Installed CentOS 5 on my Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop, hoping that it will be easier to set up wireless networking than it was in CentOS 4.4. But still sooooo difficult to get it working, mainly because there doesn't appear to be a driver pre-installed for this wireless card ((Dell wireless 1390 Mini PCI network card 802.11b/g). Do I still have to use ipw2200 and what is this anyway? - I really don't understand why it is so difficult to get wireless networking in CentOS 5 when it works like a dream in Windows XP (I have a dual boot system, but I'd much rather use linux!). I've tried modprobe ipw2200 and all the rest of it with no success - what am I doing wrong please?
Thanks, Andy
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 22:17 +0100, Andrew Allen wrote:
Installed CentOS 5 on my Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop, hoping that it will be easier to set up wireless networking than it was in CentOS 4.4. But still sooooo difficult to get it working, mainly because there doesn't appear to be a driver pre-installed for this wireless card ((Dell wireless 1390 Mini PCI network card 802.11b/g). Do I still have to use ipw2200 and what is this anyway? - I really don't understand why it is so difficult to get wireless networking in CentOS 5 when it works like a dream in Windows XP (I have a dual boot system, but I'd much rather use linux!). I've tried modprobe ipw2200 and all the rest of it with no success - what am I doing wrong please?
Thanks, Andy
Did you install firmware? http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php
B.J.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS 5.0, Linux 2.6.18-8.1.8.el5 x86_64 16:57:48 up 2 days, 8:45, 2 users, load average: 0.27, 0.19, 0.12
Andrew Allen wrote:
Installed CentOS 5 on my Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop, hoping that it will be easier to set up wireless networking than it was in CentOS 4.4. But still sooooo difficult to get it working, mainly because there doesn't appear to be a driver pre-installed for this wireless card ((Dell wireless 1390 Mini PCI network card 802.11b/g). Do I still have to use ipw2200 and what is this anyway?
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to get wireless networking in CentOS 5 when it works like a dream in Windows XP (I have a dual boot system, but I'd much rather use linux!).
UMMM ... that would be because the people who made the card made it to work on Windows ... they did not make it to work on Linux. They don't provide technical specs or free software drivers so some poor smuck sets in a room and reverse engineers a driver for it.
Obviously a reverse engineered driver is not the same as a hardware driver programed by the manufacturer.
I've tried modprobe ipw2200 and all the rest of it with no success - what am I doing wrong please?
Red Hat has ipw2200 and ipw2100 drivers that are not free and have no SOURCE ... but if you are a paying client you can to get them. Those drivers and firmware are not free or re-distributable by CentOS.
If running your wireless on Linux is important to you, complain to the laptop manufacturer so that they will put in devices that support linux properly out of the box.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Red Hat has ipw2200 and ipw2100 drivers that are not free and have no SOURCE ... but if you are a paying client you can to get them. Those drivers and firmware are not free or re-distributable by CentOS.
Ummmm. The drivers are free, they are licensed under the GPL v2. The firmware is the problem: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7 - I don't think we want to distribute that (we seem to be allowed to do so under certain conditions, but my legalese sucks, especially the english dialect of it). Yes, that sucks. And I'm sure their excuse is "FCC regulations".
If running your wireless on Linux is important to you, complain to the laptop manufacturer so that they will put in devices that support linux properly out of the box.
Well, it's just a firmware download away, normally.
Cheers,
Ralph
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:16:13PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Ummmm. The drivers are free, they are licensed under the GPL v2. The firmware is the problem: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7 - I don't think we want to distribute that (we seem to be allowed to do so under certain conditions, but my legalese sucks, especially the english dialect of it). Yes, that sucks. And I'm sure their excuse is "FCC regulations".
Just read it. We definitivelly don't want to distribute it.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 15:48 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:16:13PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Ummmm. The drivers are free, they are licensed under the GPL v2. The firmware is the problem: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7 - I don't think we want to distribute that (we seem to be allowed to do so under certain conditions, but my legalese sucks, especially the english dialect of it). Yes, that sucks. And I'm sure their excuse is "FCC regulations".
Just read it. We definitivelly don't want to distribute it.
Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
I just read the entire document as well as Exhibit A. I do not find any prohibition against distribution, only conditions which should be met if it is distributed to end users. Would you be kind enough to point out the section or paragraph which you interpret to prohibit distribution. Thanks in advance.
B.J. McClure
CentOS 5.0, Linux 2.6.18-8.1.8.el5 x86_64 13:59:06 up 1 day, 15:25, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.07, 0.03
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 02:03:42PM -0500, B.J. McClure wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 15:48 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:16:13PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Ummmm. The drivers are free, they are licensed under the GPL v2. The firmware is the problem: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7 - I don't think we want to distribute that (we seem to be allowed to do so under certain conditions, but my legalese sucks, especially the english dialect of it). Yes, that sucks. And I'm sure their excuse is "FCC regulations".
Just read it. We definitivelly don't want to distribute it.
Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
I just read the entire document as well as Exhibit A. I do not find any prohibition against distribution, only conditions which should be met if it is distributed to end users. Would you be kind enough to point out the section or paragraph which you interpret to prohibit distribution. Thanks in advance.
I'm sorry. Would you point to be where I said it prohibits distribution ?
I said we don't WANT do distribute it.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 16:39 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 02:03:42PM -0500, B.J. McClure wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 15:48 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:16:13PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Ummmm. The drivers are free, they are licensed under the GPL v2. The firmware is the problem: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7 - I don't think we want to distribute that (we seem to be allowed to do so under certain conditions, but my legalese sucks, especially the english dialect of it). Yes, that sucks. And I'm sure their excuse is "FCC regulations".
Just read it. We definitivelly don't want to distribute it.
Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
I just read the entire document as well as Exhibit A. I do not find any prohibition against distribution, only conditions which should be met if it is distributed to end users. Would you be kind enough to point out the section or paragraph which you interpret to prohibit distribution. Thanks in advance.
I'm sorry. Would you point to be where I said it prohibits distribution ?
I said we don't WANT do distribute it.
My apologies. Guess I just assumed, silly me, that if it was not prohibited and it would make wireless a bit easier for those who use it, that would be a good thing. I probably do not understand the issue.
B.J.
Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGm8mMpdyWzQ5b5ckRAkgHAJ9AkNpl0Z4anBuMhVVjDy6QpuAsgwCgpug9 LoEFISdsGuCVp5tiY3uis/8= =lqUw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS 5.0, Linux 2.6.18-8.1.8.el5 x86_64 14:44:49 up 1 day, 16:10, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00
I said we don't WANT do distribute it.
My apologies. Guess I just assumed, silly me, that if it was not prohibited and it would make wireless a bit easier for those who use it, that would be a good thing. I probably do not understand the issue.
yum has no provision to make you accept an EULA prior to downloading. As I see it, that alone is a showstopper.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 02:48:11PM -0500, B.J. McClure wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 16:39 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:16:13PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Ummmm. The drivers are free, they are licensed under the GPL v2. The firmware is the problem: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7 - I don't think we want to distribute that (we seem to be allowed to do so under certain conditions, but my legalese sucks, especially the english dialect of it). Yes, that sucks. And I'm sure their excuse is "FCC regulations".
Just read it. We definitivelly don't want to distribute it.
I just read the entire document as well as Exhibit A. I do not find any prohibition against distribution, only conditions which should be met if it is distributed to end users. Would you be kind enough to point out the section or paragraph which you interpret to prohibit distribution. Thanks in advance.
I'm sorry. Would you point to be where I said it prohibits distribution ?
I said we don't WANT do distribute it.
My apologies. Guess I just assumed, silly me, that if it was not prohibited and it would make wireless a bit easier for those who use it, that would be a good thing. I probably do not understand the issue.
Seems that way.
First, lemme tell you I use that same card, so I'm directly affected by it.
This kind of thing takes away too much energy that could be used to benefit a higher percentage of the users. The number of users that have that card is very small.
This kind of situation where you have to deal with legal issues can be very time consuming on a linux distro. Do, as a distro maintainer, you don't WANT to deal with it, unless you _really_ need to. Even things that are relatively harmless (like this particular license) can give you a lot of headaches.
No, I'm not a CentOS maintainer. But I've worked on distro teams before.
Hope I've made myself clear now.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-
Andrew Allen -
B.J. McClure -
John R Pierce -
Johnny Hughes -
Ralph Angenendt -
Rodrigo Barbosa