Re: [SLE] Rhetorical question

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 <><

--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx

Relevant Pages