Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Or, perhaps it's not true that there are no free drivers for it. The
>> claim was also made that there was a single free driver out there for
>> use with ndiswrapper, but others claimed that the hardware in question
>> is already supported, and better, without the use of that driver.
> The crip driver is actually not made for a specific piece of hardware;
> it's really an encryption layer.
> I fail to see whether if something works "better" is important. Using
> OpenOffice.org also works "better" than using Microsoft Office under
> wine, yet I have seen _many_ people asking whether it is possible to do
Actually, I addressed exactly this already. If there is some remote
difference to crip-with-ndiswrapper rather than
crip-directly-in-linux which makes anyone's life better, than I'm
happy to say that ndiswrapper is clearly useful for a piece of free
But when I ask this question: exactly what are the advantages here to
running crip with ndiswrapper instead of directly? nobody will answer
>> I don't know whether this is true, but if it is true, I would
>> appreciate hearing why that should be treated differently than there
>> being no such free driver at all.
> I would appreciate hearing why you would think that it should be treated
> the same. There is a driver, it is free, it works with ndiswrapper, so
> there is a use case. Why should one perception on its usefulness be
Please, can we answer the question? If it's not useful then say,
"Yes, it's not useful, but that's not relevant." If it's useful say,
"It's useful, which should settle the case."
Instead, I hear, "Nyaa nyaa nyaa, I'm not goiny to say whether it's