Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1) 572

by g0tai (#48258649) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

Similar thing with other clones - the bluetooth mac is the most duplicated. there's a valid-looking one (which has basically been used /everywhere/ for that paticular bluetooth module

The re-pairing issue may be an android/bluetooth as well as a combination with the adapter (or it may have been worked around in later versions of android) I'm not sure. Again, it's another headache that developers have to deal with :-)

Comment: Re: Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1) 572

by g0tai (#48221063) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

It is, and it is evidently not working in this instance, is it as FTDI would have already pursued this (and the costs would likely have been prohibitive for little recompense).

Some people have looked at the driver and it writes the EEPROM for every device (I am told). Clone chips apparently are broken by this. Malicious or not, they shouldn't have been using FTDI's driver (they have had every opportunity to have written their own and even use their own device IDs, or license from FTDI properly)

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1) 572

by g0tai (#48220997) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

You mean the USB ID was reset to un-allocated because the non-ftdi chip was using a licensed PID that it had no right to.

The devices were not damaged, they still work - they have no driver. This would be the case even if FTDI didn't change the ID, and simply refused to work. You would be in *exactly* the same situation with a device you could no longer talk to as you have no driver.

Get a driver for the device, and it'll work. Won't be an FTDI driver though.

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1) 572

by g0tai (#48220959) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

They didn't break chips though - they simply moved them off their USB id.

All you need to do is get new drivers for the USB ID of 0. then things will work again. The clone chip isn't ever going to work with FTDI's drivers though, so you're going to need the clone chip manufacturer to release drivers for their device (instead of using FTDI's which they had no agreement to use)

Linux sorted this out in a patch pretty quick. their ftdi driver works with those devices now, so all you'd need to do is release and pay for a driver to be sent out over windows update.

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1) 572

by g0tai (#48220925) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

The biggest issue with the ELM327 clones is that they're very very flakey - the bain of my life! :)

Some have issues with timing on serial data, resulting in garbled output
Some have issues with canbus systems and causing the canbus itself to have internal comms problems (causing your car to complain)
Some don't work on all the protocols (a PCB design issue)
Some get hot and reset
Some have dry joints (ok not a chip issue, but a build quality)

I warn the user (but don't stop them) if they have a clone unit (as it's not too helpful), but my stuff gets a *lot* of flak because the OBD adapter is kaput or doing crappy things (the above). :'-(

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1) 572

by g0tai (#48220789) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

They didn't break the chips though - they moved the PID to 0 which stopped it using FTDIs drivers. You'd have the same situation if the driver simply refused to work (and you can't use the old drivers as technically you're breaking the license agreement).

This means that someone needs to write drivers for devices witha PID of 0. Fairly simple. and then pay M$ to distribute them (as FTDI did with /their/ drivers)

Linux has this sorted in a patch, and things work again.

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score -1, Troll) 572

by g0tai (#48220633) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

Hi!

But the chips haven't been broken. They work as they did before, just not with FTDI's drivers as the device ID has been moved.

This would be exactly the same if FTDI simply stopped their drivers working with the devices outright (including their old drivers which those chips are also not licensed to use).

If someone writes a driver for PID 0 for ftdi's protocol, then everything will work again. That's down to the clone chip vendors now.

Linux has this already sorted in a patch (they patched the driver to accept PID 0 as a FTDI clone chip). Again, nothing is broken or damaged, it simply won't work with FTDI's drivers or licensed USB ID.

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1) 572

by g0tai (#48220453) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

No, not broken - you see the chip still works, but the drivers don't see it as the PID has changed.

And FTDI have no obligations to make their drivers work with that chip.

Linux has already a patch to update /their opensource/ drivers work with the PID of 0. FTDI has no such obligation or intention of letting their drivers work with those devices however, which in windows may mean you have to hack about to recognise the new PID, or get new drivers.

The device itself and chip are fine. You simply have no drivers that recognise the device ids (unless you use linux with the patch)

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 2, Insightful) 572

by g0tai (#48220423) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

Again (as per previous posts) :) FTDI didn't break anything - they moved the USB ID off their allocated(and payed for/licensed range) and that was that

The chip still works. However, not with FTDI's drivers. this would be the case if the chip was blocked by their drivers or the device ID was changed.

For example linux has a patch that allows the chips to work as a PID of 0. This is the driver that's been updated to recognise it. FTDI have no such obligation in their drivers

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1, Interesting) 572

by g0tai (#48220369) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

Which is what they've likely now started to do in the next update, however :-)

However, the counterfeit chips *chose* to use FTDI drivers by using FTDI's licenced (and payed for PID/VID). That's not FTDI's problem. And FTDI have moved those chips off their USB id.

The chips and device still work, just not with FTDI's drivers. Nothing was 'broken'.

Comment: Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score 1) 572

by g0tai (#48220281) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

And an amusing part from the UK law on counterfeit goods: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

* It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

So now, all the people with PIDs of 0, and know about this fiasco, are breaking the law by continuing to use their fake device? (IANAL)

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.

Working...