Contributed by dhartmei on from the press-from-down-under dept.
- Damien Miller, a developer with the OpenSSH project, a companion project to OpenBSD, said what was puzzling about the wireless situation was that there were developers who are willing to work free and write drivers for these chipsets, but some manufacturers, like Intel and Atheros, were unwilling to release device firmware (Intel) or card specifications (Atheros). [...]
(Comments are closed)
By Eduardo Alvarenga (66.110.114.5) on
Any license restrictions about creating a port for it?
Comments
By SH (82.182.103.172) on
By bert (216.175.250.42) thrashbluegrass at antisocial dot com on
Comments
By vesa (130.233.172.73) on
Comments
By Levi (24.173.243.99) on
Comments
By jsg (220.253.7.158) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.121.189.50) on
Comments
By henning (213.128.133.133) on
and intel sure has the power to get that right.
By Anonymous Coward (65.198.20.164) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
Comments
By Bert (68.50.4.145) thrashbluegrass at antisocial dot com on
Flamewar!
Exactly what I set out to do when I posted my comment!
By Peter Hessler (64.173.147.27) on
Yes, I know my example has bogus numbers, the the point is still the same.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (80.219.121.189) on
someone else mentioned docs exposing bugs, well, I seem to remember an article on ross anderson's website about trying to obtain the latest IBM crypto processors, used in higher-level financial transaction checking etc.
IBM refused to sell them one, so he sent a post-grad student to check out *available* docs on IBM's site, within 2-3 three months they devised a hardware attack without ever having seen one.
moral? to prevent bug exposure, do not document and do not sell.
seriously, if someone is motivated enough they will expose your flaky SW/HW and you''ll just look silly, or worse dishonest.
By ciph3r (213.9.211.12) on
Comments
By SH (82.182.103.172) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.158.152.86) on
Comments
By SH (82.182.103.172) on
It's a D-Link DWL-AG520/EU H/W: A1 using AR5212 chipset. Support not completed yet (a "ifconfig ath0 up" gives a panic, reported to bugs@). A "wicontrol -L ath0" seems to work, though. The card is intended to complement my Prism 2.5 based wireless access point.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.158.152.86) on
=(
For the longest time I was hoping that there was atleast one or two 802.11g cards that I could use with OpenBSD with no worries. What about any other reliability or performance issues? I guess I might have to wait till the 3.7 release or just stick with 802.11b. Thanks for the details.
By Bob Beck (129.128.11.43) beck@openbsd.org on
Personally I detest G based access points. Maybe if all you're
doing is making a private one that nobody buy you and a few people
with G cards ever see, great, but when used in a public setting
it's worse than useless. It drops to b whenever someone is around
with a B beacon, and half the G cards/drivers don't take that
very well.
As a toy, fine. If you're building anythig real? use B - disable
the G.
-Bob
Comments
By SH (82.182.103.172) on
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
By Anonymous Coward (213.118.35.44) on
Comments
By SH (82.182.103.172) on