Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Many wireless card doesn't support Linux?

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 27, 2005 5:03:18 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
Because
the CD says only for windows. How about Linux? I have Red Hat Linux 9
and
want to connect to the internet via wireless.

any advices? thanks!!
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 27, 2005 7:17:46 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

strutsng@gmail.com wrote:

>I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
>Because
>the CD says only for windows. How about Linux? I have Red Hat Linux 9
>and
>want to connect to the internet via wireless.
>
>any advices? thanks!!
>
>
>
It is based on the card (chipset).
Atheros support is often built in.
Intel supplies drivers for Linux.
Broadcom doesn't support Linux, but can be used by using the Windows
drivers with ndiswrapper.
September 27, 2005 10:13:54 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:03:18 -0700, strutsng wrote:

> I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
> Because
> the CD says only for windows. How about Linux? I have Red Hat Linux 9
> and
> want to connect to the internet via wireless.
>
> any advices? thanks!!

If you haven't already noticed, there is a LOT of hardware being marketed
that works perfectly well with Linux and the bastards are afraid to admit
it!!
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 12:48:31 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

strutsng@gmail.com writes:

>I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
>Because
>the CD says only for windows. How about Linux? I have Red Hat Linux 9
>and
>want to connect to the internet via wireless.

>any advices? thanks!!

There may be native drivers for your card. You do not tell us which Lynksys
card it is so we cannot tell you. HOwever if necessary you can also use
ndiswrapper or driverloader (from linuxant-- $20 for a license) to use the
windows wireless driver under linux. They work quite well.
(PS-- upgrade your redhat. It is not old and out of security updates)
September 28, 2005 1:05:06 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:03:18 -0700, strutsng wrote:

> I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
> Because
> the CD says only for windows. How about Linux? I have Red Hat Linux 9
> and
> want to connect to the internet via wireless.
>
> any advices? thanks!!

i have the linksys wpc54g working fine under debian. it worked fine under
fedora core 2,3 and 4. the linksys wpc11 worked under fedora core 2.

http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/
September 28, 2005 3:57:10 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:03:18 -0700, strutsng wrote:

> I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
> Because
> the CD says only for windows. How about Linux? I have Red Hat Linux 9
> and
> want to connect to the internet via wireless.
>
> any advices? thanks!!

Use ndiswrapper (ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net) with the XP driver.
wpa_supplicant works for WPA encryption.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 12:14:38 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

I have a Netgear WG511. And tried many flavours of Linux. After looking
around many newsgroups, it was possible to get it to work (sort of) using
NDiswrapper: After boot up and login, I have to open a command prompt and
enter lots of commands which frankly are beyond my comprehension.
NDiswrapper is not trivial to install and configure, so as a Linux newbie, I
would not recommend using it to other newbies.

After that I started looking at websites (Mandriva, fedora and Suse are
amongst those I tried), to find pcmcia wifi cards that could be purchased in
the UK. It's quite frustrating as some of the cards listed are meant to use
ndiswrapper. The lists are not very easy to search either, and in the end I
haven't found any card that is a doddle to install and use with Linux.

I have no idea why most manufacturers don't mention Linux for their cards.
After all, it's mainstream now, and surely there is a demand from many bozos
like me who are ready to buy another card, iff it works with Linux. Also,
Linux distributors could do a bteer job with their hardware databases. So
I'm reluctantly back to using Windows XP. Very frustrating.

<strutsng@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127851398.731263.200420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
> Because
> the CD says only for windows. How about Linux? I have Red Hat Linux 9
> and
> want to connect to the internet via wireless.
>
> any advices? thanks!!
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 12:53:53 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Well, as of this writing, 802.11g isn't supported by the mainstream
release kernel.

However, many 802.11b cards are supported. A good way to figure out if
a particular card is supported is to check your distro's web site- for
example, RedHat/Fedora and SuSE have very explicit lists as to what is
supported. My favorite way to figure out if a card is supported is to
look at the card's chipset- Lucent/Orinoco/Agere and Harris/Prism/Prism
II work right out of the box with any recent releases of SuSE, Knoppix,
Debian, or Redhat.

You can get a wealth of info by looking at the top five hits for a
google web search for Linux Wireless- the information is well written,
and is updated frequently. Also, just putting your card model and the
name of your Linux ditsro into google search terms works quite well.
(in my case, MA311 SuSE)

Hope this helps.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 1:38:35 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

strutsng@gmail.com wrote:

> I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
> Because
> the CD says only for windows. How about Linux? I have Red Hat Linux 9
> and want to connect to the internet via wireless.
>
> any advices? thanks!!

For some odd reason, I expect people who use Linux to be smart enough to
google. I'm continually disappointed.

Google for "Linux" and your card model. You'll find lots of pages that say
"I couldn't get it to work", but if it really is supported you'll find a
few that tell you how.

Nobody ever advertises Linux support on their hardware. It's not because
(as one poster said) they're bastards - it's because they couldn't possibly
test it with every possible flavor of Linux - or BSD.

Personally, when I went shopping for a laptop, the first thing was to find
some suitable models, the second was to google for "Linux" and all the
various subsystems to make sure it would work - and I specifically chose
the wireless NIC, from one of three available on that model, because it was
a known-to-work Intel type.
--
derek
September 28, 2005 1:38:36 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

>
> Nobody ever advertises Linux support on their hardware. It's not because
> (as one poster said) they're bastards - it's because they couldn't possibly
> test it with every possible flavor of Linux - or BSD.
>

It's not because they're bastards. It's because they are intimidated my MS
and that makes them bastards.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 5:35:17 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Uncle Chuck wrote:

> Well, as of this writing, 802.11g isn't supported by the mainstream
> release kernel.

Really? Oh, damn. Now I'm going to have to throttle back the speed on my
card.

My intel ipw2200g works just fine, and afaik, many other people are not
having any trouble.

What do you consider the "mainstream release kernel" - according to
kernel.org it's 2.6.13.2 which is considerably newer than my kernel.

--
derek
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 5:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

> Nobody ever advertises Linux support on their hardware. It's not because
> (as one poster said) they're bastards - it's because they couldn't possibly
> test it with every possible flavor of Linux - or BSD.

I think there's another reason Derek. Why bother? No really, it's not
the dominant desktop OS so why bother developing and advertising for a
small market? Any company will want to maximise revenue from
development and marketing effort and if that means it's to gain Windows
logo certification then so be it.

Why deploy your developers onto a Linux build when by releasing some
source code snippets and documentation, someone out there will write a
free driver, unpaid by the manufacturer who probably sees little ROI on
a Linux driver build!

Like you said, there's an element of people running Linux wanting to
both develop and provide support for devices so a Google usually works.

David.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 5:42:52 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

David Taylor wrote:

>> Nobody ever advertises Linux support on their hardware. It's not because
>> (as one poster said) they're bastards - it's because they couldn't
>> possibly test it with every possible flavor of Linux - or BSD.
>
> I think there's another reason Derek. Why bother? No really, it's not
> the dominant desktop OS so why bother developing and advertising for a
> small market? Any company will want to maximise revenue from
> development and marketing effort and if that means it's to gain Windows
> logo certification then so be it.

That's true, and many vendors aren't interested in the small return they'll
get from catering to the *nix market - and that's they're right and choice.

Some vendors though (Oracle comes to mind) will advertise support for very
specific Linux configurations.

Of course, I also have three routers that, under hardware requirements, tell
you "Windows", when their only real requirement is that you have _one_
computer capable of running an HTML 3.1 compliant browser (HTML 4 for best
effects).
>
> Why deploy your developers onto a Linux build when by releasing some
> source code snippets and documentation, someone out there will write a
> free driver, unpaid by the manufacturer who probably sees little ROI on
> a Linux driver build!

And that's what most of the people who do advertise that a product will work
on, at least some brand of, Linux count on.
--
derek
September 28, 2005 5:42:52 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:42:51 +0000, David Taylor wrote:

>> Nobody ever advertises Linux support on their hardware. It's not because
>> (as one poster said) they're bastards - it's because they couldn't possibly
>> test it with every possible flavor of Linux - or BSD.
>
> I think there's another reason Derek. Why bother? No really, it's not
> the dominant desktop OS so why bother developing and advertising for a
> small market? Any company will want to maximise revenue from
> development and marketing effort and if that means it's to gain Windows
> logo certification then so be it.
>
> Why deploy your developers onto a Linux build when by releasing some
> source code snippets and documentation, someone out there will write a
> free driver, unpaid by the manufacturer who probably sees little ROI on
> a Linux driver build!
>
> Like you said, there's an element of people running Linux wanting to
> both develop and provide support for devices so a Google usually works.
>
> David.

Many hardware items work perfectly well with Linux, and they should know
that. All they need is to put a penguin on the box - is that so damned
hard?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 6:23:29 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

In article <dffq03-448.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca>, news@pointerstop.ca
says...
> strutsng@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Nobody ever advertises Linux support on their hardware. It's not because
> (as one poster said) they're bastards - it's because they couldn't possibly
> test it with every possible flavor of Linux - or BSD.

Not quite true - a couple of manufacturers do advertise Linux
compatability. Safecom for one. Have a look at the web page for one of
their USB dongles: http://www.safecom.cn/code/sub/category.asp?prdid=174
&subcatid=2 They've got a Tux at the bottom of the page.

--
AG

Remove removes from address to remove anti-spam measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Gauton E-Mail agauton @ postmaster.co.uk

Never for me the lowered banner, never the last endeavour!
(Damon Hill - 16th June 1999)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 6:23:30 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Alan Gauton wrote:

> In article <dffq03-448.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca>, news@pointerstop.ca
> says...
>> strutsng@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Nobody ever advertises Linux support on their hardware. It's not because
>> (as one poster said) they're bastards - it's because they couldn't
>> possibly test it with every possible flavor of Linux - or BSD.
>
> Not quite true - a couple of manufacturers do advertise Linux
> compatability. Safecom for one. Have a look at the web page for one of
> their USB dongles: http://www.safecom.cn/code/sub/category.asp?prdid=174
> &subcatid=2 They've got a Tux at the bottom of the page.

Yeah, you're right. I should never say "nobody". Sweeping generalizations
are always false. :-)
--
derek
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 8:15:03 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

> Many hardware items work perfectly well with Linux, and they should know
> that. All they need is to put a penguin on the box - is that so damned
> hard?

They may work well and in no way am I knocking Linux.

If they say it works under Linux, they need to provide the drivers and
support and those cost. The market for that support isn't big enough
when someone else probably wrote the drivers.

If someone needs to see a picture of a penguin on the box to find out if
it's going to work, then they aren't the sort of person who is then
going to be able to find and install the driver support. Those that
want to know, will be able to find whether certain hardware is supported
beforehand or not.

Perhaps they should put a sentence on the box that says:-

"This product might work with linux, the drivers are not written or
supported by us, you'll need to find them via Google and contact the
author for support".

David.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 8:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

David Taylor wrote:

>> Many hardware items work perfectly well with Linux, and they should know
>> that. All they need is to put a penguin on the box - is that so damned
>> hard?
>
> They may work well and in no way am I knocking Linux.
>
> If they say it works under Linux, they need to provide the drivers and
> support and those cost. The market for that support isn't big enough
> when someone else probably wrote the drivers.

Especially when the driver author probably released it under the GPL.
>
> If someone needs to see a picture of a penguin on the box to find out if
> it's going to work, then they aren't the sort of person who is then
> going to be able to find and install the driver support. Those that
> want to know, will be able to find whether certain hardware is supported
> beforehand or not.
>
> Perhaps they should put a sentence on the box that says:-
>
> "This product might work with linux, the drivers are not written or
> supported by us, you'll need to find them via Google and contact the
> author for support".

LOL. I'd like to see that, or even better a note that "this product has
been reported to work with Linux..."
--
derek
September 28, 2005 8:33:53 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Jack The Splat wrote:
> After boot up and login, I have to open a command prompt and
> enter lots of commands which frankly are beyond my comprehension.

Why is it that you have to enter these commands manually and cannot add
them to your network start script?

Sander
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 11:23:55 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:03:18 -0700, strutsng wrote:

> I am using Linksys wireless card, but it seems only support in windows.
> Because

Most wireless cards will work with Linux. You need to find
out what chipset it uses. Try running:
'cat /proc/pci' or 'lspci' Mine says:

Bus 0, device 9, function 0:
Network controller: RaLink Ralink RT2500 802.11 Cardbus Reference Card (rev 1)
IRQ 5.
This card has a Ralink chipset and works well with Linux. Even cards
that don't have a native Linux driver will often work with Ndiswrapper.

RH9 is quite old. You might do better with a more recent distro.

http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_Tourrilhes/Linux/Wi...
http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net

HTH.

E.S.

--
linux-2.6.13
Remove 'X' to reply by e-mail.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 11:40:44 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

>
> For some odd reason, I expect people who use Linux to be smart enough to
> google. I'm continually disappointed.
>
> Google for "Linux" and your card model. You'll find lots of pages that
> say
> "I couldn't get it to work", but if it really is supported you'll find a
> few that tell you how.

Yes, usually each post is different, and only some that "tell you how"
actually work, I know, I've gone down that road, edit this, edit that, and
before you know it, it's time to re-install Linux because it's totally
screwed up. Well that's the case for the Netgear WG511. It also has a Prism
chipset which most Linux installers detect fine, but it doesn't work.

I've had no problems with wired NIC's it's just these darn wireless ones
that are just impossible to figure out with Linux.


>
> Nobody ever advertises Linux support on their hardware. It's not because
> (as one poster said) they're bastards - it's because they couldn't
> possibly
> test it with every possible flavor of Linux - or BSD.
>
> Personally, when I went shopping for a laptop, the first thing was to find
> some suitable models, the second was to google for "Linux" and all the
> various subsystems to make sure it would work - and I specifically chose
> the wireless NIC, from one of three available on that model, because it
> was
> a known-to-work Intel type.
> --
> derek
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 28, 2005 11:55:43 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Sarcastic Deservedly Insecure Bedwetting Dweeb Wrote:

> Really? Oh, damn. Now I'm going to have to throttle back the speed on my
> card.

Naw, don't do anything rash.

> My intel ipw2200g works just fine, and afaik, many other people are not
> having any trouble.


Well, boil me in oil and call me a hush puppy. 802.11g? That's
excellent!

If you're not joshing, thanks for setting me straight. Spank IBM,
Novell, and RedHat for their evil lies - maybe it's a PPC vs. x86 arch
issue? Any chance you installed a driver on the side, and it wasn't
bundled with the kernel?

> What do you consider the "mainstream release kernel" - according to
> kernel.org it's 2.6.13.2 which is considerably newer than my kernel.

FWIW, it's not my opinion, its what Torvalds, Morton, et. al., consider
mainstream and release. That is, the kernel.org kernels are
"mainstream" kernels, as opposed to Alan Cox's patched "AC kernels",
and 2 dot even are release kernels.

Alternative kernels frequently have unique features, like hardware
support or iptables integration. Hence, my caveat that support might
not be out of the box.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 29, 2005 12:28:42 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

node, ndiswrapper really cool tool.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
September 29, 2005 1:42:17 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

If you're going to continue an argument, at least be well enough behaved not
to push followups to junk. Otherwise, you know you just don't _have_ to
respond.

Uncle Chuck wrote:

> <insulting inanities snipped> Wrote:
>
>> What do you consider the "mainstream release kernel" - according to
>> kernel.org it's 2.6.13.2 which is considerably newer than my kernel.
>
> FWIW, it's not my opinion, its what Torvalds, Morton, et. al., consider
> mainstream and release. That is, the kernel.org kernels are
> "mainstream" kernels, as opposed to Alan Cox's patched "AC kernels",
> and 2 dot even are release kernels.

Then where do you get your ideas? 2.6.13.2 is (or at least, was yesterday)
the latest _stable_ kernel release. afaik, all versions of 2.6 have
supported 802.11g, at least on some cards. It all depends on the driver
developers.
>
> Alternative kernels frequently have unique features, like hardware
> support or iptables integration. Hence, my caveat that support might
> not be out of the box.

You didn't say that. You said there was _no_ support in the mainstream
kernel.
--
derek
!