IPW3945 is an important card, wireless is an important for the linux
desktop, redhat simply does not deliver.
It's a shame, real shame.
Sharpe, Sam J wrote:
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
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
