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
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
