Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 11:55 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: When you are deploying linux to the laptop user, and have to add/support many additional drivers it's a different story. Yes one can argue that its the hardware vendors fault, and you should complain to them. The reality is we live in a Microsoft world(like nobody knew that). I just wished that RedHat were able to provide these proprietary drivers, and not rely on 3rd party sites(it's hardy enterprise). There are always ways to work around IP issues. They do provide support for things on the Hardware Compatibility List ... where that will NOT be. Do you complain that Windows 2003 Server will not install on a Sparc T2000 machine with a T1 processor? Do you buy chocolate ice cream from a manufacturer who doesn't make vanilla ice cream and then complain that you are allergic to chocolate? If hardware vendors will not make their drivers open source ... and if you insist on using their products which are not on the HCL (and not moving to vendors who do use open source and are on the HCL) then YOU are the problem. YOU, not Red Hat, are enabling the situation. This issue is absolutely market driven. If people would contact the vendor, require that they provide a workable driver or make them refund the purchase price and stop settling for closed source binary shit then this situation would be fixed ... failing that, if you use a product not on the HCL, you are on your own. RHEL 5 is not made to install on there, they removed it from the kernel because they do not support it. If you want a supported Enterprise solution, buy items on the HCL. I don't understand why this is such a hard issue to comprehend. Maybe I am just too dense? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
I'm an enterprise user with 1500 RedHat desktops. RedHat does meet my demands. I would say that Wireless support is not even in the top twenty most important things to an Enterprise user because our machine density would make the speed of any wireless network slow to a crawl. With a wired network we can get +100Mb/s to every desktop, and that is much more important. If RedHat had left out the driver for some industry standard wired network card, then we would have cause to complain. On 15 Nov 2006, at 10:04, Grant Williamson wrote: Thomas - You're in the minority. you must be joking. Thomas Cameron wrote: Grant Williamson wrote: Brian, there are always alternative ways to deliver software, its not a question agreeing or disagreeing with opensource. Why should I need to go to Intel, the reason I need to choose an enterprise distro is for support. Are you intentionally being obtuse? It's Intel's blob, and it is not Open Source. It is not Red Hat's. Red Hat has no ability to modify or fix the blob. That is not Red Hat's fault, it's Intel's. If anyone should be working with the hardware vendors its RedHat not me. It boils down to whether redhat is able to meet the demands of the enterprise desktop user. The unfortunate answer is no. You're in the minority. Thomas ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
When you are deploying linux to the laptop user, and have to add/support many additional drivers it's a different story. Yes one can argue that its the hardware vendors fault, and you should complain to them. The reality is we live in a Microsoft world(like nobody knew that). I just wished that RedHat were able to provide these proprietary drivers, and not rely on 3rd party sites(it's hardy enterprise). There are always ways to work around IP issues. Sharpe, Sam J wrote: I'm an enterprise user with 1500 RedHat desktops. RedHat does meet my demands. I would say that Wireless support is not even in the top twenty most important things to an Enterprise user because our machine density would make the speed of any wireless network slow to a crawl. With a wired network we can get +100Mb/s to every desktop, and that is much more important. If RedHat had left out the driver for some industry standard wired network card, then we would have cause to complain. On 15 Nov 2006, at 10:04, Grant Williamson wrote: Thomas - You're in the minority. you must be joking. Thomas Cameron wrote: Grant Williamson wrote: Brian, there are always alternative ways to deliver software, its not a question agreeing or disagreeing with opensource. Why should I need to go to Intel, the reason I need to choose an enterprise distro is for support. Are you intentionally being obtuse? It's Intel's blob, and it is not Open Source. It is not Red Hat's. Red Hat has no ability to modify or fix the blob. That is not Red Hat's fault, it's Intel's. If anyone should be working with the hardware vendors its RedHat not me. It boils down to whether redhat is able to meet the demands of the enterprise desktop user. The unfortunate answer is no. You're in the minority. Thomas ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Grant Williamson wrote: When you are deploying linux to the laptop user, and have to add/support many additional drivers it's a different story. Yes one can argue that its the hardware vendors fault, and you should complain to them. The reality is we live in a Microsoft world(like nobody knew that). You should try installing Windows some time, My experience on a Dell recently - using Dell's CD!. 1. Install from CD. 2. Network doesn't work. Been here before, download Network driver (From DELL), pop on USB flash drive. 3. USB mass storage doesn't work. Burn Ntwork driver to CD (on Linux). 4. Hooray, the CD drive works. Now we have a network. 5. Download all visible drivers from Dell's website. 6. Nothing fixed the USB. 7. Spend 20-30 minutes on phone to MS to get this bloddy thing reactivated. Activation worked, still can't windows update it. -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/ Please do not reply off-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Grant Williamson wrote: Thomas - You're in the minority. you must be joking. Anyone got any troll repellent? Thomas ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Tim Burke wrote: Grant Williamson wrote: Tim, I understand the reasoning behind it, but for an organization deploying/maintaining rhel5 its a dammed pain. Why can redhat not simply go back to a kernel-unsupported package, it was so much easier. I really liked the kernel-unsupported package. It provided a great service in that if it worked for you, great, otherwise, well, sorry. Problem was. some bigshot customers ended up using some stuff from -unsupported... which had a problem. Then we reminded that it was unsupported... to which they replied we don't care.. YOU shipped it, YOU fix it. From that point forward -unsupported became a liability that we couldn't responsibly support. Kinda sad, that we were completely well intentioned, but the rules can get in the way. So fix it, time plus:-) Could you make unsupported downloadable, perhaps from an external site? -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/ Please do not reply off-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Correct. We had to remove the regulatory daemon because it is not open source and hence conflicts with our inclusion policy. Grant Williamson wrote: Axel, I agree, but I just want to hear the answer from redhat. Axel Thimm wrote: On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really like to know why? My best guess is that Red Hat removes everything they cannot fix in a 3rd level support scenario, for example everything for which you need closed source bits and that's the case with the required regulatory daemon for ipw3945. ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Tim, why do you then remove the kernel module? Is it not possible to just leave the kernel module there, and let users decide themselves whether they want to use it or not? Tim Burke wrote: Correct. We had to remove the regulatory daemon because it is not open source and hence conflicts with our inclusion policy. Grant Williamson wrote: Axel, I agree, but I just want to hear the answer from redhat. Axel Thimm wrote: On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really like to know why? My best guess is that Red Hat removes everything they cannot fix in a 3rd level support scenario, for example everything for which you need closed source bits and that's the case with the required regulatory daemon for ipw3945. ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Possibly to leave it would create a support ambiguity. If something is broken, is that because of the kernel module or the userland tools? If there is no kernel module, then anything to do with that hardware becomes by default not a RedHat issue. On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 16:09 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: Tim, why do you then remove the kernel module? Is it not possible to just leave the kernel module there, and let users decide themselves whether they want to use it or not? Tim Burke wrote: Correct. We had to remove the regulatory daemon because it is not open source and hence conflicts with our inclusion policy. Grant Williamson wrote: Axel, I agree, but I just want to hear the answer from redhat. Axel Thimm wrote: On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really like to know why? My best guess is that Red Hat removes everything they cannot fix in a 3rd level support scenario, for example everything for which you need closed source bits and that's the case with the required regulatory daemon for ipw3945. ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Tim, I understand the reasoning behind it, but for an organization deploying/maintaining rhel5 its a dammed pain. Why can redhat not simply go back to a kernel-unsupported package, it was so much easier. Tim Burke wrote: Grant Williamson wrote: Tim, why do you then remove the kernel module? Is it not possible to just leave the kernel module there, and let users decide themselves whether they want to use it or not? Leaving kernel enablers in place for non-open-source utilities is a grey area. We took a conservative stance to be safe. ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Grant Williamson wrote: Tim, I understand the reasoning behind it, but for an organization deploying/maintaining rhel5 its a dammed pain. Why can redhat not simply go back to a kernel-unsupported package, it was so much easier. I really liked the kernel-unsupported package. It provided a great service in that if it worked for you, great, otherwise, well, sorry. Problem was. some bigshot customers ended up using some stuff from -unsupported... which had a problem. Then we reminded that it was unsupported... to which they replied we don't care.. YOU shipped it, YOU fix it. From that point forward -unsupported became a liability that we couldn't responsibly support. Kinda sad, that we were completely well intentioned, but the rules can get in the way. ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 16:31 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: IPW3945 is an important card, wireless is an important for the linux desktop, redhat simply does not deliver. It's a shame, real shame. You should take this to Intel, the lovely developers of this binary blob. The entire opensource community has been up in arms since the ipw3945 hardware was released and Intel posted the blob that was required to conform with FCC regulations. Had Intel released the ipw3925 the way ipw2200 worked, I think Red Hat might have shipped the firmware in Extras and included the kmdl in RHEL 5. While you may not agree with the gray area issues about non-open-source blobs in RHEL, it's fairly obvious why Red Hat cannot include this in their enterprise distro. Enterprise customers require stability over many years and the ipw3945 situation is not something Red Hat can tackle at the moment. If you need ipw3945 to work, use Axel's excellent RPM repository. If it breaks, you keep both pieces. :-) /Brian/ -- Brian Long | | IT Infrastructure . | | | . | | | . Data Center Systems' ' Cisco Enterprise Linux C I S C O ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really like to know why? Axel Thimm wrote: On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 06:16:18PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: What has ATRPMS got to do with the rhel5 kernel?? The latest rhel5 kernel has dropped ipw3945 support. ATrpms provides support for RHEL5 kernels in form of kmdls, there is no need for the kernel to support ipw3945, i.e. the same situation exists like for RHEL4 or FCX where the kernel also hasn't ipw3945 patched in and is supported by kmdls. Similar for other kernelland parts. The drawback is that ATrpms hasn't yet an rhn feed for RHEL5 update packages. There is some process to get entitlements for ATrpms, and when that happens ATrpms will closely track RHEL5 beta and of course RHEL5 proper kernel releases. I case anyone want to sponsor entitlements to ATrpms don't hesitate, that would speed up the process, of course. Other than the entitlements everything else is already in place. MJang wrote: On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 11:09 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: Can anyone tell me the current status of IPW3945 support in rhel5? i.e. this ... * Wed Nov 01 2006 Don Zickus [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2.6.18-1.2740.el5] - Remove support for ipw3945 driver (Don Zickus) [195534] I don't understand what you're referring to, but I'm using atrpms packages atop RHEL 5 beta 1 to run the ipw3945 wireless. From memory (I may have forgotten something), you need ipw3945 ipw3945-ucode ipw3945d ieee80211 and dependencies. Where applicable, the RPM you download must be kernel version specific (or you'll need to build from source). Thanks, Mike ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
[rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really like to know why? My best guess is that Red Hat removes everything they cannot fix in a 3rd level support scenario, for example everything for which you need closed source bits and that's the case with the required regulatory daemon for ipw3945. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpbg4wTavOtS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 19:36 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really like to know why? I'm sorry that I'm so behind you, but all I see on ftp.redhat.com and the RHN site is the kernel-2.6.17-1.2519.4.21.el5 package. Where did you get these later - RHEL5 specific - kernels? Thanks, Mike ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
Axel, I agree, but I just want to hear the answer from redhat. Axel Thimm wrote: On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really like to know why? My best guess is that Red Hat removes everything they cannot fix in a 3rd level support scenario, for example everything for which you need closed source bits and that's the case with the required regulatory daemon for ipw3945. ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Re: [rhelv5-beta-list] Re: rhel5 latest kernel and ipw3945 DROPPED??
On 11/11/06, Grant Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really like to know why? I would like to know where you are getting these kernels? The 2.6.18-2519.el doesnt seem to have anyting related to the ipw3945 that I can find. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice ___ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
