81–90 of 315 posts
FT232 isn't very stable to begin with. CP210x is a much better alternative from my experience with FT232, PL2303 and CP210x.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a consumer I have no way to know if the FTDI in my device is real. It really isn't my fault. This is FTDI's way of incentivizing companies using consumers, like I said in my original comment, and it sucks .
As a consumer I had no way of knowing the motorcycle I bought was stolen. It came with the keys, the title, there was no evidence of thievery (most commonly broken parts around the ignition). The police said, "Wow we wouldn't have known this was stolen without running it in our database either". I didn't know. But it still gets repossessed, and I'm still out $1k. (True story, and my first brush with the laws around b…
If anyone is curious what a real vs fake FTDI chip looks like under the hood (de-capped chip) this is a great analysis and some beautiful pictures. http://zeptobars.ru/en/read/FTDI-FT232RL-real-vs-fake-supere... Exerpt: "What's the economic reason of making software fake of well-known chip instead of making new one under your own name? This way they don't need to buy USB VID, sign drivers in Microsoft, no expenses on…
I hope this causes a major and publicly visible malfunction in some important device/installation/machinery, of course with no harm done to any persons, but enough of an embarrasment to really set an example, so no vendor will think of pulling tricks like these in the future. Takeaway lesson: End users should never touch anything remotely FTDI-like, since it's probably impossible to verify if the device is genuine or…
My takeaway lesson is that end users should never trust closed source drivers. Can you picture a Linux or *BSD driver in which there is an intentional if (counterfeit) { do_damage(); }
Just because the code is available doesn't mean it does no damage. Only that you have the ability to find and fix the code.
FT232 isn't very stable to begin with. CP210x is a much better alternative from my experience with FT232, PL2303 and CP210x.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I'm totally fine with that, even though that also creates a bad UX, especially for users who previously had a working thing, updated their driver / software, and now have a broken thing. Really hope everyone starts dumping FTDI and they end up in a class-action lawsuit. USB serial converters are a commodity these days, regardless of what these goons think. If they can't compete in a free market, they should find…
They're a commodity because they're all using counterfeit FTDI and Prolific chips.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't see your post when I was posting mine, but anyway -- CP210x.
Do you know if it supports non-standard baud rates on OS X> (Maybe Linux too?) I use FTDI because I can easily run comm ports at 3 Mbit/s. OSX (and I think Linux too) does support comm ports at non common baud rates. I'm looking for a way to add decently quick USB comms to a device without writing my own drivers. FTDI seems like the only option. Using HID is limited to 64KB/s.
Thanks for the heads up, this will probably affect us car nerds too (I'm sure my cheapo KWP2000 cable has a fake FT232)
I foresee an arms race here. Next gen FTDI clones will work around this driver detection. Next FTDI driver has new detection code. Iterate until the counterfeit chips are indistinguishable from the real thing via software.