Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3506 mails)

[M Harris <harrismh777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday 19 September 2006 20:45, Stevens wrote:
> Why do some in the Linux community treat ndiswrapper with
> such contempt? It seems to me that if something works,
> especially as well as ndiswrapper, what damned difference
> does it make if the device drivers were written for use in
> Windows? I rather think that the concept should be
> expanded to include the universe of devices that are not
> currently useable with Linux due to unavailable drivers.
     hi Fred,
     The problem with ndiswrapper (or any other binary driver) is that it 
breaks the linux kernel philosophy, and also poses a threat to the stability 
of linux in general. 
     One reason Windoze is *broken* is that way too many vendors (binary 
drivers) are trusted to run at ring zero (root level). This is not going to 
happen with Linux... and thankfully so far, the linux kernel development 
people are sticking to their guns on this. If you want to *taint* your kernel 
and take the chance that that binary driver you just loaded into your kernel 
is safe, robust, and can be trusted... go for it. However, the open source 
gpl concept says that the kernel is going to be open, stable, and untainted 
(unless the user decides to shoot his/her own foot)
    Another problem with ndiswrapper particularly, is that the wireless 
standards are badly exposed with security holes... and most of the windoze 
drivers for wifi are painfully vulnerable... and that makes linux vulnerable 
too.... for ndiswrapper users.
    And lastly, software should be open.... period.  The days of proprietary 
hardware drivers must end.... now.  I am getting to the point that if a piece 
of ah--- hardware, doesn't have an open linux driver then I don't need their 
hardware.  Period>





-- 
Kind regards,

M Harris     <><