Discussion:
TL-WN722N support on FreeBSD.
atar
2014-08-26 07:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Hi there!

According to what's written in the following URLs: http://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=41581 , https://wiki.freebsd.org/dev/ath_hal(4)/HardwareSupport (under the 'Chipsets I won't be working on' section) the TL-WN722N TP-LINK wireless dongle isn't supported on freeBSD since its chipset is based on the AR9271 chipset which isn't supported by FreeBSD.

Now, my question is, since the above mentioned device is supported by Linux via a special atheros firmware module, and since FreeBSD provides a Linux virtualization, will this device work on a FreeBSD system by its Linux virtualization capability?

Regards,

Atar.
Arthur Chance
2014-08-26 10:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by atar
Hi there!
http://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=41581 ,
https://wiki.freebsd.org/dev/ath_hal(4)/HardwareSupport
(under the 'Chipsets I won't be working on' section) the
TL-WN722N TP-LINK wireless dongle isn't supported on freeBSD
since its chipset is based on the AR9271 chipset which isn't
supported by FreeBSD.
Now, my question is, since the above mentioned device is supported
by Linux via a special atheros firmware module, and since FreeBSD
provides a Linux virtualization, will this device work on a FreeBSD
system by its Linux virtualization capability?
I'm not familiar with the Atheros firmware, but the likely answer is no.
Linux virtualization (probably better described as emulation) is at the
user space level, i.e. it mimics the interface of Linux syscalls. Device
drivers work in kernel space, and the FreeBSD kernel has very different
internals from Linux.
atar
2014-08-26 11:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Ok, I've understood the point. So probably there's no way to use this popular TP-LINK dongle with FreeBSD. Very alas. Disappointed.
Post by atar
Hi there!
http://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=41581 ,
https://wiki.freebsd.org/dev/ath_hal(4)/HardwareSupport
(under the 'Chipsets I won't be working on' section) the
TL-WN722N TP-LINK wireless dongle isn't supported on freeBSD
since its chipset is based on the AR9271 chipset which isn't
supported by FreeBSD.
Now, my question is, since the above mentioned device is supported
by Linux via a special atheros firmware module, and since FreeBSD
provides a Linux virtualization, will this device work on a FreeBSD
system by its Linux virtualization capability?
I'm not familiar with the Atheros firmware, but the likely answer is no. Linux virtualization (probably better described as emulation) is at the user space level, i.e. it mimics the interface of Linux syscalls. Device drivers work in kernel space, and the FreeBSD kernel has very different internals from Linux.
Miguel Clara
2014-08-26 12:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Well the page states "The AR7010 and AR9271 NICs are not yet supported -
the USB glue needs writing for ath(4)."

So it might happen :)

Ofc only the maintainer can tell, and he was already done some many and
great work on this.


Melhores Cumprimentos // Best Regards
-----------------------------------------------
*Miguel Clara*
*IT - Sys Admin & Developer*
*E-mail: ****@gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/miguelmclara/
Post by atar
Ok, I've understood the point. So probably there's no way to use this
popular TP-LINK dongle with FreeBSD. Very alas. Disappointed.
Post by Arthur Chance
Post by atar
Hi there!
http://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=41581 ,
https://wiki.freebsd.org/dev/ath_hal(4)/HardwareSupport
(under the 'Chipsets I won't be working on' section) the
TL-WN722N TP-LINK wireless dongle isn't supported on freeBSD
since its chipset is based on the AR9271 chipset which isn't
supported by FreeBSD.
Now, my question is, since the above mentioned device is supported
by Linux via a special atheros firmware module, and since FreeBSD
provides a Linux virtualization, will this device work on a FreeBSD
system by its Linux virtualization capability?
I'm not familiar with the Atheros firmware, but the likely answer is no.
Linux virtualization (probably better described as emulation) is at the
user space level, i.e. it mimics the interface of Linux syscalls. Device
drivers work in kernel space, and the FreeBSD kernel has very different
internals from Linux.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless
"
atar
2014-08-26 14:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Maybe, but it has about above half of a year since I've saw this limitation in FreeBSD and this still wasn't fixed so I haven't too much hopes it will be fixed in the near future.
Well the page states "The AR7010 and AR9271 NICs are not yet supported - the USB glue needs writing for ath(4)."
So it might happen :)
Ofc only the maintainer can tell, and he was already done some many and great work on this.
Melhores Cumprimentos // Best Regards
-----------------------------------------------
Miguel Clara
IT - Sys Admin & Developer
<linkedin.png> www.linkedin.com/in/miguelmclara/
Post by atar
Ok, I've understood the point. So probably there's no way to use this popular TP-LINK dongle with FreeBSD. Very alas. Disappointed.
Post by atar
Hi there!
http://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=41581 ,
https://wiki.freebsd.org/dev/ath_hal(4)/HardwareSupport
(under the 'Chipsets I won't be working on' section) the
TL-WN722N TP-LINK wireless dongle isn't supported on freeBSD
since its chipset is based on the AR9271 chipset which isn't
supported by FreeBSD.
Now, my question is, since the above mentioned device is supported
by Linux via a special atheros firmware module, and since FreeBSD
provides a Linux virtualization, will this device work on a FreeBSD
system by its Linux virtualization capability?
I'm not familiar with the Atheros firmware, but the likely answer is no. Linux virtualization (probably better described as emulation) is at the user space level, i.e. it mimics the interface of Linux syscalls. Device drivers work in kernel space, and the FreeBSD kernel has very different internals from Linux.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless
sergio de Almeida Lenzi
2014-08-26 16:27:36 UTC
Permalink
I bought a TL-WN725N and a TL-WN723N
the model WN725N is better, and smaller
both from tplink
and both works out of the box with FreeBSD 10 stable AMD64
I use them on a sony that have a wireless chip not recognizeable by
FreeBSD.
the only "catch" is to load the driver at boot (loader.conf) and accept
the licence...
if_urtwn_load=YES
legal.realtek.license_ack=1
atar
2014-08-27 08:39:56 UTC
Permalink
So you give me additional reason to stay with Linux and not to migrate to FreeBSD since even a basic wireless adapter which came with your Sony isn't supported by FreeBSD. To be honest, I don't know if your Sony wireless adapter is supported by Linux, but in general, I think linux is more flexible and supports more devices than FreeBSD (and more than all the rest of *BSD variations).
Post by sergio de Almeida Lenzi
I bought a TL-WN725N and a TL-WN723N
the model WN725N is better, and smaller
both from tplink
and both works out of the box with FreeBSD 10 stable AMD64
I use them on a sony that have a wireless chip not recognizeable by FreeBSD.
the only "catch" is to load the driver at boot (loader.conf) and accept the licence...
if_urtwn_load=YES
legal.realtek.license_ack=1
Polytropon
2014-08-27 09:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by atar
So you give me additional reason to stay with Linux and
not to migrate to FreeBSD since even a basic wireless
adapter which came with your Sony isn't supported by
FreeBSD. To be honest, I don't know if your Sony wireless
adapter is supported by Linux, but in general, I think
linux is more flexible and supports more devices than
FreeBSD (and more than all the rest of *BSD variations).
Of course this is a problem in FreeBSD, and it's a known
problem. There is a workaround (which isn't really helpful
afterwards, but beforehand): First check if the hardware
is supported, then buy it. Especially wireless devices
are subject to the tricky game of "driver lottery". You
will have more luck with Linux in this regards, as it
covers hardware with working drivers more than any other
operating system does, and usually, it keeps the support
for devices that "Windows" has long dropped (if you happen
to insist on using specific hardware, such as video grabber
cards, DVB sticks, sound cards or other "non-mainstream"
equipment).

Up to this point, I was always lucky with the hardware I
purchased: FreeBSD's support for WLAN components was
excellent. I've been using IBM / Lenovo, Dell, Siemens-
Fijutsu and Sony laptop hardware, and FreeBSD did not
have any trouble getting the buildin hardware to work.
Still there are models which cause problems: Some of
them use chipsets not supported by current drivers, others
just use f*cked up ACPI implementations, and others
delegate hardware functionality to proprietary drivers
which make the actual devices "appear" and "work", and
as you will guess, those are only available for specific
versions of "Windows".

It depends on you if you want to:

a) purchase other hardware to replace what is
not supported,

b) relapse to using Linux which supports your
hardware, or

c) accept that it's not working and make a better
choice next time you buy something. :-)

Many manufacturers are already regognizing that "Windows"
usage is decreasing, and Linux support becomes more and
more important to sell a device. They provide drivers or
build their devices so they support existing standards.
But of course hardware is evolving, and the OS needs to
provide the interfaces for the new. FreeBSD isn't exactly
blazing fast in this regards, but to me, never buying "the
newest" for having "the newest" for few weeks (instead
buying "good" in order to have "good" for several years),
it doesn't really matter, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Don O'Hara
2014-08-27 11:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Hi Polytropon -

Thanks for your response. As usual, your responses are well-written, very
thorough, articulate, and unemotional (in a good sense). Too often
on email lists I see one-liner complaints/problems/rants, where opinions
are not backed up with reasons; issues not researched well; etc, etc;
followed by another one-line opinion, ad nauseam.


I too am slowly moving to FreeBSD, and just last week was trying to get my Lenovo laptop
working. Had to put that project aside since day job intervened. You mentioned
you had success with wireless on Lenovo; I might have to ask for some help.

Your responses keep the “spirit of FreeBSD” (at least
how I see it, in my short exposure to it), alive and well. Also, responses like
yours add the to the set of “useful information” entries on the email archives; it helps
keep the signal-to-noise ratio higher (seems to be a losing battle, some days).

PS Your signature line always reminds me that perhaps it’s
time to re-read the Odyssey “…os mala polla”….

Don
Harrisburg, PA
Post by Polytropon
Post by atar
So you give me additional reason to stay with Linux and
not to migrate to FreeBSD since even a basic wireless
adapter which came with your Sony isn't supported by
FreeBSD. To be honest, I don't know if your Sony wireless
adapter is supported by Linux, but in general, I think
linux is more flexible and supports more devices than
FreeBSD (and more than all the rest of *BSD variations).
Of course this is a problem in FreeBSD, and it's a known
problem. There is a workaround (which isn't really helpful
afterwards, but beforehand): First check if the hardware
is supported, then buy it. Especially wireless devices
are subject to the tricky game of "driver lottery". You
will have more luck with Linux in this regards, as it
covers hardware with working drivers more than any other
operating system does, and usually, it keeps the support
for devices that "Windows" has long dropped (if you happen
to insist on using specific hardware, such as video grabber
cards, DVB sticks, sound cards or other "non-mainstream"
equipment).
Up to this point, I was always lucky with the hardware I
purchased: FreeBSD's support for WLAN components was
excellent. I've been using IBM / Lenovo, Dell, Siemens-
Fijutsu and Sony laptop hardware, and FreeBSD did not
have any trouble getting the buildin hardware to work.
Still there are models which cause problems: Some of
them use chipsets not supported by current drivers, others
just use f*cked up ACPI implementations, and others
delegate hardware functionality to proprietary drivers
which make the actual devices "appear" and "work", and
as you will guess, those are only available for specific
versions of "Windows".
a) purchase other hardware to replace what is
not supported,
b) relapse to using Linux which supports your
hardware, or
c) accept that it's not working and make a better
choice next time you buy something. :-)
Many manufacturers are already regognizing that "Windows"
usage is decreasing, and Linux support becomes more and
more important to sell a device. They provide drivers or
build their devices so they support existing standards.
But of course hardware is evolving, and the OS needs to
provide the interfaces for the new. FreeBSD isn't exactly
blazing fast in this regards, but to me, never buying "the
newest" for having "the newest" for few weeks (instead
buying "good" in order to have "good" for several years),
it doesn't really matter, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
_______________________________________________
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
Roland Smith
2014-08-27 18:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Polytropon
Post by atar
So you give me additional reason to stay with Linux and
not to migrate to FreeBSD since even a basic wireless
adapter which came with your Sony isn't supported by
FreeBSD. To be honest, I don't know if your Sony wireless
adapter is supported by Linux, but in general, I think
linux is more flexible and supports more devices than
FreeBSD (and more than all the rest of *BSD variations).
Of course this is a problem in FreeBSD, and it's a known
problem. There is a workaround (which isn't really helpful
afterwards, but beforehand): First check if the hardware
is supported, then buy it. Especially wireless devices
are subject to the tricky game of "driver lottery". You
will have more luck with Linux in this regards, as it
covers hardware with working drivers more than any other
operating system does, and usually, it keeps the support
for devices that "Windows" has long dropped (if you happen
to insist on using specific hardware, such as video grabber
cards, DVB sticks, sound cards or other "non-mainstream"
equipment).
Up to this point, I was always lucky with the hardware I
purchased: FreeBSD's support for WLAN components was
excellent.
For off-the-shelf no-name WLAN cards it is in my experience often difficult to
tell which chipset is used inside. There have even been instances where
manufacturers switch the chipset to something completely different without
changing the part number!

In cases like this I tend to download and unpack the windoze driver from the
manufacturer's website. If you look through the configuration files for the
driver install (.inf, IIRC) you can generally tell which chipset is used.

Or you can buy a slightly more expensive brand name card for which you *know*
drivers exist and save yourself a lot of time.
Post by Polytropon
I've been using IBM / Lenovo, Dell, Siemens-
Fijutsu and Sony laptop hardware, and FreeBSD did not
have any trouble getting the buildin hardware to work.
Still there are models which cause problems: Some of
them use chipsets not supported by current drivers, others
just use f*cked up ACPI implementations, and others
delegate hardware functionality to proprietary drivers
which make the actual devices "appear" and "work", and
as you will guess, those are only available for specific
versions of "Windows".
Like winprinters. Blegh!
Post by Polytropon
a) purchase other hardware to replace what is
not supported,
b) relapse to using Linux which supports your
hardware, or
c) accept that it's not working and make a better
choice next time you buy something. :-)
If I'm buying a PC or laptop I tend to go to a shop with a FreeBSD DVD or
memstick and ask if I can try booting the machine in question from it. Then
the dmesg output tells me what works and what doesn't.

Smaller shops can generally build PC's and sometimes laptops to order with
components that you specify. That is generally what I do.
Post by Polytropon
FreeBSD isn't exactly blazing fast in this regards, but to me, never
buying "the newest" for having "the newest" for few weeks (instead buying
"good" in order to have "good" for several years), it doesn't really
matter, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
Definitely agree. Never buy the latest generation hardware! You pay top dollar
(especially for CPUs) and the difference to the previous generation that is
probably better supported by FreeBSD is generally not really significant.

These days the biggest speedup for a computer is probably to use an SSD instead
of an HDD. But since GELI doesn't support TRIM yet, and I consider encryption a
must have for my own data in case of theft, I'll wait for a while. Of course
using a relatively small unencrypted SDD for the OS with an encrypted HDD for
data would be a solution for that.

Roland
--
R.F.Smith http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 5753 3324 1661 B0FE 8D93 FCED 40F6 D5DC A38A 33E0 (keyID: A38A33E0)
Polytropon
2014-08-28 03:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Smith
For off-the-shelf no-name WLAN cards it is in my experience often difficult to
tell which chipset is used inside. There have even been instances where
manufacturers switch the chipset to something completely different without
changing the part number!
Or they use a naming scheme that makes it easy to be confused
with "what you think it is". Many years ago, I wanted to buy
a Realtek RTL8029 network card. My local shop had them, with
the name "Net8029". So I bought one, but said I would return
it if it wasn't supported by the Realtek driver. And as you
may have guessed, "boot -v" later, it was a different chip,
and the driver didn't pick it up. I made an (impressive looking)
dotmatrix hardcopy of the boot process, marked the problem
with crayon, and returned the card. :-)
Post by Roland Smith
Post by Polytropon
I've been using IBM / Lenovo, Dell, Siemens-
Fijutsu and Sony laptop hardware, and FreeBSD did not
have any trouble getting the buildin hardware to work.
Still there are models which cause problems: Some of
them use chipsets not supported by current drivers, others
just use f*cked up ACPI implementations, and others
delegate hardware functionality to proprietary drivers
which make the actual devices "appear" and "work", and
as you will guess, those are only available for specific
versions of "Windows".
Like winprinters. Blegh!
Yes, those are terrible and years behind technological evolution.
The same applies to "WinModems", a disease that development has
fortunately dealt with.

I remember that this kind of stupidity started (in the PC world)
on late DOS: Soundcards that no "driver" (sound subroutines in
the programs) would recognize until a DOS program, loaded via
CONFIG.SYS, would have sent a firmware to it, initialized and
enabled the card. Then everything worked as expected, a "Sound-
blaster or 100% compatible" was suddenly present. Of course I
never owned such a card myself. :-)
Post by Roland Smith
Post by Polytropon
a) purchase other hardware to replace what is
not supported,
b) relapse to using Linux which supports your
hardware, or
c) accept that it's not working and make a better
choice next time you buy something. :-)
If I'm buying a PC or laptop I tend to go to a shop with a FreeBSD DVD or
memstick and ask if I can try booting the machine in question from it. Then
the dmesg output tells me what works and what doesn't.
That's what I also would suggest, and the promise of a successful
sale enables the clerks to quickly allow this test. A FreeBSD live
system such as FreeSBIE has been very useful in the past, sadly
they didn't update it past v5.
Post by Roland Smith
Smaller shops can generally build PC's and sometimes laptops to order with
components that you specify. That is generally what I do.
Me too, except that I still assemble the stuff myself. Yes, I haven't
got tired of this shit yet. ;-)
Post by Roland Smith
Post by Polytropon
FreeBSD isn't exactly blazing fast in this regards, but to me, never
buying "the newest" for having "the newest" for few weeks (instead buying
"good" in order to have "good" for several years), it doesn't really
matter, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
Definitely agree. Never buy the latest generation hardware! You pay top dollar
(especially for CPUs) and the difference to the previous generation that is
probably better supported by FreeBSD is generally not really significant.
This is something I recently recognized: People spend lots of
money for "top notch CPUs" and systems, but the speed on which
the whole thing is working isn't any impressive. Especially when
loaded with "Windows", it's sometimes less than "what they had
before", and they start complaining. BUt hey, "it was expensive,
so it must be good!"

As with used office laser printers, buying "older" hardware for
much less money and relying on FreeBSD and its applications to
efficiently use those resources looks more appealing. Less money,
more usable power.
Post by Roland Smith
These days the biggest speedup for a computer is probably to use an SSD instead
of an HDD. But since GELI doesn't support TRIM yet, and I consider encryption a
must have for my own data in case of theft, I'll wait for a while. Of course
using a relatively small unencrypted SDD for the OS with an encrypted HDD for
data would be a solution for that.
SSDs are becoming cheaper, and TRIM support will surely appear
in GELI, so if you can wait, wait a bit. And: Yes, SSDs for mass
storage are an improvement that you can actually see (see "newest
hardware" mentioned above).
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Paul Kraus
2014-08-28 14:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Polytropon
Yes, those are terrible and years behind technological evolution.
The same applies to "WinModems", a disease that development has
fortunately dealt with.
It is helpful to understand the why of something, and explain such, rather than just condemn it as bad.

The move to host based software for things like printers, modems, scanners, and other various hardware came about because the performance of the general purpose computer was increasing at least at Moore’s Law rate, if not faster. By moving the processing of the raw data into code the device (printer, scanner, modem, etc.) could use onto the host OS you got two big advantages:

1. As the host systems got faster so did your device

2. Your device was likely to remain useful for a longer period

There is a third advantage, that the device can be less intelligent and less powerful, making it cheaper. The typical desktop computer today has lots and lots of spare CPU cycles (and generally speaking, has for at least a decade). Why not make good use of those resources.

I have three scanners in the house that *all* require very custom software as the processing of the raw scanned data from the image sensor is happening on the host system and not on the scanner hardware. I have seen marked improvements in image quality with each update of the management software. Even older hardware, hardware that the vendor would no longer be supporting if it were more complex is still on the supported list.

Does it mean that you cannot use this hardware on OSes for which there is no software support? Absolutely, but that is the case for *everything*. If you know you need to (or want to) runs a certain OS, for whatever reasons, then you buy hardware that is supported by that OS.

I am OS agnostic, there is no one single OS that is perfect for everything. I look at the job I need to do and then choose the software (application) to do that task, then I pick the OS that lets me run that software the best. It is not until this point that I start looking at hardware. But I am an outlier in that I use in both my personal and professional life a bunch of different OSes for different purposes.

Windows
Mac OS X
FreeBSD
Linux
SmartOS

Personally, I use FreeBSD on servers and not as a desktop, I think there are better desktop OSes out there.

--
Paul Kraus
***@kraus-haus.org
Warren Block
2014-08-28 18:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kraus
It is helpful to understand the why of something, and explain such, rather than just condemn it as bad.
The move to host based software for things like printers, modems,
scanners, and other various hardware came about because the
performance of the general purpose computer was increasing at least at
Moore?s Law rate, if not faster. By moving the processing of the raw
data into code the device (printer, scanner, modem, etc.) could use
1. As the host systems got faster so did your device
2. Your device was likely to remain useful for a longer period
There is a third advantage, that the device can be less intelligent
and less powerful, making it cheaper. The typical desktop computer
today has lots and lots of spare CPU cycles (and generally speaking,
has for at least a decade). Why not make good use of those resources.
For vendors, this cost reduction was the big reason. The problem for
users was that the binary blob firmware made the user totally dependent
on the vendor's good will. Softmodems on FreeBSD were difficult and not
likely to work. The vendors did not see a business need to document
their binary blob so it could be used with more than one operating
system.

Many devices quit working even on later versions of Windows, for the
same reason. The owner was left with a paperweight.

The problem is not so much whether the software runs on the peripheral
or on the host CPU. It's more a question of how open the software is,
and how standardized. Closed binary blobs speaking proprietary
undocumented languages are at the worst end of that scale. Smart
devices that speak standard, documented, open languages give the user
more freedom in how long the device will work and where it can be used.
Adam Vande More
2014-08-28 19:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kraus
Post by Polytropon
Yes, those are terrible and years behind technological evolution.
The same applies to "WinModems", a disease that development has
fortunately dealt with.
It is helpful to understand the why of something, and explain such, rather
than just condemn it as bad.
Let be through in such an understanding then.

The move to host based software for things like printers, modems, scanners,
Post by Paul Kraus
and other various hardware came about because the performance of the
general purpose computer was increasing at least at Moore’s Law rate, if
not faster. By moving the processing of the raw data into code the device
(printer, scanner, modem, etc.) could use onto the host OS you got two big
1. As the host systems got faster so did your device
Not nessicarily, many of these software driven devices were bottle-necked
by bus communication speeds and mostly upgrading CPU/RAM/board wouldn't
help you a bit.
Post by Paul Kraus
2. Your device was likely to remain useful for a longer period
I'm not sure how this conclusion was drawn. Assuming you didn't want to
switch OS's and you didn't experience any s/w driver related over time and
no other OS magnificence were incurred, at best you hope for is that is
would last as long as a hw driven device. There was a reason there
software devices were cheaper and it had nothing to do with reliability.

There is a third advantage, that the device can be less intelligent and
Post by Paul Kraus
less powerful, making it cheaper. The typical desktop computer today has
lots and lots of spare CPU cycles (and generally speaking, has for at least
a decade). Why not make good use of those resources.
The contemporary serial port of 1998 is basically the same as the ones sold
today. Who cares how many CPU cycles there are if transport to/from it is
on the same interval? CPU load on a soft modem using a K6 proc wasn't
overly bad anyway. That was never the problem by the time these things
were mass produced.

I have three scanners in the house that *all* require very custom software
Post by Paul Kraus
as the processing of the raw scanned data from the image sensor is
happening on the host system and not on the scanner hardware. I have seen
marked improvements in image quality with each update of the management
software. Even older hardware, hardware that the vendor would no longer be
supporting if it were more complex is still on the supported list.
I'm not aware of any scanner where the processing(raw->image container)
occurs on the scanner. Not to say there aren't some, but those would be
the corner cases and likely very high end. Since CPU for a very long time
have had specific instructions sets for these operations it only makes
sense to do it host side.
Post by Paul Kraus
Does it mean that you cannot use this hardware on OSes for which there is
no software support? Absolutely, but that is the case for *everything*. If
you know you need to (or want to) runs a certain OS, for whatever reasons,
then you buy hardware that is supported by that OS.
Right on, but the extra 20 - 50% in cost for a hw device rather than a
device specifically supported only by one version or family of OS is a drop
in the bucket compared to installing, maintaining, and being competent in
all major OS's. I've got better things to do than track down improperly
installed(or uninstalled, or updated) drivers and handle upgrades and
updates over time on a sub-$200 piece of equipment.
--
Adam
Polytropon
2014-08-29 06:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kraus
Post by Polytropon
Yes, those are terrible and years behind technological evolution.
The same applies to "WinModems", a disease that development has
fortunately dealt with.
It is helpful to understand the why of something, and explain such,
rather than just condemn it as bad.
I did omit the explanation because I thought it would be obvious. :-)
Post by Paul Kraus
The move to host based software for things like printers, modems,
scanners, and other various hardware came about because the
performance of the general purpose computer was increasing at
least at Moore’s Law rate, if not faster. By moving the processing
of the raw data into code the device (printer, scanner, modem, etc.)
1. As the host systems got faster so did your device
Typical consumer devices (on which I placed the scope) usually
do not live longer than the systems they are connected to. In
fact, one host system can easily see several incarnations of
a peripherial device. With each new device, software has to be
exchanged. And in many cases, as the software is kept proprietary
to perform a good "vendor lock-in", either data is lost (often a
problem for unexperienced users who "have the fotos in the scanner
program"), or whole workflows are replaced (because the new printer
control program is totally different than the old one).

Of course you're right regarding the "available CPU cycles", or
host system resources in general. It allows the manufacturer to
reduce the costs for the device because, for example, it doesn't
have to contain a whole "little computer" to process raster input,
or PS. "Software is cheaper than hardware" is a common statement.
So whatever can be delegated to the host system will be "shifted
from hardware to software", beginning with the input processing
and ending with the motor control for the paper transport, the
printing head, and the ink jets themselves. Of course the manu-
factuerer is not interested in telling anyone how this works,
it's his trade secret. And so there won't be a driver available
except the one that the manufacturer provides.

Additionally, there's a positive aspect in it: If less electronic
devices are included in the peripherial, the less waste is created
when it stops working. As I said, the concept per se isn't that
wrong, but its (ab)use is.

Regarding Moore's law: It is compensated by Wirth's law and
Gates' law. The Jevons paradox and Parkinson's law sadly also
apply. Furthermore Nathan's four laws of software can be applied
to the drivers and the application programs, the host-side of
the whole concept. ;-)
Post by Paul Kraus
2. Your device was likely to remain useful for a longer period
From a consumer perspective, this (as mentioned) isn't always
true: He buys a new computer with a new "Windows" - and the
vendor of his printer does not have drivers available for that
version, and the old drivers cannot be used anymore. So a printer
that is technically fully functional is turned into a useless
pile of electronic garbage.

By the way, this is what I intially mentioned: The printers that
I "turned alive again" were such models where only outdated drivers
would be supplied, and no standard drivers could be used. I ended
up using the Linux driver through FreeBSD's Linux ABI, with lots
of "wild copying around" and strange symlinking, having "disassembled"
the strange workflow of that printer driver. On "Windows", this printer
(and another one) would have to be thrown away.

As we're talking about consumer devices: They are not inteded to
work for longer periods. This is against technical evolution, but
primarily it's against the concept of repeating re-instantiation
of "the same": People keep buying printers to print the same stuff,
because a printer only lasts 1 or 2 years.

From my point of view (NB: very limited), manufacturers do not
develop host-based driver software. There typically is _one_ version
delivered with the printer, on CD or DVD, which users throw away.
There is the same version available for download. There is no
"successor" with better performance, more features or improved
security. This wouldn't meet the "sell & forget" mentality, because
"continuous product development" (of the _same_ product) doesn't
seem to pay.
Post by Paul Kraus
There is a third advantage, that the device can be less intelligent
and less powerful, making it cheaper. The typical desktop computer
today has lots and lots of spare CPU cycles (and generally speaking,
has for at least a decade). Why not make good use of those resources.
Yes, that (and its financial implications) are the main reason.
By the way, I don't see any problem with it _per se_. The reason
why I don't like to work with this concept is that it _limits_ the
freedom and the possibilities of use, as you usually don't know
_how_ things work, and therefore depend on the "benevolent" vendor.
Post by Paul Kraus
I have three scanners in the house that *all* require very custom
software as the processing of the raw scanned data from the image
sensor is happening on the host system and not on the scanner
hardware. I have seen marked improvements in image quality with
each update of the management software. Even older hardware,
hardware that the vendor would no longer be supporting if it were
more complex is still on the supported list.
Thanks for sharing this - it seems that there's still hope. This
is what vendors _can_ do, but especially in the lower price segment
for consumer peripherials _don't_ do. :-(

I have USB and SCSI scanners myself. I don't need any special software
from a vendor. I can plug them in any system I want, and they work
the same everywhere. This is _also_ an advantage.
Post by Paul Kraus
Does it mean that you cannot use this hardware on OSes for which
there is no software support? Absolutely, but that is the case
for *everything*.
Exception: Hardware that uses standardized protocols and open
interfaces. SCSI scanners are a good example: If they implement
everything according to the specification, you can use them on
_any_ system that implements the required interfaces - which
are published openly, so it is at least _possible_.

Other nice examples are printers that speak PS, PCL or PDF.
Especially for PS printers, you don't even need a driver, because
programs that print send their output as PS, and that is what
the printer expects. :-)
Post by Paul Kraus
If you know you need to (or want to) runs a certain OS, for
whatever reasons, then you buy hardware that is supported by
that OS.
This is very true. "Supported by OS" or "supported by a standard
available through the OS" are the reasons for decisions that I make.
First think, then buy. Saves money. ;-)
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Jerry
2014-08-27 15:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Polytropon
Post by atar
So you give me additional reason to stay with Linux and
not to migrate to FreeBSD since even a basic wireless
adapter which came with your Sony isn't supported by
FreeBSD. To be honest, I don't know if your Sony wireless
adapter is supported by Linux, but in general, I think
linux is more flexible and supports more devices than
FreeBSD (and more than all the rest of *BSD variations).
Of course this is a problem in FreeBSD, and it's a known
problem. There is a workaround (which isn't really helpful
afterwards, but beforehand): First check if the hardware
is supported, then buy it. Especially wireless devices
are subject to the tricky game of "driver lottery". You
will have more luck with Linux in this regards, as it
covers hardware with working drivers more than any other
operating system does, and usually, it keeps the support
for devices that "Windows" has long dropped (if you happen
to insist on using specific hardware, such as video grabber
cards, DVB sticks, sound cards or other "non-mainstream"
equipment).
Up to this point, I was always lucky with the hardware I
purchased: FreeBSD's support for WLAN components was
excellent. I've been using IBM / Lenovo, Dell, Siemens-
Fijutsu and Sony laptop hardware, and FreeBSD did not
have any trouble getting the buildin hardware to work.
Still there are models which cause problems: Some of
them use chipsets not supported by current drivers, others
just use f*cked up ACPI implementations, and others
delegate hardware functionality to proprietary drivers
which make the actual devices "appear" and "work", and
as you will guess, those are only available for specific
versions of "Windows".
a) purchase other hardware to replace what is
not supported,
b) relapse to using Linux which supports your
hardware, or
c) accept that it's not working and make a better
choice next time you buy something. :-)
Many manufacturers are already regognizing that "Windows"
usage is decreasing, and Linux support becomes more and
more important to sell a device. They provide drivers or
build their devices so they support existing standards.
But of course hardware is evolving, and the OS needs to
provide the interfaces for the new. FreeBSD isn't exactly
blazing fast in this regards, but to me, never buying "the
newest" for having "the newest" for few weeks (instead
buying "good" in order to have "good" for several years),
it doesn't really matter, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
There is a serious flaw in your thinking Poly. It is the same flaw, or shall
we say fallacy with dealing with alcoholics or drug addicts. By accepting the
situation, and in fact encouraging it by purchasing lessor quality or
older/obsoleted hardware, you are “enabling” FreeBSD to continue to
distribute an operating system that is subpar. You have in fact become an
enabler. If FreeBSD is ever going to get its act together and become as fully
functional OS, people like you have to demand it stop this practice of
procrastinating in the development of up-to-date drivers for the latest
technology. You cannot. Although you will, blame the manufacturers. I have
spoken to Brother USA and asked why they do not make a more complete set of
drivers available for their product. I was told that due to the cornucopia of
flavors of *.nix, etcetera, there is no way that they could reasonably or
financially support them. They choose to support the ones who offer them the
most support and whose market they can reasonable be assured of reaching.
Microsoft, as I was told, has a whole department that actively deals with
hardware developers and works with them to develop drivers/peripherals that
work on their OS. I am not aware of such an entity with FreeBSD.

I remember just a few years ago, when everyone had drivers for “n” protocol
wireless cards, except FreeBSD. I had a machine that had just such a card
installed. I now had a choice, remove the card and use a cheap quality or ‘G”
protocol card, or use another OS. You are a smart person Poly, guess which
route I choose.

*********************************************************************
Enabler: one that enables another to achieve an end; especially, one who
enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse)
by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of
such behavior
--
Jerry
Adrian Chadd
2014-08-27 19:11:35 UTC
Permalink
On 27 August 2014 08:53, Jerry <***@seibercom.net> wrote:

[snip rant]
I remember just a few years ago, when everyone had drivers for “n” protocol
wireless cards, except FreeBSD. I had a machine that had just such a card
installed. I now had a choice, remove the card and use a cheap quality or ‘G”
protocol card, or use another OS. You are a smart person Poly, guess which
route I choose.
Know what I did?

I made the 11n bits work.



-a
Lars Engels
2014-08-27 11:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by atar
So you give me additional reason to stay with Linux and not to migrate
to FreeBSD since even a basic wireless adapter which came with your
Sony isn't supported by FreeBSD. To be honest, I don't know if your
Sony wireless adapter is supported by Linux, but in general, I think
linux is more flexible and supports more devices than FreeBSD (and
more than all the rest of *BSD variations).
Just get one of these (if_run):

Airlink101 AWLL6090
ASUS USB-N11
ASUS USB-N13 ver. A1
ASUS USB-N66
ASUS WL-160N
Belkin F5D8051 ver 3000
Belkin F5D8053
Belkin F5D8055
Belkin F6D4050 ver 1
Belkin F9L1103
Buffalo WLI-UC-AG300N
Buffalo WLI-UC-G300N
Buffalo WLI-UC-G301N
Buffalo WLI-UC-GN
Buffalo WLI-UC-GNM
Buffalo WLI-UC-GNM2
Corega CG-WLUSB2GNL
Corega CG-WLUSB2GNR
Corega CG-WLUSB300AGN
Corega CG-WLUSB300GNM
D-Link DWA-130 rev B1
D-Link DWA-140 rev B1, B2, B3, D1
D-Link DWA-160 rev B2
D-Link DWA-162
DrayTek Vigor N61
Edimax EW-7711UAn
Edimax EW-7711UTn
Edimax EW-7717Un
Edimax EW-7718Un
Edimax EW-7733UnD
Gigabyte GN-WB30N
Gigabyte GN-WB31N
Gigabyte GN-WB32L
Hawking HWDN1
Hawking HWUN1
Hawking HWUN2
Hercules HWNU-300
Linksys WUSB54GC v3
Linksys WUSB600N
Logitec LAN-W150N/U2
LogiLink WL0084B
Mvix Nubbin MS-811N
Planex GW-USMicroN
Planex GW-US300MiniS
Sitecom WL-182
Sitecom WL-188
Sitecom WL-301
SMC SMCWUSBS-N2
Sweex LW303
Sweex LW313
TP-LINK TL-WDN3200
TP-LINK TL-WN727N v3
Unex DNUR-81
Unex DNUR-82
ZyXEL NWD2705
ZyXEL NWD210N
ZyXEL NWD270N

Or (if_urwtn):
ASUS USB-N10 NANO
Belkin F7D1102 Surf Wireless Micro
D-Link DWA-125 rev
D-Link DWA-131
Edimax EW-7811Un
Netgear WNA1000M
Realtek RTL8192CU
Realtek RTL8188CUS
TP-LINK TL-WN723N v3
TP-LINK TL-WN725N v2

Or (if_urtw):
Belkin F5D7050E
Linksys WUSB54GCv2
Netgear WG111v2
Netgear WG111v3
Safehome WLG-1500SMA5
Shuttle XPC Accessory PN20
Sitecom WL168v1
Sitecom WL168v4
SureCom EP-9001-g(2A)
TRENDnet TEW-424UB V3.xR

Or (if_rsu):
ASUS USB-N10
Belkin F7D1101 v1
D-Link DWA-131 A1
EDUP EP-MS150N(W)
Hercules HWGUn-54
Hercules HWNUm-300
Planex GW-USNano
Sitecom WL-349 v1
Sitecom WL-353
Sweex LW154
TRENDnet TEW-648UB
TRENDnet TEW-649UB

Or (if_rum):
3Com Aolynk WUB320g
Abocom WUG2700 Ta
Airlink101 AWLL5025
ASUS WL-167g ver 2
Belkin F5D7050 ver 3
Belkin F5D9050 ver 3
Buffalo WLI-U2-SG54HP
Buffalo WLI-U2-SG54HG
Buffalo WLI-U2-G54HP
Buffalo WLI-UC-G
CNet CWD-854 ver F
Conceptronic C54RU ver 2
Corega CG-WLUSB2GO
D-Link DWA-110
D-Link DWA-111
D-Link DWL-G122 rev C1
D-Link WUA-1340
Digitus DN-7003GR
Edimax EW-7318USG
Gigabyte GN-WB01GS
Gigabyte GN-WI05GS
Hawking HWUG1
Hawking HWU54DM
Hercules HWGUSB2-54-LB
Hercules HWGUSB2-54V2-AP
LevelOne WNC-0301USB v3
Linksys WUSB54G rev C
Linksys WUSB54GR
Planex GW-US54HP
Planex GW-US54Mini2
Planex GW-USMM
Senao NUB-3701
Sitecom WL-113 ver 2
Sitecom WL-172
Sweex LW053
TP-LINK TL-WN321G

Or (if_uath):
Compex WLU108AG
Compex WLU108G
D-Link DWL-G132
IODATA WN-G54/US
MELCO WLI-U2-KAMG54
Netgear WG111T
Netgear WG111U
Netgear WPN111
Olitec 000544
PLANET WDL-U357
Siemens Gigaset 108
SMC SMCWUSBT-G
SMC SMCWUSBT-G2
SparkLAN WL-785A
TP-Link TL-WN620G
TRENDware International TEW-444UB
TRENDware International TEW-504UB
Unex Technology UR054ag
ZyXEL XtremeMIMO M-202

Or (if_upgt):
Belkin F5D7050 (version 1000)
Cohiba Proto Board
D-Link DWL-G120 Cohiba
FSC Connect2Air E-5400 USB D1700
Gigaset USB Adapter 54
Inventel UR045G
SMC EZ ConnectG SMC2862W-G
Sagem XG703A
Spinnaker DUT
Spinnaker Proto Board

Or (if_ural):
AMIT WL532U
ASUS WL-167g
Belkin F5D7050 v2000
Buffalo WLI-U2-KG54-AI
CNet CWD-854
Compex WLU54G 2A1100
Conceptronic C54RU
D-Link DWL-G122 b1
Dynalink WLG25USB
E-Tech WGUS02
Gigabyte GN-WBKG
Hercules HWGUSB2-54
KCORP LifeStyle KLS-685
Linksys WUSB54G v4
Linksys WUSB54GP v4
MSI MS-6861
MSI MS-6865
MSI MS-6869
NovaTech NV-902
OvisLink Evo-W54USB
SerComm UB801R
SparkLAN WL-685R
Surecom EP-9001-g
Sweex LC100060
Tonze UW-6200C
Zinwell ZWX-G261
Zonet ZEW2500P

Or (if_zyd):
3COM 3CRUSB10075
Acer WLAN-G-US1
Airlink+ AWLL3025
Airlink 101 AWLL3026
AOpen 802.11g WL54
Asus A9T integrated wireless
Asus WL-159g
Belkin F5D7050 v.4000
Billion BiPAC 3011G
Buffalo WLI-U2-KG54L
CC&C WL-2203B
DrayTek Vigor 550
Edimax EW-7317UG
Edimax EW-7317LDG
Fiberline Networks WL-43OU
iNexQ UR055g
Linksys WUSBF54G
Longshine LCS-8131G3
MSI US54SE
MyTek MWU-201 USB adapter
Philips SNU5600
Planet WL-U356
Planex GW-US54GZ
Planex GW-US54GZL
Planex GW-US54Mini
Safecom SWMULZ-5400
Sagem XG 760A
Sagem XG 76NA
Sandberg Wireless G54 USB
Sitecom WL-113
SMC SMCWUSB-G
Sweex wireless USB 54 Mbps
Tekram/Siemens USB adapter
Telegent TG54USB
Trendnet TEW-424UB rev A
Trendnet TEW-429UB
TwinMOS G240
Unicorn WL-54G
US Robotics 5423
X-Micro XWL-11GUZX
Yakumo QuickWLAN USB
Zonet ZEW2501
ZyXEL ZyAIR G-202
ZyXEL ZyAIR G-220



So there are 225 different wireless USB adaptors that are already
supported by FreeBSD. There are probably a lot more not listed here
which use the same chipset but are not added to the driver's manpage
yet.
Just grab one of these (starting from 10$) and use it. Going back or
staying with Linux because of some USB wireless stick is not a valid
reason. :)
sergio de Almeida Lenzi
2014-08-28 14:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by atar
So you give me additional reason to stay with Linux and not to migrate
to FreeBSD since even a basic wireless adapter which came with your
Sony isn't supported by FreeBSD. To be honest, I don't know if your
Sony wireless adapter is supported by Linux, but in general, I think
linux is more flexible and supports more devices than FreeBSD (and
more than all the rest of *BSD variations).
The problem with Linux is basic it does not execute the software that I
want:
that is gnome 2.32... for a lot of reasons the users more than 100 does
not
adapt well to the new gnome.
All the users want is:
1) social media
2) office
3) Virtual machines running windows XP

Linux in a sony desktop with 6GB of memory and intel I3 using the kernel
3.12.x have memory leak, that is
after 3 days using the desktop, the system becomes slow, only a POWER
OFF
restores the original performance... I do not know how, do not have
time to dig into the linux kernel.

I had to use Linux for almost a year, because of the KMS, now they all
have FreeBSD, the cheapper
notebooks (lenovo 475, lenovo, 485...) and those with a 2 core AMD cpu
at 1.0 ghz 2Gb of memory (sold here in Brazil for U$300) was really slow
with the linux kernels, with windows it took almost 6 minutes to boot,
and you had only the home edition of windows that is
really painfull, besides, the notebookd only lasts 3 months, than the
processor oveheats, and your notebook is done (I am talking about
those cheap ones). I am not interested in people that have U$2000 to pay
for a notebook.

Linux have more drivers, but only 2 months ago there was a driver for
that realtek wireless + bluetooth chip.
that have a problem that you cannot use the bluetooth AND the wireless
at the same time...

Seems that there is a conspiracy from the industry to NEVER EVER use a
chipset for more than 3 months..
so I install the FreeBSD on those cheap notebooks with a TPlink WN725N
working like a charm, by the time
that realtek driver adapter becomes ready, all you have to do is to
download the new freeBSD kernel and
hit only a command... this will bring FreBSD from my OWN repository,
that have about 1200 packages
for AMD64. than the system will reboot with the wireless inside the
notebook working again. thanks to
FreeBSD wlan0 scheme of wireless interface. kind of a windows update
and reboot.
Polytropon
2014-08-26 10:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by atar
Now, my question is, since the above mentioned device is supported
by Linux via a special atheros firmware module, and since FreeBSD
provides a Linux virtualization, will this device work on a FreeBSD
system by its Linux virtualization capability?
Probably this won't work. The Linux support in FreeBSD is in the
form of an ABI, an alternative binary interface. This allows
Linux _programs_ to make Linux system calls which are then
"translated" into BSD system calls. This happens in user space,
the "layer" in which programs are running. Device drivers, on
the other hand, do not operate in this "layer", they are very
tightly connected to the system kernel, using its interfaces.
As FreeBSD's kernel space is very different from Linux's kernel
space, the driver probably cannot be used 1:1. A rewrite would
be required (or at last some major adjustments).
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
atar
2014-08-26 11:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Ok, I've understood the point. So probably there's no way to use this popular TP-LINK dongle with FreeBSD. Disappointed.
Post by Polytropon
Post by atar
Now, my question is, since the above mentioned device is supported
by Linux via a special atheros firmware module, and since FreeBSD
provides a Linux virtualization, will this device work on a FreeBSD
system by its Linux virtualization capability?
Probably this won't work. The Linux support in FreeBSD is in the
form of an ABI, an alternative binary interface. This allows
Linux _programs_ to make Linux system calls which are then
"translated" into BSD system calls. This happens in user space,
the "layer" in which programs are running. Device drivers, on
the other hand, do not operate in this "layer", they are very
tightly connected to the system kernel, using its interfaces.
As FreeBSD's kernel space is very different from Linux's kernel
space, the driver probably cannot be used 1:1. A rewrite would
be required (or at last some major adjustments).
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Adrian Chadd
2014-08-27 19:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

The main issue is this: I really don't like the USB driver stuff in the kernel.

When I last checked, there was no clean example of a wifi or ethernet
driver which handles all of the odd corner cases of things correctly.
So you'd end up with things like taskqueues still running whilst the
NIC had been pulled out, all sleeping on a wakeup that'll never come,
or the ioctl path not really being locked the right way with the rest
of the USB driver.

I started tinkering with a driver for the AR9170, but I still couldn't
get the command handling side of things right. It's tricky because USB
is effectively a network protocol, but all the drivers are written
assuming register accesses are synchronous. So you end up having to
craft some kind of command structure that handles sleeping for
commands that it expects a response on from another USB endpoint (eg
register reads), but not sleeping for commands that are asynchronous.
I gave up because it became "non-fun."

So yeah. Almost all of the work is done in the atheros driver side of
things. Heck, the AR9271 bits for the HAL are likely just an evenings
worth of work for me. I just don't want to deal with the USB side of
it.

I'm not being paid to do any of the wireless stuff in FreeBSD, so it
has to clear the "is it fun" threshold.


-a
Adrian Chadd
2014-08-31 07:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian Chadd
So yeah. Almost all of the work is done in the atheros driver side of
things. Heck, the AR9271 bits for the HAL are likely just an evenings
worth of work for me. I just don't want to deal with the USB side of
it.
I'm not being paid to do any of the wireless stuff in FreeBSD, so it
has to clear the "is it fun" threshold.
Personally, I don't do wireless. Ever.
The real issue you just brought up is that FreeBSD is a volunteer project,
and not a product. The work that gets done is either funded by someone (by
dollar, mostly by businesses) that want something specific, or out of the
kindness of someone's heart.
If someone who cared wanted to fund FreeBSD's wireless work then would you
turn down the funding? If you were willing, what's the procedure for
someone (not me) to fund the work?
I can't really take that on right now personally, but what I can
suggest is that you contact the FreeBSD foundation and let them know
that you'd like to see improved wireless and you're willing to donate
/ fund the work.



-a
atar
2014-08-31 02:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Here's additional place where FreeBSD has lack of support: USB based printers.
USB interfaces, named for the Universal Serial Bus, can run at even faster speeds than parallel or RS-232 serial interfaces. Cables are simple and cheap. USB is superior to RS-232 Serial and to Parallel for printing, but it is not as well supported under UNIX systems. A way to avoid this problem is to purchase a printer that has both a USB interface and a Parallel interface, as many printers do.
Post by Adrian Chadd
Hi,
The main issue is this: I really don't like the USB driver stuff in the kernel.
When I last checked, there was no clean example of a wifi or ethernet
driver which handles all of the odd corner cases of things correctly.
So you'd end up with things like taskqueues still running whilst the
NIC had been pulled out, all sleeping on a wakeup that'll never come,
or the ioctl path not really being locked the right way with the rest
of the USB driver.
I started tinkering with a driver for the AR9170, but I still couldn't
get the command handling side of things right. It's tricky because USB
is effectively a network protocol, but all the drivers are written
assuming register accesses are synchronous. So you end up having to
craft some kind of command structure that handles sleeping for
commands that it expects a response on from another USB endpoint (eg
register reads), but not sleeping for commands that are asynchronous.
I gave up because it became "non-fun."
So yeah. Almost all of the work is done in the atheros driver side of
things. Heck, the AR9271 bits for the HAL are likely just an evenings
worth of work for me. I just don't want to deal with the USB side of
it.
I'm not being paid to do any of the wireless stuff in FreeBSD, so it
has to clear the "is it fun" threshold.
-a
Adam Vande More
2014-08-31 12:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by atar
Here's additional place where FreeBSD has lack of support: USB based printers.
Why don't you try citing a non-ancient version the handbook? Like here:

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/printing-connections.html

which states exactly the opposite. And USB printing has worked quite well
for a long long time on FreeBSD.
--
Adam
Warren Block
2014-08-31 13:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by atar
Here's additional place where FreeBSD has lack of support: USB based printers.
USB interfaces, named for the Universal Serial Bus, can run at even
faster speeds than parallel or RS-232 serial interfaces. Cables are
simple and cheap. USB is superior to RS-232 Serial and to Parallel
for printing, but it is not as well supported under UNIX systems. A
way to avoid this problem is to purchase a printer that has both a
USB interface and a Parallel interface, as many printers do.
That appears to be an old version of the Handbook. The current printing
chapter covers all four common connection types:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/printing-connections.html
Martin G. McCormick
2014-08-28 16:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kraus
It is helpful to understand the why of something, and explain such,
rather than just condemn it as bad.
The move to host based software for things like printers, modems,
scanners, and other various hardware came about because the performance
of the general purpose computer was increasing at least at Moore?s Law
rate, if not faster. By moving the processing of the raw data into code
the device (printer, scanner, modem, etc.) could use onto the host OS you
1. As the host systems got faster so did your device
2. Your device was likely to remain useful for a longer period
There is a third advantage, that the device can be less intelligent and
less powerful, making it cheaper.
It's a short-cut. What you say is true and if someone is
willing to make the tradeoff between being forced to run a
specific OS and having something that will work for you on any
OS, then go for it.
I wish I could be OS agnostic but it is not as simple as
one would hope.
As a computer user who happens to be blind, I have found
that unix-like operating systems generally work better, assuming
you can get access to the standard output. In at least one OS
which is in wide use, there is no standard output.
The screen readers and Braille output devices on unix
systems can be made to work more easily with countless
applications which were written with nary a thought to screen
readers and access technology and that is a good thing. The less
you have to worry about as you write a program, the less there
is to go wrong and cause somebody to fall in to a crack.

If there is a device out there that I need to do some
task and I find out that it only works under the OS with no
standard I/O, then I have two choices. Forget it or spin up this
other OS, buy the screen reader that works with it and maybe or
maybe not will give me access to control this device. I may find
out that it doesn't work with the screen reader. Talk about a
leap of faith.
The best screen readers for this widely-used OS are very
expensive commercial products so One would almost need to go to
where a similar device to what I want lives and see if it would
be worth the time and effort.
I am not a fan of host-based devices nor am I a fan of
javascript and other client-side job sharing. With such
applications as firefox for the gnome desktop, life is a hundred
times better than it used to be but there are still sites highly
optimized for Internet Explorer that simply lie down when you
need them the most.

When I vote in an election, our voting machines use
Windows CE. Since all I am going to do is vote, I don't care
what OS it uses as long as the knobs and buttons work. If I am
going to buy a piece of amateur radio gear which does wonderful
things but the drivers are for the OS with no IO, I'll skip it
until something with more universal design comes out.

Martin McCormick
Loading...