FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232??

[marcan]

The chip is a 32 pin LQFP package labelled FTDI/FL232BL/729-1.

Yeah, the tool is only for FT232RL chips (and FT245RL, which is a close relative). FT232BL is a different IC. Specifically, it looks for bcdDevice = 0x06xx. I don't know of any FT232BL counterfeits, and the tool won't detect FT232BL chips.

Whether it requires root or not depends on your distro and config. I grant myself full USB access (by being in the 'usb' group), so I don't need root. Some distros automagically grant the console user (users logged into a local console) full USB access.

[zapta]

They fixed the Linux drivers to make it work again so obviously the drivers were faulty - lol. You claim FTDI drivers must not assume VID/PID means anything yet claim changing the PID is destructive because Linux drivers make the same assumption.

It was not a 'fix', it was a workaround for FTDI's sabotage.  Nothing was wrong with those Linux drivers in the first place.

[Simon]

According to the FT232RL datasheet they provide linux 2.4 drivers

[rhost]

Is FTDI a listed company?  Where if it is listed? Thanks.

I think its privately held. I couldn't find a symbol for it. I curious to see what their revenue looks like in the next 6 mo to a year.

[Rufus]

Is FTDI a listed company?  Where if it is listed? Thanks.

I think its privately held. I couldn't find a symbol for it. I curious to see what their revenue looks like in the next 6 mo to a year.

At least you found the company - try finding the manufacturers of the faulty clones and fakes.

[Simon]

Is FTDI a listed company?  Where if it is listed? Thanks.

I think its privately held. I couldn't find a symbol for it. I curious to see what their revenue looks like in the next 6 mo to a year.

At least you found the company - try finding the manufacturers of the faulty clones and fakes.

Sounds like FTDI think end users are the counterfeit manufacturers.

[nctnico]

Is FTDI a listed company?  Where if it is listed? Thanks.

I think its privately held. I couldn't find a symbol for it. I curious to see what their revenue looks like in the next 6 mo to a year.

You should be able to pull these numbers from the 'UK Companies House'. In the NL the revenue records for every company are public and must be published in time. I guess it's the same in the UK.

[zapta]

At least you found the company - try finding the manufacturers of the faulty clones and fakes.

Rufus, care to share if any relationship or financial interest in FTDI (vs. just being a user)?

BTW, the clones are 'faulty' because FTDI sabotaged them but you already know that.

[f4eru]

Well, there is a difference between a clone and a counterfeit.  A clone is not advertised as being an FTDI chip, only FTDI compatible.  It speaks the same protocol and necessarily has the same VID and PID (they are an aspect of the protocol) but it is not physically marked as an FTDI chip.  A counterfeit is a clone that has been re-marked as an FTDI chip.  It is not legal for them to intentionally brick clones.  It is also likely not legal for them to brick counterfeits

I'll would add one category :
- Clone (is also a counterfeit): chip copied 1:1 Infringes FTDI IP, but  it's not legal for FTDI to brick it voluntarily.
- Counterfeit : compatible marked with FTDI logo ( infringes the logo only)
- Compatible : protocol wise compatible to FTDI. Legal to produce, sell, but against the EULA to use with the official windows driver (probably not illegal in most countries)

[8086]

This has nothing to do with Godwin's law, so why bring it up? Godwin's law is not a fallacy, it is not actually meant to show that a discussion has reached a point of ridiculousness, it merely is about the mention of nazis.

If you read the law very literally, yes. If you read between the lines, the point of Godwin's law is to say that all discussions on the internet will eventually derail into a cesspool of ridiculous and extreme arguments that have nothing to do with the original question. Making the law about Nazis in particular is why the law is memorable enough to be quoted today. If the law simply stated "all discussions will be derailed", you would never have heard of it.

Edit: Oh, and:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread.

With this use, saying that the opponent wants to bomb the Middle East is similar in nature to calling the opponent a Nazi.

Edit 2:

Just ignore. If it's up to Rufus he'd drop a nuke on Afganistan, Syria, Irak etc to get rid of every terrorist living there.

I was wondering if we would see Godwin's law here, congrats on skipping Godwins and going straight to nuclear holocaust analogies.

And while we're at it. The claim here is of skipping Godwin's law and going straight to something worse without passing go. No mentions of Nazis needed.

Interesting that you choose to defend the troll. I will just point out that your interpretation of Godwins law is incorrect and so your points are moot. The law is about bringing the nazis into a discussion and making comparison to them, not about escalating the discussion or any different ridiculous comparisons. If you want to make a law that is about that, then go ahead, call it "nitro's law". But it's not Godwin's.

Saying that the above was 'skipping godwin's law' demonstrates that the person doesn't understand it. You do not get to the middle east via the nazis.

That's all I have to say on the matter, let's not derail any further if at all possible.

[Simon]

With my moderator hat on a bit wonky:

Could we leave godwin, nazis and pointless analogies alone. The situation seems to be pretty unto it's own and analogies are not serving us due to the simultaneous multiple aspects of the situation.

Thank you.

[rdl]

So, what exactly was the compelling reason to update this driver in the first place?

I just looked and apparently I'm still using version 2.08 and none of my devices have any problems working. I have always had driver updates turned off, along with all "optional" Windows updates. None of my Windows computers have had problems working in the the last several years that I'm aware of. The only security stuff I use is whatever is built in to Windows (because it's pretty light weight and non-intrusive), Ghostery, NoScript and a humongous hosts file for the web browser.

[Simon]

It would seem that the "update" was simply "deployment of the weapon" It would be intersting to hear from FDTI if the driver update was supposed to be anything else.

If i was MS I would ban them from their windows update. That will teach them.

[Rufus]

At least you found the company - try finding the manufacturers of the faulty clones and fakes.

Rufus, care to share if any relationship or financial interest in FTDI (vs. just being a user)?

None at all. I have purchased a few of their USB to RS232/RS485/TLL serial cables and modules and was happy to pay a premium for known quality and support.

I do hate cheap Chinese shit because it drives quality manufactures out of business eventually leaving a market which only contains cheap Chinese shit. Even more galling in cases like this where it is cheaper because they are stealing support, reputation, and software from the very company they are killing.

[Simon]

At least you found the company - try finding the manufacturers of the faulty clones and fakes.

Rufus, care to share if any relationship or financial interest in FTDI (vs. just being a user)?

None at all. I have purchased a few of their USB to RS232/RS485/TLL serial cables and modules and was happy to pay a premium for known quality and support.

I do hate cheap Chinese shit because it drives quality manufactures out of business eventually leaving a market which only contains cheap Chinese shit. Even more galling in cases like this where it is cheaper because they are stealing support, reputation, and software from the very company they are killing.

I think this has been understood and appreciated throughout the discussion, the problem is that FTDI is not actually taking measures to stop counterfeiters and is taking it's pain out on innocent bystanders instead of enlisting their support in getting to the counterfeiters it's branding them along with the counterfeiters and doing them more harm. It spells money grabbing all over. I'm sure we would all like to have genuine chips and virtually no one wants a fake. Every time I query a price to my suppliers saying that others have it cheaper he always tells me that likely they are fake and he can't compete with that, my choice and mine is to buy genuine.

[cosmos]

I can not trust FTDI and their drivers after this, but on windows we do not have alternatives at the moment.
The pre 2.12 drivers did not have an EULA or limitations as far as I know so in the mean time that looks like the stopgap until we get an alternative.
Sounds like a port of the linux driver to windows supporting all compatible devices would be a solution.
Then FTDI can keep their precious driver to give to their customers (to use if they dare), seems like pre 2.12 was the last FTDI driver version most aware users will ever install.

[zapta]

I do hate cheap Chinese shit because it drives quality manufactures out of business eventually leaving a market which only contains cheap Chinese shit. Even more galling in cases like this where it is cheaper because they are stealing support, reputation, and software from the very company they are killing.

Serial over USB is a commodity these days, just like keyboards, mice or flash drives over USB. Microsoft should recognize it and allow generic USB/Serial devices or MCU's with USB/Serial stack to have a no-drivers-out-of-the-box experience.

Currently Microsoft keeps FTDI in this monopolistic position and without it it is dead in the water.  FTDI's competitive advantage is it relationship with Microsoft, not its technology or pricing.

[rdl]

If a hardware device is working to your satisfaction, there is little reason to update it's driver.

I'm still using the 2.08 version of the FTDI driver, it works fine. Just turn off device driver updates and carry on.

Microsoft is barely able to update Windows correctly, why would anyone want to trust them with more?

[Rufus]

I think this has been understood and appreciated throughout the discussion, the problem is that FTDI is not actually taking measures to stop counterfeiters and is taking it's pain out on innocent bystanders instead of enlisting their support in getting to the counterfeiters it's branding them along with the counterfeiters and doing them more harm. It spells money grabbing all over.

Yes users of fakes/clones are taking some collateral damage - what do you think FTDI should have done about it - just let them keep on using their drivers? Would you expect Microsoft to let you keep on using a counterfeit copy of Windows or Office because you had been using it a while or didn't know it was counterfeit?

FTDI's driver action is going to hinder counterfeiters look at Sparkfun's response. They are going to double check anything they have doubts about and will be even more careful with their supply chain in the future. FTDI's drivers have identified a whole bunch of fakes which everyone in the chain from user to whoever the hell made them were either blissfully or wilfully unaware of.

I consider the claims of 'never going to use FTDI parts again' to be bluster and bullshit, an admission that they produce low quality shit that may contain fakes of unknown quality and origin and would like to carry on getting away with it. I'm sure the One Hung Los of the world don't like it - screw them.

[Simon]

I'd use anyone who made a "genuine" chip that is priced right and does what I want.

[Precipice]

Currently Microsoft keeps FTDI in this monopolistic position and without it it is dead in the water.  FTDI's competitive advantage is it relationship with Microsoft, not its technology or pricing.

Yeah, it's nothing to do with decades of writing and maintaining drivers that actually worked, while other manufacturers came, went, screwed up, disabled clones, and generally were a pain in the arse.

There is no FTDI monopoly, anyone is entirely welcome and able to register their own VID/PID, supply drivers and silicon, and off they go. There's inertia, but I don't think you could sanely call it a monopoly. Not least because Prolific exist, and have suffered exactly the same problems that FTDI are addressing.
You're aware that FTDI have a wide range of variously spiffy products, all with legit drivers? There have been alternatives to FTDI for years, but nobody's bothered, since the FTDI gear pretty much works. My gripe with FTDI, such as it is, is that they let other manufacturers hang on their VID/PID coat-tails for so long, we all took it for granted. (And bricking the devices, rather than some other way of forcing a USB-enumeration Bong-Bong-Bong noise and an error message, was a dick move).

[Simon]

And bricking the devices, rather than some other way of forcing a USB-enumeration Bong-Bong-Bong noise and an error message, was a dick move.

Quite, I'd not object to them not letting their driver work with fake parts but to willfully damage someone elses property is no good. Many of the devices are chips in their own right that could have a driver written for them, there was no need for this, to me it seems more like a decision taken after a bottle of scotch than a thought out business strategy.

[zapta]

There is no FTDI monopoly, anyone is entirely welcome and able to register their own VID/PID, supply drivers and silicon, and off they go.

You missed the point. A generic driver will not require registration of VID/PID, it will just work, because it is a USB/CDC device.

On my OSX box I can connect USB/CDC devices without having to register any VID/PID.

[Precipice]

You missed the point. A generic driver will not require registration of VID/PID, it will just work, because it is a USB/CDC device.

So do that. No need to (charitably!) 'piggyback' on FTDI's drivers. There's a proper class for these things, use it.

On my OSX box I can connect USB/CDC devices without having to register any VID/PID.

Yay!
Remind me again what you're so incensed about? Is it that the knockoff silicon vendors chose to go the FTDI-clone route, rather than the CDC route?
(Note - I really don't mind at all if you don't remind me. This entire thing is a typical internet storm in a teacup, and I'll be happy when it becomes a footnote, just like the Prolific driver episode).

[sunnyhighway]

Yes users of fakes/clones are taking some collateral damage

Some collateral damage is a bit of an understatement here.

what do you think FTDI should have done about it - just let them keep on using their drivers?

Of course not, they should go after the bad guys just like Microsoft does when they spot a counterfeit copy of Windows or Office.

Would you expect Microsoft to let you keep on using a counterfeit copy of Windows or Office because you had been using it a while or didn't know it was counterfeit?

Glad to see we both seem to agree on Microsoft doing the right thing.

The only problem is that Microsoft seems to handle such cases a little bit different than FTDI.

• Microsoft publicly announces to hunt down the bad guys before they take action, whereas FTDI did the reverse at best.
• Microsoft gives the end-user a proper notification if they think a violation is detected, whereas FTDI does not do that.
• Microsoft gives the end-user a graceful period in order to sort things out, whereas FTDI does not do that.
• Microsoft actively hunts down the bad guys, whereas FTDI does not do that.
• Microsoft does not brick the end-users hardware, whereas FTDI chose to do just that.
• Microsoft assists the affected end-user by offering an easy way out, whereas FTDI does not do that.

@Rufus:
I know the last point I mentioned is next to impossible to implement by FTDI, but I would like to remind you that it was you who brought up this analogy.
Analogies are always flawed in some way, as Simon already pointed out.