmitters in the U.S.A. It was at one time known as 'Type Acceptance' and a manufacturer had to submit a sample of the unit to the FCC so the FCC engineers could verify that it met the rules. The system has since been modified and renamed slightly, but the fact remains that a good way to attract unwanted FCC attention is to start selling non Type Accepted transmitters.

          The rules for Amateur Radio are different, however, the manufacturers must submit their models to the FCC for approval for sale. Even Part 97 limits the number of RF amplifiers an amateur radio operator may build or modify that operate from 25 to 30 MHz. There have been petitions asking for elimination of these rules in recent years.

          The ham rigs that you assert will broadcast on any frequency do require internal modification to do so. Why do they transmit outside the amateur bands? Because the radios are also used for MARS (Military Affiliate Radio System) and CAP (Civil Air Patrol) which use frequencies outside the ham bands.

          Part 15 devices, which WiFi cards operate under, must meet the Part 15 rules plus the FCC specifies in its rules that Part 15 devices not be modifiable in any way by the user. So, the manufacturers are very much correct in their assertion that the interface to modern WiFi cards remain closed.

          Don't believe me? Just manufacture and sell cards that violate Part 15. Eventually you will attract notice from the FCC.

      • ...releasing full specs for these devices could enable them to transmit in unwanted frequencies, which means they would have problems with organisms like the FCC.

        I can make a device that transmits in unwanted frequencies with a $1 transistor from Radio Shack. There are many books that show you how to make such a device. Should we ban all of those books as well?


        • So someone should make an open WiFi chipset. This could be done with a microcontroller, programmable logic device (PLD), and some discrete circuitry. Granted it would be larger than the 1 chip ASIC, but it would be open. Then this complaining business could come to a stop.

          I would do it but I lack sufficient motivation ;-).

          • Certainly the rules in the U.S.A. don't preclude anyone from creating their own WiFi transceiver. However, if that transceiver is found to interfere with a licensed radio service, e.i. Amateur Radio in the 2.4 GHz band, and found to exceed the limitations in Part 15, then you would be required to stop transmitting until the device meets Part 15.

            If the interfering operation continues, be prepared to pay the fine(s). Historically Part 15 devices must not cause interference to licensed services and must acc
        • Should we ban all of those books as well?

          STFU! Damnit! Now you've given them the idea... Somebody mod that shit down before Michael Powell sees it...

      • releasing full specs for these devices could enable them to transmit in unwanted frequencies, which means they would have problems with organisms like the FCC

        Who again would be liable ?
        So if someone tweaks its adapter, the producer of the hardware is liable ?
        Seems strange to me.
        Whatever, worse is coming ...

        partial specs (enough to have a basic, working driver) would calm the OSS zealots

        So in your mind, someone who uses OSS and have no working driver (not even binary) for its legally bought WiFi ad

  • Christian Sandvig of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who has been studying the brouhaha, believes regulators ought to enforce more openness.

    That's the problem right there. He should have been studying the brouhehe as in 802.11e. For those of you not in the know BROUHAHA stands for Bandwidth Radio Optimized Universal High Availability Hotspot Access or IEEE 802.11a.

    BROUHEHE, naturally, stands for Bandwidth Radio Optimized Universal Hybrid Enhanced Hotspot EQuality or IEEE 802.11e.

  • This doesn't hold (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drwho ( 4190 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:26AM (#11406756) Homepage Journal
    Sam Leffler's MadWifi is an example of coming to an agreement with a company and producing a really good driver while keeping the 'secret sauce' secret. Yet Atheros isn't given credit in this article. This doesn't seem fair to me.

    Also, It claims that these wifi chipsets are not Software Defined Radios -- well from what I can see, they are indeed SDRs. So it makes sense to restrict knowledge of things that allow people to mess about too much. And of course the government needs to be able to detect your signal so they only allow a few spreading codes to be used and make sure there's no way for the user to change them.

    Yes, I'd like to have the details of Atheros and other wifi SDRs but that's not practical. What IS practical is opening up everything needed for compatibility reasons.

  • In other news, pot calls kettle black (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mrogers ( 85392 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:34AM (#11406785)
    a dog-in-the-mangerish desire not to give anything away

    That's rich coming from a magazine that doesn't publish the names of its journalists.

    • Re:In other news, pot calls kettle black (Score:4, Interesting)

      by iworm ( 132527 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @08:04AM (#11406915)
      You are factually correct but very unfair. I quote from The Economist:


      Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle."

      • The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles.

        Yeah, right. Sez them. For all we know that was written by the same flak that writes all the rest of their crud. For all we know the "anonymity" is just a cover for some failed wannabe in a crummy hotel room with a typewriter and a bottle of cheap gin. Probably in Toronto...

        If there really i

      • not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself.

        Perhaps that also applies to the people in charge of WiFi specs. ;-)

        One of the writers at the Economist is certainly interested in mesh networking - they've been talking it up [economist.com] for a while - but without knowing who it is, how can I tell whether their interest is technical or, er, economic?

        • On the other hand, it may also give a degree of freedom to their correspondents in repressive countries like Zimbabwe or China. Even here in Italy, The Economist was sued because of some of the dirty secrets of Berlusconi's they talked about. Not having an author means the magazine deals with the lawsuit, not the individual author.

          It's an interesting debate, but equating open technical specifications to whether or not articles are signed is... stretching it a bit, I think.
    • Now that's the most stupid thing I've seen on slashdot for a long time. Have you tried writing to the Economist and asking? No, you haven't. They will tell you who their staff are, but they don't attach names to articles because the article is more important than the name. The intent of the system is to prevent there being celebrity Economist journalists.

  • Time (Score:1)

    by wpiman ( 739077 )
    Nor is the interface information commercially sensitive. Engineers are not asking for the computer code that drives the interfaces, merely for the means to talk to them.

    I can certainly understand why the companies would not be so willing to submit to this request. This sort of request would not be handled by some $10/hr tech support weenie in Bangelor. This would need the attention of perhaps a system archetect, possibly an ASIC/HW designer- or software engineer. These people's time is very valuable an

  • one word support (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One word, "support".
    if manufactures openly release information necessary for interoperability regardless of what we (as geeks) think customers will expect support.
    Manufactures already (often) take a anti-linux stance if linux drivers are produced, simple becuase they do not want to support there product via someone else implimentation of it.
    If I use a freely developed driver etc I know that the manufacture should not be expected to support anything other than the hardware, we need to build this a global vie

  • I want it, so give it to me you meeny! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:55AM (#11406867) Homepage Journal
    First of all - I have an Atheros chipset WiFi board down in my server that is currently doing little but sucking milliamps as the Linux drivers are unstable as sweaty nitro. I'd *LOVE* to see Atheros release proper programming specs for the chip - as an embedded software engineer I could then fix the damn drivers.

    That said - folks, it ain't a-gonna happen. The FCC , DTI and other regulatory bodies around the world are very clear about this - for a product to be type certified, it must not be easily modifiable by the end user to operate out of the allocated frequency bands and power specifications.

    Consider the recent Notice Of Forfeiture against the Pilot truck stops for selling amateur radio equipment that could be modified for use in the Citizen's Band frequencies by moving a jumper. Whether the jumper was set or not was unimportant - the fact that the radios could be trivially modified to operate outside their allocated frequencies was enough.

    The arguement that "The card + the drivers as shipped cannot operate out of spec, so that combination can be type certified" only works when the user is not give the source for the driver! That is why the card manufacturers can ship Windows binary drivers - the user is not trivially able to change things. A driver which has source under /usr/src/linux/drivers/802.11 is a different issue - the user can trivially change the card's output power and operating frequencies.

    And I am sorry folks, but that is a spectacularly bad idea. For an example of why, just listen to the Children's Band within a hundred miles of any major city - it is one big heterodyne squeal and spatterfest because of all the morons who think "If 90% modulation is good, then 190% modulation must be BETTER!"

    ESPECIALLY with a complex modulation scheme like 802.11 uses, you CANNOT safely just rail the power levels - the amplifiers have to have a certain amount of headroom in order to faithfully reproduce the signals, and if you turn the gain up too far, you will start to run the amplifiers into compression, and distort the signal - and a distorted signal will have LESS range than a properly modulated signal. And you cannot tell the signal is properly modulated without a signal analyzer - and that is about US$20K or more (I know, as I design them!)

    Or consider the recent Slashdot post about the guy who could not use his WAP in his apartment, because of all the other WAPs in the building. What was the first piece of advice he received? "Turn it up, D00D!" So then what happens? Nobody can use the band.

    There is a GOOD REASON that there is regulation of the RF spectrum - it IS a shared resource that we all wish to benefit from. However, all it takes is one jackass to screw it up for everybody in the area. One child peeing in the pool once is not a big problem - but if you let one kid do it, the pool turns yellow pretty damn quickly.

    Now, if the card manufacturers would stop trying to do things on the cheap, and would put a microcontroller on the card to control the RF section, and would either put flash on the card to drive the micro OR release the binary of the micro for free redistribution, THEN this wouldn't be a problem, as the user-modifiable driver would not be able to make the card go out-of-spec (and this would not be a violation of the GPL as the code for the micro would not be linked against anything - it would be data that is stuffed into the card at init, possibly by a userspace program in response to a hotplug event). However, the card manufacturers would rather "save" the money (even though the incremental per-unit cost of embedding a micro into the ASIC that implements the RF modem is essentially zero).

    To recap - I am ALL FOR Free Software drivers for hardware: I've bitched at ATI for the poor support for their video cards, I've bemoaned the poor Atheros WiFi drivers, I've cussed at more crap drivers that I can count! But unless you repeal the FCC's (DTI, or whatever the TLA is in the reader'

    • Re:I want it, so give it to me you meeny! (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Look, every single WiFi gadget I had to configure had a drop down to allow me to select the allowed frequencies by country - Netgear AP and NIC (with their own configurator), one in a Dell laptop (right there in Windows) - although I can't remember on my mac.
      So that one's a load of crap.
      As far as the power argument goes, it seems to me that what gets regulated in the end is the max power in the spec. If some moron boost his, that would be a problem allright, but then again I didn't hear of anybody comin
    • Nice rant -- can't wait to hear your conniption when SDR (Software Defined Radio [comsec.com]) becomes mainstream.

    • I have an Atheros chipset WiFi board down in my server that is currently doing little but sucking milliamps

      Fwiw, I have a NetGear WG111 USB thing working (nominally - haven't used it for much yet) on a cheapo laptop using ndiswrapper, the windows driver for the chip, and SuSE 9.2.~ It might be turn out to be unstable - but I was able to ping the iMac, which made me happy... hth

      how about bringing pressure on Atheros, Intel, Broadcom and others to add the US$0.10 to the damn bill-of-materials

      I c

      • IAASDRD (I am a software defined radio designer), so let me answer a few of your questions:

        are basically a single IC with with the registers wired to the USB bus.

        Which is an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) containing the RF circuits and a microcontroller.

        ...but would it really add cost to just hardwire those settings?

        You don't WANT to "hardwire" the power settings - you want the WiFi device to be able to adjust its power settings based upon the amount of power needed to communicate

        • you want the WiFi device to be able to adjust its power settings based upon the amount of power needed to communicate to the other devices. What you DON'T want is the user taking the device out of the designed limits.

          OK then, can you hardwire the limits?

          • It would depend upon the design - but the short answer is "No".

            RF parts have tolerances - some transistors have more gain than other of the same model number due to process variation during their manufacture.

            So, what you do when you design an RF device is you design the hardware to allow for enough gain variation to compensate for 99% of the parts you will see. You then measure what the limits are for the specific device you buit, and write them into an EEPROM or flash on the device. You then write your d

            • So, what you do when you design an RF device is you design the hardware to allow for enough gain variation to compensate for 99% of the parts you will see.

              Isn't the gain control a set of bits in a "register", though? And if so, can't you limit the gain by limiting the number of bits?

              And to follow up on your direct response to my earilier question (thank-you for the succinct definition of ASIC): Are the ASICs that are going into the devices proprietary? And: Is the e.g. Prism 2 an ASIC. or just p

              • Isn't the gain control a set of bits in a "register", though? And if so, can't you limit the gain by limiting the number of bits?

                Not quite. What you usually have is an digital to analog converter (DAC) that controls a variable gain amp (VGA). The voltage from the DAC controls how much the amplifier amplifies - think of it as the volume control on a stereo.

                Now, the RF final amps (the speakers) have some variance in terms of how much gain they have (some speakers are louder than others at the same input)

        • Sorry to keep hammering on this, but my interest is running a bit deeper here than just a chance to take cheap shots at the FCC (i usually strive not to be too serious, but this is really interesting ...

          You don't WANT to "hardwire" the power settings - you want the WiFi device to be able to adjust its power settings based upon the amount of power needed to communicate to the other devices. What you DON'T want is the user taking the device out of the designed limits.

          What about a feedback loop? Is tha

          • See my other comments in this thread about calibration, but:

            Yes, you use a feedback loop to control signal levels. However, when dealing with discontinuous signals like WiFi, you cannot use a simple analog loop, since the signal is not there all the time. You have to gate the loop - run it only when there is a signal present. You also have what are known as "power envelopes" - you have to bring the power up and down on each burst according to a defined pattern. Lastly, a feedback loop is only as good as it

            • Okay, I'm going to try to summarize some of this stuff, 'cause I am way out at the limits of my abiility to implement any of it before the end of the week, and I need to be able to show some sort of progress, at least in the analysis phase of the design.... Please be free to correct any or all of this - correction of design errors is always a lot cheaper early on, regardless of whether the design is hardware or software...

              1. From your remarks about the discontinuous nature of the WiFi signal, it sounds li
              • For the nature of the 820.11 specs, I'd suggest googling for the standards documents (the place I'd go is not available to the average person).

                The processor required wouldn't be much - a PIC level CPU (8 bits, a couple of MHz) would be enough.

                The ASIC for a USB device has the micro already, and is not what we are discussing.

                The ASICS on the cards for PCs is a different story - they currently don't have a micro on them, and I suggest putting one in. You do that by licensing a core and dropping it into the
    • Is programming considered trivial?

      People spend a lot of time learning to program computers. To think that you can compare switching a jumper with looking through a program and figure out which DEFINE's to change is a bit of a stretch.

      The idea that changing the drivers is "easy" is a very skewed perspective. (one can also reverse engineer the windows drivers, or get hacks for them.. is that trivial?)
    • I dont see what the legal difference is between

      a) A device that allows the band and power to be changed in software but the manufacturer didnt tell anyone about it

      b) A device that allows the band and power to be changed in software and the manufacturer tells people about it.

      c) A device that allows the band and power to be changed in software and the manufacturer keeps it secret but someone reverse engineers the calls to change band and amplitude.

      d) A device that allows the band and power to be changed i
    • The arguement that "The card + the drivers as shipped cannot operate out of spec, so that combination can be type certified" only works when the user is not give the source for the driver! That is why the card manufacturers can ship Windows binary drivers - the user is not trivially able to change things. A driver which has source under /usr/src/linux/drivers/802.11 is a different issue - the user can trivially change the card's output power and operating frequencies.

      I've seen trivial changes to binary dr

    • IAAEE (I am an Electrical Engineer).

      Your post and follow-ups in the thread were very informative. A good read, thanks.

  • Is there ANY 802.11x card that is open (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @08:19AM (#11407014)
    Is there any 802.11a/b/g Wi-Fi LAN card (either PCI or PCMCIA, not something built into a motherboard) out there that is truely Open?
    I dont mean some driver someone has figured out by reverse engineering, I mean a card where the manufacturer has released the specs and/or the driver code.

    What I want to see is for someone to build a PC with all the features one would expect for a decent linux setup using only hardware components where either any driver code required to access the full features of the device is released by the company (firmware that runs from a ROM chip and/or that runs on a seperate CPU on the card doesnt need to be open for the hardware to qualify) or alternativly, enough specifications are released to enable someone to completly re-create said drivers.
    It should have (in addition to the regular hardware features):
    802.11 Wireless WiFi lan
    CD/DVD burner
    10/100 ethernet (most motherboards include this anyway these days)
    Video Capture Card that has inputs for all the common standards (including the standards used for High Definition Digital cable/sattelite/free-to-air). Does anyone make a high definition capable capture card that supports that CableCard stuff? If so, that would fit perfectly here. If not, there is almost certainly a market for such a thing from those making PVR boxes.

    Such a system (even just a list of bits to buy to pull it off would be nice) or systems (e.g. one for PVR use with the video capture card and one for use as a desktop without the extra bits) would be a great thing IMO.
    Related to this, a list of companies and/or products that support open operating systems in various ways.
    Each product would have one of these designations:
    Totally closed, doesnt run on linux at all
    Runs on linux only though closed binary driver (e.g. nvidia gfx stuff)
    Reverse Engineered open driver exists for the hardware.
    official company written open driver exists (the companies and hardware with this designation would be the ones that open-source people could then patronise)
    • Is there any 802.11a/b/g Wi-Fi LAN card (either PCI or PCMCIA, not something built into a motherboard) out there that is truely Open?


      Prism [prism54.org] I think is the best you're going to get. The firmware isn't open source, but the drivers are. Best PCMCIA card with the chip (IMHO) is the Netgear WG511 (notWG511T).


      c.

    • Cisco sells the Aironet line of cards that are completely (As much as I can tell) supported by Linux. I run a Cisco Aironet 350 (And a 340 before that) for my WiFi internet at home and the drivers are built into the Linux kernel from 2.4 onward (I'd recommend 2.4.24 or later though because prior versions of the drivers are randomly unstable).

      The monitor software for it is written by Cisco and provided gratis (No source though) for Linux. It works pretty well on my system Fedora Core 2 with vanilla kernel
      • The Aironets I have used are fully supported. The only thing that could be considered a downside of the Aironets is that the firmware is stored on the card (normally a good thing) and you can only upgrade said firmware from Windows currently. And yes, I've seen some extremely buggy firmware revisions come out of Cisco.
        • Actually, if you have the closed-source Cisco monitor tools, you can upgrade/downgrade the firmware from that (I did it with the 340 card I used to have in that machine). The machine I've got it in doesn't even have Windows installed.

          And I've heard of buggy firmware revisions from Cisco as well. I believe the latest firmware they recommend for Linux is 4.13 or something like that. Strangely enough, I'm running 5.30 on mine and it's rock stable, so I'm not messing with it.
  • The Economist should give its contents away for free on the web.

    It is hard to see what the problem is beyond a dog-in-the-mangerish desire not to give anything away. Time to open it up, boys.


  • Closed drivers should work if they won't open them (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hazee ( 728152 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @10:19AM (#11408163)
    When the manufacturers refuse to open up the specs for their hardware, then there's an implicit understanding that they will at least supply working (closed) drivers of their own.

    So I may not be able to get the device to work under Linux, or some other OS that wasn't listed on the box, but at least I'll be able to run it under Windows, as advertised.

    Unfortunately, the driver for my particular card (Netgear WG511) is one of the worst pieces of crap that I've ever had the mispleasure of having to use.

    By way of example, when run under Win 2K, it doesn't "remember" the settings, such as WEP keys, unless you're running as Admin. Netgear's advice has to be seen to be believed - they have a web page [netgear.com] that tells you that you need to run with Administrator privileges to avoid the issue, and ON THE SAME PAGE, tells you how dangerous it is to run with admin privileges...

    This same piece of crap utility loads itself into the system tray at startup, and continues to soak up processor time for no readily apparent reason - - you can kill it, and the wireless link continues to function.

    This same utility also regularly sends packets out to numerical addresses on the web. Spyware, who knows?

    In summary, if the manufacturers can't or won't supply working drivers, then the whole product they're selling is essentially fraudulent - they're promising something that they're not delivering.

    So I believe that they should be FORCED to open the drivers.
  • That's why I think the entire "open" movement should start to go into hardware big time. Develop and sell open hardware in competition with the closed source guys. Next big thing maybe, it's a logical extension of FOSS. Yes, much harder, but we've seen some improvements in tech that are making design and manufacture easier in a lot of ways, printable circuits, etc.

    Yes, I know chip fab is still very expensive, etc. Baby steps is what I mean right now.
    • I love my (as my Apple-fanboy "friends" call it) fake iPod [neurosaudio.com] - not just because I can use open source firmware on it or that I can check out the schematics if I want, but mainly because it has features that competing products don't. Features I use everyday. Some of them are only there because this thing is so open, like the ogg/vorbis support. I'm so with you on this one.

  • Economist is a well respected magazine (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For all those bashing the economist...

    Its a really great magazine, and what they said should be taken with some serious thought..

    In the end, they just want to increase innovation and what they are asking is a logical step in the right direction.
  • WiFi was designed for small networks. instead of trying to "tweak" it to do something it was not intended to do (i.e. increase tx output power), just wait for WiMax, which has a broadcast range in kilometers.
  • Well, there are cards that are not Software Radio's yet have been "reverse-engineered" to operate "out of spec". Take the hermes chipset from Orinoco/Lucent/Agere/Proxim for example. It's trivial to add all the ability to use all 14 channels onto cards - soon it will be possible to change power rx/tx values too. Dig it : http://www.andrewhakman.dhs.org/orinoco/ [dhs.org] http://geocities.com/lincomatic/software.html/ [geocities.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close