Slashdot Log In
IBM Releases GPLd WinModem Support For Linux
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Feb 13, 2001 05:54 AM
from the stepping-in-the-right-direction dept.
from the stepping-in-the-right-direction dept.
horst writes: "Subject says it all -- IBM has released first
GPL winmodem driver. Link found at LWN" I'll be even more excited when they release the code that works with my T20 ... I've never even dialed my modem *sniff*, but if you've got an MWave (600, 600E, 770) then you should be golden. But props to IBM for making a cool move.
Hopefully it's not an isolated one.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
IBM Releases GPLd WinModem support for Linux
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 144 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
renaming will occur soon? (Score:3)
and ASDL too (Score:4)
It will be here [alcatel.com].
This is not GPL source (Score:4)
Good move, but good enough? (Score:3)
Some problems can be overcome simply by the experimenting programmer (compile-run-crash type), but it will be a real pain. Why not open up for the documentation so that the MWave board can show it's potential: A bunch of resources (dsp, soundcard, telco interface, midi interface) tightly knit together with the dsp chip in control.
Call me fanatic
Correction (but it's still not free software) (Score:4)
Are winmodems really that bad? (Score:5)
In the process of doing a web search I then turned up Stuart Cheshire's old home page [stanford.edu]. For those who don't know who he is, well before the web was popular he wrote a classic networked Mac game called bolo [stanford.edu]. (In fact when the web became popular the bolo players used to curse that the web was dragging the internet down too much...) Most links to it are dead, but the official home page is still up [lgm.com] although there has not been a release since 1995 [lgm.com]. (This was apparently done as research into the needs of interactive networked programs. Gee, all of those hours that I spent as a test subject without knowing it...)
With Stuart's credentials established, it is well worth looking at his rants [stanford.edu]. In particular his latency [stanford.edu] rant, which was expanded out into a white paper [bolo.net].
Once you are through reading those you will see that for anything interactive, particularly games, what really matters is latency, not bandwidth. And modems are a major source of this latency. In addition he and John Carmack agree that software modems (AKA winmodems) can be (though they are not currently) programmed to operate in a mode that reduces latency, and the result would be better for interactive games than conventional modems.
So, are winmodems just a bad idea, or are they just poorly implemented? Conventional wisdom says that they are bad no matter what. But the people who should know best suggest otherwise.
-snellac
Double correction (Score:5)
They aren't even technically part of the 'driver'.
You have the freedom to make their modem work on *any* hardware platform now; just not to steal their DSP code.
Re:Are winmodems really that bad? (Score:5)
In IBM's case, this model is not what's being used. The MWave is a DSP. So the "cheap" argument goes out of the window, except in that IBM recognised that a DSP could be used for multiple applications, and originally the MWave chipset was implemented by them exactly that way. My TP 760XD for instance uses the MWave chipset to provide both modem functionality and 16 bit soundcard support. Latency isn't likely to be a problem as the communications between the DSP and the "PC space" is much tighter than it is with a conventional modem, which usually goes via a real or imagined serial link controlled by a conventional UART chipset. So latency is going to be better than it would be with a real modem, but not as good as it would be with a conventional Winmodem.
Essentially you could say there are three types of modem: Conventional, open, serial modems, which will work with everything at a minor latency tradeoff, Winmodems, which will only work with the operating systems (or rather system, support for non DOS Windows based operating systems is rare, and that includes other Microsoft operating systems such as NT) supported by the manufacturer, and will slow down your computer's performance with a small advantage in the latency stakes, and Other Proprietry Modems, such as the IBM MWave set-up, where you still have the problem that the OS has to be supported by the manufacturer, but neither reduced performance or latency are real issues.
On the face of it, if someone could invent a generic device driver mechanism, or even just force, somehow, manufacturers to produce open source drivers, IBM's approach would probably be quite good. As it is, a year or so after IBM started this project we have a driver that only addresses the modem side of the MWave and only works with the later, less popular, Thinkpads. I'd have rather they worked on the soundcard functionality, a good PCMCIA Modem costs less than $30 on eBay these days. Grumble.
--
Keep attacking good things as "communist"
Re:Double correction (Score:3)
Sure there is. If you want to fix or improve the DSP part, or even understand it (or build sonar with it). Which are very big parts of what opensource is about, not just "it can run everywhere", but "it runs good".
I expect with the DSP part you could make a "voice modem" and build your own voice mail system.
IBM did a good thing making the kernel part opensource, but the DSP part is still closed source, and to get full advantage of this hardware you need that part too.
Re:Double correction (Score:5)
They never will (Score:5)
-russ
GPL appropriate for driver code? (Score:3)
Not that I'm waiting for Winmodem drivers (I'll use a real modem thank you) but there may come a time that there is practically no choice (think of laptop-integrated winmodems).