General discussion


Is Microsoft at fault

By jterry ·
Why do I read about so many poeple who say they are not going to update windows to SP2 or install any Microsoft updates and than want to blame Microsoft when there PC gets corrupted? They are not only making their own PC vulnerable but opening themselves to be a Bot to infect others.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

FC3 is going to be better for gaming

by jmgarvin In reply to Just about to jump into l ...

FC3 has a little more support in the gaming community. Also you don't have to deal with NVidia drivers you can just go to and install them (IRRC that will work in Debian too).

SuSE is kinda wonky (very European) and it is cranky with some hardware.

Enjoy your summer ;-)

Collapse -


by jmgarvin In reply to wireless

The problem lies with the hardware and not ndiswrapper (I'm pretty sure). It is a D-Link DWL-G520, so it has issues anyway ;-) Any ideas...I'm even open to dropping the card. I miss my Orinoco wireless NIC and would like to find something on par with its stability and usability. I only got the DWL-G520 because I wanted to upgrade to 802.11g, but it turned into a mess both in Windows and Linux (the drivers for Windows suck and its proprietary software has a memory leak...wooo).

I'd like to see a short and sweet tutorial to ndiswrapper as it took me some time to get it (nidiswrapper) configured properly with a craptacular Wifi NIC.

The frustrating part is that the most Wireless NIC companies won't distribute drivers for Linux...WTF?

Anyway, any thoughts?

Collapse -

It depends . . .

by apotheon In reply to Thanks...

Is it the DWL-G520 or the DWL-G520+? The + reportedly works very well with Linux, but the DWL-G520 (without the plus) is apparently not supported reliably by ndiswrapper. From what I've read, this is a problem with the chipset, and not with ndiswrapper. The only references I can find are to a PCI card, though, so if that's PCMCIA/CardBus, I'm not sure my information applies.

I've never had to get a PCI wireless NIC to work with any Linux system, so I'm afraid I don't know whether things work differently than they do for setting up for a PC card on a laptop. I do know, though, that a Motorola WN825G purchased at Wal-Mart for about $20 works beautifully with Debian using ndiswrapper and the drivers downloaded from the Motorola site. That's what I'm using for my laptop right now. It's 802.11g/b.

I think that wireless NIC vendors don't distribute binary drivers for Linux because they figure their binary drivers should work with ndiswrapper (if they bother to think at all), and don't offer open source drivers or work with the Linux community to develop open source drivers because they're idiots that don't realize they'd net greater profits if they didn't treat the source code for drivers on hardware as trade secrets. They don't make any money off the drivers, and open source drivers would make their hardware usable by more people who would then be more likely to buy the things, but don't expect the phobic executives at card vendor corporations to realize that.

As for making ndiswrapper work with a wireless card, it's rather easy, in my experience -- as long as you've got Windows drivers that will work. It involves digging a couple files out of the drivers (an easy operation, generally), placing them somewhere convenient, loading the ndiswrapper, and running an ndiswrapper command to create the driver configuration automagically. Then you're in business. Now that ndiswrapper binaries are available for installation via apt-get in Debian Testing, it's absurdly easy to install ndiswrapper itself, too.

If this spawns any further question, let me know.

Collapse -

I always seem to do things the hard way...

by jmgarvin In reply to Thanks...

Thanks! I'm running FC3 and I don't have the "+" version of the card (which is frustrating). My card has driver issues with the actual driver in Windos, so I tend to think ndiswrapper is doing its best, but I am cranky about it.

I'll check out the card you suggested, does it only come in PCMCIA or also PCI?

I also think you are correct about the powers that be at the various vendors are paranoid (about what I don't know). Why is open source such a threat?

Boy that might make a good article on TR...

Collapse -

chipset and threats

by apotheon In reply to Thanks...

If I remember correctly, the card I have uses the Broadcom 4306 chipset. I'll double-check that the next time I use it in the laptop, I guess. I can't swear to it, but the same procedure should work for any Motorola card that uses that chipset, PCI or PCMCIA/PC Bus. As I've said, I haven't really dealt with wireless cards in desktop systems, so I can't swear to it.

A link you might find useful is this one:

You can probably get the chipset of a PCI wireless NIC at the command line with lspci. I know that at least most cards report their chipsets in lspci output.

As for why closed source proprietary software vendors consider FLOSS such a threat: I think it's pretty simple, actually. On one hand, open source development is a startlingly effective software development model which is likely to overtake closed source development models in pretty much every way, generating consistently (as contrasted with "universally", of course) better software. On the other hand, if the software isn't proprietary, the proprietary vendors lose their revenue streams based on software as a product.

I'm of the opinion that, eventually, software as a service can be far more profitable for everyone involved, but people invested in the model of software as a product either don't see that or are unwilling to take a chance that they'll end up taking a paycut. Plus, y'know, there's fear of change.

In short, it's very difficult to compete on quality when the competition is peddling better stuff, and it's even more difficult to compete on price when the competition is free.

Collapse -

Actually I think it is a bit more Sinister

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Thanks...

Than that prior to XP and Windows certified drivers most of the hardware makers used to provide drivers for multiple OS's but the moment that MS Certified drivers started appearing these other OS drivers disappeared.

Could it be that to maintain M$ certification they must only support the Windows OS? The hardware makers certainly pay M$ enough money for that certification and the smaller companies may be unable to afford to fight M$ on this one.

Next time you get a XP Certified Device just look at how many OS's it has drivers for all of the recent ones only come with Windows Drivers and then XP or 2003 being the predominate ones.

Col ]:)

Collapse -

Have you even been paying attention?

by jdclyde In reply to Who should be Compatable?

When SP2 came out there was a multi-page list of programs that WOULD NOT WORK. Many of the programs were MICROSOFT programs.

This major fix was just another in a long history of silver bullets that would fix all of the MS security problems. It wasn't and it hasn't.

And as for compatability, if MS had a hard time getting all of their applications to work, how do you expect outside vendors to adapt to the "new" OS?

Yet another reason for an open-source solution so that all the vendors would know what changes to make so the software will run.

Collapse -

I pay attention to what I know

by jterry In reply to Have you even been paying ...

I have read the same horror stories that you have about SP2. I am only saying that I have not seen the problem first hand. Does that mean they don't exist, No, but they haven't affected me. I could jump on the bandwagon and curse out Microsoft. We do have a program that we use that is outdated. It will not work on Win XP, not even in compatability mode. The company that made it was bought up by Adobe. When I called Adobe they said they have no plans to upgrade it. I guess I should blame that on Microsoft, right?

Collapse -

software compatability

by jdclyde In reply to I pay attention to what I ...

If the software works on XP but not after you put SP2 in, then blame MicroSoft.

If it only worked on 9X/NT then that is the vendor of that package.

I think that is where some of the discord came from. I am not saying this old DOS program has to run on every OS that comes after it. But if I buy it to run on Windows XP based on advertising that XP was secure and then a year later MicroSoft makes a change that breaks this application then there is something wrong.

Is this part in agreement?

Collapse -

I'll agree to that

by jterry In reply to software compatability

I curse out Microsoft myself sometimes right along with other companies. I don't like it though when it sounds like someone is just waiting for Microsoft to put out the next product or fix so they can find fault with it. I'm not saying your like that but maybe thats what i was hearing.

Related Discussions

Related Forums