On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 13:25 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> On 5/23/07, Will Woods <wwoods(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Furthermore, if you've got iwlwifi (Intel 3945 wireless) hardware,
>> please update your system and let us know how it works.
> If you can see my bug:
> I have some really strange wireless behavior!
> For me out-of-the-box fedora 7 wireless experience is terrible. I know
> enough to make it work, but for standard users this is a really
> serious but and makes their onboard wireless useless when using fedora
> Please fix this bug, upstream or locally... I'm willing to help kill
> this bug :) also to test it and give you feedback.
Yeah, iwl3945 still isn't as stable as we'd like. We're working really
hard on it - linville is keeping us as close to upstream as possible and
*vigorously* chases all the iwl3945 bugs. Also, they're trying to get
the driver into the mainstream kernel now, so it's currently getting a
lot of peer review. The upstream maintainers are pretty responsive, but
it's their hardware, they've got the specs.. so the driver quality is
pretty much up to them.
So - between patient, diligent testers like you, our fearless (and
sleep-deprived) kernel maintainers, and the upstream folks - iwlwifi
should be shaping up very, very quickly.
Unfortunately, I can't guarantee it'll be 100% stable for everyone by
the initial release of Fedora 7. But it works for a lot of people and,
if nothing else, it'll get *way* better in post-F7 updates. And the old
driver's still available if you need it.
It's not the ideal situation, but it's the best we can get right now.
Wireless support for the bcm4603 has gone from bad to worse.
A few weeks ago I got the old bcm43xx driver working. (My chipset does
not support the new firmware.) That worked.
The current devel kernel loads the bcm43xx driver, but it does not appear
to load the firmware or do much of anything useful other than occupy ram.
I expect if wireless is this skewed and broken when FC7 gets released for
real, there are going to be a bunch of frustrated and pissed off users.
"ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined.
ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct
assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C..."
- Alan Cox