Very Computer

Has anyone successfully connected a D-Link DWL 120+ USB Wireless Adapter to
an Intel PC running RedHat 9.0? I did a search on the net and found this
information:

1) The D-Link web site doesn't have Linux drivers for the DWL-120+ device
2) A few web pages have identified the chipset for the 120+ to be "T1"
3) When I do "more /procbus/usb/devices", I see "P: Vendor: 2001,
prodID=3b01, rev1.0"

I've found newsgroup messages and web pages referring to other WLAN devices,
but not the 120+. Any help would be appreciated.

Regards,

ppcinfo

Quote:> Has anyone successfully connected a D-Link DWL 120+ USB Wireless Adapter to
> an Intel PC running RedHat 9.0? I did a search on the net and found this
> information:

Apparently not supported yet. We have had a couple of customers buy
them and ask how to get them working - our response "return it and buy
a supported pod". Sorry.

Ok, any suggestions on a supported USB wireless adapter?

Thanks,

ppcinfo

Quote:> > Has anyone successfully connected a D-Link DWL 120+ USB Wireless Adapter
to
> > an Intel PC running RedHat 9.0? I did a search on the net and found this
> > information:

> Apparently not supported yet. We have had a couple of customers buy
> them and ask how to get them working - our response "return it and buy
> a supported pod". Sorry.

Quote:> > > Has anyone successfully connected a D-Link DWL 120+ USB Wireless Adapter

> > Apparently not supported yet. We have had a couple of customers buy

The previous DWL-120 (D-Link refers to it as "DWL-120e" internally) -
the silver model with flip-up antenna - works well. Linksys WUSB11 rev
2.6. Netgear MA101. Belkin F5D6050.

I returned DWL 120+ device and purchased a Belkin F5D6050 USB wireless
adapter, however, I'm not sure what driver to use with this device since the
FCCID number on the bottom of the unit says "K7SF5D6051" which isn't listed
in any of the chip tables I've come across on the Internet. Does anyone know
if this device uses a Atmel or Prism or some other chip? What driver should
I use?

Thanks,

ppcinfo

Quote:> > > > Has anyone successfully connected a D-Link DWL 120+ USB Wireless
Adapter

> > > Apparently not supported yet. We have had a couple of customers buy

> The previous DWL-120 (D-Link refers to it as "DWL-120e" internally) -
> the silver model with flip-up antenna - works well. Linksys WUSB11 rev
> 2.6. Netgear MA101. Belkin F5D6050.

Quote:> I returned DWL 120+ device and purchased a Belkin F5D6050 USB wireless
> adapter, however, I'm not sure what driver to use with this device since the
> FCCID number on the bottom of the unit says "K7SF5D6051" which isn't listed

Ah, yes. We encountered this one too. It's not exactly a 6050. It's a
6050 Version 2, or something like that (I forget the exact
nomenclature they used), and the major difference is that it has a USB
2.0 interface and only a single antenna.

Can you post the contents of /proc/bus/usb/devices, so we can see the
VID/PID.

I really hate USB wireless pods. They change specifications more
frequently than any other piece of hardware under the sun, and it is
ROUTINE for these changes to be concealed in the same product model
number (for circumventing type approval costs, I think).

Vin/pid = 0x050d / 0x0050

Question: if this is a USB 2.0 device, will it work if I plug it into a
older USB 1.0 jack on my computer?

Thanks,

ppcinfo

Quote:> > I returned DWL 120+ device and purchased a Belkin F5D6050 USB wireless
> > adapter, however, I'm not sure what driver to use with this device since
the
> > FCCID number on the bottom of the unit says "K7SF5D6051" which isn't
listed

> Ah, yes. We encountered this one too. It's not exactly a 6050. It's a
> 6050 Version 2, or something like that (I forget the exact
> nomenclature they used), and the major difference is that it has a USB
> 2.0 interface and only a single antenna.

> Can you post the contents of /proc/bus/usb/devices, so we can see the
> VID/PID.

> I really hate USB wireless pods. They change specifications more
> frequently than any other piece of hardware under the sun, and it is
> ROUTINE for these changes to be concealed in the same product model
> number (for circumventing type approval costs, I think).