Really Prolific?
medo64.com
medo64.com
I really don't see the issue with drivers developed by a hardware company to support their hardware refusing to work with other hardware. I recognize that it creates problems for innocent end users when they do it, but Prolific just doesn't have any obligations to the end-users of other manufacturers' chips. Refusing to operate (rather than reprogramming the chips like FTDI's solution did) seems like a completely reasonable path to me.
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.
Write your own driver if you want to use the clones. It is not Prolific’s job to support hardware they didn’t design, build and test.
Even more importantly it is not Prolific’s job to support competitors who are not going to respect Prolific’s IP.
For all we know, the new driver could have been a rewrite from scratch (say to support new products that run at higher speeds than the older driver could support), and the new driver never worked with this particular clone to begin with.
Keep in mind that the driver developer may not even be in possession of a clone of this type. Clones see new versions over time just like any other product, the only thing is that since they don't advertise their true version, it's impossible to practically support them.
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.
Well there wasn't before, but now when the driver alerts you to this fact people can leave 1-star reviews on these devices
The better option is to find ways to ensure you are buying legitimate items, such as avoiding Amazon, eBay, AliBaba, etc.
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.
That's kind of immaterial, isn't it? Like most end users won't know how to roll back a driver in the device manager, and without that knowledge their device is as useful to them as one which was actually bricked.
I am going to defend Prolific here and say they are probably doing the right thing. I use FTDI, Prolific, and other similar serial adapters on a daily basis and Chinese ripoffs are a problem. I want to know right away if the device I bought is a fake.
The people selling the devices, usually Chinese vendors on Aliexpress or Amazon, DON'T CARE that they are selling fakes, and probably even know they are selling fakes.
The only way Prolific can get these guys to stop is to get the end-user pissed off enough to do returns and leave negative reviews. Aliexpress sure isn't going to take their listings down, and Amazon has proven they don't care either (actually they demand bribes to take fake merch down).
Josip's anger is misdirected. He bought a cheap fake chip, knows it, and wants his free ride.
This is definitely a reasonable thing to want, but Prolific could have done that in a much better way, either by just giving a warning and still allowing the clone to work, or by only triggering when a device is first set up, not just suddenly after it's been in the field and working fine for years.
> The only way Prolific can get these guys to stop is to get the end-user pissed off
I'm not okay with being used as collateral damage for some company's brand enforcement efforts.
> He bought a cheap fake chip, knows it, and wants his free ride.
The article says "I bought device without knowing it has a fake chip in it." Are you accusing him of lying?
This implies that the fake IC isn't being bricked and will work with Linux, etc. after the new Windows driver has communicated with it. It appears the Windows driver refuses to communicate with the IC.
Do people expect them to QA against clones?
Its also highly illegal, in the EU, at least as far as I know.
(Assuming they brick instead of just block the device) It's destruction of the user property, nothing less.
If it's "just" deciding to make their driver not work with 3rd party devices then it's legal, though. But highly offensive anyway as even the producer of the device using the USB chip might not know they are using a potential copyright/patent infringing chip.
More important interfaces are in general not protected by copyright or patent law. As such the chips _might_ be fully legal chips which just happen to have the same interface.
Lastly the manufacturer of the device which includes the chips might have bought the chips for which the driver was made and someone else in the supply chain might have switched them out, potentially creating the situation where there is no fault with anyone hit by this. And idk. but punishing random persons which metaphorically speaking have just been at the crime scene but are innocent and didn't even know there was a crime going on is _never_ ok.
https://www.ni.com/en-us/support/model.ni-9870.html
They go through an FPGA and then exposed via drivers over Ethernet or USB and are rock solid. You can access the serial data on the FPGA or you can use a default driver/personality for them that makes the module plug and play. There are other products I've used that expose RS-232 over Ethernet or fiber that work decently well.
There's also the Pmod interface:
https://digilent.com/reference/pmod/pmodrs232/start
I'll take a look at what you linked. I have often thought about doing something in this area, because it's amazing how reliable serial communication over RS-232, RS-422, and RS-485 can be, within their operation constraints.
Not if it means hurting innocent third parties, who didn't know the chips were fake and now they're all in the field and not working.
Provenance is an important part of logistics which you lose as soon as you source parts from third party sites like Amazon, eBay, AliBaba and so forth.
This worked very well for DVDs...
Corporate institutional memories can be remarkably short.
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.
I think you answered your own question right there.
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!
The author ditched Prolific because the drivers were garbage. They went with FTDI. Then went back to Prolific because FTDI was bricking fake chips. The impression I got is that the author has no intent of even trying to return the counterfeit.
Perhaps instead of whinging about the drivers he should be engaging whatever vendors about their subpar supply chain.