Hello,
Just out of curiosity, will there be greater support for more wireless PCMCIA cards in FC4?
Jeff
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 06:58 -0500, Jeffrey D. Yuille wrote:
Hello,
Just out of curiosity, will there be greater support for morewireless PCMCIA cards in FC4?
Well... What's in the upstream kernel will be what's in Fedora Core 4 since the Fedora kernel is supposed to track the upstream kernel fairly closely.
The current state of the kernel drivers for wireless cards is:
Prism54 (ex Netgear WG511 v1 & v2) Cisco Aironet (ex 350, 340, and MiniPCI cards) Arlan Atmel 76c50x (ex Belkin F5D6020v2) Orinoco/Hermes (ex Apple Airport, WaveLAN, ORiNOCO) Netwave Ray Wavelan (older, obsoleted by Hermes/Orinoco) HostAP (in netdev branch I think, but not kernel yet)
Non-upstream drivers that appear quite a bit are: Intel Pro Wireless 2100 and 2200 Atheros a/b/g & SuperG (madwifi, ex Netgear WG511T)
The best way to get more wireless drivers in the kernel (and therefore into Fedora) is to push the driver maintainers to work on getting the drivers into the kernel.
What will change is the ability and ease of configuring and using what cards you can run, as long as they support Wireless Extensions (which all upstream kernel drivers must). See NetworkManager (http://people.redhat.com/dcbw/NetworkManager)
Dan
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 09:39 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 06:58 -0500, Jeffrey D. Yuille wrote:
Hello,
Just out of curiosity, will there be greater support for morewireless PCMCIA cards in FC4?
Well... What's in the upstream kernel will be what's in Fedora Core 4 since the Fedora kernel is supposed to track the upstream kernel fairly closely.
<snip>
Non-upstream drivers that appear quite a bit are: Intel Pro Wireless 2100 and 2200 Atheros a/b/g & SuperG (madwifi, ex Netgear WG511T)
Just to clarify.
Does this mean that drivers for these will be included in the kernel (or are already in the devel kernel), or not?
Rodd
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
Non-upstream drivers that appear quite a bit are: Intel Pro Wireless 2100 and 2200 Atheros a/b/g & SuperG (madwifi, ex Netgear WG511T)
Just to clarify.
Does this mean that drivers for these will be included in the kernel (or are already in the devel kernel), or not?
Hi,
ipw drivers have been included in the Red Hat/Fedora kernels for a while, and bits of them are now in the netdev branch of the kernel. You need the firmware package to operate the cards though, which Fedora will not be able to distribute because the firmware requires a non FOSS license.
Atheros drivers will never be in the kernel because they require build-time linkage to a binary-only .o file, which of course means that the .o file is not open source. Therefore, you can't compile the driver without non FOSS software, and thtat's a showstopper for kernel integration.
Dan
You need the firmware package to operate the cards though, which Fedora will not be able to distribute because the firmware requires a non FOSS license.
Dan,
Thanks for your reply.
Just to clarify, as this was raised on the devel list, but seemed to die a quick death, what's the difference between a firmware image and a picture image.
For example, why can Fedora include images that can't be modified under a FOSS license (for example Fedora Artwork) but can't include firmware images which are in essence images that can't be modified, but more hardware than software.
Rodd
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 12:11 +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
You need the firmware package to operate the cards though, which Fedora will not be able to distribute because the firmware requires a non FOSS license.
Dan,
Thanks for your reply.
Just to clarify, as this was raised on the devel list, but seemed to die a quick death, what's the difference between a firmware image and a picture image.
even if you consider it a blob the license on that blob is such that it can't be distributed.
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 09:21 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 12:11 +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
You need the firmware package to operate the cards though, which Fedora will not be able to distribute because the firmware requires a non FOSS license.
Dan,
Thanks for your reply.
Just to clarify, as this was raised on the devel list, but seemed to die a quick death, what's the difference between a firmware image and a picture image.
even if you consider it a blob the license on that blob is such that it can't be distributed.
AFAIK, the only limitation on distributing this is that a copy of the license must be included with the firmware. This shouldn't stop Fedora distributing the firmware.
Rodd
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
AFAIK, the only limitation on distributing this is that a copy of the license must be included with the firmware. This shouldn't stop Fedora distributing the firmware.
http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=4 http://kerneltrap.org/node/4202
Remember, OpenBSD tried and completely failed to get Intel to relicense the firmware under a FOSS-type license so that it was easily distributable.
Dan
man, 07.03.2005 kl. 14.09 skrev Dan Williams:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
AFAIK, the only limitation on distributing this is that a copy of the license must be included with the firmware. This shouldn't stop Fedora distributing the firmware.
http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=4 http://kerneltrap.org/node/4202
Remember, OpenBSD tried and completely failed to get Intel to relicense the firmware under a FOSS-type license so that it was easily distributable.
Dan
OK. So Intel won't let their firmware be redistributed. But what about all the other vendors? ref:
"Several vendors including Symbol, Zydas, and Atmel have responded favorably, licensing their firmwares so that they can be distributed freely with OpenBSD."
What about those? Are those firmwares OK to distribute with fedora, or is it a no-no? They are binary-only, after all. What about other firmwares, such as bluetooth dongle firmware (etc)?
As far as i can see, there is no reason to say no. The firmware is IMO. just a binary blob the driver uploads the hardware. Just a piece, a part of the hw which are stored on the HW of the computer instead of on the card itself. I we should demand hardware vendors to free up their firmware, why shouldn't we demand them to give us access to the chip construction drawings (or whatever they use)? Why not simply just sit there saying "they are evil. I won't play with you.", and make anaconda refusing to install if "non-open hw" are detected?
Of course we won't do that. But please, if Linux is going to become easy to use and deploy, please don't act as fanatics. It isn't going to get us anywhere, except looking like idiots.
Kyrre Ness Sjøbæk
On Mon, March 7, 2005 12:49 pm, Kyrre Ness Sjobak said:
Of course we won't do that. But please, if Linux is going to become easy to use and deploy, please don't act as fanatics. It isn't going to get us anywhere, except looking like idiots.
Linux is becoming easier to use every day. It's not acting like a fanatic to stick to some guiding principles. If Fedora only works with hardware supported by open source as a consequence of these principles, it's a reasonable tradeoff. Lets not worry too much about the people that judge anyone with a different view than themselves, an idiot. There are some very good reasons for the principles adopted by Fedora. For those that don't understand them or are offended by the resulting constraints, there are many other options available to them within the Linux landscape. Fedora is available for those that get it.
Cheers, Sean
Linux is becoming easier to use every day. It's not acting like a fanatic to stick to some guiding principles. If Fedora only works with hardware supported by open source as a consequence of these principles, it's a reasonable tradeoff.
I applaud Fedora's not shipping non FOSS software. That being said there are myriad ways that one can get firmware, closed source drivers etc. for non natively supported (or poorly supported) hardware to work with Fedora (but) those currently can't *ship* with the distro.
IMHO the tradeoff is very reasonable indeed and deviating from the current policy would be a slippery slope scenario.
tir, 08.03.2005 kl. 02.27 skrev Sean:
On Mon, March 7, 2005 12:49 pm, Kyrre Ness Sjobak said:
Of course we won't do that. But please, if Linux is going to become easy to use and deploy, please don't act as fanatics. It isn't going to get us anywhere, except looking like idiots.
Linux is becoming easier to use every day. It's not acting like a fanatic to stick to some guiding principles. If Fedora only works with hardware supported by open source as a consequence of these principles, it's a reasonable tradeoff. Lets not worry too much about the people that judge anyone with a different view than themselves, an idiot. There are some very good reasons for the principles adopted by Fedora. For those that don't understand them or are offended by the resulting constraints, there are many other options available to them within the Linux landscape. Fedora is available for those that get it.
Nobody was talking about including non-free *software* with the distro - that wouldn't be to smart, agreed. This is about having HW that requires firmware loadup JustWork (tm) when the driver is free as in freedom.
Should we then refuse to cooperate with any properitary sort of firmware, also when it is built into the hardware - such as a BIOS? It could seem like a "logical" extention...
Kyrre Ness Sjøbæk
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 09:13:40PM +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
Nobody was talking about including non-free *software* with the distro - that wouldn't be to smart, agreed. This is about having HW that requires firmware loadup JustWork (tm) when the driver is free as in freedom.
I looked back through our original discussions - one thing I will say here is that firmware was simply never considered in the original discussions.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:40 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 09:13:40PM +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
Nobody was talking about including non-free *software* with the distro - that wouldn't be to smart, agreed. This is about having HW that requires firmware loadup JustWork (tm) when the driver is free as in freedom.
I looked back through our original discussions - one thing I will say here is that firmware was simply never considered in the original discussions.
Alan,
I'm a little confused. Are you talking about this thread as 'our original discussions' or has then been discussed elsewhere and you are referring to these other threads. If so, could you supply some pointers to where?
As to this thread, Dan raised issues about firmware inclusion in the 4th item in this thread and I asked for some clarification about firmware and how it should be viewed in my reply to hist comments. The original post was about greater support for wireless in FC4 and while not specifically about firmware, all the drivers in the world won't make a lot of difference to out-of-the-box support if the firmware is not included. It will, for example, make the movement towards network based installs an absolute bitch if you need to get firmware for a third party and supply it during the install process.
While I don't want to see Fedora distributing stuff it can't legally do so, the only limitation I can see on distributing the firmware for the ipw2200 is that license has to be include in the same folder as the firmware. There's also the discussion about whether firmware is source code based software, or an extension of hardware (and as such an image), and how this affects Fedora.
I'm (obviously) from the camp that sees firmware as an extension of hardware, but what implications this has I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking (and pushing). ;-]
Rodd
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:25:50AM +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
I'm a little confused. Are you talking about this thread as 'our original discussions' or has then been discussed elsewhere and you are referring to these other threads. If so, could you supply some pointers to where?
Long ago before Fedora existed a bunch of Red Hat folks sat down and drafted a set of proposals for "What is Fedora", "Why is Fedora good", etc. One of the things we wanted was a free software distro buildable with free software.
I went through that discussion archive and although we discussed issues like extras dependancies on non-core for example we never discussed firmware at all. The extension of the current policy onto firmware files is not a planned and thought out event, its just happened.
Now I happen to think it is right to keep firmware seperate but thats not a debate we had when founding Fedora
Just to chime in here, I think firmware should be kept out of the kernel, unless it is GPL'ed.
That is I shuld be able to use a freely available cross compiler such as the gcc tool chain and generate the binary for the hardware.
If manufactures feel it will sell more hardware by keeping it closed and proprietary, let them think that and cater to the Windows admins of the world.
(Who, for the most part probably do not even know what firmware is, what it does or why it is important either way.)
The primary reason I use Linux totally now, and will be converting hundreds of Windows machines to Linux thin clients next year is because:
1) As a Windows developer and administrator for 10 years I am sick and tired of not being able to correct problems in Microsoft's or vendors products because of IP rules.
They can take thier closed IP secrets and shove them up where the sun don't shine.
2) The fallout from #1 of course is getting paged at 3AM in the morning like clock work, just to remote reboot windows machines knowing there is no way in hell I can fix the problem, to stop the pages from comming.
So, in my view, keeping vendors that are closed out of the kernel insures there are means for me to correct problems with Linux, and that I can plan my infrastructure with the honest goal of increasing reliability and uptime....far beyond what a Windows Admin could do by hitting the reset button every 2 weeks and calling that "fixed".
The reasons for keeping closed systems out of the distros increases its reputation for realibility and quality over time.
A goal that is a very achievable reality with a totally open system, vs a dream for a distro that has closed firmware components in it.
Don't turn my reality into a dream please. Keep closed firmware, the vendors that support that sort of thing as a business mantra out of Linux.
-gc
Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:25:50AM +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
I'm a little confused. Are you talking about this thread as 'our original discussions' or has then been discussed elsewhere and you are referring to these other threads. If so, could you supply some pointers to where?
Long ago before Fedora existed a bunch of Red Hat folks sat down and drafted a set of proposals for "What is Fedora", "Why is Fedora good", etc. One of the things we wanted was a free software distro buildable with free software.
I went through that discussion archive and although we discussed issues like extras dependancies on non-core for example we never discussed firmware at all. The extension of the current policy onto firmware files is not a planned and thought out event, its just happened.
Now I happen to think it is right to keep firmware seperate but thats not a debate we had when founding Fedora
All firmware isn't equivalent. When the "firmware" is downloaded into an attached device, that binary blob doesn't necessarily have any correspondence to the local host architecture above the pci or usb layer. It could be FPGA core, or assembly for some custom embeddded controller. Not necessarily a nice von Neumann machine with an O/S. Having the source doesn't help without a detailed knowledge of the device architecture (what device pins do), and the build tools are highly specialized.
This is very different from binary *drivers* (like NVidia) where the binary is executed on the local host, directly in the kernel. The closed driver situation is certainly evil, since it creates a black hole in the kernel where untraceable bugs can fester.
I don't this should apply to embedded (O/S external) firmware - the execution framework is seperate. The kernel folks (and distro's) aren't going to start distributing esoteric build systems to create binary blobs for custom devices (even if such build systems were open source). The device drivers should be open - but I think it's rational to distribute supporting device firmware with an otherwise open O/S.
Just a counter opinion.
-Bob Arendt
Gregory G Carter wrote:
Just to chime in here, I think firmware should be kept out of the kernel, unless it is GPL'ed.
That is I shuld be able to use a freely available cross compiler such as the gcc tool chain and generate the binary for the hardware.
If manufactures feel it will sell more hardware by keeping it closed and proprietary, let them think that and cater to the Windows admins of the world. (Who, for the most part probably do not even know what firmware is, what it does or why it is important either way.)
<.. snip ..>
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:37 -0600, Gregory G Carter wrote:
Just to chime in here, I think firmware should be kept out of the kernel, unless it is GPL'ed.
That is I shuld be able to use a freely available cross compiler such as the gcc tool chain and generate the binary for the hardware.
Oh, don't get me wrong here. I'm not arguing in the least that the firmware should become part of the kernel. I've got no problem with keeping it separate at all.
What I want to know is why it can't be distributed at part of fedora, presumably as a separate package that is installed where it needs to be installed.
I'm rapidly forming the opinion that firmware isn't software and that as such has no place in the software chain. It's a fine line of distinction, but as someone asked, are we going to stop supporting hardware that have firmware upgrades on their chipset because the firmware isn't 'open'? And if not, what's the difference between hardware where the firmware is stored on a chipset and hardware where the firmware is stored on the hard-disk?
Rodd
*snip*
I'm rapidly forming the opinion that firmware isn't software and that as such has no place in the software chain. It's a fine line of distinction, but as someone asked, are we going to stop supporting hardware that have firmware upgrades on their chipset because the firmware isn't 'open'? And if not, what's the difference between hardware where the firmware is stored on a chipset and hardware where the firmware is stored on the hard-disk?
Rodd
+1 Exactly my opinion too.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:18:25 +1100, Rodd Clarkson rodd@clarkson.id.au wrote:
I'm rapidly forming the opinion that firmware isn't software and that as such has no place in the software chain. It's a fine line of distinction, but as someone asked, are we going to stop supporting hardware that have firmware upgrades on their chipset because the firmware isn't 'open'? And if not, what's the difference between hardware where the firmware is stored on a chipset and hardware where the firmware is stored on the hard-disk?
What's the difference? Clearly its one of user expectation as to who is suppose to be distributing the firmware. The difference is Fedora doesn't distribute firmware that is stored in hardware devices and thus doesn't have to ever deal with the legal questions surrounding the re-distribution rights regarding the firmware. Similarly... no one expects fedora to distribute firmware upgrades for hardware devices where the firmware is stored in the device, there is clearly an expectation there that the hardware manufactures are where you go to get any required firmware updates. Questions like... does Fedora have the right to re-distribute the firmware upgrade for my dvd burner never comes up.. because there is no expectation that any linux distro should be distributing that sort of firmware upgrade.
But for some reason there is a growing expectation that linux distros should be distributing the firmware for devices that can not store firmware internally. Thats a big jump in perception. No one expects Fedora to be shipping bios updates for motherboards... even though having the most recent bios update can greatly impact the distributions ability to negotiate some aspects of hardware like acpi. And no one goes out into left field that Fedora has dropped support for a motherboard simply because users have to get the latest bios from the board vender for Fedora to work on it properly.
What we are seeing now with the call for wireless firmware to be included runs straight into issues of re-distribution of copyrighted works in a way that firmware stored on hardware completely sidesteps. Having a way to shove binary firmware blobs over to hardware is a necessary piece of technology, and no one is suggesting that technology be done away with. In fact it would be great if i could stay in linux and shove firmware and bios updates to any hardware device i own. But making that technology available to inject vendor firmware into hardware is drastically different issue than shifting the distribution focus from the vendors down to the operating system distributors. And frankly i think its a raw deal for the distributors... no matter what piece of hardware we are talking about.
If a bios update or a dvd drive firmware update or a wireless card firmware blob fails to work... if those items are distributed by the linux distributor.. they get the blunt of the complaints..simply because they distribute them. And thats a raw deal. If we can get bios updates from hardware oems or board vendors.. and we can get firmware updates from dvd drive vendors.. we can certaintly get the wireless firmware from card vendors or oems. I have no idea why the expectation surrounding firmware distribution has changed with these devices.
-jef
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:49 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:25:50AM +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
I'm a little confused. Are you talking about this thread as 'our original discussions' or has then been discussed elsewhere and you are referring to these other threads. If so, could you supply some pointers to where?
Long ago before Fedora existed a bunch of Red Hat folks sat down and drafted a set of proposals for "What is Fedora", "Why is Fedora good", etc. One of the things we wanted was a free software distro buildable with free software.
I went through that discussion archive and although we discussed issues like extras dependancies on non-core for example we never discussed firmware at all. The extension of the current policy onto firmware files is not a planned and thought out event, its just happened.
Now I happen to think it is right to keep firmware seperate but thats not a debate we had when founding Fedora
Alan,
Thanks for the insight.
Maybe it's time that this discussion/debatee was had. Given the trend toward storing firmware elsewhere that the actual hardware, this needs to be resolved (one way or the other).
Rodd
Perhaps manufacturers who only distribute firmware binaries could provide the kernel operating groups urls to put into the "make config". That way when I or someone else goes to build or install an initial kernel, you do not get a "kiddie-wumpus" kernel installation with drivers that do not work.
For example, I use the prism54 chipset in my wireless card and it requires a firmware file to activate.
Very simple solution, with the only drawback that you need a network connection at kernel build time to do the initial install of the driver.
Subsequent new kernel builds can then optionally check for firmware updates.
This way, the only thing the binary only manufacturers have to do is publish ftp/http locations for firmware files.
Since many of them cannot be bothered to do much else, it might actually work.
-gc
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:49 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:25:50AM +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
I'm a little confused. Are you talking about this thread as 'our original discussions' or has then been discussed elsewhere and you are referring to these other threads. If so, could you supply some pointers to where?
Long ago before Fedora existed a bunch of Red Hat folks sat down and drafted a set of proposals for "What is Fedora", "Why is Fedora good", etc. One of the things we wanted was a free software distro buildable with free software.
I went through that discussion archive and although we discussed issues like extras dependancies on non-core for example we never discussed firmware at all. The extension of the current policy onto firmware files is not a planned and thought out event, its just happened.
Now I happen to think it is right to keep firmware seperate but thats not a debate we had when founding Fedora
Alan,
Thanks for the insight.
Maybe it's time that this discussion/debatee was had. Given the trend toward storing firmware elsewhere that the actual hardware, this needs to be resolved (one way or the other).
Rodd
--On Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:40 AM -0600 Gregory G Carter gcarter@aesgi.com wrote:
Perhaps manufacturers who only distribute firmware binaries could provide the kernel operating groups urls to put into the "make config". That way when I or someone else goes to build or install an initial kernel, you do not get a "kiddie-wumpus" kernel installation with drivers that do not work.
What happens when you install with Anaconda from CD or HD and the only network connection is your wireless NIC? Are you assuming that the firmware is locally available to the installation kernel, perhaps as a linked-in image?
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 08:09 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
AFAIK, the only limitation on distributing this is that a copy of the license must be included with the firmware. This shouldn't stop Fedora distributing the firmware.
http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=4 http://kerneltrap.org/node/4202
Remember, OpenBSD tried and completely failed to get Intel to relicense the firmware under a FOSS-type license so that it was easily distributable.
Okay, finally found time to read this and while frustrating, it sheds some light on the subject.
There were a lot of mentions of sending email to the people at Intel responsible for this, but no listing of their email address. If someone could supply me with an email address I'm more than happy to harness my energies and write a polite letter to Intel explaining that while their wireless technology is very nice, true Linux support can't be achieved until their firmware is licensed in such a way that it can be included with the distribution so that clueless end user (which Windows has plenty of and Linux can look forward too) don't have to know to download firmware and install it so they can use the hardware, and so that Intel's claims their wireless hardware supports Linux can actually become truth (after all, supplying source code for the driver, but not allowing the firmware to be included with the driver, means that the driver isn't worth squat. ) True Linux support would include a license that allows the firmware to be included along with the driver.
I would like to clarify a point before writing this letter.
Is it so that the firmware doesn't need to be freely modifiable, it just needs to have a license that allows the firmware to be freely distributed as an image?
Rodd
-
Alan Cox -
Arjan van de Ven -
Bob Arendt -
Dan Williams -
Gregory G Carter -
Jef Spaleta -
Jeffrey D. Yuille -
Jon Savage -
Kenneth Porter -
Kyrre Ness Sjobak -
Rodd Clarkson -
Rodd Clarkson -
Sean