From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932079AbWGKSnP (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:43:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751180AbWGKSnP (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:43:15 -0400 Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk ([195.112.4.54]:34059 "EHLO smtp.nildram.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751178AbWGKSnO (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:43:14 -0400 From: Alistair John Strachan To: Alon Bar-Lev Subject: Re: Will there be Intel Wireless 3945ABG support? Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:43:41 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: "John W. Linville" , joesmidt@byu.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1152635563.4f13f77cjsmidt@byu.edu> <200607111909.22972.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> <44B3ED29.4040801@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44B3ED29.4040801@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607111943.41107.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 11 July 2006 19:25, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Alistair John Strachan wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 July 2006 18:12, John W. Linville wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:32:43AM -0600, Joseph Michael Smidt wrote: > >>> Will 2.6.18 or 2.6.19 support Intel Wireless 3945ABG? Please cc me > >>> since I am not subscribed. Thanks. > >> > >> It will not be in 2.6.18. Making 2.6.19 is not out of the question, > >> but it may take some work. > > > > Has some agreement been met regarding the mandatory use of the binary > > regulatory daemon? The webpage seems to suggest it is still necessary, > > and I'm sure that would disqualify merging the driver with Linux proper. > > Why not? > The whole point is running a system that you know you can support for many > years, even without a vendor support... > And to have a system that you know exactly what running in it... > Having a binary closed source violate this. > > Also there is no good reason why supplying this daemon as closed source... > All they wish is people don't mess with their frequencies, and sooner or > later someone will... Don't misinterpret me, that's exactly my feeling too. Ignoring the politics and questionable legality entirely, as a matter of practicality, when Intel inevitably abandon these cards 5 years from now and their daemon rots, will I still be able to use my wireless card? I think not. Also, I can't see any reason why a mini-pci version of this couldn't work in a system other than x86/x86-64, even if Intel don't design such machines. In my view, it would be unacceptable to merge. -- Cheers, Alistair. Final year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.