WebSite Information > Article Discussions

AN changing USB driver stack to 32-bit

<< < (3/6) > >>

ivan:
Andi, you write about testers but the problem is just what are they testing on?  Are there any testers testing on AMD Ryzen or Theradripper or the A8 or A10 or even any of the newer AMD series of processors and APUs?  I very much doubt it which is a great cause for concern (I would have thought that they would be looking for the widest range of equipment for testing rather than what appears to be just Intel systems and older AMD offerings).

I will admit that I have an interest because I will not have an Intel processor in any of my equipment even notebooks and the lack of testing does show up.

Doug Bissett:

--- Quote ---Are there any testers testing on AMD
--- End quote ---

Yes.


--- Quote --- I very much doubt it which is a great cause for concern
--- End quote ---

Do not be concerned.

At the moment, the 32 bit USB drivers are being TESTED, to be sure that the concept works. It does. When the drivers are actually RELEASED, then it becomes your concern to test them, to be sure that they work for you (if they don't, you can report the problem, and AN will try to fix it). At that time, it is also up to Arca Noae to release the source (or not), which will NOT include the DDK, You will still need the DDK to be able to use the source. Since that has always been the case, there should be no concern (the concern would be that somebody illegally releases the DDK, and gets the whole project into trouble with IBM and the law). If someone cares to recreate the DDK, LEGALLY, I am sure that very few people would be able to make use of it anyway.


--- Quote ---I will admit that I have an interest because I will not have an Intel processor in any of my equipment even notebooks and the lack of testing does show up.
--- End quote ---

What do you mean by that statement? I have preferred AMD, for many years now, and haven't seen any problems because of it. I do have machines that are Intel (donated to me by windows users who felt compelled to buy a new machine), but they certainly don't work any better, or worse, than AMD. You MAY run into troubles if the machine is UEFI without a functional Compatibility Support Module (CSM), or if they don't have a DVD drive, or USB 2.x capability (USB 3.x support is getting closer, and part of that was to convert the drivers to 32 bit).

For your information, I am TESTING with:
Asus A88XM-A motherboard (AMD, A6, UEFI), with 8 GB memory.
Asus M3A78-EM motherboard (AMD), with 5 GB memory.
Lenovo ThinkPad T510 (Intel), with 8 GB memory.
Lenovo ThinkPad L530 (Intel UEFI), with 8 GB memory.
IBM ThinkPad T43 (Intel), with 1.5 GB memory.
IBM ThinkPad A22e (Intel), with 256 MB memory.
DELL Dimension 4300 (Intel), with 1 GB memory.
DELL Optiplex GX-270 (Intel), with 3 GB memory.
Asus P4VP-MX motherboard (Intel), with 1 GB memory.
HP p6242f (Intel) with 8 GB memory, and a NVIDIA video adapter (NOT recommended).

Overall, the DELL and HP,  machines have problems with video, when I try to use a wide screen. The IBM ThinkPad A22e is, of course, almost useless because the memory is maxed out at 256 MB, but it does work well, as long as I stay with programs that will run without having to page. The DELL 4300 has a problem with Air Boot, so I need to use Boot Manager with it (it is NOT an Air Boot problem).

FTR: The P4VP-MX has a PCI SATA adapter, with a 2 TB SATA drive attached and a 1 Gbit NIC. I use it as an OS/2 (ArcaOS) based NAS box.

Andi B.:

--- Quote ---Andi, you write about testers but the problem is just what are they testing on?
--- End quote ---
Where is the problem here? I guess if testers were paid by AN or by any other individual or company they will test what they get paid for. Otherwise they will test what they are interested in and with hardware they have.

If you want better support for your individual hardware you can open tickets in the bugtracker. If you want even better support I guess AN is happy to take your money and will invest in better support for your specific hardware. But it's up to AN to decide on that.

Martin Iturbide:
Hi

It seems that there still doubts about IBM's DDK license. You can read the license here, specially the part of the "1. Grant of License for the IBM Code".  The IBM DDK is "Abandonware".

Wikipedia defines abandonware as:

--- Quote ---Abandonware is a product, typically software, ignored by its owner and manufacturer, and for which no support is available. Although such software is usually still under copyright, the owner may not be tracking copyright violations.

In intellectual rights context, abandonware is a software (or hardware) special case of the general concept of orphan works.
--- End quote ---

It mean that it may be illegal to distribute the software, but the copyright holder will not be enforcing the copyright of it.  But if someone starts making millions with the IBM DDK, it may raise one IBM eyebrow, and they have all the right to sue this people/company for all the money they want. But the chance of someone making millions or enough money to generate IBM's interest is unlikely.

But let's also remember that the IBM DDK code was available for free on their web site. It required free of charge registration of the developer. The developer will require to agree to the IBM DDK license to get access to download the driver sample source code.

I still think that the legal way to override any problem with IBM on this case (in the unlikely case it happens) is to create a close source collaborative project on Netlabs. Netlabs as organization that agreed to the IBM DDK license and any member of the Netlabs community that want to access the project will need to agreed to that license to have access to the source code and the modifications. This is the way Lar's USB project works and how ACPI used to be on Netlabs. What I don't agree is that a company grabs the Netlab's source code (IBM DDK source code with modifications) and create derivative close source projects without sharing back to the original source and/or without providing any extra documentation and knowledge back to the community.

So, the IBM DDK license is no excuse to create close/non-collaborative drivers. Do not believe the illuminati brotherhood when they tell you "You have to be lawyer to understand the IBM DDK license"


Regards

Neil Waldhauer:

--- Quote from: Lars on January 28, 2018, 10:18:34 am ---
--- Quote from: Andi B. on January 27, 2018, 04:49:39 pm ---Guessing the change was made to make future development easier. For AN. Not for the rest of the world. Except David make his changes and his DDK publicly available some day.

--- End quote ---

If what you say is true I sincerely hope that at least the interface will be published. Because if not, nobody will be able to write a custom USB driver for a specific USB device, for example. Again, think about Wim's USBECD.SYS driver.

--- End quote ---

Did you test the new 32-bit driver with USBECD.SYS? Maybe it still works?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version