Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Broadcom Feeling The Heat

Reply
Thread Tools

Broadcom Feeling The Heat

 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On 2010-09-11, impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sep 11, 10:34 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>> In message <i6ebh4$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor wrote:
>>>
>>> > They are doing this so it gets merged into the kernel rather than
>>> > remaining a proprietary binary kernel module like wl.o.
>>>
>>> They’ve learned the hard way about trying to maintain their own code
>>> outside
>>> of the kernel source tree.
>>>
>>> > Its a reaction to OEMs like Dell installing Intel and Atheros wifi
>>> > modules instead of Broadcom despite a price penalty because they
>>> > provided fully manufacturer supported open source linux drivers.
>>>
>>> Competition is good. Open Source is all about the free market in action.

>>
>> If 'Impossible' was right in his assessment of the demand for 'open'
>> drivers, then Broadcom would not have bothered.

>
> Broadcom absolutetly **didn't** bother, you twit.


impossible is about to play the person, not the ball. All right here we go
people...

> How else would you explain
> releasing a "work in progress" under the guise of a driver? Can anyone
> actually use this driver to run their wireless? No, because the driver has
> yet to be developed. Broadcom apparently gave up on the project for lack of
> interest, which is hardly surprising -- linux desktop usage has been in
> decline for two years.


Repeat after me ....


>
> Peter the Whiner should learn to think for himself rather than tagging along
> for the ride on every Larry D'Loserite con job.
>

There we are gentle reader a goal. impossible has done it, played the
person not the ball.

impossible. Always attack the arguement, not the person. I have friends with
whom I agree to disagree on certain subjects. We both have accepted this and
agree not to discuss these matters, for there is nothing more to say
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On 10/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Nice to see that competition works
> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/broadcom-makes-its-wi-fi-chipsets-more-linux-friendly/138>:
> after years of Linux users getting the advice “Don’t Use Broadcom”, the
> company has finally discovered that the only way to improve the quality of
> its drivers is to make them open source, just like its competitors have
> already been doing.


Could be interesting, might make some of the later routers actually
usable for openwrt which they are not at the moment.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On 11/09/2010 3:45 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<i6es98$lcu$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>
>> On 11/09/2010 10:34 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<i6ebh4$47l$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are doing this so it gets merged into the kernel rather than
>>>> remaining a proprietary binary kernel module like wl.o.
>>>
>>> They’ve learned the hard way about trying to maintain their own code
>>> outside of the kernel source tree.

>>
>> Don't think they've bothered, just done blob drivers for specific
>> chipsets like the ones used by the wrt54g asus 520gu etc routers.

>
> Still expensive to maintain on their own, when there’s a whole Linux kernel
> community that will do it for them.
>
>>>> Its a reaction to OEMs like Dell installing Intel and Atheros wifi
>>>> modules instead of Broadcom despite a price penalty because they
>>>> provided fully manufacturer supported open source linux drivers.
>>>
>>> Competition is good. Open Source is all about the free market in action.

>>
>> Sure, but their previous policy was also a response to the competitive
>> free market.

>
> Think about it: external market conditions haven’t really changed, but their
> behaviour has.


The market has Android now, not just x86 linux distros for geeks to
install on PCs.
Broadcom supplies the wifi and bluetooth combo chipsets for the iPod
touch iPhone and iPad, and I would think they would see quite a bit of
potential for driver for those chipsets in Android.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On 11/09/2010 3:45 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<i6es98$lcu$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>
>> On 11/09/2010 10:34 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<i6ebh4$47l$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are doing this so it gets merged into the kernel rather than
>>>> remaining a proprietary binary kernel module like wl.o.
>>>
>>> They’ve learned the hard way about trying to maintain their own code
>>> outside of the kernel source tree.

>>
>> Don't think they've bothered, just done blob drivers for specific
>> chipsets like the ones used by the wrt54g asus 520gu etc routers.

>
> Still expensive to maintain on their own, when there’s a whole Linux kernel
> community that will do it for them.
>
>>>> Its a reaction to OEMs like Dell installing Intel and Atheros wifi
>>>> modules instead of Broadcom despite a price penalty because they
>>>> provided fully manufacturer supported open source linux drivers.
>>>
>>> Competition is good. Open Source is all about the free market in action.

>>
>> Sure, but their previous policy was also a response to the competitive
>> free market.

>
> Think about it: external market conditions haven’t really changed, but their
> behaviour has.


This didn't come out of the blue, Dell and Canonical have been working
with Broadcom for a while.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/new_l...drivers_arrive
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
In message <i6fi0v$g7j$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

> Could be interesting, might make some of the later routers actually
> usable for openwrt which they are not at the moment.


This is the point that some companies seem to be so slow to get: that open
drivers make their hardware products more useful and hence more desirable,
which means they sell more. And open-source drivers cost less to develop and
maintain than closed-source ones, simply because you’ve instantly got access
to such a huge pool of potential contributors in the kernel development
community, who will critique and test your code, and contribute patches for
it.

You’d think such a win-win would be blindingly obvious. But quite a few
companies seem to be more hung up on “protecting intellectual property”
(i.e. trade secrets) than on actually making money selling product.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On 11/09/2010 10:30 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<i6fi0v$g7j$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:
>
>> Could be interesting, might make some of the later routers actually
>> usable for openwrt which they are not at the moment.

>
> This is the point that some companies seem to be so slow to get: that open
> drivers make their hardware products more useful and hence more desirable,
> which means they sell more. And open-source drivers cost less to develop and
> maintain than closed-source ones, simply because you’ve instantly got access
> to such a huge pool of potential contributors in the kernel development
> community, who will critique and test your code, and contribute patches for
> it.
>
> You’d think such a win-win would be blindingly obvious. But quite a few
> companies seem to be more hung up on “protecting intellectual property”
> (i.e. trade secrets) than on actually making money selling product.


Its a bit of a tightrope since certifying authorities like the FCC
aren't all that keen on geeks having access to radio settings and power
levels
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On 11/09/2010 10:46 p.m., victor wrote:

>> You’d think such a win-win would be blindingly obvious. But quite a few
>> companies seem to be more hung up on “protecting intellectual property”
>> (i.e. trade secrets) than on actually making money selling product.

>
> Its a bit of a tightrope since certifying authorities like the FCC
> aren't all that keen on geeks having access to radio settings and power
> levels


Yeah, its very tempting to jump onto those unused 2.3 and 2.5GHz
channels for point to point links...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
In message <i6fmmv$tet$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:

> Its a bit of a tightrope since certifying authorities like the FCC
> aren't all that keen on geeks having access to radio settings and power
> levels


That’s an excuse used by some companies, I don’t think the FCC has ever said
anything to that effect.

If a device was modified to infringe some regulation after being purchased,
the person who did the mod is liable, not the company that originally made
the product.
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterbites
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On September 11, 12:59 pm, peterwn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> But then 'Impossible'
> is merely Micro$oft's cat's paw quite apart from operating under a few
> other 'nyms'.


I am shocked by peterwn's ability to spot other nyms.

peterwn identifies "impossible" and Roger Sheppard as the same person:
<http://groups.google.com/group/nz.comp/msg/c6864f40d7b459a1>
<http://groups.google.com/group/nz.comp/msg/7cadf4994ea0bb05>

peterwn is not distracted by messy details of geography or English
language skills.

"impossible" is posting from Iowa, USA. Roger Sheppard is posting from
Kapiti Coast, New Zealand.

Roger Sheppard has a characteristic style of English which he has not
been able to shake off over many years in nz.comp. "impossible" has the
ability to compose sentences very different to what Roger Sheppard does.

Over 90% of nz.comp would identify Roger Sheppard and "impossible" as
different people. Does that place peterwn in the top decile or bottom
decile of perceptiveness?
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On 11/09/2010 11:23 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<i6fmmv$tet$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>
>> Its a bit of a tightrope since certifying authorities like the FCC
>> aren't all that keen on geeks having access to radio settings and power
>> levels

>
> That’s an excuse used by some companies, I don’t think the FCC has ever said
> anything to that effect.
>
> If a device was modified to infringe some regulation after being purchased,
> the person who did the mod is liable, not the company that originally made
> the product.


They require potential infringement by end users to be locked out.
Making routers for third party software enthusiasts doesn't have much of
a market compared to just shifting boxes off the shelf.
Its not an excuse, getting FCC approval is more important.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Feeling Heat From ARM On Two Fronts Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 0 05-21-2011 10:15 AM
ItemCommand event not firing from a dynamic user control,feeling puzzled EvelynAnd Ethan ASP .Net 4 01-09-2006 03:12 AM
ItemCommand event not firing from a dynamic user control,feeling puzzled EvelynAnd Ethan ASP .Net 0 10-17-2005 04:00 AM
ItemCommand event not firing from a dynamic user control,feeling puzzled EvelynAnd Ethan ASP .Net 0 10-17-2005 04:00 AM
Every get the feeling..... The Rev \(MCT\) MCSE 19 02-10-2005 12:36 AM



Advertisments