Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:46:53 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (Jonathon McKitrick), chat@FreeBSD.ORG (freebsd-chat) Subject: Re: IBM Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000118162503.0193bc60@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200001182237.PAA13223@usr09.primenet.com> References: <4.2.2.20000118143609.01924f00@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:37 PM 1/18/2000 , Terry Lambert wrote: >I can't tell if you are saying this is a Windows crash or a >BSD crash... if a Windows, all I can say is "Well, Duh!, that's >the reason for Windows, it's what it does". It's under Windows; after all, the modem doesn't work AT ALL under BSD. But while Windows is unstable, the modem driver should not be coded so badly as to lock up the machine. >If you are complaining about a BSD crash, it is perfectly legal, >in Findland, Germany, and elsewhere, to take the Windows drivers >and run them through "Sourcer" from V Communications, Inc. (Frank >van Gilluwe's company, author of "The Undocumented PC"), and >then use this documented source code to as interface documentation >to create a BSD driver. While Frank's an excellent programmer, I somehow do not think that Sourcer will disassemble the MWave code. ;-) >I am deeply surprised that the countries where this is legal >do not have more of this going on; if I were a citizen there, >you could be guaranteed that I would spend much of my time >getting my hands on hardware with Windows drivers, and making >BSD drivers. Linux seems to have learned how to do this. I'm not sure whether it's legal or illegal here. The only case in which I've heard of reverse engineering being claimed to be illegal is Microsoft v. Stac, which was settled. >If that isn't enough, the MWave modem was widely criticized when >it was released, as any "Winmodem" or DSP codec-based modem so >far released. Unless you got a prerelease of the hardware, you >have only yourself to blame. There wasn't any other option on that machine. If I'd known that IBM would do such a poor job of writing drivers, or about the OTHER flaws in that unit (which none of the reviewers had documented), I wouldn't have bought it. Ditto if I'd known how badly they'd support OS/2 (which is what I wanted to run on it when I bought it). > > And, of course, IBM refuses to release the technical > > information that would let anyone develop a better driver > > or one for BSD. The modem -- in fact, the entire MWave -- > > is useless under BSD. > >The documentation is attainable. I will personally put up half >the cost of a copy of "Sourcer" for up to 5 people who agree >to do the reverse engineering work, and are familiar enough with >Windows and FreeBSD to do the work, and will agree to send the >software to someone else in that position, should they not >produce one driver every six months. I already have a copy of Sourcer, plus Andrew Schulman's Windows disassembly tools for it. But again, I don't think Sourcer can disassemble the MWave code. >As far as the hard part about WinModems, I seriously doubt you >will be able to utilize the "modem" part under any circumstances, >regardless of whether or not IBM (or any other vendor) releases >all of the technical information that they can legally release. >This is because the CODEC that is necessary to utilize such a >modem is both Copyright and Patented in most cases. Most often, the vendor of the hardware has already paid the required royalty. Rockwell pays royalties on the Heatherington patent for all buyers of its hardware. I'm sure that, in the case of the ThinkPad, the royalty has been paid before the computer leaves the shop. >You need to call you Customer Care Representative, whose sole >job is to fight tooth and nail on your behalf. I did! She tried valiantly. > > It's been back and forth to Memphis three times since the > > beginning of December, and FINALLY seems to be stable enough > > for me to reload my data onto it. > >So it was fixed. After I lost the use of it for a month and a half and had to purchase a replacement in the interim. >You haven't been through the Cultural Indoctrination Process; >you may have had a bad experience (which seems predicated on >buying a modem that was knowingly not supported by BSD, and >which doubled as a sound card, and then trying to use it as a >modem), but I can tell you that they are agressively service >oriented. Julian and Archie will tell you the same thing, >since they are also recent indoctrinees. No, I'm afraid that my opinions are based solely on actual experience, not indoctrination! ;-) >Well, that's too bad. Unfortunately, if there's no customer >base for off-brand OSs, then there will never be support for >those OSs forthcoming. Should I sacrifice myself on that altar? Especially when IBM is saying "Linux, Linux, Linux" and ignores e-mail asking about BSD support? It appears that IBM is already on the Linux bandwagon and is not even doing very well at backing THAT up with action. >I'm pretty sure that it's the same reason Adaptec invented their >HIM layer for microcode: to prevent people from building clone >hardware that utilized drivers that they had invested engineering >effort in writing. Since the drivers for OSes such as Windows would have GUIs that proudly display the name of the printer for which they were intended, it seems unlikely that a company would want to make a printer that's compatible with someone else's proprietary drivers. However, there IS an advantage in creating a standard language. HP has had great success due to PCL. > > For the life of me, I don't understand why Lexmark wouldn't > > want the UNIX market to use their products. > >What UNIX market? How many lost sales have they suffered >because of this? Where's the IDC report to back up the lost >sales numbers to the marketing people? Would they care even if presented with these numbers? >But that aside, I've described the process for revealing >interfaces and offered to go half-sies with you on funding >it. I really don't know what else I can personally do. I'm not asking you to do anything for me in this case. The MWave seems to have been phased out, so writing drivers for it is of limited value now. My short-term strategy is to avoid using hardware which is Windows-specific. In the long term, I wouldn't mind writing more drivers that support hardware that's supposedly Windows- specific -- provided that I can get the information to do so. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.2.20000118162503.0193bc60>