Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Really Prolific?

medo64.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Really Prolific?

#21

Post by josephcsible »

DrAwesome wrote: post #8

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't bricking the device. The driver is refusing to allow it to work, sure, but it doesn't damage the chip itself in any way. The reason the FTDI incident back in 2014 blew up was because the FTDI driver didn't just refuse to work - it reprogrammed the USB PID on counterfeit/cloned chips to 0, which actually prevented them from working on any host (looking back at articles from that…

> Prolific just doesn't have any obligations to the end-users of other manufacturers' chips

To me, this would excuse a change that was actually somehow beneficial for their own chips and just happened to break clones, but it doesn't excuse a change that does nothing for their own chips and breaks clones on purpose.

Re: Really Prolific?

#23

Post by josephcsible »

bmitc wrote: post #19

I'd just be happy to find a USB to RS-232 adapter using either a Prolific or FTDI chip that just worked. Even non-fake chips are famously flaky. It sort of blows my mind that the supposedly "better" serial evolution in USB can't even get RS-232 communication right. In my experience, it's best if the RS-232 communication is done on hardware as much as possible and then communicated to a computer with Ethernet or anoth…

Maybe you should go the path that the Arduino UNO and Mega use, and use an ATmega16U2 programmed to do just that. The code they use lives here: https://github.com/arduino/ArduinoCore-avr/tree/master/firmw...

Re: Really Prolific?

#24

Post by xupybd »

DrAwesome wrote: post #8

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't bricking the device. The driver is refusing to allow it to work, sure, but it doesn't damage the chip itself in any way. The reason the FTDI incident back in 2014 blew up was because the FTDI driver didn't just refuse to work - it reprogrammed the USB PID on counterfeit/cloned chips to 0, which actually prevented them from working on any host (looking back at articles from that…

The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device. If you run the risk of buying a fake and having it not work then why buy that brand? Buy one that will just work and no risk of bricked fakes. Prolific are harming their brand by doing this.

I will now be on alert to avoid their products. Not because I take moral issue with them not allowing me to use fakes, but because I risk getting a non-functional device.

Re: Really Prolific?

#25

Post by josephcsible »

mmoskal wrote: post #16

I believe macOS, Linux, and Windows now all come with standard CDC (USB Serial) drivers built-in, so typically there's no need to install drivers from FTDI, Prolific or anyone else. Or am I missing something here?

Microsoft lets hardware vendors use Windows Update to automatically push their own drivers onto the computers of anyone who uses said hardware, even if they were already working just fine with a generic driver.

Re: Really Prolific?

#26

Post by inferiorhuman »

mmoskal wrote: post #16

I believe macOS, Linux, and Windows now all come with standard CDC (USB Serial) drivers built-in, so typically there's no need to install drivers from FTDI, Prolific or anyone else. Or am I missing something here?

I think there is a driver bundled with OSX but (and I don't remember why) I did end up having to get a driver from Prolific. My use case is mostly running proprietary apps in an ancient Windows VM.

In any case both Prolific and FTDI have open source mac and Linux drivers (can't speak to the Windows drivers). This would all be a lot less contentious if the clones would use non-official USB vendor and product IDs. For all the teeth gnashing about drivers not working with clones I think there ought to be more focus on the people trying to pawn off crappy clones as the real deal.

Re: Really Prolific?

#27

Post by bogantech »

josephcsible wrote: post #14
bogantech wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So unlike the FTDI driver that really did brick clone devices this could even be some change that inadvertently causes issues for third party clones. Do people expect them to QA against clones?

Given that the effect of using a clone is that the device name is replaced with the message "THIS IS NOT PROLIFIC PL2303. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SUPPLIER.", it seems pretty clear that this is intentional sabotage.

That's what I get for not reading the article I guess.

Re: Really Prolific?

#28

Post by kalleboo »

xupybd wrote: post #24
DrAwesome wrote: post #8

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't bricking the device. The driver is refusing to allow it to work, sure, but it doesn't damage the chip itself in any way. The reason the FTDI incident back in 2014 blew up was because the FTDI driver didn't just refuse to work - it reprogrammed the USB PID on counterfeit/cloned chips to 0, which actually prevented them from working on any host (looking back at articles from that…

The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device. If you run the risk of buying a fake and having it not work then why buy that brand? Buy one that will just work and no risk of bricked fakes. Prolific are harming their brand by doing this. I will now be on alert to avoid their products. Not because I take moral issue with them not allowing me to use fakes, but because I risk getting a…

> The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device

Well there wasn't before, but now when the driver alerts you to this fact people can leave 1-star reviews on these devices

Re: Really Prolific?

#29

Post by xeyownt »

DrAwesome wrote: post #8

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't bricking the device. The driver is refusing to allow it to work, sure, but it doesn't damage the chip itself in any way. The reason the FTDI incident back in 2014 blew up was because the FTDI driver didn't just refuse to work - it reprogrammed the USB PID on counterfeit/cloned chips to 0, which actually prevented them from working on any host (looking back at articles from that…

Whatever it is, it is certainly bad publicity.

As genuine equipment manufacturer, it is better to make sure that equipment that used to work before an update, still does after update is carried on. Reject should only occur when the driver is installed for the first time.

Re: Really Prolific?

#30

Post by salawat »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #2

MS should take away their keys.

This sets a marvelous precedent.

Also, the user is left with a device that is NFG.

Gee, I remember an age where you didn't have all of this signed driver bs that puts you, the end consumer, at the mercy of a supply chain, and at least left you with the option of writing your own.

Those were the days...

But no...

Computing must be gatekept through the supply chain for the benefit of cloud providers, malicious IC/HW fabs, and software companies!

I'd take having to scan and recompute hashes on my drivers on a regular basis for this stupid driver signature enforcement and trusted computing BS to either get ripped out wholesale, or be changed to be opt-in instead of "there really is no opt-out for non-developers.

After all, as long as it's the default, there is no incentive to making turning it on or off an easier process. Again though. That's industry's goal. Let us lock down your computing experience! It's too dangerous to have an Unwashed User with an unvetted computing environment!

Post reply on HN