| |||||||||||||
Batter waysBatter waysPosted Mar 1, 2010 21:26 UTC (Mon) by wilreichert (subscriber, #17680)In reply to: Batter ways by Zack Parent article: Linux-2.6.33-libre released
Let them modify the kernel to their hearts content, its their right. My opinion is that its more worthwhile to add functionality to one project than to remove it from another. It depends on their end goal as to what makes sense for them - a firmware free Linux or a firmware free *nix.
(Log in to post comments)
Batter ways Posted Mar 1, 2010 21:56 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
>It depends on their end goal as to what makes sense for them - a firmware free Linux or a firmware free *nix.
I can image their goal is an operating system which does not depend on non-free software. Linux will do just fine as the kernel for that operating system, but for a few snags.
I get the impression that you (any many here) have a very pessimistic view of the capabilities of a blob-stripped linux, even comparing it to HURD in terms of functionality. But it is just plain old linux as you know it, just with some (often replaceable) hardware that might not work.
The linux-libre kernel finds its way into several distributions, at least one of which I know has a live-cd, which makes it an ideal tool to determine if your next purchase is freedom-compatible enough to be worth your money.
Ultimately the existence of linux-libre could make the lives of everyone easier, including those whose play loose and soft with software freedom in the name of pragmatism.
The need to criticize a project that puts anyone in a win-win situation eludes me.
Batter ways Posted Mar 1, 2010 22:05 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
quote:
I can image their goal is an operating system which does not depend on non-free software.
but that is not what they are doing.
they are perfectly happy to depend on non-free software, as long as it is in flash as opposed to being loaded by the driver. In fact, they tell vendors to put the code into flash to satisfy them.
Citation required Posted Mar 2, 2010 1:10 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I get the impression dlang is mistaking us for someone else.
I don't know of any member of FSFLA having ever told any vendor to put the non-Free Software in flash.
Quite the opposite, we encourage the vendor to do so, and release the firmware as Free Software. Then, the freedom #1, to study the source code and adapt the software to one's own needs, is not rendered useless by the fact that one cannot possibly install a modified version on ROM.
If it's in modifyable memory, this changes a lot to me. But you might get different answers if you ask others.
Citation required Posted Mar 2, 2010 1:38 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
by saying that it is acceptable to have the firmware in flash, but not in the driver you are telling them by your actions to put it in flash. it's a much simpler thing to do to get you to stop complaining than getting all the legal/management approvals to release the source of the firmware..
you state in your documents that you want them to release the source, but by your actions, and in your documents you state that you consider firmware in flash to be acceptable.
Citation required Posted Mar 2, 2010 5:57 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
You still seem to be going with incorrect assumptions about *my* position, as main developer of Linux-libre.
I do believe that non-Free firmware hiding in otherwise Free operating systems is worse than non-Free firmware hiding in hardware, but that doesn't imply that the latter is fine.
You may have heard or read someone around me say such things, but are you sure it was FSFLA or Linux-libre developers? Can you provide a citation to back that up?
Citation required Posted Mar 3, 2010 10:44 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] I do believe that non-Free firmware hiding in otherwise Free operating systems is worse than non-Free firmware hiding in hardware, but that doesn't imply that the latter is fine. Conversely, I think that "non-Free firmware hiding in otherwise Free operating systems", while certainly disagreeable, is an improvement-of-freedom relative to "non-Free firmware hiding in hardware", because it offers greater scope for remedying lack-of-freedom. The lack of freedom in the former case can be remedied by replacing it with Free firmware, an operation which (essentially) only has to be done once to liberate everyone who uses that operating system with that device. Remedying the lack of freedom in the latter case, if possible at all, requires either buying a different device entirely, or doing something to each physical instance of the device whose owner is concerned by their lack of freedom which may (depending on the design) present a non-trivial hazard to the device's continued usability. Power cut / brownout / system crash while you were reflashing your DVD drive? Better hope the manufacturer included a "recovery" firmware and brought its activation signal out to an accessible header.
Citation required Posted Mar 4, 2010 5:03 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I certainly don't want to attribute to Alexandre any positions that he does not hold, but I also have this issue with at least some proponents of removing binary blobs.A GPU-based graphics chip is a very powerful engine that ideally we all should be able to program, and there are projects like Nouveau dedicated to figuring out how. But the fact that you can load a program onto a device and run that program, even if you don't know all the secret sauce yet, to me makes a more free device than one that appears to run with entirely free software, but only because the firmware program is in ROM and unalterable. I'm interested in the freedom to tinker.
Citation required Posted Mar 4, 2010 10:22 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
Well written, thank you.
|
|||||||||||||