On 2016-02-21 04:16 PM, Gregor Best wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:41:06PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
It makes no sense to renumber the FT232_1 entry. That is just creating
churn.
As to the 0x0000 entry, I'm wondering whether it should be named something
like the following, as a historical reminder:
+product FTDI FT232_JERKS 0x0000 Serial
[...]
Nice idea. I've added the "bricked" device as FT232_JERKS, with a
slightly longer description that hints at the reasoning behind the name:
While I agree that bricking the pirated device was a step too far on
FTDI's part, FT232_PIRATED would be a more appropriate name. They did
quickly rescind that driver, and it was after all a direct (if clueless
and inappropriate) reaction to blatant criminal activity against them.
If you want to immortalize their faux pas, FT232_CLUELESS_COMPANY would
be more accurate than _JERKS.
Yes, I'm defending FTDI - up to a point, anyway.
(There are only two hard things in programming: naming.)
-Adam
