4 ms·

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 I actua

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 I actually hope that this does cause an event drastic enough so that FTDI will have blood on its hands that ends in jail time for management and engineers. I don't want to see anyone hurt, especially not innocent third parties, but fuck FTDI, fuck the management who ordered this, and fuck the engineer(s) who didn't quit in protest. I'm not easily offended, but as a programmer who has been responsible for code that would result in loss of life if I made it defective by design, I have no sympathy for this sort of thing. One other thing that I could hope for is that this teaches everyone the true cost of closed source, especially drivers. Don't put up with it.

yuhong 12y ago
I think standardizing the interface would be more important.
- Kliment 12y ago
  Well, the core issue is that there isn't a standard vendor-independent device class driver for CDC devices in Windows like there is for say HID. This is a solved problem on pretty much every other OS. The only reason a manufacturer would make devices that use the same vid as an FT232R as opposed to a functionally-identical pin-compatible device with a different vid is because the drivers included in Windows are vendor-tied. You don't see this kind of issues with no-name mice or keyboards for example because they don't need a vendor-specific driver.
simias 12y ago
Come on, take a deep breath. We're talking about bricking a serial to USB chip, not something worth shedding blood really. As far as unethical behavior by corporation is concerned I really not think it's even noteworthy.
- osivertsson 12y ago
  What if this chip is part of the maintenance interface on a medical device at your local hospital? Meaning regular maintenance can no longer be done, rendering the device unable to help people?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Then the manufacturer is responsible for using junk parts to save money.
    - 0x0 12y ago
      As mentioned elsewhere, it's almost impossible to make sure parts like these aren't counterfeit. And the parts aren't "junk", they're just unlicensed.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        Not any more. Now you can just test the prototype to see if it runs the FDTI driver correctly. If it fails, your supplier doesn't get paid.
        iolsantr 12y ago
        hah... Assuming the prototype is actually identical to the delivered product. People who want to skim money off the top aren't stupid, the prototype will probably contain the specified part and so will the first few lots. To insure validity of every part you need to test every part.
        click170 12y ago
        I don't think testing every single unit is reasonable. Luckily we have Random Sampling which typically works quite well. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample

yuhong 12y ago

I think standardizing the interface would be more important.

Kliment 12y ago
Well, the core issue is that there isn't a standard vendor-independent device class driver for CDC devices in Windows like there is for say HID. This is a solved problem on pretty much every other OS. The only reason a manufacturer would make devices that use the same vid as an FT232R as opposed to a functionally-identical pin-compatible device with a different vid is because the drivers included in Windows are vendor-tied. You don't see this kind of issues with no-name mice or keyboards for example because they don't need a vendor-specific driver.

simias 12y ago

Come on, take a deep breath. We're talking about bricking a serial to USB chip, not something worth shedding blood really. As far as unethical behavior by corporation is concerned I really not think it's even noteworthy.

osivertsson 12y ago
What if this chip is part of the maintenance interface on a medical device at your local hospital? Meaning regular maintenance can no longer be done, rendering the device unable to help people?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Then the manufacturer is responsible for using junk parts to save money.
  - 0x0 12y ago
    As mentioned elsewhere, it's almost impossible to make sure parts like these aren't counterfeit. And the parts aren't "junk", they're just unlicensed.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Not any more. Now you can just test the prototype to see if it runs the FDTI driver correctly. If it fails, your supplier doesn't get paid.
      - iolsantr 12y ago
        hah... Assuming the prototype is actually identical to the delivered product. People who want to skim money off the top aren't stupid, the prototype will probably contain the specified part and so will the first few lots. To insure validity of every part you need to test every part.
        click170 12y ago
        I don't think testing every single unit is reasonable. Luckily we have Random Sampling which typically works quite well. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample