Arduino FTDI driver issue with Windows update

What a putz, you can't even form a valid statement for a valid argument.

That should come as no surprise, taking into account the false claims you have made on various subjects, and then refused to man up on the BS you attempt to push on others, the unknowing.

Yes, I do watch and have choked many times on my coffee while reading your drivel.

Have a miserable day.

Jamie

What the hell does that mean? Are you more deranged than most people?

What false claims? Please provide links to the subjects to which you refer.

Yes. I'm sure that it is hard for you to accept that you are a troll. It would make me gag too, if I were like you.

Thanks, but that will be difficult to do. Unlike you, who has to make disparaging statements online and run a Web site with fat women, I have wonderful days every day. And, you can't change that no matter what your wishes are.

Actually you are not Jamie. You are Maynard Phil-potty (KA1LPA, an embarrassment to legitimate ham radio operators), who is the author of the somewhat sordid Web site at .

This is the sort of malevolent spirit that I find so repugnant in this group. I'm sorry you are here.

Really? Where do you draw the line on this reasoning? The consumer is most likely a victim here. They bought a product claiming to contain an FTDI chip and tried using it with the FTDI driver which Windows said was the right one. The result is their device is bricked and they will have to spend time to find a way to make the device work again if they even have the background to be able to do that.

So does FTDI have the right to damage your computer and data as well? What if they detected the alleged counterfeit chip and in response deleted all the user data on my hard drive? Or executed some set of code that would do damage to my PC? Is that also ok?

Exactly. So without opening the unit it can't be claimed that the device is counterfeit.

The device ID is just data on the cable. No one "owns" it. What if the bits got corrupted as they were read from the device. Does that make it ok to damage the device?

USB controls the marketing and specifications of USB. They don't own your computer, your device or any part of the USB interface on your PC. They don't have the right to tell us what we can connect to the USB port on the computer and FTDI does not have the right to damage our equipment because they don't like the device we have connected, likely without any direct knowledge that it is not using FTDI chips.

Uh, right... but that seems inconsistent with your other statements.

Most likely unknowingly as a consumer. That fact alone makes the FTDI action reprehensible.

Some on this group have expressed the same opinion, but perhaps too subtly. It is amazing that he has never gotten the clue.

It's not a matter of him not getting the clue and I think others have suggested the same equally clear. I think this is what makes him happy, if happy can be the right word for someone who is so twisted.

I can't recall the specific poster, but once in this group I suggested that many post here things they never would say in person. The reply was that they do and frequently. Lol, that surely goes over well in a face to face setting. "Thank you for coming and have a nice day." from a clerk with the reply, "Have a miserable day!"

Are you threatening him? It *is* your web site, no? I mean it even has your email address on it for Pete's sake. It would take anyone about five seconds to find this if they searched on your email address.

BTW, what is up with your thing for fat girls?

(Seems a bit daft that one can claim ownership of a 16-bit integer.)

We use FTDI devices, thousands of them in industrial equipment costing up to $10k each.

We buy via "normal", mainstream distribution, RS, Farnell (historically), Digikey, Arrow, etc. So I expect we are OK, but how am I supposed to *know* how good their supply chains are, really? I do remember getting a reel of parts from RS at a much better price than usual, during a period when they were trying to get production business...

FTDI's action could have easily bricked $1M of our end-user equipment,

I will try to avoid designing their parts into anything else, the risk is too great that someone somewhere will mess up, and we won't even know about it until years later with years worth of production in the field. Then BAM, 100's of dead machines and enraged customers after a windows update.

And actually, you are a total asshole, one that does not like to be address of their fallacies. You really should craw back in the closet and think about that.

And btw, if you think dinging up information that may lead to damning information, all in an act of revenge on your part, you may want to tread lightly, that can seriously back fire.

Personalty, I don't care if you post my website, big deal however, It's quite obvious what your intent is. But really, engaging in childish acts of data collection to post all over, simply shows your mentality.

One should look before they cross.

Jamie

John Devereux wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@devereux.me.uk:

The only way they could be trusted again is if they "clean house" by initiating an independent investigation with full disclosure and remove anyone complicit in this from any position of responsibility and ensure they are actually prosecuted if they have broken British law.

It should also be noted that although end users can debrick affected devices they cannnot currently do so legally using FTDI's tools as they need the FTDI driver loaded which will invove patching the .inf to accept the bricked PID, at which point one is knowingly breaching the original EULA.

FTDI need as a minimum to authorise users to debrick any chip or device that does not have the infringing trademarked logo or partnumbers visible and provide a friendly utility to assist with doing so.

Also this doesn't just affect PID 0x6001 but can affect any FTDI compatible device with a PID 0x60nn. That means they have destroyed data they did not own as you have to know the correct PID for the device to restore the original functionality.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:31:44 +0000, John Devereux Gave us:

I think it should be a crime to have a bricking capacity in such a simple glue type device to begin with.

I sincerely believe you are suffering a psychotic break. You make a post that is borderline threatening and when I ask you about it you then make the same sort of borderline threats to me.

You "sit back and think"???!!! You mean after heaping a load of abuse (often including profanity) on the person and then cheering them up with a "Have a rotten day."

Yes, you are very much a thinking man. :)

I have always considered FTDI to be the gold standard. But now I have to be leery of sabotage from FTDI themselves.

Someone had posted that they sometimes bricked their own older units with this code. What is to prevent them from putting the code back in once they figure out how to not brick their own units?

These devices were squatting on FTDI's USB device-id space, FTDI evicted them but did no other damage. In the process disabling much counterfeit hardware.

Yeah a warning would have been nice, or perhaps only a count-down dialogue that starts higher each time.

They could have even made USB adaptor dongles that disguise the counterfeit chip and sell them for RRP $25 each or something, yeah, this is still punishing the suckers. but atleast it gives them an option.

Jr.:

There is no easy way to tell them apart if you don't have an xray and something to compare it to

as you can see they didn't really copy the FTDI they just made a device that is compatible with the protocol

-Lasse

Prolific have the reputation of only working half the time, which was because they constantly changed the driver to make the fakes not work

until now the solution was to buy FTDI because they always worked

I believe the fake FTDIs are just a mask programmed MCU, "fixing" what ever FTDI breaks won't be a big issue

-Lasse

Was there a thread there? I was just passing on concerning helpful information? Your lack of comprehension shows or is it something else?

Are you a pathological instigator that looks for damning trouble? If you want to join in on party go ahead, it only serves to expose your ignorance, even more.

btw.

Data collection on a person to be used against them in any form or matter is illegal.

Any form of identity criminal activity can be redirected directly to those that share in such activates

This maybe an old and to some, outdated message board, it still is a valid source of incriminating evidents, if anything should ever happen unlawfully. You get it?

It's a shame when one makes a mistake per subject matter in this room, they can't simply sit back and accept it when others attempt to correct them. I may not always agree with a party if they correct me on something, but I at least sit back and think. If I still don't see where I went wrong, I leave it at that and maybe someday if I am lucky I ether can correct myself or maybe in the case where those that pointed me as being wrong may find that wasn't the case. In either case, both sides wins, something is learned.

Have a rotten day.

Jamie

I feel they have the right to maybe at least show a nag screen but not disable the device.

At best, FTDI could do a nag screen notification of this and alert the users. In most cases they users most likely wouldn't care however, in cases where licenses maintain due to the sensitivity of the application, it can cause lots of damage to those that supplied the devices with such fraudulent chips in them, FTDI wouldn't have to get deeply involved to cause that much damage but it sure would help them and not cause havoc.

We recently had a compatible FTDI interface fail but I know it's nothing to do with this matter, bad choices made at installation caused that problem ;)

I find that some of these USB-RS232 are not well protected and have poor protocol support.

Jamie