On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 April 2008 15:18, John Pugh wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:26 PM, in message
>>
>> <200804171426.24906.slitt@troubleshooters.com>, Steve Litt
>>
>> <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday 17 April 2008 13:19, tom smith wrote:
>>>> http://www.kernel.org/
>>>
>>> Is that the one where they crippled ndiswrapper? What a stupid decision
>>> that is!
>>
>> Well...there was a patch which inadvertently screwed NDISwrapper up and a
>> nice little argument about fixing the patch so Linus disabled access to
>> symbols it needed to work. I think that the NDISwrapper folks implemented a
>> workaround in their latest release, but NDISwrapper is currently hobbled.
>
> Is there any reasonable way to work around the current no-ndiswrapper symbols?
>
> So much for Linux on laptops. A real piece of strategic thinking by Linus. But
> hey, we're 100% free software, even if nobody uses it (on a laptop).
>
> Those guys whining about the GPL impurity of binary interfaces should be put
> in a sweatshop and made to reverse engineer every new wnic that comes out,
> and code a totally free driver for it within a week of its release.
I use Linux on a laptop, and I don't use ndiswrapper, but I also don't plan
to upgrade to 2.6.25 merely because I can. So whatever they do or don't do
with it is of little concern to me, unless it sticks around until I _do_
upgrade.
--
-eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Your pretended fear lest error might step in is like the man who
would keep all wine out of the country lest men should be drunk.
-- Oliver Cromwell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:09:49 EDT