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
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 20:45, Stevens wrote: 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 <><