This tutorial is applicable to LinuxMint Debian Edition for it doesn't come with the Hardware Driver option (System->Administration->Hardware Drivers) found in Ubuntu and LinuxMint. Installing LMDE will not automatically install the driver for you so you have to manually do it from the Terminal.
sudo -i apt-get install module-assistant wireless-tools broadcom-sta-common broadcom-sta-source m-a a-i broadcom-sta echo "blacklist brcm80211" >>/etc/modprobe.d/broadcom-sta-common.conf update-initramfs -u -k $(uname -r) modprobe -r b44 b43 b43legacy ssb brcm80211 modprobe wl iwconfig
Broadcom 802.11 B Driver
The search service can find package by either name (apache),provides(webserver), absolute file names (/usr/bin/apache),binaries (gprof) or shared libraries (libXm.so.2) instandard path. It does not support multiple arguments yet... The System and Arch are optional added filters, for exampleSystem could be "redhat", "redhat-7.2", "mandrake" or "gnome", Arch could be "i386" or "src", etc. depending on your system. System Arch RPM resource broadcom-wlThese packages contain Broadcom's IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n hybrid Linux devicedriver for use with Broadcom's BCM4311-, BCM4312-, BCM4321-, and BCM4322based hardware.NOTE: You must read the LICENSE.txt file in the docs directory before usingthis software.
Firstly, you need to update Broadcom 802.11ac network adapter drivers. Once you have updated the driver, your network connectivity will significantly improve. Besides, this will also help you in offering protection from any probable computer issue shortly.
For this method, you need to go to the official website of the manufacturer of your computer. Once you have reached the website, look for the latest Broadcom 802.11ac network adapter driver download for Windows 10 PC/laptop.
Driver Restore is a driver updater tool that will scan your computer for suitable drivers and provide them in an easy, convenient method. Driver Restore registration is $29.95 USD for 1-year subscription. Driver Restore provides advanced scanning of your computer system. After a system scan has been performed all users will be provided the option to update out-of-date or missing drivers. Updating drivers is provided at a charge while scanning is provided at an unlimited basis.
Reverse engineering simply doesn't work. I own a Dell Latitude D600 with a Broadcom wireless MiniPCI card. The machine has reached the end of its extended warrranty, so is for essentially obsolete for use by enterprises. The wireless card still does not have a native Linux driver which will authenticate against an enterprise wireless network.
As fine as the technical work reverse engineering the Broadcom chip is, the fact that it needed to be reverse engineered at all is a systemic failure. Compounding this, the Broadcom 802.11a/b/g card is on the edge of being superceeded by a 802.11n card.
I ment that if you have to sign a NDA because of non-existant documentation then sign it so that you develop documentation for other people to use with the hardware.The BCM43xx documentation was just a example of what is possible for this sort of thing.. Athough that was from reverse engineering Linux drivers and not done under NDA.In other words.. If it's true that the OLPC have to sign the NDA to work with the Marvell engineers because there is no documentation and they have to get help from the engineers then they should be making the nessicary documentation for other people, like the OpenBSD developers, to use.If they can't do that then the lack of documentation is just a BS excuse and Marvell has no intention on having their hardware open. (and again, not completely open. Just documentation on what is needed to program software to run on them)I wasn't saying that people should avoid NDAs completely and work on reverse engineering stuff.Oh, and the bcm43xx drivers are working fine for me. They were included in the 2.6.17 kernel branch by default although you have to get the firmware seperately. The ralink drivers don't work because I am using a non-x86 machine, although I still very much suggest buying Ralink products instead of the Broadcom stuff. When the devicescape stack gets finalised then those drivers are going to be very very good and full featured. There is just some bugs standing in their way.. Reverse engineering takes longer than a product cycle Posted Oct 10, 2006 11:10 UTC (Tue) by arafel (guest, #18557) [Link]
YES. Now you are starting to see my point.Theo says that Linux devs are screwing up by falling for NDA traps and it's not helping anybody other then themselves. Linux developers say they are doing it because it allows them to work with engineers because documentation is non-existant. The company can't release something that is non-existant.I say, then if it is true then they can produce the documentation themselves so that other developers can use it to improve and develop their own drivers. However if the NDA forbids stuff like that.. Then the Linux developers are full of shit and are just saying that so they don't look bad. Corporations like that wouldn't release the documentation anyways even if it existed.I don't have a problem with them replying something like: "Tough shit Theo. The ONLY way we are going to get good drivers in a reasonable time span is by signing NDAs. Next time make a more popular OS so you too can sign NDAs otherwise shut up and go back to reverse engineering with help from the Linux drivers code and bitching about the lack of quality in said code.".If that is the truth then that is the truth. What can anybody do about it? Reverse engineering takes longer than a product cycle Posted Oct 10, 2006 23:26 UTC (Tue) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link]
For example, let's say you enter into an agreement with Motorola. They can give you their Verilog code, and ASIC floorplan, or any other highly proprietary information that might be relevant. You would then write the documentation being careful to avoid writing about anything that would be proprietary. Once both you and Motorola are are satisfied with what you've produced, your work can be distributed publicly.But, if you're under NDA anyway, why not just write code and some extremely well-commented header files? I've written a few drivers in my day and I found that even crappy reference drivers tend to be more useful that the most perfect English documentation. (Bad documentation: S3. Good documentation: Philips. But S3's part was much easier to bring up because they included code) Reverse engineering takes longer than a product cycle Posted Oct 11, 2006 8:54 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
NDA is a contract and contracts differ.I would expect that if it's true that the problem is that there is simply a lack of documentation then that can easily be overcome. Either through self documenting code or other things.I figure a company may just need help or lack resources and a Linux developer or two can then work with them in a consulting role as a sort of ambassador to figure out the best way to get their hardware open enough to allow other developers write code for it.. but not to violate any prior patent or copyright agreements with other companies and not to risk revealing hardware design more then nessicary. If a Linux developer was to follow that role then it would probably be nessicary for them to know more about the company and the hardware design then is nessicary or desirable and a NDA were the company gets to review documentation and code before release would be appropriate and safe for everybody involved.It would be a insurance policy to protect not only the ass of the hardware company in question, but also make sure that no third party 'IP' (horrid word) makes it's way into the Linux kernel or other people's software were it could cause legal troubles down the road.However if the company isn't going to allow you to open up the hardware then the likelihood is that the real reason that there is no documentation or reveiling code or whatever the hell people want is because _they_had_no_intention_in_releasing_anything_at_all_ and why waste resources on something like that? They'll force developers to obsicate the code and thus it will be unmaintable by anybody that hasn't signed the NDA. In that case it's not realy any that much better then closed source. Free software, Open Source software just doesn't work under those conditions. This is what Theo was bitching about.You'd just end up with something like the 'NV' driver were it's unmaintanable and pretty buggy and just encourages people to use close source drivers. Reverse engineering takes longer than a product cycle Posted Nov 14, 2009 17:49 UTC (Sat) by vleo (guest, #32027) [Link]
Im using ubuntu 10.04 booting from a 2gb usb drive, (my laptop has no hard-drive). Everything seems to work except the wireless. The hardware driver program says i need a broadcom b43 and sta driver so i install the b43 but nothing happens and the sta driver wont install, (something about cant archive). After a reboot it seems everything goes back to factory default like there were no changes at all and/or im booting it for the first time. Any help will be appreciated. -Noob linux user
wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:off/any Mode:Managed Access Point: Not-Associated Tx-Power=0 dBm Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Power Management:off----------------------------------------------------------------results after "spci -v less": (shortened)
01:00.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4312 802.11b/g (rev 01) Subsystem: Hewlett-Packard Company Device 1507 Flags: fast devsel, IRQ 16 Memory at feafc000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K] Capabilities: Kernel modules: wl, ssb
I looked at it and tried many things however I was missing a package or extension so I couldn't get any further in t5he instructions. I think i figured out how to save my info on reboot but I still can connect wirelessly to the internet. I know that I need a broadcom STU or STA driver but The hardware manager says something about archive not found and manual install attempts fail like the above. 2ff7e9595c
Comentarios