What's the real problem with wireless on the Ben?

julien forgeat julienforgeat at gmail.com
Mon Sep 12 22:40:07 EDT 2011


I am not really very knowledgeable about the whole project but from my
point of view, it is mostly a hardware issue. Open source driver (and
even that is very hard to find with wifi chips) are not enough, we
want to know how the chip works, what registry is used for what
purpose and so on, apparently, this kind of knowledge is never freely
provided by wifi chip manufacturers.

Cheers,

Julien

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:26 AM,  <cenobyte at dragoncrypt.com> wrote:
> No, you don't sound preachy. I thought I would sound preachy and fringe if I
> suggested we use Libre WRT as a base instead of "open"WRT. At some point, a
> lot of people in the Linux world say something like "it only has to be so
> free" or "it doesn't have to be COMPLETELY Free" so they compromise. I'm not
> one to compromise and I'm not suggesting we do, I'd just like the Ben or Ya
> or other Libre hardware to be my MAIN internet connected device.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:09:15 -0300, Freemor wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:04:59PM +0400, cenobyte at dragoncrypt.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I know that a) the Ben can get Internet through ether-USB and b)
>>> there does exist a wifi microsd module which is supposed to work.
>>> Therefore is the real problem the fact that Qi-hardware cannot make
>>> and distribute wifi products because of patents?
>>
>> From my understanding it not so much a patent thing as a closed source
>> firmware/forced NDA thing (People more directly involved please correct
>> me if I'm incorrect on this). The Ben is ment to be Libre Hardware it
>> can not be that if a major component is a mystery, Or worse "Illegal"
>> to figure out how it works.
>>
>>> I know a lot of us
>>> USE wifi everyday, (it's my main method of getting online) but are
>>> we supposed to disagree with 802.11x just like we choose not to use
>>> non-Free software?
>>
>> Again the problem here is not only the choice of free software
>> but free hardware. Wifi chip makers simply refuse to disclose how
>> their chips work. Thus the reason no non inclusion.
>>
>>> Is there a better protocol to use for wifi, a
>>> Libre one?
>>
>> If I recall correctly Bluetooth is a more free option but a nightmare
>> to implement (unless tou do like everyone else and use the Bluez stack)
>>
>> I personally am very impressed with the work being done on the ATBEN/ATUSB
>>
>>> If so, would that require new network hardware , maybe
>>> even a new ISP?
>>
>> New hardware maybe (again the WIFI chips in your router are probably
>> all locked up with NDAs and Binaryblob firmware. So the problem isnt
>> so much the protocol but the ability to program the chips to do it.
>> Hard to do when no one will tell you how the thing works,
>>
>> No need for a new isp. By the time data is coming out the wan side
>> of the router there isn't any 802.11x left it's all TCP/IP. (well
>> that and PPPoE/DOCSIS).
>>
>>> What I am trying to say is that even though the Ben
>>> is fully open, we use devices that may not be with it all the time
>>> like MicroSD (which I believe we cannot even say- we have to say
>>> 8:10 or something, right?) I don't know of any "open standard"
>>> memory card types and it would be too much for Qi to try and make
>>> one. In the future, IF the second Nanonote has USB host, at this
>>> point I wouldn't feel too wrong about plugging in my USB wireless g
>>> adapter and using the Libre driver. Am I off base?
>>
>> I'd fully support and love to see a USB host mode on the next NanoNote.
>> Although I personally wouldn't bother with the wireless aspect I'd like
>> the option to Slave other devices to the Nanonote. I also think it'd be
>> great to include the USB DSL/CableModem drivers (providing the are Libre)
>> as that way a NanoNote could jack right into the DSL/Cablemodem.
>>
>> I understand both your point and your frustration. I however think that
>> we as a comunity need to stay focused on what we want. In my case (and I'm
>> assuming for most people that bought a Ben), Fully open/Libre
>> hardware. Once we,
>> or the designers of the NanoNote start making compromises the unit as a
>> whole
>> looses it status as Fully Free, and becomes just another tech gadget.
>>
>> One of the coolest things about the Ben NanoNote (and hopefully all
>> NanoNotes
>> to come) is that it stands for something, That it draws a line in the
>> sand and
>> says, "This is what I believe in". If we loose that we loose what makes
>> the
>> NanoNote special and signifigant.
>>
>> If I'm coming off sounding preachy, that is not my intent. I just have
>> strong
>> feelings on the subject. As I said in an earlier post (@Jon: I'll
>> respond to your
>> earlier question in a bit RL has just been getting in the way of NN
>> fun lately),
>> We must resist the urge to turn the NanoNote into just another mass
>> appeal tech
>> gadget and instead focus on building on what it is and what it stands for.
>>
>> (anyways.. I clearly have too many soapboxes laying around here...
>> sorry about that)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Freemor
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qi Hardware Discussion List
> Mail to list (members only): discussion at lists.en.qi-hardware.com
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>




More information about the discussion mailing list


interactive